Recommended Posts

I'm putting this one up to refer to later if I ever do anything with this thread.

I'm developing a grudging respect for Stefan Molyneux. Agree or disagree with him, the guy does not have an employee mentality regarding his work, but instead is moved by self-generated action--his own will. He acts instead of just reacting all the time. Nobody tells him what to do. He dreams up something, then goes out and does it.

This means he gets up every day and pumps out content that he wants to pump out. Over and over and over. And, for as irritating as I find him at times, some of the other times he knocks it out of the city, not just the park.

His interview with Scott Adams below is one of those cases. I don't agree with everything either of them said and, frankly, Adams got into dictatorship-by-technocrat-territory near the end with Molyneux being quite funny because of the muted horrified look he tried to hide. :) But he kept his cool and held a real conversation without giving up his own views.

Also, Adams's idea that no one is rational ever is just hyperbole. I don't like these all-or-nothing descriptions of the human mind, not even as hyperbole. Yes, we are irrational, but we are rational, too. It's not like there's lack of evidence for either. In fact, there's plenty of evidence for both floating around us all the time throughout all human history. :) 

Besides, Adams is playing with fire with his own mind. When we get too hyperbolic in describing something, over time our lower automated part of the brain doesn't think it's an exaggeration anymore and we literally start believing our own bullshit. After all, how many times can anyone tell the same joke (or listen to it) and still hold interest in it as a joke? Slowly, it transforms into a saying we use at certain times without even thinking about it, a habit, then after a while, it becomes integrated into our world view as a truth. A default position. It moves from being a joke or quip or exaggeration and starts becoming part of the frame we see reality through.

In Adams's case, I expect him to lose faith in man's capacity for great achievement entirely. Even in this talk, he's already attributing great business decisions to luck. He does have a point that luck often plays a strong part, but that doesn't wipe rationality out of existence.

On another point, he's right that setting goals of 10 years made a lot of sense back in an agrarian society where change was slow, but in the fast-changing society of today, if you set such a goal, take the 10 years and achieve it, you might be irrelevant to the world around you because what you did has no value anymore--or has a lot different value to the market than it did when you started. So establishing a productive process and keeping it flexible to adapt to change is a lot smarter than setting a long-term goal. For some reason he thinks setting a goal is rational, but not establishing a process. Or maybe this hasn't occurred to him, yet. (And, he doesn't speak of building skyscrapers. :) )

But check this video out. It's a banquet, not just a meal.

 

I realize that an hour and a half is a long time to watch. But this one is stimulating as all hell in terms of things to think about. For die-hards only, but interested tire-kickers will be well rewarded if they let themselves get into it.

btw - Molyneux and Adams only start talking about Trump and his "weapons-grade persuasion" as Adams says about halfway through. So don't be surprised. Anyway, the discussion up to that point was fascinating.

Also, one last comment I think worth considering. Adams said that when Bernie Sanders was running, his messages were also imbued with high-level persuasion techniques. And that Clinton's were non-existent. Once Bernie endorsed her, her messaging did an about-face and suddenly she was using "weapons grade persuasion." Adams thinks that a Bernie insider who knows this stuff cold moved from his team to hers.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4549

  • Peter

    1420

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    881

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

That is astonishing. Thanks Jon. Behaviors that can cause a kid, later in life to be screwed up enough to become addicts or to kill themselves, needs a remedy and if the answer is chemical or physical

Posted Images

Radio personality Bill Mitchell mentions skewed polling methods in the beginning of this interview (again with Stefan Molyneux--God, I'm getting a thing for him :) I hope this doesn't go anywhere bad...), but the real value for me is in their discussion of the storytelling of the campaign.

Especially what Mitchell calls the "Redemption Curve," where a bad guy slowly transforms into a good guy (examples they give: Hans Solo, Jack Sparrow, and Henry V of Shakespeare). This part of the discussion starts around 21:15. Both Mitchell and Molyneux say it is probable that Trump is operating on this throughline.

Another thing they mentioned that I found true was the inspirational meaning of Trump's message, Make America Great Again. They say America wasn't some abstract entity in this meaning, but instead, a place where each individual could achieve his highest potential. I especially liked Mitchell's citing of Maslow's hierarchy of needs on this one. He said Democrats promise to resolve the lower level of the hierarchy (basic survival like food, shelter, etc.), but Trump aims at the highest point: self-actualization. As a story theme, the more inspirational message (the higher one goes on Maslow's pyramid) is the more powerful one.

btw - The skew in the polling is simply to poll more Democrats than Republicans in a single poll. They're actually doing it this way and calling it "scientific." And it is when done to reflect demographics. But when the polling constantly skews to a majority of Democrats polled over Republicans in the same poll, poll after poll after poll everywhere, meaning the methodology is as lopsided as is happening recently, there's something fishy going on. Talk about an entire field of endeavor creating a credibility problem for itself...

:) 

btw 2 - For those not familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, see below:

08.21.2016-15.24.png

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody knows that for this go-around, WikiLeaks info dumps are helping Trump. This isn't because Assange likes Trump, he doesn't. It's merely because there is relevant information to dump and, for right now, this information lowers the boom on the Democratic Party and the Clinton machine.

Well, it looks like the gloves are coming off. Someone is not amused.

Look at these two WikiLeaks tweets from the last 24 hours:

How come this shit only happens when the Clintons are sniffing around trying to get or keep power?

Riffing off of Rush Limbaugh, do you, reader, personally know anybody who has died in mysterious circumstances or was murdered? How many people have you known who committed suicide? The answer for most people is none or a very small number. The Clintons must be the unluckiest people alive, then, because they know oodles.

In the popular culture, is there a Bush body count? An Obama body count? A Reagan body count? No. But there's been a Clinton body count for years and it is growing by the day.

Oh... but Clinton supporters will say there is no proof that ties any of that to the Clintons.

They're just unlucky, I guess.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I read the link to the QC's death the conspiracy idea vanished. But I know what you mean by seeing the high number of deaths of people apparently close to the Clinton machine.

"CCTV footage of the death was not played to the court because coroner Mary Hassell said she thought it would be “too distressing” but that she had watched it, and was satisfied that “nobody else was involved”.
Recording a narrative verdict, Ms Hassell said she could not be certain that Mr Jones intended to kill himself because the balance of his mind was affected.
Ms Hassell said: “John Jones died instantaneously when he jumped in front of a moving train.
“However, the state of his mental health at the time meant that he lacked the necessary intent to categorise this as suicide.”"
Link to post
Share on other sites

Geoff,

And maybe the guy who climbed the wall to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London didn't really intend to "because the balance of his mind was affected." He just came to while he was halfway up the wall and there he was...

"What on earth am I doing? And what the hell are all these weapons for?" he says to himself as the sirens go off and he runs away...

That's the real story.

Clinton schminton...

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Geoff,

And maybe the guy who climbed the wall to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London didn't really intend to "because the balance of his mind was affected." He just came to while he was halfway up the wall and there he was...

That's the real story.

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Michael, I thought it was more an indictment on psychiatry, psychotropics and avoidance of responsibility woven through GB's NHS.

I know something about it.

Hey, how much would you bet the tape of his mur.. death has gone missing? :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turkeyfoot said:

... through GB's NHS...

Geoff,

GB = Great Britain

NHS = National Health Service

Is that correct?

(I tend to write out acronyms as a habit from my translating days. Since I was paid per word, I got more money that way and clients always loved it. :) Besides, it helps readers focus on the meaning of the sentence, especially when the acronym is newly introduced, or if the readers are in a distant frame of mind or having a brain fart. :) )

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Michael.

The British write well dont they? I mean if facts are what journalists stick to theyve got a load of them with sources fleshing out the whole sad story.

I thought the link pointed to a poor choice (not yours) of evidence of something other than "suicide". It may be the Brits have another definition, everyone knows generally it is a self inflicted death. Just somehow doesnt meet the hospitals threshold due to his treatment, apparently over a lifetime, a misdiagnosis, oops, etc. <sarcasm>heh Its an indictment of psychiatry 65 yrs on from removing pre-frontal lobes and still its hardly out of the dark ages.  "Ms Hassell said she could not be certain that Mr Jones intended to kill himself because the balance of his mind was affected." HA! Adding to that all the quotes by him from them suggesting there was nothing more painful. To me, nothing more painful than subjecting yourself to compassionate incompetents. Might as well leap to stop the pain.

I dont get paid. Im in awe of your choice of English using it as intended.

I do attempt keeping to a KISS (KeepItSimpleSilly) principle and am willing to pay the price of my sparing usage.    :mellow: My favorite.....SAAAOAG

Simple As An Ass On A Goat. 

Im sorry but, no, I dont see that there was even a hint of foul play unless were going to call incompetency that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are typical Trump supporters in Austin, Texas. They are being interviewed after his latest Town Hall with Hannity. Notice the difference between them and the protestors. Also, notice the people who say they are still not decided who lean toward Trump and the protestors. Same difference.

That's the culture of Trump supporters and these few interviews are what they look like all over America.

The New York Post did an excellent article a couple of days ago describing them. I've practically given up on the press getting the essence of Trump supporters right, but using that despair as a baseline, I have to give this article about 70% or so correct. With no caricatures. Dayaamm! :) In today's press climate, that's saying a lot. This article is one of the best I've seen so far on Trump supporters.

Stumped by Trump’s success? Take a drive outside US cities

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a perceptive interview between Alex Marlow of Breitbart and Ann Coulter on her new book about Trump.

They take apart the Washington establishment culture brick by brick and clean the bugs off.

Seriously, this one goes waaaaaaay beyond Ann's normal sparring and quips. I hadn't heard Alex Marlow before, but he's one smart cookie. They balance each other well and we get a really good show because of it.

Incidentally, today I received Ann's new book: In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael wrote: Incidentally, today I received Ann's new book: In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! end quote

What? No doom and gloom? How many people will religious bigot Coulter sway, you unbeliever? This is what I am picking up from the news, Rush Limbaugh who just came on the radio, (and according to Political Scientist / pollster Larry Sabato,) the likely voting pattern as of now is that Hillary will get 348 electoral votes and Donald will get 190. I have decided to donate no more money until that changes.   

The debates will not mean much because they never do. Even when the “likely voters” hear a candidate do very well in the debates, and they change their mind for a day, after two or three days they go back to their original choices . . . nearly always. Of course that is evidence that Hillary will win. What if Trump does poorly in the debates? What if Hillary needs to pee during the debates? What if there are three or four candidates on the rostrum? All of those scenarios probably won’t matter a whit.

So if Trump cannot seem to grow his electoral count will the emails hurt Hillary with her likely voters. No. That is evidence that Hillary will still win. What if a pattern of paying the Clinton Foundation and then getting access to the Secretary of State is established? The latest evidence that graft was involved was: 85 gained access out of 154 who asked for an interview. So, half of her petitioners paid her tens of millions of dollars for access to Government. There are clearly ties and communications between State Department employees and employees of the Clinton Foundation . That is a clear pattern of unsavory behavior. However, her likely voters will not change their minds.

What if there is a health scare for Hillary? For Donald? Which is more likely? Who knows? That is grasping at straws. Very few will change their minds.  So the preponderance of evidence is that Hillary will win. Trump supporters are not going to change their minds but they are in the minority. Big time. There is a huge trove of soundbites that Trump has and will make, that disqualify him for the Presidency, in a majority of people's minds.

Is Rush desperately searching for a way for Trump to win. He says no. What if the people who usually don’t vote but think America is on the wrong path decide to vote? What if the morally minded, silent majority come out for Trump in droves? Rush says he doesn’t see a huge groundswell for Trump. There is no vast, un-polled majority.  

What will help? Trump needs to play to the bigger voting bloc of Americans and not to crowds in single venues that are already likely to vote for him. That means getting on TV objectively and not with sound bites cherry picked to make Trump seem dangerous or like an asshole. That is probably not likely, except on Fox. Remember the two keystones to propagandized, Progressive ‘JOUNALISM’: slant the story and select the stories that portray Trump in a bad light, while they pretend they are fair and balanced. They are pros at deception.

So what does offer a ray of hope for Trump? A new direction. Sixty days of stupendous campaigning. National commercials and ads that hit home in the battleground states and the Rust Belt which means commercials that bring in Ohio, and Pennsylvania to Trump’s count in the electoral college. The proverbial October surprise? Maybe. And unfortunately for America, a bigger terrorist threat or attack could help Trump’s chances. Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now for some righteous proof in the rip roaring righteous pudding.

I wonder how many pundits will ignore this short talk by Nigel Farage at Trump's rally in Mississippi.

Well, maybe the pundits don't need to comment much. After all, they keep claiming they know how to win the election and Trump does not. And hell anyway, Farage disagrees with them... An Englishman... Imagine that...

I wonder what he's done?...

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm feeling so good right now. Awhile back I subscribed to the digital version of the New York Times. In order to cancel the subscription, they make you call a representative.

I just finished talking to one (and these are really good people, by the way--much better than the sellout political journalists over there).

He asked me why I wanted to cancel and I said relevance. I'm a Trump supporter and I'm tired of the NYT anti-Trump agenda in covering election news. What the NYT writes is not what I read. The NYT is not relevant to my interests. Besides, in politics, I want balanced coverage, not agenda-driven coverage.

I didn't say I wanted a focus on WWWWWH instead of public manipulation, but that's what I meant. I don't know if he understood or he thought I wanted a pro-Trump journal (I don't--I get all the pro-Trump stuff I need on the web), but I don't care.

He definitely wasn't happy by the end, but he entered my complaint about the NYT agenda into my record and canceled my subscription.

Man, do I feel great.

Now I can use that money to buy a book each month if I want. That's a lot more valuable to me.

:)

Michael

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

wtf, this is an actual ad by Hillary Clinton:

Korben,

Clinton never would have mentioned the name, Alex Jones, for anything, but she did in her speech today.

I think her playbook was to paint Trump as a racist in a drip drip drip fashion, but I suspect her people's internal polling has them in a panic. After all, Trump has started appealing to African American and Latino votes in a pro-active way and, from the noise, he is making some headway.

That's the only reason I can think of for this Hail Mary Hillary pass. :) 

I think the pro-Clinton media is going to push this race-baiting strategy a bit, but then--I speculate--it will fizzle into nothing except a random snarl. Maybe I'm wrong, but on this one, the media stands to lose audience big-time. I don't think they can paint a person as a racist and make it stick when he is surrounded by so many leaders within the black and Latino communities, leaders who are now singing praises of Trump.

I have heard Trump will be speaking in black venues in a couple of weeks or so. That should bury the racist form of attack. 

Expect to see speeches to Latino and women venues, too.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following video is just for people who like looking behind the scenes to talk about it later in life. Right now, it's almost in real time, so that's the main value.

Alex Jones is in heaven that Hillary Clinton singled him out in her speech to say bad things about him. Alex gets a little too over the top a few times, but then again, he does that a lot. :) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

Clinton never would have mentioned the name, Alex Jones, for anything, but she did in her speech today.

I think her playbook was to paint Trump as a racist in a drip drip drip fashion, but I suspect her people's internal polling has them in a panic. After all, Trump has started appealing to African American and Latino votes in a pro-active way and, from the noise, he is making some headway.

That's the only reason I can think of for this Hail Mary Hillary pass. :) 

I think the pro-Clinton media is going to push this race-baiting strategy a bit, but then--I speculate--it will fizzle into nothing except a random snarl. Maybe I'm wrong, but on this one, the media stands to lose audience big-time. I don't think they can paint a person as a racist and make it stick when he is surrounded by so many leaders within the black and Latino communities, leaders who are now singing praises of Trump.

I have heard Trump will be speaking in black venues in a couple of weeks or so. That should bury the racist form of attack. 

Expect to see speeches to Latino and women venues, too.

Michael

Says a lot about someone when they get cornered they become vile instead of virtuous.  Wicked instead of right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

Says a lot about someone when they get cornered they become vile instead of virtuous.  Wicked instead of right.

Korben,

I don't think we have to worry too much. Look at this video by Joel Pollack from Breitbart.

I actually met Joel a few times. Kat bamboozled me into working on his campaign when he ran against Jan Schakowsky here in Illinois (and lost). 

He's a nice guy. Kat liked him because he plays guitar and sings. :) (She also like his politics. :) )

btw - Joel's about as Jewish as they come. Even Alan Dershowitz came out and campaigned for him back then.

But... but... but... one of the characteristics of "alt right," according to those who use this term disparagingly like Clinton does, is that it is an anti-Semitic ideology.

I guess someone should tell Joel he's in the wrong place at Breitbart.

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

Meanwhile, Obama's still clueless:

p082416ps-0307.jpeg

Obama is not stupid or clueless.  I smell a rat.  He's playing dumb, the polls are rigged and Clinton is playing the fool.  Something's up, the dirty tricks on election day will be beyond belief.  And they will continue to play the fool.  "Who, me?  I'm the peoples choice!", and they'll believe it because they think only their community organized liberal schooled cattle are "the people".  With the support of the journalists, rote learner tenured academicians and establishment rino's who on the right will have the will to argue about the outcome?

obama_newman.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now