Donald Trump, Politics

Still Surprised By Trump? Then You're Not Reading Scott Adams

Trump is typically regarded as the least scientific candidate, but according to Scott Adams, he is the best at using the "science of persuasion."

By  
on

IMG_1465Forgive me for writing about “The Donald” in these pages. But Trump’s rise has been the story of 2015, 2016, and may end up being the story of (gulp) the next four to (second gulp) eight years. Now, I understand that the mere mention of Trump makes some of you coil up in disgust, I can appreciate that. What I cannot figure is how many people are still either surprised by Trump’s ascendence or, worse, dismissive of his chances at winning the general election.

All I can figure is that most people are still not reading the Dilbert Blog, which is just plain crazy (other acceptable adjectives are “cray cray” or “crazytown”). Earlier this year, I advised ATL readers to start reading Scott Adams’s blog about the 2016 election because it was going to change your lives. And I am not backing off that advice. In fact, much like Scott Adams, I am doubling down. Not reading Scott Adams in 2016 is the 2008 equivalent of ignoring Nate Silver.

First of all, if this is the first you’re hearing of this, take solace in knowing that you are not alone in your willful ignorance. Respected news outlets continue to publish stories, op-eds, and open letters that contain some variation of, “Last year, no respectable pundit predicted Trump would be the front-runner.” This conveniently leaves out the fact that Scott Adams has been predicting not only Trump’s rise, but a slew of other developments which, because he is charmingly cocky-as-hell, he has gone ahead and listed on his blog.

You would think that someone who was making predictions in real time that no one else was getting right would start to get more credit. And to be fair, there is a certain cult movement that has developed around Adams. All you have to do is check out the fact that each of his posts are driving thousands of comments on his blog. In an age where comments sections are losing ground to social networks, that is highly impressive. But as cult followings go, it is very “inside.” And, while some TV networks have started giving the hypnocartoonist (it’s a word!) some airtime, it has been mostly early morning shows. I have yet to see him in prime time.

I could imagine any number of reasons that people continue to look the other way, especially if you’re not a Trump supporter. But what you are missing by not staying up to date with your Dilblogging is not only the outcome, but the significance of this election. If you listen to the usual talking heads (or your friends on Facebook for that matter), you are hearing that 2016 shows that Americans are racist, people are sick of the establishment, and that campaigns are now won on Facebook and Twitter (which must be bittersweet for Mark Zuckerberg).

For Scott Adams, this is not even about the campaign, it is about the human condition. We like to imagine that we are rational beings who make decisions based on facts and evidence. But this election has demonstrated that reason, logic, and rational thinking are not actually all that important. Humans, not just Trump supporters, make decisions based on instincts and emotions, something Trump understands. So while Trump is typically regarded as the least scientific candidate, according to Adams he is the best at using the “science of persuasion.” That is why he constantly repeats himself, avoids detail at all costs, and chooses issues that speak to your guts, not your brains (e.g., immigration and trade).

I have no idea what is going to happen in the run up to the convention, and I have no dog in the race. I have never voted in an election and that will not change in 2016. But I am not going to miss a single post on the Dilbert Blog, and neither should you. And, now that you have read this post, you have no excuse to continue being surprised.

Sponsored

Topics

, , , ,