A peak inside the mind of a deranged Trump supporter

Listen to the last few minutes of this to hear how someone dismisses data and evidence. Scott Adams is the creator of Dilbert, and he does blogs. I usually don’t listen to them, but the titles come up on my daily feed of the cartoon and this one caught my eye. In case you don’t know, Adams was an early predictor of a Trump victory and has since become a supporter. He explains many of the “fake news” stories about him in this post. It can be hard to listen to without smashing your audio device.
Then he takes questions via text. He gets into the Gaza situation. He admits he is no expert. So, someone asks why he is talking about it all. He repeats his lack of knowledge, but claims the right to form an opinion, then says there are no doubt people closer to the situation with more information, but they are also more biased. Apparently the more information you have, the more biased you are. And it’s not about information anyway, it’s about persuasion, which anyone can learn to do. So, don’t listen to those smart, informed, biased, persuasive people, listen to Scott, who has a modestly informed opinion.
This is an engineer with a knack for comedy who created a successful business. He has nothing to do but read the paper and get informed on world events. He is articulate. But put a southern drawl in that voice and intersperse his words with scatologism, and he’ll sound just like one of those fine people who went to Charleston NC with tiki torches.
(I know this is political, but it’s really about the cognitive dissonance. If you can listen to the whole thing, you’ll hear him describe cognitive dissonance in others, the exhibit it a minute later)

I listened to the last 10 minutes and didn’t hear him “dismiss evidence". He’s no Aristotle though I don’t see what is deranged about him. He seems to be doing what most bloggers do — discuss things that interest them without being able to give expert analysis — which he admits. Not a big deal.

I listened to the last 10 minutes
Did the first 8 minutes chase you away too. So okay going to last ten minutes. he's still rambling, 'ways of expressing concerns, find something where all agree, first you gotta collapse all the problems* ...' Hmmm, nothing about honestly assessing the situation, all about dealing with how people are thinking, back to being stranded within our mental landscapes and ignoring the real territory. Arrrgggg, seven more minutes, ... This rambling, justifying himself, but when is he going to say anything in next 3 minutes. Ah, his take away it all comes down to persuasion. But, still not a word about gathering and digesting facts about the situation he admits he knows nothing about. Yes, it's true we don't understand other people - so why doesn't Dilbert dig into why that is? {Namely, why are we so trapped within our own needs and greed and bubble that we can't imagine the other's perspective? Like all the people who still can't add up the Bush/Cheney's War of Choice and Profit with the explosion of dedicated Vengeance Fighters, i.e. terrorists, i.e. people who have nothing to lose, but a lot of pain and hate and vengeance lust to unload. Not to mention the unraveling of global standards. But, I digress} now comes the obligatory belittling of experts. How can you understand people's reasons without actively digging into their history, or at least acknowledging formative causes along with trajectories and momentums, At the very least giving them enough respect to try and walk in their moccasins for a few steps before judging. Sorry all I heard in beginning 8 and ending 10 minutes was rambling, more about justifying himself than anything else. If anyone can point out any thing of import, please do. Seems to me right-wingers can't grasp that others have their own priorities and don't feel beholden to us. Worse, they think everyone else owes them, never considering how much they own other nations and peoples! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * Okay, here's my stab at 'collapsing all the problems' A widespread attitude that: Profits are more important than People. Exclusive Self-interest - rejection of Enlightened-Self-interest. Being trapped within the bubbles of our individual mindscapes. No appreciate that there's an outside to our respective mental bubbles, be it societal, biosphere, global. That is down to Earth physical realities. Incidentally, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-22/how-dilbert-s-scott-adams-got-hypnotized-by-trump ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Speaking of incidentally, I'm familiar with the games this dilbert, er, Scott Adams plays when expounding on reality, his personal reality that is. DECEMBER 10, 2016 Profiles in Self-delusion - Dilbert’s Scott Adams http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2016/12/profiles-selfdelusion-scott-adams.html December 11, 2016 The Non-Expert Problem - Why We Can Be Sure of CO2 Science. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/12/nonexpert-problem-why-we-can-be-sure.html An Earth Centrics' perspective ;-)
He seems to be doing what most bloggers do — discuss things that interest them without being able to give expert analysis — which he admits. Not a big deal.
True enough, but some bloggers go to the trouble to offer tips and links to 'expert analysis' in order to help edify others. :-) Others just spit out nonsense. There is a difference. :coolsmile:

Yea true to that. Unfortunately, with the massive rise of instant communications online, we are now all in some way information deliverers. But we need to realize that not everyone is a ‘journalist’. I think that occupation will return to acclaim in the next few years.

I used to be a fan of Scott Adams a long time ago. Then in one of his books (about the turn of the millennium I guess) he wrote some New Age claptrap about daily affirmations. But he didn’t present it as just a way of focusing your concentration on your life goals, he presented it as though it were a whole new paradigm of nature, that you could literally alter reality with the power of your mind. Skeptics must have given him a hard time because a lot of his cartoons started poking fun at skeptics. The problem was that he picked a straw man as a target, absolute skepticism, the idea that you could never be absolutely sure of anything. So the cartoons weren’t funny, they were just bizarre. That’s when I stopped reading Dilbert.