The subtitle is Persuasion in a
World Where Facts Don’t Matter and the author is Scott Adams (2017, with
2018 update).
As the creator of the syndicated comic Dilbert, Adams is also known for being a “trained hypnotist” and one
of the first people who came out (during the primaries) to predict that Trump
would be the next president. He based his
forecast on an assessment that Trump was a master persuader, arguably the best
he had even seen. To that end, while the
book is about what makes Trump persuasive (including his analysis of key moments
during the election cycle), it is more generally an overview of the art of persuasion.
On to the meat and potatoes.
What does powerful persuasion look like? To wit, Trump was commonly hyperbolic in his initial
comments about a particular policy issue (such as immigration, where he started
out by advocating for mass deportations) – but, in reality, he was verbalizing
a view that was directionally accurate and favorable (both sides of the
political aisle believe in border security) and anchoring himself as the main voice
for strategies to deal with the perceived problem. So, once having that anchor set, he left
himself plenty of room to negotiate back to a more moderate policy position,
that would both allow him to pick up new supporters as the election approached,
and that could still work for his original base. Even if his facts and details were off – and
his critics went to town on trying to refute them – he still won the
conversation by focusing people where he wanted them to focus and gaining the benefits
of setting the course for debate. Because,
cognitively, the more people think about something, the more important they
consider that topic to be. As a
corollary to that point, he took attention off other policy issues where he was
less equipped and did not have a depth of knowledge to engage his opponents. Adams calls all of it “weapons grade
persuasion”.
Adams also addresses Trump’s tendency to counter-attack aggressively. His critics commonly suggested it happened because
he is thin-skinned. In fact, the author believes
that it is good persuasion. Both because
it tells people that it is better to be his friend than his enemy, but also his
reluctance to back down proved that he was hardened from a lifetime of dealing
with criticisms. Associated with that
point, he brought new language to the game of political attacks. So, on some level, his claim that he has the “best
language ever” actually rung true – you remembered all the nicknames that he
came up with for his opponents: “Crooked Hillary”, “Lyin’ Ted”, “Pocahontas”, etc. Despite repeated efforts, none of his opponents
had the same success with labelling him.
The author also believes that his simplicity of speech – a feature
mocked by his opponents – allowed him to connect with voters. Because, let’s be honest, “deplorables” as a
label is bad politics, but most voters on both sides really are largely underinformed
and simpleminded. His style helped him
to relate, even though he is a billionaire from New York.
Anyway, I am not trying to moralize, but I think Adams is largely
correct. And his non-Trump specific explorations on
persuasion, which I did not dwell on in this post, are interesting
subject matter that I plan to read and learn more about. I guess he did a good job of persuading me.
