re: Sam Harris podcast with Scott Adams

quote:

---

You should stick to "no comment". Reading "all the research papers" doesn't even make sense considering the podcast discussion

---

You got me there. Next time I want to broaden my horizons and thoroughly understand a topic, I will definitely not listen to a podcast.

quote:

---

It becomes more entertainment than anything else, as you and I both know intellectual discussion is carried out in peer-reviewed papers.

---

Well yeah. It's entertainment. The topic is about his interview with a creator of a popular comic book. That's why I didn't understand your criticism.

quote:

---

Intellectual in one field, perhaps. But having a PhD in something doesn't make someone an intellectual in everything. This again goes back your last sentence in your first paragraph.

---

Yeah. And besides politics, philosophy, and religion, most of what I've heard from is related to the brain.

Admittedly I've only listened to a couple episodes. Now maybe you've listened to more to make your criticism more understandable, but that seems strange since you were criticizing people for listening to him.

quote:

---

Which many are and do on this board and other Internet forums.

---

Of course. So what's wrong with listening to others talk about it?

quote:

---

As do I, but too many take what these people say as gospel. I'm just advocating for people to read the original research.

---

I agree, but I'm just confused why your using this criticism here. Again I haven't listened that much, but we are discussing his interview with a comic creator. I'm just having trouble with the connection with empirical reseach and the general discussion.

quote:

---

I suppose my criticism doesn't stem from this one interview just the love affair that this board has for these people and many of the generalizations they make without those people understanding much of theory and empirical works that go into the topic at hand.

---

Again maybe I've missed these, but I don't recall any of the topics about him to relate to scientific research per se. It's been related to his views regarding politics, religion, or his interesting interviews with non-academics.

quote:

---

Dammit BV! I'm going on a meta-rant right now. I'm not specifically referring to Harris. I'm referring to Harris, Shapiro, et al., in general.

---

Well don't let me stop you (I haven't). But I guess I don't follow either enough to really have an opinion, but I feel like Shapiro and Harris are quite different.

And maybe this is self-serving, because I want to pretend I'm more qualified than I am since I have a PhD, but I think Harris is more qualified to discuss research outside his direct field as a scientist then Shapiro as a lawyer since the training usually (better) require reseach methods and statistics.

But then again, the discussion should include some off with subject-matter expertise (whatever that is ).

Then again, maybe I'm getting defensive cause I feel like this is a proxy attack in my favorite podcast, Freakonomics.

quote:

---

Maybe we're the pseudo-intellectuals.

Nah...

---

You're right. I'm not a pseudo-intellectual. I'm trying to work my way up to that distinction.

quote:

---

I'm just pissy about topics they discuss and it seeming like someone with an undergrad degree in (insert whatever here) can discuss the topic in just as effective manner.

---

When a person attacks someone’s qualifications instead of the points they are addressing it is the surest sign that person knows nothing about the topic at hand

I'm really enjoying the podcast so far. Both have good arguments and present points that I agree with.

quote:

---

I'm really enjoying the podcast so far. Both have good arguments and present points that I agree with.

---

Adams has points that are theoretically good. I just can't tell if he's trolling or not. He seems to ascribe literally 100% of Trump's chaos/madness to volition. That just seems virtually impossible to be true.

quote:

---

He seems to ascribe literally 100% of Trump's chaos/madness to volition.

---

It's instinctive not planned. Well some things might be planned, like branding his opponents.

A good example of an instinctive persuasive move by Trump was when he said, "only to Rosie O'Donnell" in the first GOP primary debate. Mygan Kelly has never recovered since that night. Adams would describe that moment as a kill shot, and I'm pretty sure he already has.

quote:

---

He criticized Harris and others for confirmation bias and post hoc explanations then engaged in that very behavior to explain a number of ethically dubious acts by Trump.

Bottom line they both made good points and both exhibited their particular biases. It was an interesting conversation.

---

Yeah. I'm only about halfway through, but I actually think both of them made some good points.

And I think Adams' does do a good job explaining how Trump resonates with his supporters, and the effectiveness of using hyperbole and using "emotional truth" to "lead" and connect to the views of his base.

My issue is that he calls Trump the "greatest persuader of all time," and Harris highlights a blog post where Adams said, "if Jobs was a 10, Trump would be a 15." Now maybe Adams is engaging in the hyperbole that he admires, but I just find it hard to see how the GOAT persuader can't persuade more people to vote for him than Hillary Clinton (a terrible candidate), can't persuade 50% (or even close) of people to view him favorably, and can't persuade his own party to vote for these failed bills. I understand that you can't persuade everybody, but he's not even persuading a majority.

I think the issue is that Trump IS a master persuader for a certain group of people (his base). His techniques work well for them, and I'm sure there are many on the other side who it would work for if they shared more political views.

On the other hand, as Harris noted, he doesn't find Trump persuasive. And I know myself, and many on here, don't find him persuasive either. So clearly these skills don't resonate with everybody.

I think this can be best highlighted by Trump's refusal to ever admit culpability and/or apologize, which Adams highlighted in a discussion about Trump University. Adams says that if he did admit fault and/or apologize, people would expect it from him, presumably for things he has no need to apologize for. Of course people go overboard (apologizing for others; apologizing for slavery; etc.).

For me personally, when a person is at fault, I find it admirable when people do apologize, and just a sign of a good leader. And I think it can be very persuasive too. For example, when say Nick Saban does something that costs his team, he accepts the blame--especially when it's obvious that his coaching was subpar. So when I know he's willing to accept blame, then when the blame is more questionable, and he DOESN'T accept blame, then I'm more persuaded to think he didn't accept it because he isn't to blame.