Replies

A week or two ago Scott Adams wrote a blog post about changing the minds of Hillary supporters. While you probably could not have stopped her from supporting Hillary, those techniques may work in calming someone down. Mostly they rely not on stating facts, but asking questions they will not have asked themselves. They are victims of selection bias.

I do feel that these people need to be engaged though, because some of these people can be helped. I firmly believe that if Trump wins there will be suicides, and that is a tragedy because the people manipulating them don't care about them.

A week or two ago Scott Adams wrote a blog post about changing the minds of Hillary supporters. While you probably could not have stopped her from supporting Hillary, those techniques may work in calming someone down. Mostly they rely not on stating facts, but asking questions they will not have asked themselves. They are victims of selection bias.

I have some training and experience in psychological intervention and I did try some things, such as questioning the framing of the issues in a nonthreatening manner, suggesting the possibility of alternative interpretations, and empathizing with her frustration and anger. But there's a difference between dealing with someone who is asleep, versus someone who is pretending to be asleep.

What most struck me is that her general understanding and intelligence did not rise to the level of creating and pursuing the sophistication of psychological tactics she was unleashing on me. So her mindset was one of "obeying orders" or "carrying out a mission" - not, in fact, genuinely backing her words with personal meaning.

And yet, again, she "believes" in her mission, so she was able to insert that belief into her tactics. But, again, this kind of psychological construction was beyond her ability to compose herself. Her value is in her "loyalty" to the cause, and her fear of being abandoned - not her intelligence. Therefore, she was trained.

But she was not trained to deliver it in such a panicked fashion, and that's what got me thinking. Because someone like her will only be afraid if they sense that their superiors are afraid - they're like rats, who are the first to know if the ship is taking on water. And every sailor knows that if the officers are blandly telling them everything is fine, but the rats are leaping overboard, that they're in a lot of trouble.

Similiarly, she was emotionally expressing the extreme fear of her handlers - their desperation, if you will, and their probable abuse of people like her who are being blamed for the limited Hillary support. Typically, totalitarians blame any problems on "lack of loyalty." Their people "aren't working hard enough" and so they are continually punished. Can there really be any doubt, whatsoever, that Hillary's machine works exactly like this? And so IMO, her panic comes from the fact that her handlers know the REAL polls, the ones NOT released to the public.

Leftys committing suicide? Is that reall a bad thing?