Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clown Genius
Scott Adams' Blog ^ | August 14, 2015 | Scott Adams

Posted on 08/14/2015 3:46:48 AM PDT by mongrel

Like many of you, I have been entertained by the unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On the surface, and several layers deep as well, Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard with inadequate credentials to lead a country.

The only problem with my analysis is that there is an eerie consistency to his success so far. Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of system at work under the hood?

Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has employed on you. (Most of you know I am a trained hypnotist and this topic is a hobby of mine.)

For starters, Trump literally wrote the book on negotiating, called The Art of the Deal. So we know he is familiar with the finer points of persuasion. For our purposes today, persuasion, hypnosis, and negotiating all share a common set of tools, so I will conflate them.

Would Trump use his negotiation and persuasion skills in the campaign? Of course he would. And we expect him to do just that.

But where is the smoking gun of his persuasion? Where is his technique laid out for us to see.

Everywhere.

As I said in my How to Fail book, if you are not familiar with the dozens of methods of persuasion that are science-tested, there’s a good chance someone is using those techniques against you.

For example, when Trump says he is worth $10 billion, which causes his critics to say he is worth far less (but still billions) he is making all of us “think past the sale.” The sale he wants to make is “Remember that Donald Trump is a successful business person managing a vast empire mostly of his own making.” The exact amount of his wealth is irrelevant.

When a car salesperson trained in persuasion asks if you prefer the red Honda Civic or the Blue one, that is a trick called making you “think past the sale” and the idea is to make you engage on the question of color as if you have already decided to buy the car. That is Persuasion 101 and I have seen no one in the media point it out when Trump does it.

The $10 billion estimate Trump uses for his own net worth is also an “anchor” in your mind. That’s another classic negotiation/persuasion method. I remember the $10 billion estimate because it is big and round and a bit outrageous. And he keeps repeating it because repetition is persuasion too.

I don’t remember the smaller estimates of Trump’s wealth that critics provided. But I certainly remember the $10 billion estimate from Trump himself. Thanks to this disparity in my memory, my mind automatically floats toward Trump’s anchor of $10 billion being my reality. That is classic persuasion. And I would be amazed if any of this is an accident. Remember, Trump literally wrote the book on this stuff.

You might be concerned that exaggerating ones net worth is like lying, and the public will not like a liar. But keep in mind that Trump’s value proposition is that he will “Make America Great.” In other words, he wants to bring the same sort of persuasion to the question of America’s reputation in the world. That concept sounds appealing to me. The nation needs good brand management, whether you think Trump is the right person or not. (Obviously we need good execution as well, not just brand illusion. But a strong brand gives you better leverage for getting what you want. It is all connected.)

And what did you think of Trump’s famous “Rosie O’Donnell” quip at the first debate when asked about his comments on women? The interviewer’s questions were intended to paint Trump forever as a sexist pig. But Trump quickly and cleverly set the “anchor” as Rosie O’Donnell, a name he could be sure was not popular with his core Republican crowd. And then he casually admitted, without hesitation, that he was sure he had said other bad things about other people as well.

Now do you see how the anchor works? If the idea of “Trump insults women” had been allowed to pair in your mind with the nice women you know and love, you would hate Trump. That jerk is insulting my sister, my mother, and my wife! But Trump never let that happen. At the first moment (and you have to admit he thinks fast) he inserted the Rosie O’Donnell anchor and owned the conversation from that point on. Now he’s not the sexist who sometimes insults women; he’s the straight-talker who won’t hesitate to insult someone who has it coming (in his view).

But it gets better. You probably cringed when Trump kept saying his appearance gave FOX its biggest audience rating. That seemed totally off point for a politician, right? But see what happened.

Apparently FOX chief Roger Ailes called Trump and made peace. And by that I mean Trump owns FOX for the rest of the campaign because his willingness to appear on their network will determine their financial fate. BAM, Trump owns FOX and paid no money for it. See how this works? That’s what a strong brand gives you.

You probably also cringed when you heard Trump say Mexico was sending us their rapists and bad people. But if you have read this far, you now recognize that intentional exaggeration as an anchor, and a standard method of persuasion.

Trump also said he thinks Mexico should pay for the fence, which made most people scoff. But if your neighbor’s pit bull keeps escaping and eating your rosebushes, you tell the neighbor to pay for his own fence or you will shoot his dog next time you see it. Telling a neighbor to build his own wall for your benefit is not crazy talk. And I actually think Trump could pull it off.

On a recent TV interview, the host (I forget who) tried to label Trump a “whiner.” But instead of denying the label, Trump embraced it and said was the best whiner of all time, and the country needs just that. That’s a psychological trick I call “taking the high ground” and I wrote about it in a recent blog post. The low ground in this case is the unimportant question of whether “whiner” is a fair label for Trump. But Trump cleverly took the high ground, embraced the label, and used it to set an anchor in your mind that he is the loudest voice for change. That’s some clown genius for you.

Update: When Trump raised his hand at the debate as the only person who would not pledge to back the eventual Republican candidate, he sent a message to the party that the only way they can win is by nominating him. And people like to win. It is in their nature. And they sure don’t want to see a Clinton presidency.

Update 2: And what about Trump’s habit of bluster and self-complimenting? Every time he opens his mouth he is saying something about the Trump brand being fabulous or amazing or great. The rational part of your brain thinks this guy is an obnoxious, exaggerating braggart. But the subconscious parts of your brain (the parts that make most of your decisions) only remember that something about that guy was fabulous, amazing and great.

If you’re keeping score, in the past month Trump has bitch-slapped the entire Republican Party, redefined our expectations of politics, focused the national discussion on immigration, proposed the only new idea for handling ISIS, and taken functional control of FOX News. And I don’t think he put much effort into it. Imagine what he could do if he gave up golf.

As far as I can tell, Trump’s “crazy talk” is always in the correct direction for a skilled persuader. When Trump sets an “anchor” in your mind, it is never random. And it seems to work every time.

Now that Trump owns FOX, and I see how well his anchor trick works with the public, I’m going to predict he will be our next president. I think he will move to the center on social issues (already happening) and win against Clinton in a tight election.

I also saw some Internet chatter about the idea of picking Mark Cuban as Vice Presidential running mate. If that happens, Republicans win. And I think they like to win. There is no way Trump picks some desiccated Governor from an important state as his running mate. I think Cuban is a realistic possibility.

I don’t mean this post to look like support for a Trump presidency. I’m more interested in his methods. I’m not smart enough to know who would do the best job as president. There are a lot of capable people in the game.

Scott


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 2016election; election2016; newyork; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last
To: unread

You do know I didn’t write this blog, right? Scott Adams is the Dilbert cartoonist. He is narcissistic and provided a good analysis of Trump’s negotiating tactics.


61 posted on 08/14/2015 7:20:23 AM PDT by mongrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Presumably you can apply the same standard to whatever candidate you like. What have they done for charity. What causes are they espousing?

But, Oh! wait we can’t trust the Republicans because they renege on 100% of their promises but we should vote for a Republican anyway! Right!


62 posted on 08/14/2015 7:21:49 AM PDT by GilGil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

My first choice is actually Cruz, and I suspect Trump may fade. But I’ll take him over the rest of the career political hacks/GOPe stooges running. Living your life on the public service teat doesn’t meet my definition of a “doer”.

Trump has created jobs and experienced the real effects of ridiculous over-taxation and over-regulation, which the other guys haven’t done. Trump has also stepped in with philanthropy, both public and private, as an augmentation to the free enterprise system and the severe limits of government capabilities and its proper role.

Usually, yeah, I go with someone with a political record rather than someone waltzing in to say what they’ll do. But other than Cruz, the political records we have running are proven, pure GOPe puppets.


63 posted on 08/14/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
Nice of you to join the circular firing squad.

Walker has indeed changed positions. Take a look at his immigration stances. Not sure exactly what they are today, but they have gotten more in line with my desires since Trump came on the scene. Until Trump stuck a chord with his immigration plan, Walker was basically the same as Bush.

As it stands today, I would vote for Trump; Walker; Cruz; Carson, and perhaps Jindal. If the GOPe screws us and anoints Bush and Trump goes 3rd party, I'm going with him.

64 posted on 08/14/2015 8:15:39 AM PDT by BlueMondaySkipper (Involuntarily subsidizing the parasite class since 1981)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: mongrel
"Update: When Trump raised his hand at the debate as the only person who would not pledge to back the eventual Republican candidate..."

Seriously, if he had caved to party tradition, he would have lost all credibility. He is the antithesis of the traditional candidate, not an adherent to party protocol. It's the resistance to "business as usual" and the idea that politicians are servants to the people that make him a standout.

65 posted on 08/14/2015 8:40:48 AM PDT by scottiemom (As a retired Texas public school teacher, I highly recommend private school)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottiemom

Might I add, I am grateful to Trump but not convinced. (yet)


66 posted on 08/14/2015 8:45:02 AM PDT by scottiemom (As a retired Texas public school teacher, I highly recommend private school)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

You know what I mean.
Regards,


67 posted on 08/14/2015 10:13:12 AM PDT by caddie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mongrel

WOW there is much great information there. After his hat was thrown into the ring (again) For some reason this time it seemed to be a different Trump and began to listen to his words closely thinking the man makes a lot of sense. Why not try The Apprentice as a model in making America Great Again with himself as the Apprentice and US/WTP asking ourselves do we hire or fire the man. Thus far, there are many across the fruited plain who are rooting for Trump to come out on top. Will he succeed? Thanks so much for this bit of insight. I feel like Diogenes and no longer have constant need for a lantern.


68 posted on 08/14/2015 12:10:29 PM PDT by V K Lee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
Second, you’ve got your history mixed up about Perot. He came back in to shore up Clinton.

I don't have anything mixed up. I'm citing facts, you're repeating myths. Whatever Perot's intentions, that doesn't change reality.

As for RINO, I don't give a damn about the Republican Party anymore. They are a thoroughly corrupt organization. Trump may be a moderate-conservative but he's a nationalist. The GOP isn't. They only care about grubbing money from the Chamber of Cronies and keeping their little domains. I believe they would rather have a Democrat president than a nationalist they can't control like Trump or Cruz. With a Democrat president Boehner and McConnell are in charge of the party, and they can use the president to scare conservatives into voting for them, while doing nothing to stop him.

69 posted on 08/14/2015 3:01:50 PM PDT by Hugin ("First thing--get yourself a firearm!" Sheriff Ed Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: mongrel
I was referring to the fella' that wrote the article.... Sorry if I inferred otherwise...

:)

70 posted on 08/14/2015 4:25:03 PM PDT by unread
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson