Quote of the day—Scott Adams

You’re wondering how I can know that other people are hallucinating and not me. That’s where it comes in handy to study persuasion and hypnosis. Delusional people leave tells.

One of the tells in this case is an ad hominem attack on whoever disagrees with you on climate science. You can see that happening on my Twitter feed today as the pro-climate-science types are coming after me in numbers. When you see an oversized reaction to what should be nothing but competing scientific claims, that’s usually a tell that someone slipped into cognitive dissonance.

Scott Adams
December 29, 2016
The Illusion of Knowledge
[And in the gun rights domain we have Markley’s Law demonstrating anti-gun people are delusional in regards to their beliefs.—Joe]


9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Scott Adams

  1. An emotional response of any kind is the general tell. The ad hominem attack is the result of the emotional response.

    The emotion can be positive (as in the Food Co-op members with the goony-eyed smiles) or negative (as in the paid leftist rioters). It makes no difference. They’re of the same alliance. Their the one that gives you the overly enthusiastic, goony-bird smile one day is throwing a Molotov cocktail through your window (figuratively or literally) the next day.

    • Good point on the positive delusion!

      On our side it’s the guy singing the praises of his $1500 Kimber that can’t run through a magazine without choking.

      Another tell is the avoidance of dialog. Blocking dissenting opinion on social media, and chanting “let’s agree to disagree” in person.

      Just like trying to tell a psychotic that there aren’t Russian spies in his walls watching him will only make the fantasy more irrational and even violent.

      You can’t make them see the light when they are in full hallucination.

      Thankfully we don’t have to.

    • I would suggest .308 or 30.06 or last ditch OO buckshot to prevent the insertion of a Molotov cocktail through your window.

      That’s my policy.

      I just love how the evil Leftists promise temper tantrums and riots. Try it near me, please!

    • I’m pretty sure Pete Seeger (a man I have always regarded very highly despite some disagreements) is a great counterexample to that.

  2. I’ve got one for them.

    If both sides are completely convincing to the layman and one requires massive upheaval of our society in nearly all aspects; and the other doesn’t: We should stick with one that doesn’t cause a massive disruption.

    That is, at least until the upheaval side can provide something that makes the non-disruptive side unconvincing.

    I think that the fact that neither side can make that slam dunk argument is a tell that it’s not near the crisis that one side would have it be.

    I am also curious to see if the climate deniers have been caught falsifying data…

    • I do not deny climate. Clearly it isn’t a Mediterranean crop growing situation outside my window right now. 🙂

      I just deny that there is a (1)largely human-caused (2)slow-motion (3)global (4)climate catastrophe (5)initiated by human CO2 emissions that the various(6) natural climate feedback mechanisms cannot cope with, and (7)we (specifically meaning whites in wealthy western nations) must alter our behavior (8)drastically and (9)immediately to our (10)detriment in order to avoid said problem.
      (number) – each of those things can individually be supported, refuted, or detailed by observable facts, specific claims/quotes by major players involved, but ALL must be correct for the Warmists to be correct in their diagnosis and solution.

      • Rolf;
        May I quote this, with or without attribution at your discretion, over at Scott’s Blog?

  3. One thing that strikes me about the global warming catastrophists is that if you suggest nuclear power, they flatly reject it.

    So let me get this straight, the possibility of a nuclear disaster is worse than the certainty of global climate devistation? That leads me to believe that maybe their argument is based more on ideology than an actual response to a real problem.

    • For me it’s the fact that EVERY disaster the left raves about absolutely REQUIRES a government program and increased *and highly selective* use of coercion. Without fail. That’s the tell – they simply want power.

Comments are closed.