If I recall, it was a joke made while the press conference was still going on, and I was struck by all the flags around him and the scripted questions early on. It was his first real press conference as president-elect, and it was all show and campaign-style rhetoric, despite the large backlog of important policy questions that he faced. To be fair, he actually did answer a few questions that weren’t staged, which never would have happened in the USSR. But while all traditional politicians understand the importance of messaging and perception, they realize that avoiding substantive questions only leads to more of them. During the campaign, and during his presidency, Trump has attempted—with considerable success—to transcend that norm, as with so many others. He responds instead with counterattacks and bold statements and accusations, knowing they will get more attention than subsequent fact-checks. It’s one of many ways that Americans are learning from Trump that much of their democracy was run on the honor system, on agreed standards, not laws, and now there’s someone who isn’t going to play by those rules.
Peter Thiel on Stagnation, Innovation, and What Not to Call your Company
We’ve had something like $450 billion has gone into the fracking industry in the last four or five years, and there’s a question whether at $50 a barrel oil, can you actually get a positive return on that money?
Remembering Bob Silvers
Bob’s trust in his writers was absolute. I once expressed doubt that an obscure subject (Sherwood Anderson’s love life, maybe, or was it Japanese tea?) would interest readers. “Well,” Bob countered, “does it interest you?” That, he made clear, was the standard, the only standard.
How can I respond to Whataboutism?
The three general approaches to convincing people are:
- Overwhelming evidence.
This was discussed on “You’re not so smart” podcast covering Backfire effect, in essence, there’s a threshold at which that cognitive system breaks a dam, so to speak, and starts incorporating conflicting facts.
But one, or two, or three, facts, would not be enough.
- Use proper framing.
According to Moral Foundations theory; conservatives and liberals are swayed not by different facts; but by different framing of the facts.
E.g. to convince a conservative, you frame things in terms of loyalty and patriotism; to convince a liberal, in terms of “fairness”.
- Don’t use facts.
Experts on persuasion generally state that facts are the weakest way to persuade someone. Emotions etc… are far more effective.
If you don’t believe experts on persuasion becsause they weren’t persuasive enough, here’s a fact for you: psychologists confirmed that finding.
- Stop using personal attacks, or things that seem like personal attacks.
“Donald Trump’s racism” – to anyone who voted for Trump for reasons other than being racist, this mainly sounds like you are accusing THEM of supporting racism. This sounds cathartic and profound among your circle of Trump opponents – but has absolutely the opposite effect when talking to a Trump voter.