fbpx

Scott Adams’ Moist Robots

Scott Adams is the cartoonist who draws “Dilbert.” He also claims to have vast business experience and a marketing MBA from Berkeley’s Haas School of Business; to be a hypnotist and “weapons grade” expert in techniques of persuasion; and to have what he calls “F-you money”—sufficient wealth not to care what people think about his views. And now he has written Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter, in which this self-avowed “ultra-liberal” and supporter of Democratic presidential candidates in the 1980s and 1990s fawns over Donald Trump’s rhetorical skills.

Adams tells us early on that he never supported Trump’s policies or liked his politics, only that he admired his persuasive technique. He confesses that when he started spouting this line on his blog during the campaign, he got flak from people who could not reconcile his admiration for Trump’s technique with the fact that he was boosting Trump’s electoral prospects. The flak was totally justified. Of all the people Adams names in the book who predicted a Trump presidency, he is the only one who disavowed an affinity with the man’s views; yet his obsession with technique at the expense of substance morphed into his ultimately going “all in” for Trump anyway—after having first endorsed the Democratic candidate and then the Libertarian one. It is a series of decisions he not all that delicately claims helped Trump to win.

This odd metamorphosis of 2016 bleeds into Adams trying in 2017 to induce the reader to think that Trump’s Oval Office bite was always bound to be much less worrisome than his campaign bark. This is because, he assures us, Trump was not speaking literally but “directionally,” the typical voter being so obtuse that only wild attention-getting exaggerations can penetrate their dense heads—and that’s the way to get elected. Having gotten elected, Trump has moderated all his campaign views, Adams claims, and so is normalized for all practical purposes. Case closed.

Indeed, if the book has an overarching theme, it is a gloss on P.T. Barnum’s famous remark that “No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public”;  to wit: No politician ever erred by underestimating the willful ignorance of the American electorate.

Full disclosure: I have always found the surreal misanthropy of “Dilbert” strange. My wife says the reason the strip doesn’t make me laugh is that I have never worked in bureaucratish cubbies, but I sensed that its strangeness transcended that datum. I could never before put my finger on why, largely because I didn’t much care. But thanks to Win Bigly, my finger is now firmly put: The whole book is not so much conventionally bad as strange in an eerie, disturbing way, for it seems to emanate from a worldview best described as antifoundational postmodern nihilism laden with drug-tempered hedonism.

Adams thinks reality may be just a simulation, and that free will is almost certainly an illusion. The large amount of marijuana and magic mushrooms he admits to having ingested in college may explain some of this, but I digress. Adams claims further that the human mind cannot grasp reality, but that it doesn’t matter since “evolution cares” only that we be happy enough for long enough to procreate.

In sum, he sees the Eloi of H.G. Wells’s Time Machine (1895) as about as high as humanity can reach. And of human dignity, the fundament on which liberty itself rests? Adams never mentions either noun.

This radically dour view of human beings is why facts and logic don’t matter in politics, as the book’s subtitle says. It is why real-world policy outcomes can never be predicted no matter who becomes President, and why cognitive psychology deployed for political marketing purposes thus becomes the master science. (He includes 31 “persuasion tips” in little gray-background boxes in the text, all of them Marketing 101 fare.) “Moist robots” is the term he uses for our species, a species easily “programmed” by “Master Persuaders” like Trump and even by less masterful ones like Adams. All this is perfectly consistent with Michel Foucault’s deconstructionist axiom “il n’y a que le texte”—there is only the text (for Adams, the messaging), and power relations flow based on who achieves hegemony over it.

This Adams attempts to prove. The intended audience here is the “deplorables”—his word choice, not mine—who loved his campaign-period blog and were rooting for him to be right that Trump would win. He tells us as much in the acknowledgements. And this shapes the book’s structure and tone: short numberless chapters with lots of single sentence paragraphs; a roughly seventh-grade vocabulary with lots of catchphrases; a sizable number of exaggerations, errors (for example, Mike Pence was not a senator but a congressman before he became Governor of Indiana), and yawning simplifications; the insertion of many old cartoon strips and blog excerpts to diversify page visuals; and a generally snarky timbre throughout.

Indeed, Win Bigly tries to work at two levels: to teach the reader about the techniques of political persuasion while at the same time deploying key techniques against the reader. This architecture itself illustrates not just one but a few of Adams’ persuasion hints, several of which do enable insights inter alia into several specific campaign episodes. Some readers will detect his efforts to manipulate them, and some won’t—but Adams (thinks he) wins either way. He fools the typical moist robots at the same time that he impresses the “higher” moist robots with his persuasive skills.

This corresponds to Adams’ advice to have a system wherein you can win either way—as opposed to a goal, where you have only one way to win and lots of ways to lose if you fail to achieve it. But here is the rub: A goal is outcome-oriented and usually concerns others as well as oneself, whereas a system of the sort Adams posits is merely transactional and personal. At one point he acknowledges that facts and logic do matter to policy outcomes in the world at large, just not to the arts of political persuasion. But he doesn’t care about outcomes, just about who wins and how they do it. Fairness? “Fairness is an argument for idiots and children,” writes Adams.

The most telling of his persuasion tips is the one on “strategic ambiguity.” The idea here is to leave proposals large and attention-getting but devoid of detail, and people will fill in what they want to see. Best Trump example: the synecdoche of the “big, beautiful wall” that encapsulated Trump’s message about immigration.

Being strategically ambiguous can lead to verbal gymnastics, which readers will see amply demonstrated when they get to Adams on religion. He tells of how he contemptuously abandoned the Methodist Church as a youth (his beloved mother brought on his disillusionment by neglecting to explain to him that not all Hebrew Bible stories, such as Jonah and the whale, are meant to be taken literally) and he fairly plainly considers religion to be a variety of irrational magical thinking.

But on pages 85 through 89, he concocts the most bizarre gimmick in the book, linking a vague story about an ancient wizard with the words “We the people” displayed in late-18th century font, with these, in turn, linked to just four words on an entire facing page, displayed in standard King James Bible font: “Turn the other cheek.” In other words, the holy writ of the American Republic flows from the words of Jesus. How? Let the credulous reader fill in the blank.

So is Adams a believer or not? Readers get to think whatever they want. The author seeds “evidence” for both conclusions—that’s the trick embedded in the “strategic ambiguity” win-win method.

Same with patriotism. Adams claims that all early political socialization is brainwashing, and admits he never says the words to the Pledge of Allegiance or sings the national anthem. He also says he doesn’t vote because he doesn’t want to trap himself in a “confirmation bias” loop. He also asserts that democracy is “more of a mental condition than a political system.” Yet he defends brainwashing on the grounds that if our government didn’t do it to us, some invader government ultimately would, and he claims to be a patriot, if an irrational one, anyway.

So is he a patriot or isn’t he? Again, readers fill in whatever they want.

Win Bigly also surreptitiously deploys other persuasion tips. One of them explains its many tedious repetitions of certain language nuggets (see persuasion tip 26). What fun, for Adams, and perhaps for some fellow persuasion voyeurs; but what a predatory way to have fun.

Alas, the author appears be an unwitting victim of his own theory. He so wanted to call the election correctly that he allowed his urge to cognitive consistency and the workings of cognitive dissonance (of which he makes much, in an oversimplified way) to easily override any substantive disagreements he had with Trump.

But there is more. Adams’ outsized hubris paints him as a megalomaniacal narcissist who strategically dispenses flecks of humility hither and yon to offset the dominant impression he deliberately makes in an attempt to establish his credibility as a master persuader (see persuasion tips 10 and 16). So it is no wonder that he, like Michael Flynn, felt a deep affinity for Trump—the master megalomaniacal narcissist of them all. Adams is well aware of the promiscuously associational nature of the human mind, but failed to detect it when it affected him. In the end, the trickster himself is the one tricked.

We really didn’t need another book on the myth of the rational voter. We have plenty already. We certainly don’t need these days a cunningly manipulative book about manipulation that bears such undisguised contempt for the core concept of human nature on which American liberty depends—a book that would drive a stake through the hearts of Abraham Lincoln’s “better angels” if it could.

When you get right down to it, Win Bigly is such a grab bag of noxious malarkey that you can almost see individual words trying to crawl off the pages and over the margins toward freedom so as not to be rendered guilty by association with it. I wish them well.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on December 19, 2017 at 08:47:15 am

The P.T. Barnum quote is usually attributed to H.L. Mencken.

read full comment
Image of Mark Pulliam
Mark Pulliam
on December 19, 2017 at 09:17:11 am

"In the end, the trickster himself is the one tricked."

True, but so are those who have become lukewarm in their Faith and thus their sense of reason:

http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=57590

Whenever you subtract an element of truth, change an element of truth, or add an element of error to the Truth, having compromised Truth, you will always end with error.

read full comment
Image of Nancy
Nancy
on December 19, 2017 at 10:23:08 am

Adams is a "weird" guy, as you say. And his new book looks to be merely exploitative, just a cynical opportunity to make money by promoting himself as a colorful "contrarian" and claiming (falsely) to be a Trump supporter.

BUT, I saw Adams on TV discussing himself (of course,) his book (of course) and Trump the fascinating, creative showman and Trump the outside-the-box politician. And in doing the latter, talking about Trump's exceptional public relations skills and his unconventional political behavior, Adams was both quite laudatory and steadfastly complimentary of what Trump has achieved and hopes to achieve politically.

So, I want to agree with your assessment; I'm skeptical of Adams' motivation and sincerity, but I'll also wait and see if Adams stays the course on Trump or turns tail and disowns Trump at an opportune time.

As for the literary quality of Adams' book on Trump, I cannot and will never be able to judge because I have no interest in reading it. That is also true of Dilbert, a cartoon I read a few times years ago and dismissed as cutely self-conscious, studiously casual and coy in its quirkiness.

read full comment
Image of timothy
timothy
on December 19, 2017 at 11:31:43 am

If you read the blog posts that you link, it is clear that Adams' endorsement of Clinton was a joke.

Since you can't be bothered to check one of your main assertions in your open, I did not read further.

read full comment
Image of Rob
Rob
on December 19, 2017 at 15:40:33 pm

The author;s obvious antipathy for Trump rules over everything. Trump was a rejection of the ruling class, which very much includes you, and not an endorsement of Trump. Adams is often right, and sometimes the only one who is. I have major disagreements with him which bothers me not at all because that's life, and I don't hate Trump. Any tool in a fight.

read full comment
Image of james wilson
james wilson
on December 19, 2017 at 17:02:27 pm

Sounds like the author is having trouble coming to grips with being a moist robot. Let it go.

read full comment
Image of Mace
Mace
on December 19, 2017 at 17:42:56 pm

"you can almost see individual words trying to crawl off the pages and over the margins toward freedom"

Made me laugh. It was worth plowing through the whole article just for that line. As for Doug Adams, well if this book sells, that fact is diagnostic of the nature of the pubic.

read full comment
Image of Bill Z Bubbly
Bill Z Bubbly
on December 19, 2017 at 17:44:55 pm

Barum treated his people very well, often people who would have been hopeless outcasts otherwise. He was anything but a trickster. Ditch the CW about PTB and read Howard (not Harold) Bloom's take on him.

read full comment
Image of Bill Z Bubbly
Bill Z Bubbly
on December 19, 2017 at 17:53:22 pm

Enjoyed the prose.

read full comment
Image of Paul Binotto
Paul Binotto
on December 19, 2017 at 18:42:07 pm

I will bet the author didn’t quote PT Barnum when Obama ran on “Hope and Change” which turned out to be hard left progressivism and a takeover of energy and health care. Funny how Obama, who is the very definition of a cult leader is never mentioned for what HE! introduced to the political landscape. If you have any question why Trump is who he is and why he was nominated, you really weren’t on the other end of the surreal Obama years where it was a constant episode of the Twilight Zone. Odious and harmful things like the Iran deal and Obamacare were never criticized like Trump was for Covfefe. As other comment here you can see from the tone and substance of the article that the author is exactly who the people in the country don’t want running it anymore I don’t see another cult leader on the horizon for the Democrats like Obama and it will be a generation before the American people will fall for another one like Obama. Hopefully Trump can cut out the cancer that pervades our institutions before we fall for another Socialist.

read full comment
Image of Robert Stillman
Robert Stillman
on December 19, 2017 at 20:15:16 pm

Adams would be rolling on the floor laughing at his work being so over analysed. Ask this guy the time and you would get the history of watchmakimg. Not at all surprised he doesnt enjoy his work.

read full comment
Image of yarpos
yarpos
on December 19, 2017 at 23:07:27 pm

I'm guessing Mr Garfinkle was busy laughing at and dismissing Trump's prospects while Adams was busy accurately assessing them; hence the disdain and seeming anger.
Nothing worse than having an admitted weirdo like Adams be right when all the stuffed shirt eggheads are wrong.

read full comment
Image of BrianB
BrianB
on December 19, 2017 at 23:15:22 pm

When you said you couldn't get into Dilbert I knew this article would be pointless.

read full comment
Image of Matt
Matt
on December 20, 2017 at 07:37:22 am

Bingo. You can almost feel the wounded butthurt.

Adams does discuss on his Periscope feed about how the election triggered what he describes as 'cognitive dissonance' among the Left and (((NeverTrumpers))). This version of reality--Hillary in history's dumpster--was not only untenable but impossible. Hence, the very putlic, always amusing tantrums from Antifafafa, the pussyhat brigade, and the cackhanded journolisters at Clown News Network (et al). They want things to go back they way they were or else. Poor them.

Dilbert is darkly funny and liberal tears are delicious. Hail President Awesome.

read full comment
Image of robert quinn
robert quinn
on December 20, 2017 at 07:38:12 am

Edit: 'public'

read full comment
Image of robert quinn
robert quinn
on December 20, 2017 at 21:41:41 pm

[…] Read more[…] […]

read full comment
Image of Scott Adams’ Moist Robots – Top 100 Blog Review
Scott Adams’ Moist Robots – Top 100 Blog Review
on December 27, 2017 at 15:03:24 pm

Adam's endorsement of Clinton probably was a joke. But it was also --and Adams was explicit on this numerous times-- a matter of self-protection. Adams clearly believed Trump would take the election; but looking ahead he also saw the Left's reaction would include violence. It was hard for Adams to walk the line between that, as political unrest which he vaguely foresaw, and the urban myth of a "string of Clinton bodies" which he didn't believe.

Technically Adams was right (Berkeley, Charlotte, Charlottesville, Seattle) but it's not clear why the protest movements like BLM and Anitfu collapsed and are unable to mobilize even a token presence.

read full comment
Image of hooodathunkit
hooodathunkit
on December 27, 2017 at 22:11:30 pm

I don't remember posting this, nor can I find the initial trigger. Anyway, has BLM and Antifafafa collapsed? Good news if true.

read full comment
Image of robert quinn
robert quinn

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.