« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 71: How to Spot Cognitive Dissonance in the Media

2018-05-19 | 🔗

Topics:

  • Whiteboard discussion – Pattern of Behavior
  • The “so” tell combined with an absurd absolute
  • Milton Erickson shoe on table example
  • Word salad
  • Triggers for cognitive dissonance
  • Examining Trump “animals” comment
  • “Fits a pattern” fallacy
  • Whack-a-mole persuasion
  • Primed by our preferences
  • Occam’s razor
  • Confirmation bias
  • 20 year rule
  • Ego as a tool that doesn’t control you

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

For persuasion-related content in book form, see my bestselling book, Win Bigly.

The post Episode 71: How to Spot Cognitive Dissonance in the Media appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
bump bump bump mmhm bump bump bump bump bump from bump bump bump phone well guess what time it is yes it's time for coffee was scott adams those of you were lucky enough to be watching this instead of any kind of our royal wedding or something depressing like a school shooting it's time for the best part of the day time for some good news time for some freshly brewed group warm beverage coffee preferred but it's time for the simultaneous up well we so let's talk about the whack a mole style of calling so
so the anything but we're going to use president trump as our example today and get to teach you a few more ways to spot cognitive dissonance if you're new to this cognitive dissonance is when a person's brain misfires because a thing that they thought to be true and they were sure it was true turns out to be false instead of saying oh i guess i guess i was stupid misinformed and ending ignorant people don't do that instead they rewrite the reality to something strange so that they can still be right all right but how do you determine when someone is doing that which is their brain is temporarily scrambled in cognitive dissonance
versus just somebody who's wrong because they would look the same right somebody who's wrong and somebody who's brain is scrambled they would both just look wrong not exactly there are some ways to tell for example in my book win bigly i talk about the the so tell eso so when people on with so what you're saying is followed by the second part is important the so by itself doesn't tell you that much but it's the second part they turn what you said that was reasonable into an absolute a ridiculous absolute in order to refute you that's cognitive dissonance because they've run out of argument so they have to re write what you said to have a new thing to argue about you see it all the time
so here's an example if you say for example i believe the prison reform would be would be good for everybody good for the prisoners good for the public right let's say you made that argument and somebody was disagreeing with you and you've made good points i don't know what the good point so in this argument i don't know too much about it but let's just say you would demolish the other person's argument who was for example opposed to prison reform that person once having their argument destroyed would say something like this you're saying we should just let everybody get away with murder right that's the so tell tell like being a hint or a clue the tell for cognitive dissonance the absurd absolute
that they've changed a reasonable idea of prison reform into so you say just let the criminals go free and murders ok okay right so you save murder now alright so when you see that that's the person who's lost badly but can't quite wrap their head around the fact that loss than they've invent a whole new world in which you said something crazy so that they can still be right but there's a more generic form of this is a little harder to recognize teach you how i learned this in hypnosis class so many
so when i was learning to be hypnotised i heard the following story now i don't know if the story is true it was presented as true but it's a good example of cognitive dissonance and even if the story is untrue it tells the right the role right point end the story goes that the greatest hypnotist of the milton erickson i had hypnotize one of his regular subjects that hypnotize a lot and had given her a posthypnotic suggestion the during a dinner that a group we're having later it was a formal you know kind of a nice dinner at somebody's house she would during the middle of the dinner she would take out of her shoe and put it on the middle of the table for no reason that was just a posthypnotic suggestion now it is report
that what during the meal she did in fact take off your shoes and put it in the middle of the table and when the other guests were that was and said why are you putting your show on the table because they were not yet on the the hypnosis they didn't know why she was doing it she looked at them and knowing that she had been hypnotised and knowing that she had been hypnotised to put her shoe on the table this is important she knew both of those things this was not a hypnosis where she had amnesia she knew she had been hypnotised to put her shoes on the table so she puts her she on the table then people say why are you putting issue on the table and she says well i've got a flower vases at home that sort of in the shape of a of a shoe and i wanted to see how the flowers would look at it as she takes the flowers
from the arrangement and put some in her shoe now from that point on she swore to anybody who had asked no yes yes i understand that the best hypnotist in the world hypnotize me and he told me to put my shoe on the table but that's not why i did why i did it this 'cause i have this vows that looks like a shoe that i wanted to see what it would look like perfectly rational ok so clearly if you're looking just from the outside and you hear the story you said yourself that's what's going on there there's this is person whose brain is temporarily scrambled and they're just doing a quick rewrite to try to make it make sense again but to anybody observing it's ridiculous so what you look for
is a reason that would only make sense to the person saying so if you back somebody into a corner in your argument and the thing that they say is something that no one else would think makes sense especially if it's kind of a a word salad meaning that it's a bunch of words that go together and you think yourself well recognize all those words and i hear them in the sentence and the grammar is but but none of those words make any sense right that's a telephone cognitive dissonance and and ideally it's not you it's the other person but i want to give you some examples that so there was a great trigger for cognitive dissonance this week and you can see who fell for it and who didn't the trigger was when is the trump referred to the ms thirteen gang members as animals and that quote was
in the context and most of the major publications said he's calling immigrants animals now when people like me push back but that's not what happened you just took that out of context then a number of outlets ap i'm cnn etc they either corrected or revise their reporting to reflect the correct context so those were people the ap let's say the ap was not experiencing cognitive dissonance because when the error was pointed out and it was clear that the context was gang members when you play the the question and then the answer the ap just said damn that's pretty bad mistake we just made their let's let's issue a correction so that's what it looks like when you're not in
cognitive dissonance alright but let me let me read you some examples of some people who didn't do so well so here's a tim alberta this is on twitter he calls himself the chief political correspondent for politico mag and he says awful lot of reporters screwed up regarding trump's animals remarks alright so so far that's just a fact lot of people screwed up he says it's the result of a media climate that feeds on outrage and speed and retweets it's fair statement but here's the fun part but it's also the revolt result of trump's own history of using racially charged language and the total version of any benefit of the doubt now definitely an erosion of benefit of the parts true but here he's saying
that even though the reporters were wrong they were kinda right not right to because of the the thing that we're talking about but right because if it into sort of a pattern so his pattern of awfulness and racism is clearer and therefore it's not such a big mistake because of film to the pattern anyway i call this the whack a mole persuasion meaning that if there's a specific thing you're talking about which somebody says hey president trump said in charlottesville that the use what is the premises were fine people and you say well that's not true he was talking about people who were pro statue and anti statute and he said they're good people on both sides he wasn't talking about intifada and the race is being on two sides that that would
grace nobody's gonna call the the people marching against against the jews nobody's gonna say they're fine people when your own family your jewish and when israel loves you and your you know there's nothing about that this is even a little bit sensible so you could explain that somebody and they could say ok alright well ok i did get fooled on the charlottesville thing but what about all the other stuff you know what about the time he said immigrants were animals and then well no that was also a mistake he didn't say it immigrants rebels who saw them as thirteen or animals and then they say yeah but look at the and you can go from one thing to another and you can debunk each one and they will still say sure you debug thou and that one and that one and you also debunked on that one that one that one but
there's so many more the pattern is clear so i'm going to talk about patterns in a moment and show you how usually you can be fooled but i want to give you the best example of cognitive distance you can see this is from jonathan weisman who is what is he is with the new york times and he says so jonathan weisman new york times he goes as some who edited the story on his comments talking about trump's comments about animals into them live i read the transcript occam's razor don't overthink this the real problem was that our president speaks in non sequiter gibberish there was no direct linguistic link between ms13 in his animal remarks
so in other words he's doubling down on the president not talking about ms thirteen as the animals but rather immigrants but look for the word salad right looked so keep in mind that the person saying this is the editor of the new york times so without knowing much about him i can say the following is true if he and i took an iq test you don't score me a you don't you don't become the editor of the new york times and lost leisure pretty rick and smart he knows how to write probably one of the best editors in the world because he has a job in which you need to be one of the best writers and editors of the world so on all those levels he's you know he's a level above me so this is not some kind of a generic in so
about this man's intelligence i believe his intelligence is very high but cognitive dissonance does not discriminate by intelligence there is no protection by being intelligent and now i'm going to read it again and just look for the word salad this is a person who knows how to edit and speak very clearly let's see if we did it and someone who ended the story and blah blah blah and let's get to the good part here ok he goes occam's razor don't overthink this now we learned in hypnosis class the people say exactly what they mean even if they didn't mean to say it right that takes a little more explanation but for example if somebody has a let's
a secret sexual desire to be whipped the hypnotist will teach you ok you can determine that that person has a secret preference without ever talking about that 'cause you'll find that they use the word whip in casual conversation more than another person so you might say how would you like dessert and that person would say it would be great if you have any whipped cream yeah do you like the basketball tournament because yeah it looks like the warriors really whipped the rockets so if you listen to language people are primed by there by their preference is to use a kind of language that are reveals some things about them
all right so when somebody says don't over think this what's that mean who what's it mean exactly to over think it he is literally saying stop thinking don't overthink it in other words they don't think lunch in order to agree with him he's asking you to think less now that's not what he intends to say he's using using literary language to say don't overthink it it's it's simpler than you think but the hypnotist says yeah that's why he'll tell you he says and that's what the word say but it's also revealing quite often when somebody sells it tells you to stop thinking right he goes the real problem was that our president speaks in non sequiter gibberish there was no direct linguistic link between ms13 in his animal remark no direct
linguistic link it was literally the answer to the question somebody said blah blah question about ms thirteen trump's answer to that question about ms13 was blah blah blah their animals now you say that's not a direct linguistic link i don't know what that means but it was an answer to the question so for someone who is an expert on words and language very high iq to somehow miss that it was just an answer to a question and to try to hide that with this word salad i'm saying there was no direct linguistic link he speaks in non sequitur gibberish so this is our a really clear tell for cognitive diss so this is someone whose job it is to know the difference between between true
in reality he got it wrong this time and rather then rewrite his personal history to say oh geez i got that one wrong i guess i got fooled he doubled down now here's the interesting thing he says that occam's razor is that it was the simple explanation of what he's saying is something that another gentleman also says and that that that what you're seeing is it was easy to think he was talking in a racist way because of all the other patterns of his racism now here's here's the problem with occam's razor occam's razor says leased in the language for
not not the science version which is slightly different but the way we use it in common language occam's razor is that whatever is the simplest explanation for something is correct so jonathan is saying the simplest explanation for the president using the word animals is that he's a racist and that it's just sort of a weird coincidence and people are trying too hard to say that it was an answer to a question now here's my thing about or my point about occam's razor everyone thinks their own explanation is the simple one i'm sure there are exceptions but generally speaking i think that my explanation is always the simple one let me give you an example with the question of president trump being a racist and saying you know that the immigrants or or animals which he didn't say the argument is that if you look at the whole context all
all of these different races things he's done you know that's really the clear picture and that's as simple as it can be if somebody has twenty five different examples of doing things that sound racist what is the simplest explanation the simplest explanation is there racist occam's razor right here's another way to look at this gif leave that to you in just been introduced to did something that when he was falsely accused of being a racist and people bought into it let's let's say that nobody caught onto it like the animals thing and people just bought into it what would they think for the next twenty five things that person did that were ambiguous would they think to themselves oh look there's twenty five ambiguous things plus this one thing we believe in no they would say all the twenty five thing
true and if you looked at any one of 'em they'd say yeah that one isn't so much true but you have to look at all of 'em unfortunately the way confirmation bias works is that once you're convinced getting twenty five examples that prove your point is very simple so the simplest explanation of why there are so many stories of president trump doing bad things is he is a racist monster that's pretty simple here's another one it's confirmation bias and his enemies are branding him is that is that complicated well this complicated if you start looking at all the examples but it's very simple to know how you got somebody examples 'cause once you get it going all the other examples are just confirmation bias let's talk about patterns took me awhile to get here but this is
i want to talk about actually people are under the impression the patterns tell them things patterns are a form of thinking and if you can see a pattern of behavior you know something useful but here's the problem with using patterns for think but others are not very reliable let me just give you an example anything out of context could look like a pattern but you don't know that if you put the proper context on it you wouldn't be so for example it looked like when president trump said those ms thirteen people
her animals were paraphrasing when people didn't hear the gang member part and they just heard the animals part they sent a ha if it's the pattern that's part of his pattern of behavior but it wasn't it was just something taken out of context right there's also a chance there are things called the statistical clusters so for example if my small town had you know twice as many cases of a solvable cancer than other towns around here you were you would leap to the conclusion how there's something happening in my town that's causing everybody had to have a certain kind of cancer but chance get you that too because things are not perfectly distributed they'll just be some people some places by chance that more
some stuff so chance fools you having things out of context foolish you about analogies here's an analogy during the vietnam war the n villa not fort n vietnamese had built a lot of tunnels so they lived underground in tunnels but it didn't help him that much because when we found the tunnels meaning the soldiers they were going there with flamethrowers and dogs and whatever and they would kill them in their tunnels now elon musk is building this hyperloop using these boring things which create big tunnels so what is to stop the us government from going in there with flamethrowers throwers and dogs and killing all the people who are trying to commute well it's a perfect analogy if bad things happen in tunnels this is a
well why when the bad things happen there alright so this is my ridiculous example but it's the same as you know calling in the modern leader hitler or mussolini you know these these kinds of rose analogies are ridiculous so analogies are not sensible there no logic to not based on reason they're just things that remind you of other things so if this if analogies are fitting into your pattern of behavior such as people used to say look at look at the way trumps face looks when he speaks of looks like mustn't mussolini as fitting the pattern is filling the batter his his chin he's got a chin just like mussolini confirmation bias will make anything look like a pattern once you think you see the pattern it's all you see it's all you see confirmation by
then there's shenanigans you've got people in the news making up stuff to say a look at all the examples of the badness is this person that huffington post simply tweeted around an older article in which they had i think sixteen examples of why president trump is a racist and i started reading the first four and they were ridiculous because they were literally about other people and i thought well this is just an elegance somebody is putting something together to give you the idea that there's a pattern now there's also just imaginary patterns we just imagine things that aren't there for a variety of reasons some of them overlap these other reasons but sometimes we just imagine patterns where there are none and then there are real patterns but here's the thing the whole reason we care about patterns is because we think
predict so if somebody is doing the same thing boom boom boom boom boom you say oh tomorrow is going to be like that because we've got a pattern but here's the problem sometimes patterns predict but lots of times the pattern is the opposite of what's going to happen and there's a reason for that take nixon goes to china the reason that nixon could go visit china was because his long history an pattern of being tough on comma some predicted that he wouldn't right so by so by being by doing the thing that he wasn't supposed to do he found success if we were to look at the pattern of people running for president who did not have prior experience in politics we would say well the pattern is there's no way you're going to get a president trump patterns even when they're real ones even if
if you go all the facts right you think they predict but they don't this is what we're seeing with the n korea situation people are saying my god how can you be so dumb as to think that this time things will go right in north korea don't you know that they always promise things and get concessions and then change their mind because they have done that in the past but the likelihood of them getting away with it again is far far less because they have a pattern it's the pattern itself that makes it unlikely that the pattern is predictive because everybody noticed the pattern do you think john bolton hasn't noticed yeah he doesn't notice that there's a pattern that north korea sometimes changes its mind and we're seeing we're saying the u s played to this difference right now by saying how about giving us some of your nuclear gave
is not all that you know will will give you a little bit will promise you some security but give us some of the nuclear capability just to make sure that you're not not jack and surround now that's that's not maybe the full answer but it's part of addressing why the pattern will will break so when you people arguing that yeah you have you have disproven by my one example i gave you but look at the pattern these people are sometimes just they can sometimes just don't have a good point but lots of times there it's a cognitive dissonance escape hatch i can tell you that i can sit in a room with anybody who uses the president being a racist i could take their top twelve reasons and debunk them so easily that it would be almost entertaining
right it would be as easy as the as the trump calling people animals things and and i've done some of those but we have a whack a mole problem no matter how many times you say well that was not real well sure that one not real board of the pattern and you say well let's look at another one that was wondering if that was not real that was not real that once i drill so i've shown you that twelve the first twelve that we talked about of your twenty five reasons are complete bs what do you say to usually you have to talk about the other twelve and we so those are all real all right let's talk about the other twelve the phone call twelve now what do you say and i'll tell you what you say
after you have debunked every single thing that they thought was the pattern they'll say something like this occam's razor don't overthink it scott look how long it took you for your orchard explanation of why all twenty five things are coincidence it does take a long time but not the one who made the list twenty five items long a bullshit i wasn't the one who made the complexity right i'm just talking about somebody else is complexity which they've built an of mostly imagination in confirmation bias and chance and shenanigans and
etcetera yes someone is saying here of the human brain tries to create order out of random events now you're seeing some people push back people are saying bullshit you know your choice scott you're your pretzel logic you're trying so hard so i made a claim then i can debunk all the warnings sample of the president's past racist behavior there's one that i can't the book and that's the the housing discrimination case from under the seven
whatever well my view is that whether or not he did a racist thing in nineteen seventy whatever whether or not he knew about it it was a bad thing you can't you can't you can't explain our way and center but very few of us are who we were fifty years ago so if the question is who is he today i don't know that that tells you a lot because there are very few people who would want to defend their their twenty something year old self right very few of us would want to defend our our younger self i wouldn't and i would ask anybody else too so if you're seventy i i apply what i call the twenty year rule if you were accused of some bad behavior twenty years ago i say you know it if you if you paid for it if you change your mind you know
this is the whole point of society in human life and everything that we care about isn't the point to get better isn't the point to get rid of your rough edges isn't the point to become more open minded more accepting more loving isn't the point to go from your worst self to a better self so if you're saying somebody did something awful last week i'm going to say well probably who they still are you know last week isn't that long ago but if you tell me something somebody did a housing discrimination thing forty five years ago really
just trying to make money it wasn't so much about race or anything they were just trying to maximize their their their income it's still deplorable it's still we have to disavow it we all have to be on the same side of this housing discrimination has no place in the world but it was forty five years ago so what we i absolutely disavow anybody who did that fifty years ago but today yes saying the central park five what about the central park five that's a clear vacation that he's a racist in which race was never mentioned it was about crime he talked about crime me talk to you say was tough on crime have we noticed that the president is tough on crime all the time he is he is tough
crime all the time doesn't matter who is doing the crime so when you say a lot about that central park five you are following for shenanigans you're falling for a confirmation bias um an maybe some of it is out of context if you don't know the whole story um was he personally responsible for the housing discrimination yes somebody saying that case i think it was in the 70s was trump personally aware of that the people who work for his company were involved in some housing racial discrimination don't know but i would argue that it doesn't matter right this is who we are forty five years later now how long would that be that'd be like forty five years later i don't know how old he was i think it was a late 20s
is not really a good indication who we were you remember robert i think he was in the kkk before he was in congress why was that okay because it was a long time ago that's actually a good enough reason for me you know if you allow you know i'm i'm not a believer as you know don't i don't conform to any religion but i'm a big fan of the the christian idea of forgiveness and you know okay you were you were a turd do hold that against you forever it's ok to say somebody was a turd and they got better i'm ok with that now if you have examples that are as bad as the housing discrimination
fall within the last twenty years for anybody weathers president trump or anybody else i'd say that's let's let's talk about that that's not that long ago but forty five years i think we can let that go and i would and by the way i do say the same thing about hillary clinton right during the election people were saying what about whitewater and stuff like that to which i say too long ago you know even if bad stuff happened that's not who anybody is today did he ever apologize to those young men did he ever apologize to anybody it
president trump wasn't apologize and and he simply neglected to apologize whenever black people were you you can put that in your confirmation bias to mean something and it probably would but if he's a person who doesn't who doesn't apologize he's saying that hillary clinton said black people should heal and called them super predators to which i say same standard that was more than twenty years ago i'm pretty sure and i would hold her to the same standard which is people people settle a lot of screwed up things along time ago but we're trying to get better that's the point you know you see me on here some of you with my buddy hawk newsome whose in black lives matter
now if i were to judge him by any mistakes that he's admitted to you know just the mistakes he's admitted to from his his past i could not be his friend and i couldn't talk to him i couldn't have a productive conversation with him but i don't i don't i don't judge people by who they were and i wouldn't want to be judged by who i was i would prefer to be judged by you she said the blower moles in twenty sixteen yeah so the deplorable comment was current and you you could rightfully put more weight on that i think
all right i'm just looking at your comments right now give me a sense was this useful do you think it would help you find any cognitive dissonance in in the wild look for the look for the word salad when you when when somebody is good at speaking and normally they can be clear and concise but in this moment they can't that's a people like so what i'm going to be doing maybe it'll be a chapter i'm updating win bigly my book so when the paperback comes out will have a bonus chapter in it and i think i'm going to go through each of the whack amole examples of why the president is
horrible person and just so that there's one place that you can link to or point to and say alright yes i hear you're sixteen examples here are the sixteen reasons why this is confirmation bias i will tell you that it will be more entertaining than persuasive because you can't get out of the trap that there are so many of them right that statement but there are so many of them that that is an inescapable trap for the people so if there were young twenty five examples of people holding their head of the thing with the bad things president trump said and if i do bump all twenty five of them at the end of it do you think they would say well that was pretty good i didn't think that could happen but there it was right i had twenty five reasons that you just showed me that all twenty five are objectively not what i
they were i'm i'm done with that nobody will say that people and people are not wired why they will say yeah but what about number twelve and you'll say were you listening we already covered number twelve i already how do you why that's not real and they'll say number twelve what about seven just talked about seven hundred we just talked about it i just showed you it was taken out of context you agreed you grade in their personal say sure seven right but what about all the other ones we just talked about all of them we just talked about every single one on the list not listening to maine and the person will say i love your pretzel logic keep twisting yourself into a pretzel scott
to explain all this why don't you just stop over thinking it that's what you're gonna so at least you'll know when who won the argument you won't change many minds if any but you'll have fun doing it how do you change the minds you don't really i don't you can change any minds by talking about the details it's just fun and useful and i think it should be documented all in one place so i'm going to do but primarily for interest in education and entertainment i'm to change people's minds oddly you would probably have to work on something that had nothing to do with the topic in other words if the president simply went onto two successful terms in which he just did a good job and everybody was happy about it
eventually people would say you know that whole racism thing maybe that was a little overblown if you work on it directly and say here's my here's my example and you know i refute it and debunk this you can't get very far but if you their general opinion of the person they will rewrite their own history all right this is sort of an important concept that i said quickly so i'm going to say it again if you're trying to change people's minds who decided that the president's a giant racist talking about their actual examples of why they think it probably will never change their mind they will just be in this cognitive dissonance confirmation bias bubble and they can't get out but if he can on his own through his good president ng let's say he just hypothetically let's say
yeah denuclearized n korea the economy was the best it's ever banned these are possible i'm not saying that either these will actually happen but we're on the cusp of all this being pasa and let's say this is far less likely it let's say you got some kind of a good result with iran in the middle east the end of eight years the people been calling him a racist right here's would maybe not have as many reasons that are current it would start to sound like its aging stuff and they would themselves into rewriting their own memory of how racist he was because they want to like him because he did all these good things hypothetically all right somebody saying one williams has the worst confirmation bias i've ever seen well
you can't really judge the apps you talk about one williams who appears on the five on fox news and and they use him ponder things around in other places and writer uhm i would say this i'm going to give one williams a compliment and it's a pretty big one no i would say i don't agree with him too often on on his opinions but he is paid to be the sort of loyal opposition i mean his his job is to be the the contrarian the more left leaning person on on the table so we it's kind of his job to always disagree and that's not always going to be
on accord right so it's hard to sort out what is he really believe verses one is his job you know doing the best job to present the other side of the the issue there's a little bit different so here's my compliment one of talk about this a lot hello ego if people think that their ego is who they are that's a loser strategy but if you think of your ego is just a tool that you can ramp up and ramp down when you need it just whenever it's useful then you have sort of a super power one williams is a perfect example that love or hate what he says lover his opinions but here's what we can say for sure he takes a job in which is very he's very well paid the site is sort of a dream job you know you probably read some articles and shows up for an hour and goes home i mean it's a pretty darn good job in
and the reason he can do that is that it seems to maine yeah i'm not inside his head but it seems to me he uses ego like a tool if he was does he go he wouldn't do that job if he said who i am you know is i can't be sitting with these people who have these other opinions you know i can't be sitting here being mocked by people who i disagree with and sometimes they're even wrong it would be a horrible situation and you would give up the easy best money you ever had because of your ego what does one do here's my compliment he is operating at a higher level he is clearly comfortable in the abuse he is comfortable when he's on the offense he's comfortable
the defense have you ever see them look uncomfortable you don't because apparently his ego is a tool it's not something the controls that gave them a super power and you can see that so easily that he's he's use that capability to use to great effect we talk about the spy in the trump campaign well you know there's not much complexity to that story and there's not much fun about it meaning that if we don't know who it is there's not much you can say except that it was there and and i'm not sure we should know who it is because there's a pretty good there's a good argument that says you can't give up your sources because i
don't get sources so i think there's a reasonable argument on both sides that makes it not interesting but what what a wall if you say about the i'd say the proposition that we now know what happened and this is one version of that of the fence i think this is the judge nepal akon i think this might be his version well let's just say as my room because some other people have this version that brennan clapper in komi and you know strock etcetera were involved in the an actual effort to to either prevent trump from getting elected to work to remove and once it was selected and that they work with both british assets and russian assets to try to make
happen do you do all of you watching this believe that that is now fact that there was something that looked very much like i don't know what the legal word would be i i think it's not technically treason because you have to be a war to activate treason but a conspiracy yeah so yeah what little the people who are saying yes a conspiracy yeah i think treason is a technical words the requires you to be in a state of war and that that reason would have to be on behalf of the enemy they are at war with so to the extent that they did not let's say collude with n korea or isis or something it's not treason technically uh yeah now i would here's the fascinating
most of you are consumers of news from the right probably i'm guessing that the majority of you watching this periscope or fox news breitbart type consumers and less and msnbc consumers but i'll bet if you asked the people who all believe that trump was in on this collusion thing with russia about if you ask them right now that would be almost know where this thing that you all consider to be true i don't know that's true but i'll if you just stopped a tip all will say hillary voter and said what do you think about the fact that we don't know i don't know if we know this but the the proposition is
brendan clavering call me we're all in on it and it was a conspiracy to try to you know overthrow the governments through through these weasel means if you said to the typical clinton voter that that's now let's say that these are facts in the public domain what would they say i mean that's a real question what would they say because i don't know if i i've encountered anybody who is sort of in that bubble and presented them with that argument said ok you know that this is now demonstrated fact right that these guys were all in on the thing and it's pretty obviously made up the duck the dow saying that you know the were some shenanigans to try to initiate a legal there were some some weasel methods to initiate a legal process which could have kicked up some crimes because it's easy to make anybody look like a criminal
yeah i don't think that they've even heard the story of you it i've as much as i've sampled i sample cnn more than msnbc but as much as i've sampled have you ever seen this story on cnn yeah it's a it's a whole different world right i don't think they know the story clapper said that they did it to protect trump from russia uh yeah so i'd love to see that happen i'd love to see a i want to see the interview on the street in which somebody puts the microphone in front of the hillary supporters
so what do you what do you make of the news that you know clapper in bradenton call me were all in on this thing why would they say what they say who i think they say that one when they say who i don't think they know anything about the story yes some you're saying that even we can't so that's true so part of the problem is that if you asked me to explain it in enough detail somebody really wanted to understand it and all this detail i don't know we can do it because because of the legal stuff there all these gaps in my knowledge where all right and then somebody did something because this would spark somebody to do something else in the legal domain and i'm thinking well maybe i don't know is that the way it works so i'm not not entirely sure
that i could explain it all well i'm i am entirely sure that i can't explain it all let's put it that way yeah it's kind of amazing that both of brandon and clapper are being paid time that works it is hard to believe that they're still being paid but i guess it would be embarrassing to you know actually that's interesting if if either of those two just stopped appearing people would ask why hey you why did you stop paying those two guys was our story
anything we need to know all right yeah i read andrew mccarthy is and he does a great job of explaining it is just that if you're not a lawyer and you're not immersed in the details it would be hard to read it and then reproduce it for anybody else in a meaningful way now list let's be fair here okay so let's let me be at least attempt to be unbiased so what i've said about bread perrin and looks to you like i don't know behavior that is unambiguously a conspiracy i will tell you that based on what i've seen it does look exactly like a conspiracy but do you know what else looks exactly like a conspiracy a bunch of coincidences
and some confirmation bias and a few things taken out of context subpatterns i imagine some shenanigans for people who are on my side you know convincing maine so it is true that the pattern looks very clear to us is it therefore also true that it's true um can tell you really can't tell i would say this point you know it in a world where you can see the people you don't agree with believing things that are ridiculous if you believe that that only applies to other people then you don't understand how any of this works these are universal truths were were all susceptible to exactly the same your mental pitfalls
as a matter of informed you are doesn't matter how smart you are doesn't matter how much you know about persuasion you you can be suckered in just as easily can you will meet hide the mic cable under my shirt you know the only reason i don't is because of length 'cause i'm connected way over there to my ipad and if it's under my shirt i can't move as far so there's a reason for all right that's all i got to say for today and i am and here for now and i'll talk to you later
Transcript generated on 2019-11-14.