Discover more from Wonkette
Dilbert Guy Scott Adams Knows Sexy, And Donald Trump Is One Sexy Mofo
Adams has actually not endorsed Trump. His readers love the bastard
Let's get one thing out of the way: Scott Adams, the annoying libertarian MRA creator of Dilbert, is not on the Trump Train. He "disavowed" Trump back in February, if only to avoid the "splatter zone" of backlash to Trump's popularity with white supremacists, even if Trump had disavowed them, sort of, maybe, sometimes, he's not sure. Adams also thinks Trump's "pro-life" position is unjustifiable, and that nobody without a womb gets a say on abortion. He's also called Trump a "con man." Oh, but there are things about Trump Adams admires, too -- like maybe he's not so much a con man as a "Master Persuader."
Scott Adams also has some notoriously weird ideas about women and sex, and how America is a matriarchy and something something Red Pill, I guess.
So now, he's aimed his powerful Thinking Parts at the question of attractiveness and power, and has Thoughts about "Power, Persuasion, and Attractiveness." And he would just like his readers to know they think they are very attractive. That's why he did what he readily admits is a completely meaningless Twitter poll, because he knows his readers "are mostly pro-Trump, and male":
Ah, but here's the really important insight:
These two surveys are statistically meaningless, but I’m willing to bet that a scientific poll of this type would show the same order of results, with Trump at the top. That doesn’t mean Trump supporters are actually more attractive. It just means you have been persuaded to think so, probably by a variety of factors.
We like his scientific rigor here. But now he wants you to do some thought experimenting: Imagine a typical male Trump supporter, and a typical male Hillary supporter. Do you think you can do that? Scott Adams will help you, just in case!
He’s wearing a red Trump hat and he’s being interviewed on camera by a reporter. Now hold whatever image you have in your head for that person. All you know is that he is male, a Trump supporter, and he is wearing a Trump hat. Hold that thought.
Now imagine a male Clinton supporter. He isn’t wearing a Trump hat, so fill in that person’s clothing in your mind. All you know is that he supports Clinton. He too is being interviewed by a reporter.
Then we get to the really important part of the thought experiment: Imagine the two next to each other. Are you imagining that? "Now here’s my question: If those two men were to get into a fight, who would win?" Oooh, ooh, we know! The Trump supporter would win, because he is Manly, or perhaps because he is more prone to violence, or because the Hillary supporter would start crying and wet his pants, because liberals are wimps.
Actually, Yr Dok Zoom is a Bernie supporter, and he would stare back at Scott Adams and ask why the fuck we're supposed to be fighting. What's my motivation here? Yr Dok Zoom is a Method thought experimenter. Then Yr Dok Zoom would demand a donation of twenty-seven dollars and ride away on his powerful imaginary Webley-Vickers motorcycle.
Now to Scott Adams's brilliant manly analysis!
Most of you said the Trump supporter would win. That’s because you are reading this blog, and a lot of Trump supporters come here. But my educated guess is that persuasion is also at work. Trump’s language and imagery is all “big and beautiful and great.” His buildings are big and powerful. Trump is a big guy in a power suit wearing powerful clothing. He projects power, intentionally.
Clinton is more about fighting for the weaker members of society. Even her logo looks like a sign pointing to a hospital.
Oh, that is very deep! Or maybe it is meant to call to mind a helicopter landing pad! Adams has been pondering this quite a bit, and explains the deep evolutionary psychology at work here, as if evolutionary psychology were anything more than a pretend scientific framework for confirming ingrained cultural biases:
Attractiveness and power are correlated in our minds. Trump is creating a brand around power while Clinton’s brand is more about helping the disadvantaged of society. My best guess, as a trained persuader, is that each candidate’s branding leaks into your biased opinion of what the supporters of each candidate actually look like.
Look, Scott Adams is a trained persuader, and he knows this shit. Strangely, though, when we think of Trump supporters, we tend to get a mental image of angry white people screaming at and shoving a black lady as if she were trying to attend Little Rock High School in 1957:
But maybe that's just us. In any case, trained persuader Scott Adams wants to point out that all of this is just some bullshit mental noodling around:
Just to be clear, I doubt there is any real difference in the attractiveness of voters who support various candidates. My point is that people have been persuaded to think there is a difference.
There is no difference. You have been persuaded to think there's a difference, and I have provided a whole lot of words about powerful Trump supporters and wimpy weak Hillary supporters, but there's no real difference. Isn't the world a funny old place when viewed through the eyes of a trained persuader?
We are at least persuaded that Scott Adams is capable of persuading many of his readers that he has deep thoughts about brain things. Also, how about those hot anime and furry chicks who dig Trump? Hubba Hubba.
[ Scott Adams blog ]