I followed Clot Adams in 2016 and he was one of the few pundits that were saying that Trump would win. He cowardly said he was voting for Hillary because the backlash in California would hurt his business and social relations. However, I could be wrong but vaguely recall that he said he was getting death threats so I gave him a pass on that.
He billed himself as an expert on "persuasion" and he did have great analysis on how Trump would manuever his opponents into untenable positions or embarassment so it was a fun read and made me realize that Trump is not a "normal" politician. One of the best insights I learned from Adams was on how Trump was the master at "shaking the box". When some political or social issue was gridlocked (for years or even decades) and all interested parties were locked into their "corner" Trump would do something crazy, out of the blue or left field to shake things up and give him room to manuever and negotiate a solution. Of course, Trump still uses that technique to this day and if I didn't know that trick I might think Trump was a crazy dictator that is going take over the world, the oil and kill all the immigrants.
I drifted away from Adam's podcast after the election and briefly went back to see what he thought about Covid. Sadly, he took the mainstream view, trusted the "science" and got the vax. I was seeing better arguments and discussion on 4chan. He eventually admitted that the anti-vax position was correct, saying it was an "unqualified" win and that he was wrong. However, he qualified it later by saying the anti-vaxers were "lucky" or "accidently right" and other BS which is dishonest. His view of debate is too tied to his ego and "being right". In any debate, if someone shows you are "wrong" you still win because you learn and can change your thinking. To Adams a debate is like a football game, zero-sum (i.e. for me to win you must lose) , not discussing and discovering truth and is a warped worldview in my opinion.
WE all lost and are losing people we love. The choice not to take the vaccine for me was not heuristics though. It was based on the studies e.g. not looking at transmission among other things, and pattern recognition.
Agree. Adam's "heuristics" claim was just another cheap shot at those who got it right. As I said, I think he was dishonest. I also think he was a mid-wit and not as smart as he thought he was.
Going forward the danger is not just people dying from cancer, etc. but also the psychological damage it did to a couple of generations. Before covid when I'd go for a walk in my neighborhood I'd wave and chat with people along the way, especially kids or young teens. Now the kids are all shy and afraid of others. This will be a serious problem down the road and it won't show up in any stats. I don't think there is or will be a fix because in my opinion psychology isn't even really a science yet.
I followed Clot Adams in 2016 and he was one of the few pundits that were saying that Trump would win. He cowardly said he was voting for Hillary because the backlash in California would hurt his business and social relations. However, I could be wrong but vaguely recall that he said he was getting death threats so I gave him a pass on that.
He billed himself as an expert on "persuasion" and he did have great analysis on how Trump would manuever his opponents into untenable positions or embarassment so it was a fun read and made me realize that Trump is not a "normal" politician. One of the best insights I learned from Adams was on how Trump was the master at "shaking the box". When some political or social issue was gridlocked (for years or even decades) and all interested parties were locked into their "corner" Trump would do something crazy, out of the blue or left field to shake things up and give him room to manuever and negotiate a solution. Of course, Trump still uses that technique to this day and if I didn't know that trick I might think Trump was a crazy dictator that is going take over the world, the oil and kill all the immigrants.
I drifted away from Adam's podcast after the election and briefly went back to see what he thought about Covid. Sadly, he took the mainstream view, trusted the "science" and got the vax. I was seeing better arguments and discussion on 4chan. He eventually admitted that the anti-vax position was correct, saying it was an "unqualified" win and that he was wrong. However, he qualified it later by saying the anti-vaxers were "lucky" or "accidently right" and other BS which is dishonest. His view of debate is too tied to his ego and "being right". In any debate, if someone shows you are "wrong" you still win because you learn and can change your thinking. To Adams a debate is like a football game, zero-sum (i.e. for me to win you must lose) , not discussing and discovering truth and is a warped worldview in my opinion.
WE all lost and are losing people we love. The choice not to take the vaccine for me was not heuristics though. It was based on the studies e.g. not looking at transmission among other things, and pattern recognition.
Agree. Adam's "heuristics" claim was just another cheap shot at those who got it right. As I said, I think he was dishonest. I also think he was a mid-wit and not as smart as he thought he was.
Going forward the danger is not just people dying from cancer, etc. but also the psychological damage it did to a couple of generations. Before covid when I'd go for a walk in my neighborhood I'd wave and chat with people along the way, especially kids or young teens. Now the kids are all shy and afraid of others. This will be a serious problem down the road and it won't show up in any stats. I don't think there is or will be a fix because in my opinion psychology isn't even really a science yet.