#87 — Triggered

Today I am speaking to Scott Adams. Scott was the most requested defender of our commander in chief. He quite happily was willing to come on the podcast, and we had a.

Very civil and enjoyable conversation.

If anyone was triggered, it was me. Scott certainly sounded like the meditator. I am perpetually triggered by our president, but I really enjoyed it, and I'll let you be the judge of whether Scott answered all the questions I put to him. I think there were moments where he.

Might have hypnotized me, and I just.

Moved on to other topics.

But anyway, thank you, Scott, for coming on.

It was a worthy experiment to try to talk about all this. Scott, if you don't know him, though many of you surely do, is the creator of Dilbert, one of the most popular comic strips of all time, and he's done this full time since 1995. Before that, he worked for 16 years at various companies from which he has mined all this material for Dilbert, and he's written bestselling books about Dilbert. His cartoons have been wrapped up, but he's also written a book that I.

Have been reading, which we really didn't.

Talk about at all in this interview, how to fail at almost everything and still win big.

And this is a book that is.

Filled with life advice, and it is good advice insofar as I've read it thus far. And he has another book coming out.

Which really is the substance of our conversation.

But that book is not out yet.

It'll be out in October. You can pre order it on Amazon. The title is win bigly persuasion in a world where facts don't matter, and Scott and I gave it a good hard try to converge on questions about persuasion with respect to Trump and just how much facts matter. We probably have a different view of some crucial facts. I think we care about things, or at least weight our preferences a little differently here. It's hard for me to explain honestly how we still see the situation as differently as we appear to. But this really was an attempt on my part to see the world through the eyes of someone who is a Trump supporter, at least to the degree that Scott is. And again, even that isn't totally clear to me. I may have been hypnotized, Scott. So listen, this was fun, and I hope you enjoy it. I now give you Scott Adams.

I am here with Scott Adams.

Scott, thanks for coming on the podcast.

Thank you for having me.

Now, you are a very interesting guy who has written a very interesting book.

That I will have properly described in the intro to the show.

And I'll link to it on my website, obviously, and people can get it there. We're not really going to get into.

Your life or your other work unless.

It becomes relevant to the political discussion we're planning to have. But I'll just tell our listeners that I've been reading your book. The title is how to fail at almost everything and still win big.

And it's very interesting, it's very useful and surprising, and our conversation will not.

Do it justice at all today.

But I encourage people to get the book because you give a lot of.

Good advice about how to get what you want out of life.

I haven't finished it yet, but thus.

Far, it's advice that I agree with.

I just want to heap some praise on you before we move on to other topics.

Thank you. Let me just put some context on that. The book you're talking about is essentially how to program yourself to be more.

Successful in whatever way you want.

But the new one that's already available.

For pre order is about how to persuade other people. It's called win bigly, and it'll be out in October.

Oh, cool. So now that is a book I'm.

Sure we will be getting some preview of in this conversation because that obviously relates to what we're going to be.

Talking about, and I'll put a link to that as well on my blog.

Okay, so let me just set up this conversation so that everyone understands the context.

As our listeners will be quite aware. I've been attacking Trump, really since before the election, so it's safe to say I'm not a fan.

I'm sure I'll have some more impertinent.

Things to say about El presidente over the course of this next hour, but.

I've encountered a fair amount of criticism.

From people in my audience who like.

Trump, or at the very least, feel.

That he was the best choice we.

Had for president in 2016.

And many of these people have been.

Complaining that I've created an echo chamber here on the podcast because I've only.

Been talking to Trump's detractors, and I.

Certainly can see how they might think that.

Although I've pointed out that the people I've been speaking with who criticize Trump have been Republicans for the most part.

So the idea that these conversations have.

Been an expression of political partisanship doesn't make any sense.

There's really zero partisanship coming from someone.

Like David Fromm or Anne Applebaum, or.

Me, for that matter, on this topic.

Because, for instance, none of what I've.

Said about Trump would apply to Mitt Romney.

And I've also never been shy about pointing out all the terrible things about Hillary Clinton.

So if it's been an echo chamber.

It hasn't been a left wing one.

But in the meantime, I've been asking.

Trump supporters for months who I should bring on the podcast to represent the.

Other side of the story and to help me recover from this much diagnosed.

Trump derangement syndrome, which many people say.

I have, and I appear to have a whopping case of it.

And you are the person who has been most often recommended to me.

So I just would congratulate you on that score.

Well, thank you. There's a lot of pressure on me.

But okay, I want to say one.

Other thing at the outset, just to.

Set the table here, because I've been.

Seeing a few crazy comments online from.

Obviously, Trump supporters anticipating this podcast and.

Wondering whether or not I would be fair to you.

And so I just want to tell you how I view conversations like this.

And also tell our listeners, and I'm.

Telling you now, something that I tell.

Most of our guests.

I don't think I've ever left it in an interview.

And this is certainly something I tell.

Any guest with whom I'm likely to disagree. I don't do gotcha interviews. My goal is never to get you.

To say something that makes you look bad.

In fact, if at any point in.

This conversation you put your foot in.

Your mouth or I put my foot.

In there, you should feel free to.

Take it out, and we'll cut that part out.

And this could apply to a whole section of the conversation.

So if we get onto a topic for five minutes, and then you say.

At the end, you know what, that whole bit we just did on racism.

Or whatever, I'm worried about how that's.

Going to make me look.

Well, then we will just cut it so we can edit as we go.

If need be, because my goal is.

Always, and again, this doesn't just apply to you, this applies to anyone who.

Comes on this podcast.

My goal is always to be dealing.

With the best version of the other person's case. I want you to be happy with.

What you've said on the podcast. So this is the opposite of a.

Gotcha interview, and I don't think many people understand that.

And having been on the other side.

Of literally hundreds of interviews at this.

Point, as I know you have, I think we both can say that almost.

No one operates this way.

Journalists deliberately don't, because they want to.

Reserve the right to catch you saying something embarrassing.

It's a completely perverse ethic that seems.

To have been enshrined in journalism, where.

If you say something is off the.

Record before you say it, well, then they will generally keep it off the record. But if you say that about something.

You regret saying just 2 seconds ago.

Something that didn't come out right, then.

They won't let you take it off.

The record after the fact. This has always struck me as a.

Less than ethical way to deal with.

People and their ideas.

Yeah, I agree. But wouldn't worry about me, because like.

You, I've done a few of these.

Yeah, I just want you to know that, and I want our listeners to know that. I guess the other thing I should say set up, is that while I.

Think you and I will disagree about.

A lot here, I don't view this as a debate.

I mean, I consider myself genuinely persuadable on certain points and genuinely ignorant of other points. Now, it's true that there's some things.

Where I don't really see how you.

Could conceivably change my mind.

I mean, if you're going to argue.

That Trump doesn't lie, for instance, that's going to be a very difficult thing to sell to me.

But I genuinely count myself ignorant of.

How people find him appealing.

So I view part of your job.

In this conversation as really educating me on how that is possible. I guess, to start, what I'd like.

To do is just to have you.

Clearly