Wrong. I describe the world the way it has always been and will always be. There is nothing to promote and nothing to undermine. It simply is.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
You're sounding more and more like a cult leader.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @TomBlenn
Everything I say about humans understanding reality is science-based. You're arguing for facts while ignoring what science knows about human perception.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
And you're arguing perception while ignoring facts or - worse - insisting that facts are unimportant, optional, mere ephemera, and always ultimately unknowable. That is the worldview you propagate, and it is, as Arendt, points out it's the path to hell.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @TomBlenn
Wrong. I argue that facts obviously matter to outcomes but people generally ignore facts when making decisions. You're ignoring the facts right now, and the outcome is that you embarrassed yourself in public. And now you will experience cognitive dissonance and start babbling.
6 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
No, sometimes you argue that facts don't matter for human decision making (obvs true) and then, like a slippery charlatan, you slide into giving your followers arguments that allow them to continue to believe whatever they like *no matter what the facts are*.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @TomBlenn
There's that cognitive dissonance I predicted. You're in full hallucination now.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
But we both know that would be your response no matter what the reply, right? It's a cheap trick, Scott. I know it always goes down well with your acolytes, but it looks tacky to anyone you haven't already convinced of your superhuman powers.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @TomBlenn @ScottAdamsSays
Tom what do you think of the hypothesis that humans mostly make our decisions with System 1, and then rationalize those decisions with System 2?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @uralwaysable @ScottAdamsSays
I think it's well supported. Scott's recent success has been due to his ability to provide Trump supporters with the reasonable-sounding (though spurious) rationalisations they need in order not to sound like morons. "cognitive dissonance" etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
False. Read Win Bigly to see how I used prediction instead of back-fitting data to avoid this precise attack.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @uralwaysable
You have failed to persuade me to read your book. I know enough about mentalism and cold-calling to see how most of your "predictions" work. Confirmation bias among your followers does the rest of the work for you. It's not very impressive to anyone outside of your bubble.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.