[Link] Salon piece analyzing Donald Trump's appeal using rationality

I like, especially given that the article is in left-wing Salon, that you didn't feel the need to signal that Trump is evil. This article manages to avoid the normal mind-kill of politics.

I start twitching when emphatic statements are made about the motivations of large numbers of people. How can you check on whether you're right?

This being said, Sanders is also appealing to anger and fear, and both candidates are also appealing to hope.

the elite are against it while everyone else is for it

You're living in a filter bubble if you think this.

Do you think Salon would publish a piece about how to check on what you read?

This comment was -3 karma last time I looked. Now, it's +6. Given its extremist language, I decided to look up this account. Having looked at the history of this account, I'm pretty since it's another Eugene Neir sock puppet. Hope you had fun voting down this post, Eugene Neir - reported to the admin.

You seem to be making the same points Scott Adams has been making since last August. I'm surprised you didn't quote or link his blog.

Also, the problem with all the pieces that focus on Trump's style is that they completely ignore his substance. Trump's position on immigration is only "controversial" in the sense that the elite are against it while everyone else is for it. Thus it's not surprising that Trump is doing well. In fact looking at other western countries we see parties with similar positions doing well despite having styles that are all over the place.

Original thread here.

everyone else is for it

Evidence?

Well, the "rationality" of the piece is rather dubious. For example consider your description of the "backfire effect":

For instance, Mitt Romney condemned Trump as a “phony” and “fraud” shortly before the March 15 primaries. This type of attack only strengthens the emotional desire to vote for Trump among anti-establishment voters by triggering a thinking error called the backfire effect — a tendency for our beliefs to grow stronger when they are challenged by contradictory evidence.

Except Romney wasn't presenting evidence, he was making an assertion. And in a lot of circumstances it is perfectly rational to update away from assertions.

More generally, in a lot of cases you describe acting on fear as irrational even though the fear in question is perfectly rational.

Original thread here.

Why isn't this thread in the outreach thread?

And given the grammar and back history of this user, I'm pretty since it's another Eugene Neir sock puppet. Also reported to the admin.

I'm glad we can agree that it's evidence, and that's the sense in which I was using it

I'm confused about your definition of evidence. Romney was presenting evidence of his viewpoint on Trump, and was expecting voters to trust his viewpoint as it was evidence of what a mainstream prominent Republican thought about Trump. How is that not evidence?