Did John Oliver elect Trump?

Standard

I used to love John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight show. I used to share every episode of it. I used to be a big fan.

But the more the 2016 US Presidential election approached, the more John Oliver was dissing Donald Trump. The more he criticized, caricatured and stigmatized the Republican candidate. The more he described him as unreliable, stupid and dangerous.

Was he right? I do not know. And I do not care. Whether this description is relevant is not the focus of this blog post.

Instead, what I shall argue is that it is precisely this stigmatization of Trump that indirectly made Trump popular. John Oliver’s criticisms did not damage Trump’s campaign; they fed it. The more Trump became hated by the Democrats, the more Republicans defended him, and the more these Republicans successfully rallied the swing votes. To the point where, in the end, Trump might have won the election thanks to the vicious circle that John Oliver bootstrapped.

Yesterday, I released a video on my (French) YouTube channel entitled “Dear Conviction, mutate into a viral infection”. The video anthropomorphizes a conviction and explains the mechanisms that will help it become viral.

The ideas presented in the video are not new. They had been researched by empirical psychology and sociology, and brilliantly presented by CGP Grey.

According to this analysis, convictions are like viruses or germs that are transmitted through metaphorical sneezes: speeches, tweets, videos and other web medias. As a result, and especially in the modern age where sneezes are more contagious than ever before, popular convictions are not convincing convictions. Popular convictions are convictions that get people sneezing.

Yet, you can easily get people riled up by sneezing at them ideas they strongly disagree with. In fact, it is precisely when being sneezed at by such enraging ideas that people will be sneezing their own convictions with the greatest virulence. In other words, if you want to get people strongly engaged in a cause, the best way to go seems to be to show them why the opposite side is deeply biased, wrong, stupid and dangerous.

But beware, as your side grows, so will the other side. In fact, if your side is itself irrationally biased — which, let’s face it, is almost always the case — then the other side will easily collect plenty of reasons to regard your side as deeply wrong, stupid and dangerous.

From this point on, the louder side will no longer be the side whose convictions is most empirically justified or scientifically based. The louder side will be the angrier side.

Now, you might argue that we live in democracy and, as a result, the angrier side need not be the winning side. The winning side should be the larger side. But perhaps the key figure to understand how the angrier side can now become the winning side is turnout. Turnout for the 2016 US Presidential election was, according to Wikipedia, 55%. Most voters did not vote. Only angrier voters did, as well as those that got hooked by angrier voters.

While John Oliver definitely successfully made Democrat voters angry, I would argue that he made Republican voters angrier. If you are a Democrat, you might not have felt it. But his mocking jokes are incredibly violent. He has made Republicans angrier than any other Democrat could have.

So, to sum up, democracy requires a larger side (plus or minus electoral college voting weirdness). But in the context of low turnout, the larger side were to be the angrier side. Yet, John Oliver mostly made Trump’s side the angrier side. Thus, it seems to me that John Oliver favored Trump’s election.

I certainly have my own bias concerning Trump (which I’m sure you’ll easily guess). But the point of this post is not about how to favor your favorite candidate or how to oppose your least-favorite one. The point of this post is to stress the counter-intuitive consequences of (poor) arguing. Mocking, stigmatizing and caricaturing a conviction is actually likely to promote it. This holds for sharing mocking, stigmatizing and caricaturing web medias as well. And more generally, such arguing techniques only increase an already increasing ideological segregation (see Are American More Divided Than Ever).

Needless to say that, since I made this observation, I have stopped sharing John Oliver’s content. It is perhaps time we promote other styles of communication.

Advertisements

Are astronauts weightless? Einstein’s happiest thought | Science4All 14

Standard

Finally, here was my first video on general relativity per se. And it starts with a basic but incredibly deep question: Are astronauts weightless? Pondering similar questions (there were no astronauts back then) would lead Einstein to the happiest thought of his life… and for good reasons. It might be the most dramatic thought (in physics) I’ve ever encountered!

Despite a few technical issues and the smallness of the number of views, I still regard this video as my best one yet. Please let me know what you think 😛

Between Two Stools

Standard

Innovation lies at the interfaces of disconnected fields. Everyone knows that. And you might think that the world of scientific research is the ideal location for such an innovation. Well, from my (young) experience, interdisciplinarity is mainly an empty intergalactic void, far from any of the gigantic clusters of research groups. 

I’m feeling down. My first research paper doesn’t seem to fit anywhere. Operations Research has rejected it, claiming that it should be Games and Economic Behavior paper. But game theorists argue that it belongs to operations research. Meanwhile, Mathematics of OR asserts a lack of mathematics, and Management Science affirms an insufficiency of applications. Weirdly, no one criticizes the quality. But all disapprove the relevancy for their own journals.

So far, I do not feel at the interface of anything. I’m feeling like falling between two stools.

Ma Thèse en 180 Secondes

Video

Cette vidéo est celle de ma présentation au concours “Votre Soutenance en 180 Secondes” organisée par l’ACFAS en 2013. Allez voir mon profil sur leur site !

Vous pouvez en savoir plus sur ma thèse en lisant mes articles Science4All sur la théorie des jeux, la conception de mécanisme et sur la définition de l’équité. En attendant les articles Science4All qui seront plus directement liés à ma thèse, mais qui ne sortiront malheureusement pas tant que je n’aurai pas publié dans les revues mathématiques !

My First Post

Standard

Hey guys,

I’m currently travelling alone across Indonesia. This country is wonderful, and I have so much to tell you about it! Also, I’ve just been to the very interesting BtSM2013 colloquium, where I learned so much about… learning! So, in a moment of loneliness in one of the long bus trips I’ve had, I’ve decided to launch this new blog to share these adventures and ideas with you guys!

As opposed to what I do on Science4All, we’ll be having a more informal conversation. Plus, I won’t have to restrict myself to explaining some deep fundamental theory at the root of maths and science!

I’m going to be writing more as it comes to my mind, kind of like what Derek Müller does on his second channel 2Veritasium. The bright side is that it’s going to be much easier for me. The downside is that there weren’t be as much quality.

In fact, this blog is going to be a bit messy, as I’ll talk about anything that comes to my mind, from travelling and sports to thoughts about education or the fundamental nature of mankind. If you guys really like it, I’ll eventually try to structure it more.

Best wishes,
Lê.