When Donald Trump visited the CIA over the weekend to make a speech, many commentators noted that his audience clapped and cheered enthusiastically. Now, according to CBS News, intelligence sources are pushing back:
Authorities are also pushing back against the perception that the CIA workforce was cheering for the president. They say the first three rows in front of the president were largely made up of supporters of Mr. Trump’s campaign. An official with knowledge of the make-up of the crowd says that there were about 40 people who’d been invited by Trump, Mike Pence and Rep. Mike Pompeo teams. The Trump team expected Rep. Pompeo, R-Kansas, to be sworn in during the event as the next CIA director, but the vote to confirm him was delayed on Friday by Senate Democrats. Also sitting in the first several rows in front of the president was the CIA’s senior leadership, which was not cheering the remarks.
Still, as CBS notes, some of the CIA employees who turned up at the speech were probably real Trump supporters; they had to come into their workplace on the weekend to see him, which suggests that some at least were real fans.
So was this real applause, or was it fake? If the applause was, as it appears to have been, partly engineered, the difference is less important than you might think.
This isn’t the first time Trump has done this
This isn’t the first time that Trump has engineered applause. When he first announced his candidacy, he got wild cheers — from actors who had been paid to applaud him (Trump then stiffed the company that hired them for four months). When he gave his first news conference as president, he filled the back of the room with aides to cheer for him, and jeer at the journalists he was attacking.
There’s a specialist term for rent-a-clappers
Trump is actually reviving a very old tradition — the tradition of the claque. A claque is a group of people whose job is to generate applause. In the description of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, a claque is:
an organized body of professional applauders in the French theatres. The hiring of persons to applaud dramatic performances was common in classical times, and the emperor Nero, when he acted, had his performance greeted by an encomium chanted by five thousand of his soldiers. … The recollection of this gave the 16th-century French poet, Jean Daurat, an idea which has developed into the modern claque. … There are commissaires, those who learn the piece by heart, and call the attention of their neighbours to its good points between the acts. The rieurs are those who laugh loudly at the jokes. The pleureurs, generally women, feign tears, by holding their handerkerchiefs to their eyes. The chatouilleurs keep the audience in in a good humour, while the bisseurs simply clap their hands and cry bis! bis! to secure encores.
Trump, probably without knowing about the historical precedent, has revived this old tradition.
To understand how claques work, look at bee swarms
Obviously, the claque is usually far smaller than the audience that it is supposed to manipulate. So how can it be effective? The answer has to do with social influence. Scott Page, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, describes how simple systems of social influence (such as standing ovations or bee swarms) produce collective outcomes in his book “Diversity and Complexity” (see here if you want to play around with his models). For example, when bees swarm to attack an intruder, they are influenced by pheromones — chemicals that bees spread through the air to communicate. When a bee attacks an intruder, it starts to diffuse a pheromone that communicates the presence of a threat to other bees, perhaps causing them to attack. Different individual bees might have different “thresholds” — meaning that some will react when there is only a small amount of pheromones in the air, and others require a relatively large amount of pheromone before they attack.
This then means that bee swarms against intruders are shaped by social influence. Initially, perhaps only a small number of bees, who see the intruder, attack. If they spread pheromones, then other bees, which only need a small amount of pheromones to be triggered, may attack too. As they add more pheromones to the air, this can create a kind of cascade effect, in which more bees keep attacking, producing more pheromones, which in turn trigger more bees. However, it is also possible that the bee swarm will taper off. When you start to play around with the mathematical models underlying this kind of behavior, it becomes clear that even relatively simple models can produce complex outcomes, in which tiny changes in starting conditions can have vast consequences for results.
Audiences are more like bee swarms than we might like to think
This kind of system of complex social influence explains how audiences respond to speeches and plays. Typically, when we decide to clap or cheer, or to sit down and remain silent, we are not only thinking about our own reaction to the speaker. We are also thinking about how those around us are reacting, and are likely to react. If you are the only person in the audience giving a standing ovation, you are likely to feel very silly very quickly. Just like bees, different people may have different thresholds, depending on how strongly they feel about the performance, what they think the appropriate norms are for clapping and cheering, and how easily they get embarrassed.
Imagine that Trump’s crowd at the CIA was composed of a mixture of different individuals, with different attitudes toward Trump. (In real life, we know nothing about the individuals in the crowd, since their identity as CIA employees is confidential, but this seems like a reasonable bet). Some people in the crowd were plausibly strong Trump supporters, who would likely have wanted to applaud, but may not have been sure that it was appropriate to cheer a speech with significant partisan undertones. Others may have been weak Trump supporters, who might not have wanted to cheer. Others still may have had no strong views on Trump, or been opposed to him. With an audience like this, it is unpredictable whether they will clap and cheer, or applaud faintly and politely, or not applaud at all.
This is where a claque can be extremely useful as a way to engineer social influence. If a few people in the audience are paid to clap and cheer, they effectively have a threshold of nearly zero, meaning that they will start applauding at the slightest excuse. Their enthusiasm may in turn influence others, who want in their heart of hearts to clap and cheer but are unsure whether it is appropriate. When those people start clapping and cheering too, this may lead to a cascade effect, in which all but those who have the highest thresholds are influenced to start cheering in what appears to the outsider like an unprompted roar of unanimous assent from the masses.
Because human beings are easily socially influenced, the difference between real applause and fake applause is less sharp than you might think. Nearly all of us look to those around us before we decide to publicly express our feelings of approval or disapproval. This, in turn, means that applause, standing ovations and the like can be produced through clever social engineering.
Danged those unnamed sources! Those haters appointed by Obama have struck again!
Think about it. Does this story sound like something a CIA employee whose life is on the line and willingly risks it for our Nation, does this sound like something he or she would report in secret, illegally, to the press on the sly?
Trump Foes Egged Me On to Support Him While walking to an inaugural ball, I heard shouts—and felt yolk run down my hair.
By BARBARA A. SMITH
It happened Friday night in the heart of gentrifying Washington. I was en route to an inaugural ball, but nearly every road in D.C. seemed to be barricaded, my Uber driver said. So I got out of the car to walk, although, like Cinderella, I was late and without an overcoat.
The night was chilly, and I moved swiftly, my ball gown billowing and swaying with each step. As I passed an apartment building, someone started yelling—really yelling—out an open window: “Go back to where you came from!” And then I found myself covered in raw egg.
The snap of eggshells breaking stunned me. Slimy, sticky yolk covered my face, dripped down my hair, and saturated my dress.
I froze. Emily Post is silent on the proper way for a lady in a ball gown to respond to an aerial assault. I had to wing it. First, I yelled back. I had spent six years living here, I shouted, and Washington was as much my city as the place I now call home. But then I, too, began to crack, and the egg yolk on my face mixed with tears.
Somehow—it might have been the crying and hollering—my predicament captured the attention of a more-casually attired fairy-god-couple. These kind people must have been liberal Democrats (not that it matters), given where they confessed to working as they helped me. Nonetheless, they asked if I was all right, gently took my arm, and led me to their nearby apartment to clean off. Then they let me out the back door.
At best, I had been a lukewarm and silent Trump supporter, a Goldwater-Reagan-George W. Bush girl who had decided to attend the ball mostly for the opportunity to wear a fancy dress. But when my heels hit the sidewalk that second time, I committed: I would now back President Trump.
I don’t expect to agree with all of his administration’s policies or even the rhetoric that Mr. Trump employs to make his case. But being assaulted based on an assumption that I supported him had a way of breaking through my reservations.
I choose to stand with the ridiculed, the insulted, the belittled. I stand with those who voted for something new and different and a little scary. I stand with people who are tarred as bigots and misogynists—or even egged—simply because of their views on taxes, health-care reform or government entitlements.
Once I finally made it to the ball, I ran into old friends of all stripes. We laughed and talked, debated and discussed our competing hopes for the incoming administration. Our worldviews were as diverse as the colors of our dresses—not that critics see any of these shades.
When the president and first lady came onstage, we paused to watch them dance. Afterward, as we returned to our conversations, I silently prayed that none of my friends would be pelted with eggs—or insults—on their way home.
Ms. Smith is a lawyer in St. Louis with Bryan Cave. She worked in the White House Counsel’s Office for President George W. Bush (2007-09).
I called nobody any names here. I cast no aspersions upon any Dawgtalker personally.
I merely stated that R voters had 16 other choices.... and they chose this one.
Candidates- fair game. It's why I never took Diam to task for oBUMmer
Not all Republican voters chose Trump out of the other 16. Some voted for Trump and some voted for others. And some didnt care about moral issues and some did. So you cannot cast us all in the same mold. That's called "generalization"
I chose another candidate in the primaries.
IN CASE YOU STILL MISSED IT... I CHOSE/VOTED ANOTHER CANDIDATE IN THE PRIMARIES. So now what do you have to say now?
When that candidate lost, I had no choice but to vote for Trump IF I VOTED, which circumstances prevented me from doing. I would have voted for Dukakis over Hillary.
But I didnt even get to vote in the election, so when you say "you chose Trump", it doesnt even apply to me. I never chose Trump. But I would have chosen him over Hillary, though not over all the other Republican candidates.
BTW, I am only Republican because I have no choice. No other party cuts the mustard and the Democratic party lost their minds a long time ago and keep getting worse.
I didnt care for any of the candidates, but they were all better than Hillary.
Shows how jacked up the Democratic party is, which has been my only point all along.
I called nobody any names here. I cast no aspersions upon any Dawgtalker personally.
I merely stated that R voters had 16 other choices.... and they chose this one.
Candidates- fair game. It's why I never took Diam to task for oBUMmer
Calling Obama "Obummer" and falsely accusing Trump of being a Nazi are two different things.
Yes, calling Trump Herr Grupenfuhrer is poor behaviour because it is nothing more than an ad hominem with no basis in reality. Also, the Nazi atrocities are no joking matter either.
This is why people are starting to wake up and reject radical liberalism. It has no value, engages in ad hominems and false aspersions, and by all rights should be dead and buried permanently. Unfortunately, people never learn.
You're just going to have to accept a few tings. One of which is if Trump can compare the intelligence community to using Nazi tactics, people have every right comparing some of his tactics to Hitler.
Quit trying to use a double standard. Trump can't get his foot out of his mouth long enough to give you guys a break. lol
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Obama is gone, didn't you get the news? Trump just canceled O's sly gift of our tax dollars to Palestine.
Israel is back!
Trump just ticked off Mexico and most of south america too. Hope you all like to grow vegetables, raise pigs and cows because if you haven't looked at a label for a while that's where the majority of your food comes from these days.
Obama is gone, didn't you get the news? Trump just canceled O's sly gift of our tax dollars to Palestine.
Israel is back!
Trump just ticked off Mexico and most of south america too. Hope you all like to grow vegetables, raise pigs and cows because if you haven't looked at a label for a while that's where the majority of your food comes from these days.
I'll have to start looking at labels.
Seriously, the majority of our food comes from Mexico? News to me. Got links?
I bet the nations farmers would be interested in seeing those links as well.
Mexico and South America is where the bulk of your offseason fresh produce comes from. You want to find out where american grown food is look for heavily processed products in boxes, corn syrup and on japanese menus. Our best beef, pork and fish all gets exported. Our fresh produce is government subsidized and cheaper for the major food companies to buy up in bulk, transport and process. So yes Arch check with those farmers.
And when you start to twist remember I said the majority, not all because you will find many that are not but I guarantee more that are imported.
FDA’s new import tool kit will have a huge impact on food safety given that an estimated 15 percent of the U.S. food supply is imported, including 50 percent of fresh fruits, 20 percent of fresh vegetables and 80 percent of seafood.
And arch if these facts are not enough for you and you still think I might have OVER exaggerated a little, just consider what I said as alternate facts and you should be able to live with it.
I'm hearing many people say, many many people, that Trump is going to write a new executive order that directs the IRS to immediately impose a new "Round Up Tax" to offset the costs of his immigration policy. And before you get too excited that the mexican's are going to pay for it you better check the details.
This permanent tax on each transaction (defined as any an all transfers of money between parties) will be subject to a special tax rounding the total of the transaction up to the next even dollar. This tax will do many many great and wonderful things.
It will save billions in the minting of coins. It will save billions in accounting. It will provide the funds needed to enforce immigration and temporarily pay for the wall. And the best most wonderful part is that it will cost the taxpayer less than a buck to help make America great again.
When questioned about how he will justify this tax to his base, he said "they are conservatives, they hate change."
You're just going to have to accept a few tings. One of which is if Trump can compare the intelligence community to using Nazi tactics, people have every right comparing some of his tactics to Hitler.
Quit trying to use a double standard. Trump can't get his foot out of his mouth long enough to give you guys a break. lol
He's still better than anything the libs have to offer. Libs not in, we win.
Just keep being a blind follower and never think for yourself. That's exactly what weak minded people do.
Hey Pitt, it's been a while since I've been here, but it seems like the same people who said last year that they would never vote for Trump are really upset with the facts that they did and he won.
He won. Even though they betrayed every single principle they stated made them better Americans.
They voted for Trump and they are winners.
So I'm wondering why all the defensiveness?
Do you think it's regret or just the fact that they've sold every ounce of their own dignity to make sure a (R) takes the house, regardless of whether that (R) at one time would definitely be considered a "rhino" by these people.
Yep. He won the three states he needed in the upper Midwest by around 77,000 votes total. I've heard people say, well a lot of people say that that's winning bigly!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
