If credibility has to be established up front, as Cialdini suggests in his book “Science of Persuasion,” what does this say about the social and emotional void that is palpable in the world today? Maybe it is just in the United States, but I felt that the idea that you can discuss something without the fear of being unliked or shamed or persecuted for thinking differently was something others shared in common. Maybe it is naive of me to assume people can be civil-minded when they disagree…So, this issue of credibility is not merely that the person is who they are persuading you they are, but there is something more vile, more insidious going on. It may be a matter of influence that people just refuse to think for themselves. They just clap and agree and smile and nod. They are “Waiting for Godot,” and they see this man, and they say, “Oh, okay, he seems to fit the part. He says all the right things, and when he is wrong…he doesn’t mean it.” This is unacceptable if you follow the requirements for credibility. But, maybe that is not the focus, the person standing on the stage…maybe it is the brainless bodies in the audience clapping. The emperor is naked, and they all smile and say he looks dashing. What to do with a culture that does not know who is credible or what that walks and talks like? Why is it that when you question the credibility of someone of great importance, you get a snide comment or a sneer from someone who says you are wrong and with no explanation given? This “groupthink” is very dangerous. Credibility’s true meaning has been hijacked just like “Fake News,” though I am not sure how the spin will play out. Until then, we must listen to how incredibly credible the important people are and pray that the majority wake up and say, “Hey, why is that guy walking around naked?”