a:4:{s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:3:"rss";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:7:"version";s:3:"2.0";}}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:1:{s:7:"channel";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"Scott Adams Blog";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:9:"generator";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:29:"Tumblr (3.0; @scottadamsblog)";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"http://blog.dilbert.com/";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"item";a:20:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:22:"Thinking Strategically";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:5303:"
Are you a strategic thinker or a victim?
You’re probably one or the other.
The other day a smart, attractive, 27-year old, white woman told me it was hard to get a job in California because she is a woman.
That’s a victim.
A few months ago I had a minor leg injury that looked like it would keep me from doing cardio for a few weeks. My first thought was that it was an opportunity to do more weight training on my upper body, which I wanted to do anyway.
That’s strategic thinking. Every problem creates an opportunity.
In the early days of Dilbert it looked as if the strip would fail. It was published in fewer than a hundred newspapers worldwide and sales had slowed to a trickle. In the comics business that almost always means a comic will disappear in a few years.
I saw the situation as nothing to lose. It was freedom. I could take risks that successful cartoonists could not, and so I did. Dilbert was the first syndicated comic on the Internet even though the thinking of the day was that giving away your content for free was business suicide. But, as history showed, the Internet was essential to Dilbert’s Success.
Generally speaking, I have the following automatic responses to bad situations.
Chaos: There must be an opportunity in here someplace, as the saying goes.
Discrimination: Discrimination generally brings with it some reverse-discrimination (perpetrated by the minority plus the guilty-feeling majority) that you can use in your favor if you find it.
Broke: Nothing to lose. Take some risks.
Not in a Relationship: Great time to learn a new skill. Easy to relocate for work. Far easier to exercise and eat right. (I got an MBA at night during one relationship-free period.)
Angry mood: Good day to fire people who deserve it and yell at the people that need it. I do all that unpleasant stuff on my bad days because I know those days won’t get much worse. No point in ruining a perfectly good day when you can batch up all your bad stuff for a day that is already bad on its own. Never waste an angry mood.
A few years ago I was sharing some frustrations about my scheduling challenges with a friend. We were both juggling schedules for work, family, and especially kid activities. We were buried in the complexity of figuring out where we needed to be and when. So we formed a start-up (CalendarTree.com) to solve the problem, which it does for thousands of happy users. We will soon announce a new set of functions and a name change. (I predict that 80% of you will use at least one of the new features we are launching soon. I already use it every day.)
In my freshman year of college, I came down with mono, the so-called kissing disease. Doctors advised me to avoid physical contact with women for months. By coincidence, another student visiting the college infirmary for mono was one of the most attractive women I had seen on campus. She was way out of my league. But as I explained to her, the only person on campus she could kiss without fear was me. She became my girlfriend.
I grew up in a small town in upstate New York. There were only about forty kids in my graduating class. As you can imagine, the town did not have much economic opportunity. You might say it was bad luck to be born there, at least from an economic sense. But I saw it as an advantage because I had no special ties to my home town, and my parents were happy for me to follow my ambition. Because of that freedom, I could choose to live anyplace on earth that I could afford. So I sold my car for a one-way ticket to California, where the weather was nice and economy was humming. It was the best decision of my life.
I don’t believe pessimists can or should become optimists. But I think you can train yourself to think strategically.
Scott
—
- A flying car with a whole-car parachute option, just in case. That is what I want. That is coming.
- In our ongoing effort to fool ourselves into thinking human drivers are necessary for operating cars, Ford has some cool headlights.
- And how about a folding bridge you can take with you?
—
If you only have time to read one self-help book in your entire life, wouldn’t you choose the best one?
If you can’t see the image because of your company’s firewall, see it on Twitter here.
In Top Tech Blog:
Here comes a little company that is about to change the world with a small device that scans your food and tells you what is in it.
You might be saying this is no big deal. It is just another way for diet Nazis to obsess over something new.
But imagine being able to scan your food and have the device tell you it is unhealthy (in essence). How many parents would keep serving unhealthy food to their kids if they have an option? I think a food scanner changes the world (if it works.)
How?
Well, for starters, Warren Buffett’s investments in crap-foods will start to suffer. So your notions about skill versus luck in the stock market will dissolve at the same rate as the sales of Kraft and Coke.
But more importantly, this is one more step toward society’s “discovery” that what you eat has an impact on your happiness. When you don’t know you’re eating crap for lunch, you might think you’re tired that afternoon for no particular reason. But when you start to see the clear connection between bad diet and how you feel in a few hours, you’ll probably stop injuring yourself with food.
Good information about your body’s fuel source changes healthcare, life expectancy, happiness, productivity. Well, everything.
And I think a handheld food scanner does all that. (If it works.)
The question for today is this: Would you improve your diet if you had better information? (I predict most of you will say no because you mistakenly believe you already know what are putting in your body.)
Scott
Hey, Mark Twain just gave me a great book review on Amazon. I guess the rumors of his death were exaggerated.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/124927980361";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/124927980361";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:14:20 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:2;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:18:"Why You Are Insane";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:5572:"This morning I needed to respond to an email request for action. It was a simple task.
But the email says I did not respond to a recent voice mail. I search my phone and learn I have had no voice mail messages for days. Now I have a mystery to solve. Does my voice mail work?
The email that asked me to do the task answered one question I had about the task from prior conversations but not another. So I can only do a half-reply with the information I have. Now my history of email messages with this business contact splits into two, as the topic has bifurcated. Twice the complication, thanks to the design limitations of email communications.
I notice the message also asks me to check a calendar date. That means picking up my phone…and noticing I have a text message alert. Do I look? Must be important at this time of day. I resist, but my mind is now spread over the incoming text message curiosity, my missing voice mail mystery, and the task at hand that has now turned one email chain into two or three.
I search my sent emails to remind myself what I asked for, and what I have. I need a file that I can’t find in any direct way, but I figure out a clever way to find a copy.
Wait, wasn’t I checking my calendar? It takes about ten clicks on my phone to close an app, hunt for my calendar app, open it, and navigate to the date in question. By then I have had seven new thoughts and literally do not remember why I opened the calendar in the first place. Ten clicks to do one task is far too many.
At some point in that process it occurred to me that I should document my internal thoughts to show how complicated the world has become. So I am doing that now. And I literally do not recall why I opened my calendar in the first place. That was 25 thoughts ago.
This is why we are all crazy. There is no such thing as a simple task. Every little thing becomes a mental marathon of app-switching, searching for old emails, troubleshooting technology problems, and juggling five questions spread over seven emails.
I blame our many legacy systems for this situation. The idea of an “application” makes no sense in 2015. I should be able to start my task directly and let my software figure out which app to use and how. That part should not be my job.
For example, if want to check my calendar, I should be able to start typing a date in some blank page on my device and have the operating system know I must want to see my calendar, so it pops up. We need to get rid of the step where you have to choose a device and an app before you can do any simple task. The task has to come first, with the choice of app at the end, or automatic. That’s how you will keep your mind straight in complex situations.
And why do messages come to me via text, WhatsApp, Facebook, IMs, and my several email accounts? I don’t want to first pick an app before sending a message. I want to start typing or talking my message and select the app when I am done, or not at all if the software guesses right.
And everything I do on my phone or computer should be grouped by project, not by application. That way the distractions you encounter will all be in the same context at least. That probably helps.
I realize I say things that sound like exaggerations to you. And this is a blog, so you expect that sort of thing. But without exaggeration, I believe our app-first technologies, and the unnecessary complications of daily life, are literally driving normal folks insane. And in this context I mean an adult will seek mind-altering prescription meds just to keep the gun out of his mouth.
Marriage and family life has the same legacy problem. I’ll get to that in another post.
One of the great strengths of America, being a youngish country, is that we sometimes don’t mind tossing tradition out the window in the name of efficiency. I think we need to get a lot more aggressive about that now for mental health reasons.
I would start by designing from scratch the following legacy systems:
1. Marriage and child-rearing (Doesn’t work in the smartphone era)
2. Education (We teach the wrong topics in the wrong way.)
3. App-centric operating systems (Drives us crazy, literally)
4. Government (Poorly designed for 2015)
5. Taxes. (Should be automatic.)
Are there any other legacy systems you would overhaul?
Scott
If you want to make an author smile, try leaving this sort of book review on Amazon.
This review was for God’s Debris, written in 2001. The book is experiencing a sales resurgence for some reason. It might be because the sequel, The Religion War, predicts the rise of ISIS (Caliphate) and predicts that terrorists will start using hobby-sized drones for attacks in other countries.
Or maybe it was this video of a teen who put a gun on a drone and fired it at targets in the woods. That should be the last time a president appears outdoors in public.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/124755478996";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/124755478996";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:50:32 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:3;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:25:"Updating Some of My Rules";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:3620:"Every now and then I like to update my list of personal rules. I find it helpful to have a list so I can later tell an offender “That’s number six on my list of things I don’t do.” It sounds more decisive than simply stating a preference at the moment.
Scott’s Updated Rules
1. Don’t ask me to remind you of something later. All you are doing is transferring your future failure to me. I’m not going to remember your thing.
2. If you don’t have an opinion on where to eat, I’m going to give you two choices. Please pick one. Ideally, that is the end of the conversation, not the starting point.
3. Don’t mail me anything. And don’t ask me to mail you anything. I no longer allow physical mail in my home. I stop it in the garage and process it for recycling. Physical mail is little more than garbage that gets delivered. (Not counting packages you actually ordered.)
4. Don’t send me to find something for you. I won’t be able to find that email or file you want. I won’t be able to find the mustard in the fridge. I won’t be able to find your keys where you claim you left them. I won’t be able to find anything. If it is lost, and you need it, I can’t solve that problem. I’m busy looking for my own lost stuff.
5. Don’t me tell long stories when my body is three-quarters turned away and I am literally miming that I am taking a step away from you. That is the “I need to do something right now” look and it is your cue to wrap up your story.
6. If I invite you to do anything – no matter what it is – do not extend that invitation to some other dude because you think he would like it too. You may invite a woman without checking with me first. But I do not accept dude pass-through invitation. I have enough guys in my life. I don’t want to meet your friend even though I am sure he is terrific.
7. Don’t ask me to have a movie night at my house. It is not possible to find three adults who want to watch the same movie at the same time.
8. Don’t ask me to take a walk with you if you plan to bring your phone.
9. If you’re being a scientific moron, I’m going to call you out, even if we’re on the same side of a social debate. For example, don’t say marijuana must be safe because it is a plant. I’m not going to let that go.
10. The time to tell me that you will be late is when you first know it. Not after you are actually late.
Do you have any rules of etiquette you would like to update?
Scott
Bonus joke: Over on Twitter I just tweeted “The real hero is Donald Trump’s barber. That guy sacrifices his reputation every day to keep Trump out of The White House. #therealhero”
That is another example of an “engineered” joke that “solves” for two unrelated events. See how easy humor is?
In Top Tech Blog:
When computers can analyze your blood and suggest chemical additives to reprogram you to better health or higher productivity, is that not a case of robots programming humans? That’s coming.
At the moment, a human still makes the ultimate decision about what chemicals get added to the body. But once Watson does better than the human doctors (which is probably already the case), it is turtles all the way down.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/124579003711";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/124579003711";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:21:28 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:4;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:38:"Robots Read News about Mexican Tunnels";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:3296:"If your company firewall is blocking the image, see it here on Twitter.
This comic is an example of what I call an “engineered solution” joke. You construct this type of joke by combining two unrelated things (El Chapo and commuter train service) and then show how one “solves” for the other.
The thing that makes this joke work is the timing lag. When you read the last panel, your brain has to quickly form some images and piece together the logic for why you only need to wait for a tunnel to appear. When it all comes together in your mind, it triggers a laugh reflex as you realize the idea has an absurd logic to it.
Absurd logic always triggers a laugh. For example, yesterday I tweeted “If you are making love to a dophin, and it says, “Stop screwing with my head,” you are holding it upside down.”
Notice how the absurd logic of the upside-down dolphin creates its own timing delay as you figure out what I meant. You have to create a visual image in your mind to solve for the double meaning. And as soon as you mind thinks “blow hole,” you probably laughed.
It also helps that a dolphin doesn’t look that different upside-down.
Back to today…
Today’s Robot joke also takes advantage of the “insider” effect. People who get the joke will be well-aware that 80% of the public are not following the news and would not understand it. This gives readers an instant “insider” feeling plus a feeling of knowledge superiority, and that can turbo-charge humor and generate more sharing.
This joke also takes advantage of the natural set-up. As soon as you tell me a drug lord escaped via tunnel… on a motorcycle… I know I have something I can work with. And when he has a cute nickname, such as El Chapo, half the work has been done for me.
And if you know about San Francisco, Alcatraz is a fun reference. That will make the joke more fun for the locals and anyone who ever visited.
—
In Top Tech News:
I keep telling you that healthcare costs are going to start dropping sharply because of technological advances, especially in lab testing. Here’s a good example of what is coming.
—
Scott
This gentleman has excellent taste in books.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/124324994626";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/124324994626";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:34:29 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:5;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:26:"Consciousness is Overrated";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:1037:"Science is finally catching up to the non-science of hypnosis. See this about why your free will is an illusion.
I learned that free will is an illusion during hypnosis training classes in the 80s. When you see a skilled hypnotist reprogram a human in real time, the Moist Robot hypothesis is hard to ignore.
Scott
In Top Tech Blog:
- Here comes version 1.0 of the Holodeck. And obviously this signals the end of humankind. No need to have relationships with other humans when you have a holodeck.
- And finally someone invented a way for me to dress cool. Literally.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/124242046911";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/124242046911";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:14:55 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:6;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"The Judgy Bubble";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:3520:"I might be one of the least-judgmental people on Earth. That’s because I see humanity as a bunch of moist robots bumping around according to the laws of physics. My worldview doesn’t include free will as anything but a necessary illusion to keep people sane. I never believe people “choose” to be evil or socially unacceptable.
I say this sort of thing often, and that means people quickly identify me as someone who can hear their deepest secrets without judging. And so I do. And that means my view of the world is far different than your view because I have access to what might be called the “judgy” layer of life. I hear the stuff that judgy people don’t hear. And as a result, I see people as equally “flawed” in terms of how society judges such things. Normal? It isn’t even a thing in my experience.
Now let’s say you are a judgy person. Let’s say you hold the view that there is something called “normal” behavior. Your observations support your world view because people act normally around you. People who know how judgy you are hide their freak flags. And that would form a bubble of misinformation for you to live within. Judgy people experience life as a play that is staffed by actors, not real people. Even your friends and family might be trying to avoid your judgy ways by presenting themselves as phony normals.
When a judgy person asks what you did over the weekend, you probably stick to the basics and say you mowed your lawn and had a barbecue. But if I ask the same question about your weekend, I might hear exciting stories of drug deals, orgies, and crimes against nature.
I was thinking about this because I know a couple who are the most judgmental people I have ever known. I can’t imagine sharing an honest opinion with them, and I’m sure no one else does either. As a result, the two of them have created a weird bubble of misinformation from which to view the world. For all practical purposes, they exist in a parallel universe where they are “normal” and the rest of the world continues to worsen.
Do people consider you judgy? If so, everything you know about people is probably wrong because people don’t trust you with the truth.
Scott
In Top Tech Blog:
- Airless tires are here. Just in time, because I was afraid we’d use up all the air in our tires and I would suffocate.
- How about a steering wheel that bugs you to stay awake? If that isn’t a good argument for self-driving cars, what is?
- And a bike helmet that needs to be made by Apple but isn’t yet.
Have I mentioned my book?
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/124157118906";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/124157118906";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:43:20 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:7;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"The Privacy Curve";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:3126:"If you live in a dictatorship, personal privacy might be the only thing keeping you out of jail. And you need that privacy to plan your revolution against the dictator.
If you live in a Republic, such as the United States, you still want some privacy because you don’t want the government to have more power over you than it already has. But the issue is not a life-and-death situation in most cases. Citizens keep an eye on the Republic so it can’t get too far out of hand.
But here is the interesting part: Would you need privacy from the government if you lived in a true democracy, in which every citizen voted on every topic? My guess is that you would not need privacy because most of what you want to do would be legal. And there would be no real “government” in terms of power or leadership. Only the bureaucracy would be left to execute the will of the people.
Thanks to state propositions, the government in the United States is moving from a Republic to more of a pure democracy. And I would argue that the Supreme Court is essentially voting with the majority on social issues and making us less of a Republic than ever.
My hypothesis is that personal privacy (from the government) is neither good nor bad by its nature. What matters is that your privacy level matches up with your political system. If you live in an oppressive regime, the more personal privacy the better. But in a pure democracy, so long as you don’t violate the law, no one cares what you do on your own time. In fact, now that I know my neighbor also likes to wear a kilt and watch the BBC, I have someone to hang out with on weekends.
Would you agree with the general proposition that the more political freedom you have, the less privacy (from the government) you need?
Scott
—
In Top Tech Blog, when will Elon Musk make a gigantic vacuum cleaner to suck up all the broken satellites and other space debris in orbit around the planet? And when do I get my electric airplane?
—
Bonus comic:
My book seems to be catching on.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/123983117521";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/123983117521";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:05:10 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:8;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:23:"Global Warming Settled?";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4356:"If you haven’t seen this interactive graph on the causes of global warming, you really should, if only because the technology for the animation itself is outstanding.
I’ll probably run “climate change” through the Rationality Engine at some point, but for now I wondered what reasons the doubters are giving for their doubts. If you are a doubter, take a look at the animation and tell us what part it got wrong.
For the record, I hold the following opinions about climate change that I am happy to change if better data or better arguments pop up.
1. The science is clear that human activity is causing climate change.
2. Experts are often wrong about complex systems with lots of variables. By analogy, much of what you were taught about nutrition when you were young was wrong. Much of what you learned about history is probably wrong. And economic forecasts are generally wrong. None of that means climate change science is wrong. But climate change science does fit the pattern of things that authority figures tell us with more confidence than they ought to have. (I know economics and history are not science.)
4. Climate change might be catastrophic, but I don’t have a way to assess the odds. We can only know things would change if temperatures continue increasing. That change could be good or bad in the long run.
For example, I would expect some income redistribution as the best farmland becomes the worst, and vice versa. And I would expect some inventions to come out of the turmoil. We might even learn to control the global climate directly. Maybe some unexpected cooling event (volcano?) will buy us another hundred years.
My observation of this debate is that both sides are wrong but for different reasons. The skeptics are wrong in denying the data, which seems fairly clear to my non-scientist eyes. (But in all fairness, I would be easy to fool. So would you.)
On the other side, the believers are probably wrong that they can predict the outcome of the climate changes. Climate disruption might lead to the end of civilization. But if that happened, it would be different from every disaster humans have encountered to date. We’re good at solving problems once we get engaged.
Given the unknowns, and the size of the risk, the rational approach is to treat the problem as if it is both real and potentially catastrophic, even if you suspect none of that is true. But I would put the effort into technology solutions because those inventions will probably be beneficial no matter what else happens.
Scott
—-
Bonus question: If doctors put a chip in you that releases medicine based on the chip’s internal timer, and that medicine fundamentally changes who you are – let’s say it is an anti-depressant that works – could it be said you are still a human being? In my view, you would be a robot, because the chip decides your mood and how you act. If the chip gives you too little meds, you stay in bed, depressed. If the chip releases enough meds, you get up and go to work. That looks like a robot to me. Oh, and that chip already exists.
—
I can no longer claim the Huffington Post gets everything wrong. One of their reviewers likes my book a lot.
And this is the first time I have seen an embedded video book review on Amazon. See the video here that talks about the “big ideas” in my book. (The image below is just a jpg).
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/123640319006";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/123640319006";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 09 Jul 2015 09:23:37 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:9;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:24:"The Interruption Economy";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:3308:"Q: What do Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and Samsung all have in common?
A: Their business models involve interrupting you all day long.
Individually, each company’s interruptions are trivial. You can easily ignore them. But cumulatively, the interruptions from these and other companies can be crippling.
In the economy of the past, companies made money by being useful to customers. Now the biggest tech companies make their money by distracting you with ads and apps and notifications and whatnot. I don’t mean to sound like an alarmist, but I think this is the reason 80% of the adults I know are medicating. People are literally being driven crazy by a combination of complexity (too many choices) and the Interruption Economy.
There are days when my brain is flying in so many directions that I have to literally chant aloud what I need to do next in order to focus. Here’s what that can look like.
Me chanting:
Find the file, find the file, find the file, find the file.
Open the file, open the file, open the file
Search for the keyword, search for the keyword, search for the keyword, search for the keyword
copy the paragraph, copy the paragraph, copy the paragraph
paste it into Word, paste it into Word, paste it into Word
In the sixty seconds it might take to complete a simple task of finding and copying some text, I would normally have seven-to-ten important thoughts that have to be acted on right away. For example, I might remember an upcoming meeting I forgot to write down. If I interrupt my task to add it to my calendar, I will improve my odds of making it to the meeting. But if I let the diversion win, I will likely get diverted again and again by equally “urgent” tasks until I wake up in a corn field miles from home with a donkey, a toaster, and no memory of how it all happened.
So, as a defense against distractions, I sometimes need to chant my current steps as I do them. And it helps me focus.
I’m wondering if you have as many distractions in your life. And if you do, can the chanting help you too? The next time you have a boring task that you know will be subject to lots of interruptions, try the chanting technique and let me know how it goes. It probably won’t cure your ADHD but it might help you ignore the tech industry’s distractions until you get your tasks done.
Bonus question: The economy has evolved from “How can I help you?” to “How can I distract you?” Can that trend lead anywhere but mass mental illness?
My hypothesis, based on observation alone, is that the business model of the tech industry, with its complexity, glut of options, and continuous interruptions are literally driving people to mental illness.
Scott
Radio Host Maureen Anderson likes my book.
So do these recent reviewers.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/123459399486";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/123459399486";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Tue, 07 Jul 2015 08:35:27 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:10;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:39:"Hedging Your Bets on the God Hypothesis";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:3023:"Business Insider has a an interesting article on 22 surprising facts about Americans. Some of those facts sure surprised me.
For example, here are two bits from the same article.
That sounds about right to me. Then add the other religions and you’re probably above 80%. Maybe as high as 90% according to other surveys I have seen.
But in the same article we see this statistic.
I’m no religious scholar, but I thought being “very confident in the existence of a supreme being” was a requirement for most religions in America. But according to these statistics, assuming I am reading them right, one can be a Christian without being 100% sold on the God part of it.
By my reckoning, over a third of our citizens are wasting time with religions that will doom them to eternal Hell for their doubts alone. I might be heading there too, but at least my Sundays are free.
Am I reading the statistics wrong? I’m baffled.
Scott
—
In Top Tech Blog:
- You know how I always go on about how great it would be to design an entire city from the ground up, using all we know today? (That is my long term plan, by the way.) It seems that technology will get us to the point where we can design an entire city in a computer simulation, walk through it using immersive 3D goggles, then print the entire city with 3D printers. See that possibility (if you use your imagination), and lots more 3D printer coolness, in this article.
—
These readers have excellent taste in books.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/123147101271";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/123147101271";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Fri, 03 Jul 2015 16:48:24 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:11;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Outragists Attack Trump and Win";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:3380:"You’ve probably seen Donald Trump’s recent quote about Mexican immigration. He said, “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some I assume are good people."
People with good reading comprehension can see that he put no percentages on how many Mexican immigrants are criminals and how many are “good people.” He notes it is a mix, with the clear implication that the ratio of bad people is unacceptably high.
What does the data say? Beats me.
But if, for example, 20% of Mexican immigrants are bringing crime to the United States, is that enough to be worried about? I’m guessing 20% of Americans in our lower income groups are involved with drugs and other forms of crime, so that sounds like a reasonable range to guess for Mexicans coming to this country illegally. Is 20% too much? How about 10%? It seems subjective to me. But it isn’t an absurd issue to worry about.
Now check out this typical headline from Business Insider that cleverly converts Trumps quote into “NBC fires Donald Trump after he calls Mexicans rapists and drug runners.”
Writers don’t usually pick their own headlines, so don’t blame the writer in this case. Just note that Trump’s comment about some Mexican immigrants being criminals has been morphed by outragists into “Trump says Mexicans are rapists and drug runners.” That implies all Mexicans, even the ones that stay home, are up to no good. Very different from what Trump actually said.
I’m not a Trump supporter. I’m just anti-outragism.
In the run-up to the presidential election, the media is spring-loaded for candidate “gaffes” that they can take out of context to manufacture news. I’ll point them out as we go.
Update: Same writer, new article. Note the use of the “douche bag” photo that often accompanies stories like this one. The photo director should get a writing credit for this one. It changes the story.
Scott
In Top Tech Blog, machines help you grow better skin, your clothes will be your new computer, and look out for holograms you can touch. (That last part seemed inevitable. Scientists are lonely.)
—
The five-star reviews keep rolling in for this book.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/123031431246";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/123031431246";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:07:14 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:3:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:5:"trump";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:9:"outragism";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:17:"trumpforpresident";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:12;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:38:"Update on the ISIS “Filter Fence”";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:3795:"Last August I described in this blog an idea for creating a safe zone for civilians that want to escape ISIS-held territory. You can see that here. The idea is based on a novel I wrote years ago, the sequel to God’s Debris, called The Religion War.
The idea is that a friendly country would create a well-defended safe zone that could be used over time to drain the civilians from ISIS territory. Once you have as many innocents out of the Caliphate as you reasonably can, which could take years, you seal the borders, cut off communication, and let nature do the rest.
There are all kinds of problems with that plan, but compared to the terrible alternatives, I think it has to be considered as an option. And now it looks like something akin to that plan is under motion. Turkey is likely to carve out a safe zone near its borders to block ISIS supply lines, create a buffer zone, and…create a haven for refugees.
No one would call it a Filter Fence because the primary objectives are cutting ISIS supply routes and defending Turkey’s borders. But the result will be a Filter Fence with a safe zone to drain civilians out of the area.
Saudi Arabia is already building a “bad ass” wall to keep ISIS out. Turkey’s future safe zone will be the second wall. If Iran figures out a way to seal their border tight (and obviously they are working on it) you have a pretty good Filter Fence in place. Here I’m assuming Israel and Jordan have their borders under control as well. Here’s a refresher map of the region.
You hated the Filter Fence idea when I first raised it. But it looks like things are evolving in that direction. In The Religion War, the trigger for sealing the Caliphate involves terrorist drone attacks around the world. That seems inevitable.
Am I the only one who sees the Filter Fence around ISIS as 100% likely? (Barring a meteor striking Earth, or something else that big.)
Scott
In Top Tech Blog, thank goodness someone finally figured out how to run an annealing algorithm to find the lowest points, corresponding to optimal or near optimal solutions, in a virtual “energy landscape.” Also, blah, blah, something quantum computing.
And now you can 3D-print a human heart. I think that is the perfect gift for a romantic partner. (This is just a small sample of why I am not married.)
Apparently it is Samsung’s turn to say it is inventing an awesome battery technology that won’t be ready for market soon. Next!
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122942821056";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122942821056";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:04:28 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:4:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"ISIS";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"Turkey";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"saudi arabia";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:3;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:12:"Filter Fence";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:13;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:21:"Shotguns and Weddings";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6314:"Let’s talk about weddings first. As a lover of freedom and equal rights, I am delighted that the Supreme Court rewrote the Constitution (essentially) to give all adults the contractual and legal rights of marriage.
But I couldn’t find a way to celebrate. For starters, as an old boss once said, “You don’t get a prize for doing what you’re supposed to do.” What actually happened here is that the country stopped being awful in one particular way. So, what is the right way to celebrate the cessation of being awful? As a member of the oppressor class in this situation (albeit not personally) I choose to recognize this great advance for humankind with fewer rainbows and more humility. My people (the straight majority) created a problem that should not have existed in the first place. And it took five non-elected people to fix that situation. Our government failed hard on this issue, even though I like the end result. I can’t be proud of the system in this case. But I do like the fact that when it came down to respecting the Constitution – a document made by slave-owners hundreds of years ago – the majority of the Supreme Court decided to ignore it and make up whatever argument got them to a more-equal world.
I have been watching the liberal world mock the dissenting justices’ opinions as if those opinions are ridiculous on the surface. Scalia, for example, notes that marriage is a bad place to look for a greater degree of individual freedom of expression. He’s right, obviously, but since judges vote along party lines, his argument is seen as nothing but a cover for bigotry. The hypnotist in me says all “reasons” are rationalizations and that our stated reasons only match up with common sense by coincidence now and then. In hypnosis class we learned that reason is the thin coat of paint we slather on our decisions after we make them. Scalia had a sound legal argument, but in a case such as this, no one really looks at the legal argument. Scalia was probably anti-gay-marriage from the start and found an argument to support it. The majority of the court presumably favored equal rights in this situation, and they had the power to ignore the weakness of arguments on their side. They did exactly that, which I appreciate.
So I love the decision of the Supreme Court in this case, but if we are being objective, it moves us closer to the Iranian model of government in which non-elected officials make the important decisions and the elected folks pick up the garbage and collect taxes. I say that in a way that sounds critical, but again, being objective, the Iranian style of government worked for us this time.
And I don’t see marriage equality as a victory for love. You don’t need the government to issue a license for love. Marriage is an issue of law, money, and dignity. That is important stuff, and everyone should have access to an equal amount of it. But lets leave love out of it. Love was never in the debate and it did not conquer anything.
Now let’s talk about guns.
I keep seeing graphs and statistics like this, showing that the United States has lots of gun murders and it also has lots of guns. Murder rates by country generally map directly to gun ownership rates. Countries with lots of guns have lots of murders. Therefore, goes the liberal logic, reducing the number of guns will reduce murder rates. And for some individual cases, that reasoning makes perfect sense. A person that has no access to a gun is less likely to shoot someone. I’ll give that a small “duh.”
But isn’t it also true that the reason Americans have so many guns is because there is a lot of violence to protect ourselves from? The only reason I want to own a gun is because I live in a violent country. Move me to Japan and I don’t need one. That point often gets overlooked.
Another factor that is often overlooked in this debate is that countries with the lowest gun violence rates often have the least diversity. (I’m looking at you, Japan.) We like diversity in this country, but diversity comes with some rough edges. And frankly, a majority of Americans would probably prefer high gun violence in order to keep the vibrant melting pot that is us.
For the record, I am in favor of gun ownership with some common-sense restrictions. I am not well-informed on this issue, so I don’t know all the options being discussed. But I might favor a law that provides steep penalties for whoever makes a gun available to an eventual killer, either by carelessness or by commerce. And perhaps you can protect yourself from that pass-through liability by doing an optional background check, or asking the gun buyer to register. I don’t have an opinion on how practical that would be. I just think that if you make a lethal weapon available to an unstable racist, you need to take responsibility for that. At the moment, we ask crazy people to police themselves, and we see how that is working out.
Scott
—
In Top Tech Blog: I know you think I talk too much about humans and robots merging. But check out these advances and see if you still think you won’t be part robot in your lifetime.
—
Winner of the brevity award goes to Tony Burton for reviewing my book on Amazon.
Book here.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122854682086";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122854682086";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Tue, 30 Jun 2015 09:28:18 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:14;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:23:"How Do You Avoid Email?";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:2694:"Nearly everything I need to do for my job involves opening email. I even open email to look for ideas before drawing a comic. And this is a big problem because there is no way to look at email without getting dragged down some unrelated rabbit hole.
I don’t know about you, but my email is almost always about something that needs to be done right away. Maybe it involves a group of people waiting to nail down a meeting time. I don’t want to keep five people in a state of uncertainty until I can check my calendar, so I do it right away. And then I see another email, and another. Soon I forget why I opened email in the first place.
That’s just one example. This morning I am avoiding my email because there will be at least five “right now” tasks that will assault my eyes and keep me from my priorities. Unfortunately, I do need to open my email to get an idea for today’s comic.
What the hell do I do? If I don’t open email, I might have no idea for a comic today. If I do, I will be sucked into the seven levels of email Hell. One distraction after another will leap at me like angry hornets.
Email, as currently designed, simply doesn’t work. It is a priority-scrambler. It turns order into disorder. No longer do you go from A to B. Now you must visit G, F,Q, and L and hope you remember you were aiming for B.
Anyway, my question is this: How do you deal with this sort of email distraction problem at work? You must see as many email “emergencies” as I do every time you open email. I need a trick. Tell me what you do.
I have tried limiting email to an hour a day, but that leaves too many people hanging. And my job is the type that doesn’t lend itself to delegation.
I need a solution. Whattaya got?
Scott
- Some brainiacs figured out how to emulate human organs on a chip, so animal testing might become unnecessary. If it works, that would be crazy-cool. Aaaaand, way easier for the robots to someday program humans with designer drugs.
- Why would you 3D-print a performance car? Just because you can? Nope. There is a far better reason.
- Two words: hover board.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122505793376";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122505793376";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:38:46 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:15;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"The Value of Men";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:5661:"I live in drought country (California) and this place is starting to turn into a prequel for Mad Max. Every other pickup truck on the road has huge water containers strapped to the back. That’s because the local waste water treatment plant gives away recycled water (non-drinkable) to anyone who wants to keep their lawn alive.
I have yet to see a woman driving one of these improvised water trucks, although I’m sure it happens because this is not Saudi Arabia. But generally speaking, these bringers-of-water are manly men who know how to fix things and do things. Somehow they all figured out how to convert their vehicles into water trucks, complete with safety straps and portable pumps to get the water to the lawn. Some have gravity solutions. It is all quite impressive. Lots of ingenuity in play.
I reckon each of these manly men spend half a day each week keeping their lawns on life support. These are resourceful men. Men of action. Men who care about their homes.
Oh, and they are all married, I assume. No single guy would do that stupid shit. Single guys would just let the lawn die, like 80% of their neighbors that have no trucks.
So why do married guys put so much effort into keeping a small patch of grass alive? Well, maybe it is because they think the drought is temporary. But that would not be well-informed. We’re in this for years unless you see a guy named Noah building an ark.
Maybe some of the men enjoy the challenge. I have to admit I felt some jealousy that these men of action were saving precious blades of grass with their ingenuity while I sat idle. My guy-genes want in on this. Trucks, tanks, hoses, pumps, and – best of all – the smug drive across town with my own improvised water truck. That is good stuff, and I totally get it. But I don’t think that thrill is what is compelling these men to action.
Humans are visual creatures. If I see you do something valuable right in front of me it means more than if I hear about something you did in the past. It works the same at your job. If your boss sees you doing something, it means more than if she hears about it later. Optics rule our perceptions.
For many homes, the lawn is the biggest visual cue to a husband’s contribution. In all likelihood, the husband did not build the house. In a two-income household, he didn’t even pay for the entire house. But given our sexist culture, he is probably in charge of the lawn. So if the lawn goes south, he has little to show of his value. His spouse, on the other hand, is often doing one visual thing after another, involving grocery bags, kids, dinner, and keeping up the home. The husband is home at night and on weekends to witness a lot of that action, and, according to studies, he is usually doing less than half of the chores. The husband can witness his wife’s value in a clear, visual way.
The children themselves are also a visual representation of a woman’s value. The man contributed some sperm long ago, probably in the dark. His contribution was visually empty. But nine months of carrying a human in your belly, followed by birth, nursing, and childcare is as visual as you can get.
A typical husband’s contribution to the family happens when he is at work. And unlike the old days where the guy might drag home some animal he killed –which would be visually impressive – today he probably has direct deposit. No one even sees a paycheck.
In 2015, a husband is just an asshole who disappears for half of the day while the wife does all the work. I’m exaggerating, but you see my point that the man’s contribution to a marriage has turned into an abstract concept that is easily taken for granted. If money keeps showing up in the bank account, thanks to direct deposit, human nature says we will start to devalue where it came from.
But if that same husband spends half a day each week doing his manly water-gathering task, and his lawn is the greenest on the street, and his big manly water truck is parked in the driveway, that’s a guy who contributes in a visual way. I think that is the driver of this behavior.
My other hypothesis is that I don’t own a truck so I am writing an insulting post about men who do. I can’t rule that out.
Scott
In Top Tech Blog:
- Ford is putting cameras on the exterior of its cars. If others follow, it won’t be long before someone builds a storage device so you have a record of everything that happened around you. Being a criminal keeps getting harder.
- Drone technology is coming to toys. Soon we will have many more ways to terrorize a sibling.
- And some engineers at Stanford figured out a cheap way to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. I wonder what it feels like to invent something that could change the entire world. I drew a comic today.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122422277031";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122422277031";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:39:16 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:3:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:8:"marriage";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:7:"drought";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"gender";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:16;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:5:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"Blog question";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:651:"[Ignore this post. Question answered. I had accidentally unzoomed the page sometime in the past, apparently. Didn’t know Chrome can do page-only zoom. Nice! Thanks to all commenters for pointing me the right direction.]
Does anyone else have trouble reading this page using Chrome on a Mac laptop? (OSX: Yosemite 10.10.2)
My own blog is literally the only page I can’t see in normal form. It shows gigantic fonts.
This is now the only thing keeping me on a Windows machine before the full switch to Apple.
(Changing font size in Chrome settings makes no difference on this page but does change others.)
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122344182276";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122344182276";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:15:13 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:17;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:35:"AIDS Messes With the Wrong Engineer";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:2902:"What do you do if both of your parents die of AIDS?
You mourn, obviously. And you wonder why the universe singled you out for such harsh treatment. Maybe you get mad. There isn’t much else you can do.
Unless you’re an engineer. Then you change the world. Because you can.
But you might need another engineer to help. Changing the world often takes at least two engineers.
Christopher Alegeka (BS and MS in Mechanical Engineering from Berkeley) is taking a big swing at AIDS, with co-founder and CEO Anwaar Al-Zireeni (BS, and a MEng in Bioengineering from Berkeley). Al-Zireeni invented the technology (patent pending) for an inexpensive AIDS testing device that could be a serious game-changer.
See Tamra Teig’s blog post here for more about the device and the company.
The start-up’s modest claim is that their simple, portable device can test for AIDS as easily as a home pregnancy test. That’s a big deal when more than half of the people with HIV in third-world locations don’t know they have it. And it also makes a huge difference if you start treating the virus as soon as you detect it. That can be a life-and-death difference in timing.
Third-world countries generally have poor medical facilities, or none nearby, so traditional tests for HIV are impractical and expensive in the places where it is needed most. This new testing device could get the cost per test under $10. And that is almost the same as putting a price tag on the end of the AIDS. (Isn’t it?)
Testing has limitations, obviously. No matter how easy it is to test, there will always be personal and social reasons to avoid doing so. But I wonder how many of those obstacles melt away when the device is easy to use, readily available, completely private, and funded by someone else (such as a government or Bill Gates).
By analogy, lots of folks do home pregnancy tests but far fewer would book a doctor’s appointment every time they needed to check.
The two engineers in my story formed a company called Privail. They hope to start testing their device where it is needed most, in sub-Saharan Africa, in 2016.
What did you do today? It was probably less awesome than that.
Disclosure: I have no investment in Privail (as of this writing) but I am active in the Berkeley start-up community as an alum. Assume I am biased for Berkeley-related start-ups.
I don’t give investment advice, and you should never take advice from cartoonists on anything important. But as a statement of fact, Privail is looking for seed funding. I don’t know enough about the company to have an opinion on their odds of success.
Scott Adams
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122251240246";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122251240246";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Tue, 23 Jun 2015 08:48:17 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:3:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:4:"AIDS";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"Africa";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:16:"gates foundation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:18;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:29:"The Famous Quote I Never Said";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:3178:"You might have seen a quote on the Internet that is mistakenly attributed to me. It looks like this:
“Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Design is knowing which ones to keep.” – Scott Adams
People like that quote so much that they have turned it into countless colorful posters and put it on products. A search for that quote got 451,000 hits.
But I never said it.
Nor do I agree with it. It is literally the opposite of my opinion.
What I did once say, years ago, in one of my books (I forget which one), is this:
“Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.”
You’ll see lots of versions of that quote floating around the Internet too (see a few in the image above), but many of the newer ones have been altered from “art” to “design.”
My problem with the altered quote (aside from creating a misleading history) is that design is largely rules-based. Art is not, or at least not so much. When I hire a designer, I want someone who has the training and experience to know what will work for a particular commercial purpose. They should be thinking about how the message is delivered, how the human brain processes ideas, what part of the design has the button you want users to press, and so on.
That is pretty much the direct opposite of art. So putting design in that quote is an attempt to (elevate?) design to art, as if art is somehow more important.
Personally, I think good design that affects millions of people is more important than art than hangs in one room. But I’m not trying to pick a winner. All I’m saying is that the famous quote about design, mistakenly attributed to me, doesn’t make sense.
Today’s post has two objectives:
1. Correct the record on what I said, for historical purposes.
2. Show you how common it is for inaccurate quotes to be attributed to famous people in ways you could not imagine. I have been misquoted in this fashion – where the entire meaning is changed – perhaps a hundred times in my career.
Would you have guessed that I didn’t say the quote most often attributed to me, and that I don’t even agree with it? Probably not. By its nature, it is hard to believe.
Just remember that 98% of everything you read on the Internet is bullshit. The other 2% is accurate by accident.
You can misquote me on that.
Scott
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122081192901";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/122081192901";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Sun, 21 Jun 2015 09:25:21 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:3:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:3:"art";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"Design";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:13:"famous quotes";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}i:19;a:6:{s:4:"data";s:0:"";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";s:5:"child";a:1:{s:0:"";a:6:{s:5:"title";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"The Health Advice I Don’t Find Credible";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:11:"description";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:5857:"The other day I read an article in which an “exercise scientist” said that people who exercise regularly are far more likely to keep off the weight after a diet.
So…therefore…you should exercise if you want to keep the weight off. That was the implication.
That doesn’t sound credible to me.
I’m a big fan of exercise, for health reasons, but it seems to me that the people with the greatest determination to maintain a healthy weight simply do all the things that are recommended for weight management, whether those things work or not. And exercise is generally the top recommendation from experts, after diet.
Look at it this way: If experts told us that the only good ways to maintain a healthy weight included a good diet and shaving off your eyebrows, you would see a high correlation between people who succeeded in keeping off weight and people with no eyebrows.
Here are some more correlations that have never sounded credible to me.
Married people live longer. The implication is that being married is healthier than being single. Maybe. But you know what else is true?
People don’t like to marry unhealthy-looking people. SO OF COURSE THE UNMARRIED DIE SOONER. THEY WERE LESS HEALTHY TO BEGIN WITH.
Getting married might be good for your health, but I don’t think you can believe any data showing a correlation. And I have to think, based on observation, that no more than 20% of married people would say that being married reduces stress.
Dog owners are healthier. The implication is that owning a dog is good for your health. Experts speculate that dog-owners take more walks, and walking is good for you. Or maybe dogs reduce our stress. But you know what else is true?
UNHEALTHY PEOPLE ARE LESS LIKELY TO GET DOGS BECAUSE WALKING THEM SEVERAL TIMES A DAY IS A PAIN IN THE ASS.
Or if you prefer, people who don’t feel capable of taking care of pets probably don’t know a lot about taking care of themselves either. Incompetence doesn’t stay confined to one area as much as you’d hope.
Owning a dog might be healthy, but the data is not credible to me. And it conflicts with observation. My dog is great, and I love her, but she adds huge stress to my day.
Light Drinkers Live Longer: The implication is that light drinking is good for your health. I consider this the least credible correlation of all time. Because you know what else is true of light drinkers?
They are probably inclined toward moderation in general, and good self-discipline as well. Those qualities are likely to be correlated with good health because it all falls into the category of doing what common sense and experts tell you to do. That seems like a healthy way to approach life.
And light drinkers are probably not poor, because alcohol is expensive, which means they have access to better healthcare and better information about health.
My guess is that light drinking is roughly as healthy as light smoking. But we will never know for sure because most researchers are also drinkers (I assume, because most adults are drinkers) and the booze industry is presumably funding some of those studies. How do you get credible information in that context?
To be super-clear, when I say something is not credible, that is different from saying it is false. All I’m saying is that in the cases I mentioned, the evidence does not feel persuasive to me. Based on pattern alone, the studies I mentioned seem more like they belong in the class of things that we will someday laugh at ourselves for believing.
In other news…
In the Berkeley Start-up Blog, find out how bees can get you buzzed. As a bonus, save some rain forests too.
In Top Tech Blog, only God can make a tree. That is why I plan to build a religion around the new 3D printers that can print wood.
And how about a cyborg glove to make your human hand more useful? Great for folks with hand problems. It hasn’t been optimized for masturbation, but that can’t be far behind.
Oh, and while you were napping, some folks 3D-printed a spaceship engine. That…works. You know what is about to change in your life because of all this 3D printing? I’m going to say everything.
Scott
Oh, and also, book.
";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"link";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/121923199701";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:4:"guid";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:41:"http://blog.dilbert.com/post/121923199701";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:7:"pubDate";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:31:"Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:01:49 -0500";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}s:8:"category";a:3:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:10:"3dprinting";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:11:"correlation";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}i:2;a:5:{s:4:"data";s:6:"health";s:7:"attribs";a:0:{}s:8:"xml_base";s:0:"";s:17:"xml_base_explicit";b:0;s:8:"xml_lang";s:0:"";}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}s:4:"type";i:128;s:7:"headers";a:13:{s:12:"content-type";s:23:"text/xml; charset=utf-8";s:3:"p3p";s:86:"CP=Tumblr's privacy policy is available here: https://www.tumblr.com/policy/en/privacy";s:13:"x-tumblr-user";s:14:"scottadamsblog";s:12:"x-robots-tag";s:7:"noindex";s:13:"cache-control";s:11:"max-age=600";s:15:"x-ua-compatible";s:16:"IE=Edge,chrome=1";s:16:"content-encoding";s:4:"gzip";s:11:"x-ua-device";s:7:"desktop";s:4:"vary";s:11:"X-UA-Device";s:14:"content-length";s:5:"32221";s:13:"accept-ranges";s:5:"bytes";s:4:"date";s:29:"Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:02:46 GMT";s:10:"connection";s:5:"close";}s:5:"build";s:14:"20090627192103";}