Scott Adams' Blog

New Words Needed

Posted March 29th, 2011 @ 8:28am in #General Nonsense

There’s no derogatory label for people who label others. This creates an imbalance in the linguistic arsenal. Example:

    Person 1: “If you don’t watch sports, you’re a racist.”

    Person 2: “Oh yeah? Well, you’re…a…person who assigns labels that are not sensible!”

See what I mean? It’s like being in a stick fight and not having a stick. But we can fix that by concocting a…wait for it…label for labelers. I suggest that such a person be called a labelass. Example:

Person 1: “If you don’t watch sports, you’re a racist.”

Person 2: “You’re a labelass.”

Person 1: “What just happened here?”

It will take some work to make labelass a real word and imbue it with the king-of-kings argumentative superpower it needs. Let’s start that journey by giving it a proper definition.

                Labelass: A special kind of idiot who uses labels as a substitute for comprehension.

We also need a name for people who believes that everyone who has a different point of view has the same opinion as everyone else who also has a different point of view. Example:

Person 1: “I don’t think we should bomb Elbonia just because someone said they have a giant slingshot.”

Person 2: “Typical liberal.”

Let’s call a person who believes there are only two viewpoints for every topic a binarian. And don’t worry that using the word will make you a labelass. A labelass is one who uses a label as a substitute for comprehension. If someone is indeed being a total binarian, the label fits.

                Binarian: A special kind of idiot who believes that all people who hold a different view
                                  from oneself have the same views as each other.

And we need a new word for people who misunderstand another person’s point of view and proceed to debate that misunderstanding as if it were the real point of view. I think we should call that person a masturdebator.

                 Masturdebator: One who takes pleasure in furiously debating viewpoints that only
                                                exist in the imagination.

Example:

Person 1: “It’s clear from your statement about this year’s corn crop that you deny the Holocaust.”

Person 2: “What do you do with the other hand, masturdebator?”

Brain-Hat

Posted March 16th, 2011 @ 8:37am in #General Nonsense

Every normal person is rational when relaxed. And everyone has the potential to become irrational when emotions kick in. That’s obvious enough. The thing that fascinates me is that irrationality is something you’re generally not equipped to recognize in yourself while it’s happening. In a perfect world, we’d have an objective way to measure irrationality, the same way a breathalyzer measures drunkenness.

In this context, being rational doesn’t mean you’re brilliant or entirely logical. It just means you’re willing to evaluate information and attempt to draw reasonable conclusions.

I wonder if scientists can determine when you are using the rational part of your brain and when your irrational part is getting a bit too involved. That seems doable. I believe we know enough about the architecture of the brain and we have the technology to see which parts are most active at any given moment. The problem is that it’s not practical to do a brain scan outside a lab setting.

But will that always be the case?

Technology will probably reach a point where you can put on a hat with sensors that see which parts of your brain are being most active. An LED screen on the hat will indicate whether you’re using the rational part of your brain or the crazy part.

Using the rational part of your brain doesn’t mean your opinion is right, of course. But it’s a start. We can also measure IQ, and we can measure a person’s knowledge on a particular topic. That would give you a good idea who to believe on any particular issue.

That leaves self-interest as the wild card. I assume a politician or business leader would be capable of using the rational part of his brain to mislead others for personal gain. But here again I’ll bet the brain-hat of the future will be able to detect deception based on the totality of which parts of the brain are being active.

Politics would never be the same. Voters would insist that politicians wear brain-hats for all speeches, press conferences, and debates.  No one would pay attention to any pundit who wasn’t wearing the brain-hat.

The interesting question is whether some topics, by their very nature, make every participant irrational. I don’t think anyone could pass the brain-hat test when considering topics such as gender equality, war, religion, evolution, race, taxes, Israel, evolution, sexuality, and the like.

I hope I’m dead before technology reaches a point where we can know for sure that people aren’t rational about anything that matters. Because at that point we’ll see there is no reason for debate. Force is all that will matter. Arguably, force is all that matters now, for anything important, but at least the illusion that rationality is an option for persuasion slows down our impulse to bulldoze the opposition. That’s probably a good thing.

Noprivacyville

Posted March 15th, 2011 @ 8:17am in #General Nonsense

I heard a report on NPR about an auto insurance company giving drivers the options of putting GPS tracking devices on their vehicles to lower insurance rates by as much as 30%. The idea is that, for example, the device could confirm to the insurance company that the car wasn’t being used in high risk situations, such as commute traffic. Safe driving situations would be rewarded with lower rates.

This made me wonder how much money could be saved by creating an entire city with no privacy except in the bedroom and bathroom. I will stipulate in advance that you do not want to live in such a place because you’re an urban pirate. You want the freedom to do “stuff” that no one ever finds out about.  I get it. This is just an economic thought experiment.

Although you would never live in a city without privacy, I think that if one could save 30% on basic living expenses, and live in a relatively crime-free area, plenty of volunteers would come forward.

Let’s assume that residents of this city agree to get “chipped” so their locations are always known. Everyone’s online activities are also tracked, as are all purchases, and so on. We’ll have to assume this hypothetical city exists in the not-so-distant future when technology can handle everything I’m about to describe.

This city of no privacy wouldn’t need much of a police force because no criminal would agree to live in such a monitored situation. And let’s assume you have to have a chip to enter the city at all. The few crooks that might make the mistake of opting in would be easy to round up. If anything big went down, you could contract with neighboring towns to get SWAT support in emergency situations.

You wouldn’t need police to catch speeders. Cars would automatically report the speed and location of every driver.  That sucks, you say, because you usually speed, and you like it. But consider that speed limits in this hypothetical town would be much higher than normal because every car would be aware of the location of every other car, every child, and every pet. Accidents could be nearly eliminated.

Healthcare costs might plunge with the elimination of privacy. For example, your pill container would monitor whether you took your prescription pills on schedule. I understand that noncompliance of doctor-ordered dosing is a huge problem, especially with older folks.

Without privacy you would also begin to build a database of which drugs are actually working and which ones have deadly side effects. Every patient’s history would be meticulously and automatically collected. The same goes for detailed diet and exercise patterns. Healthcare today involves an alarming amount of educated guesswork. In time, with a total lack of privacy, we’d know precisely which kinds of choices have better health outcomes.

Now imagine that your doctor has a full screen of your DNA so together you can modify your lifestyle or healthcare choices to avoid problems for which you are prone. This city would need to have universal healthcare to make this work. No one would be denied coverage because of an existing or potential condition.

Employment would seem problematic in this world of no privacy. You assume that no employer would hire someone who has risky lifestyle preferences, or DNA that suggests major health problems. But I’ll bet employers would learn that everyone has issues of one kind or another, so hiring a qualified candidate who might later become ill will look like a good deal. And on the plus side, employers would rarely hire someone who had a bad employment record, as that information would not be as hidden as it is today. Bad workers would end up voluntarily moving out of the city to find work. Imagine a world where your coworkers are competent. You might need a lack of privacy to get to that happy situation.

Public transportation would be cheap in this city of no privacy. Once you know where everyone is, and where everyone wants to go, you can design a system that has little wasted capacity. That means lower costs.

Now let’s say that your house is aware of your location and even your patterns of activities. Smart systems in the home can turn off your lights whenever a room is unoccupied, power down your computer as needed, and generally manage your power consumption smartly. And if you insisted on being an energy hog, your neighbors would be aware of it. Studies have shown that peer pressure has a huge impact on conservation. It’s not as bad as it sounds; if your neighbor is elderly, and using a lot of energy for extra heating, you would understand. In most cases your neighbor’s excessive energy use would have a perfectly good explanation.

At tax time, you’d be done before you started. All of your financial activities would be tracked in real time, so your taxes would always be up to date.

Advertisements would transform from a pervasive nuisance into something more like useful information. Advertisers would know so much about your lifestyle and preferences that you would only see ads that made perfect sense for your situation.

This lack of privacy would extend to businesses as well, although the better description in this case would be transparency. As a consumer, you’d know where to get the best prices. You’d know how long the wait is at your favorite restaurant. And you’d know how every consumer felt about his experience with every business.

When you considered applying for a new job, you’d have access to the latest employee opinion survey for that business. Bad employee practices would be driven out and best practices would more easily spread.

Confusopolies wouldn’t be tolerated in this city. Confusing pricing plans are a weasel method of hiding information from consumers. If a company wants to offer cell phone service, or insurance, or banking, in this city they have to meet standards for pricing clarity.

On the personal side of things, a complete surrendering of privacy means it’s always easy to locate and hook up with people who have similar interests and similar schedules. Dating, and every other social activity would become far easier. And cheating would be nearly impossible.

You worry about the slippery slope of zero privacy. The government could easily abuse this information. But that problem is somewhat minimized because the situation is limited to a single city, and the residents can simply leave if they don’t like how things are going.

I know you don’t want to live in that city. I’m just curious what sort of price, in economic terms, and in convenience and in social benefits, we pay for our privacy. My guess is that it’s expensive.

Analogies are Fighting Words - update

Posted March 9th, 2011 @ 8:32am in #General Nonsense

If I were to say that Elbonians and rats have something in common - specifically their love of cheese, would that be seen as an insult to Elbonians?

Answer: Yes. While the point of the analogy is extraordinarily clear, and limited to a love of cheese, most people would wonder why I chose rats for the comparison when mice would have worked just as well. Mice are not nearly as insulting as rats.

Suppose you didn’t know that I had contemplated using rats in my analogy. Instead, all you heard me say is that Elbonians and mice have something in common - specifically their love of cheese. Would that be seen as an insult to Elbonians?

Answer: Yes. No one wants to be like a mouse, even in a way that happens to be true for just about all mammals. Who doesn’t like cheese?

Analogies are fighting words. When I was younger and dumber I often used analogies to try and make my point. This strategy worked exactly zero times. When people hear analogies, it flips a switch in their brains that turns on the crazy. Even the simplest analogies fail when you use them in an attempt to persuade. And they fail every time.

With that said, there are two proper times to use analogies. One way is in the service of humor. Humor is all about activating the crazy part of the brain.  If I say I witnessed more horrible things than Charlie Sheen’s cat, your brain leaves your logical mode behind. The analogy sets you free.

The second proper time to use analogies is when you want to cause trouble. You should not try this at home. Leave it to the professionals. For example, when you hear Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh getting a lot of heat for something they said, often there is an objectionable analogy at the heart of it. The most famous example is Limbaugh’s coining of the word feminazi. If your job involves making people talk about you, analogies can be powerful tools.

[Update: As if on cue, a serious debate turns into a discussion of the appropriateness of the analogy instead. And notice how well analogies work in the service of humor in this example.]

The Wally Interface Awards

Posted March 8th, 2011 @ 8:07am in #General Nonsense

Post Deleted

Posted March 7th, 2011 @ 6:16pm in #General Nonsense

I deleted today’s post. My regular readers have the capacity to deal with this sort of topic but it gained a bit too much attention from outside my normal reading circle.

Knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Reader’s Choice

Posted March 4th, 2011 @ 1:16pm in #General Nonsense

Pick a topic and I’ll write about it. Or vote in the comment section for the topic you like best and I’ll be most influenced by popular demand.

This is more of an experiment than a time-saving device on my part. Let’s see what happens.

I Hate it When That Happens

Posted March 3rd, 2011 @ 8:11am in #General Nonsense

I need you to tell me what’s wrong with the line of reasoning I’ll describe below. I’m embarrassed that I can’t figure it out myself. It’s not a trick. I’m genuinely curious where my blind spot is.

The argument I’ll describe isn’t new. I’ve written on this topic before, just for fun. But I don’t recall seeing anyone explain why it’s wrong. I’ll number the assumptions and components so you can more easily tell me where the reasoning is broken.

1.       If humanity survives long enough, our technology will reach the point where we can send an unmanned rocket to a distant planet that we deduce has a reasonable chance of sustaining life.

2.       By the time we can do such a thing, hundreds or even thousands of years from now, the cost of each space flight will be far more affordable than now.

3.       Private organizations could have the resources to send such rockets, so there might be a wide variety of reasons to do so, including religious, scientific, and philosophical motives.

4.       One of those reasons could be to “seed” other planets with the building blocks of life as found on Earth. The impulse to do this will seem greater if life on Earth is threatened with an impending natural disaster.

5.       We humans often perceive that the end of the world is near. If it isn’t a meteor, or nuclear war, or climate change, or super virus, it’s something new. We’re good at feeling doomed.

6.       Those unmanned space flights might take millions of years apiece, but unless a rocket strikes something in the vast emptiness of space, it can be built to survive the trip.

7.       The rockets will contain the basic building blocks of life, and by then we will have the knowhow to store those ingredients without the risk of degrading.

8.       Future humans will assume that evolution will do its thing on the new planet and create a wide variety of life. And there would be a strong possibility that in at least one of the seeded planets some version of intelligent life, much like us, would evolve.

9.       Future humans will know that they need to send many rockets toward many planets if their goal is to successfully seed at least one with life.

10.   When the intelligent life on those other planets evolves to the same level of technology as the civilization that created them, they are likely to repeat the cycle, sending out their own rockets to seed yet more planets with their own building blocks of life.

11.   If all of these steps are likely to happen in the future, there is a strong chance it has already happened, and we are an intermediate step and not the ones who will someday go first.

12.   Considering all of these assumptions and likelihoods, we are more likely than not a result of an alien seeding operation.

One argument against this line of thinking is that we won’t ever have the technology, resources, or desire to seed other planets.  But I think all of those things are likely unless technological and financial progress ends within the next thousand years. I’m optimistic that humans can last at least that long.

Another argument against this line of thinking is that life might happen routinely whenever a planet with water and chemical diversity is a certain distance from its sun. Therefore, no seeding is needed. But assuming we can’t know that for sure at the time we send out the seed ships, given that the distances will make direct observations impossible, that could mean that some number of planets have both naturally occurring and seeded forms of life at the same time.

Where is the argument broken?

Charlie Sheen

Posted March 1st, 2011 @ 8:50am in #General Nonsense

I met Charlie Sheen a few years ago, on the set of his show, Two and a Half Men. The writers made a few references to Dilbert in an episode, and that turned into an invitation for Shelly and me to come down and watch the taping.

Charlie was very friendly, and acted as though he was familiar with Dilbert. I often tell the story of Charlie doing a head-to-toe visual assessment of my wife from four feet away. He wasn’t kidding around. Just curious, I guess. Somehow he made it seem normal.

In my two minutes of interaction with Charlie, I got the strangest vibe from him. There was something extraordinarily deep, or maybe dark, or intense, about him. You often hear it said of celebrities “He’s so normal.” I didn’t get a normal vibe from Charlie. Not even close. It wasn’t a crazy vibe, or a drug vibe. It just wasn’t anything I’ve seen before. It was haunting.

Like many of you, I’ve been watching his crazy-talk interviews and reading about his unusual life choices. I’m not embarrassed to say I’m fascinated by it all.  But the thing that interests me the most is the intersection between honesty and insanity. There is some theoretical amount of honesty that is indistinguishable from mental illness. Charlie is blurring the line, or maybe spending some time on both sides of it. It’s clearly intentional. And it might be working, at least in terms of pressuring his show to restart, at which point it would be the most watched show on television.

It might look to you as if he is crazy because he speaks about himself as some sort of walking god with powers beyond what we humans possess. Crazy, right?  Maybe.  If we allow him some literary license when he says he has tiger blood and Adonis DNA, let’s examine the claim.

I witnessed him do hours of dialog during the taping of his show and he never missed a line. His costars didn’t do nearly as well. I was very impressed.

Charlie has also survived incredible amounts of drugs and still appears totally healthy. He looks better than any 45-year old I know. He has also spoken of his ability to go all night without getting tired. I’m usually done by about 9 PM. Maybe he does have an unusually strong constitution.

How about talent? He’s had dramatic roles in films, and he’s the highest paid actor on television. Is it totally crazy for him to think he’s built different from the rest of us? Successful people often believe they are special. Charlie’s problem is that he’s saying it. He’s also saying anything else that pops into his head.

How about his nerves? Would you have the guts to even attempt to do the sort of work he does in front of a live audience? I get the sense that nothing scares him.

Imagine if you stopped filtering everything you said and did. You’d have to be in Charlie Sheen’s unique position to get away with it, but just try to imagine yourself living without self-censorship. Wouldn’t you sound crazy?

Imagine you are so unafraid of consequences and the opinions of other people that you start sentences before you have a plan for how they will end. Sometimes a sentence turns out well, and sometimes you compare yourself to tigers and mythological gods.

I think Charlie is fascinating because he’s living without fear. That translates into a disturbing degree of honesty. And at the moment it gives him an amazing amount of power over the media, which he is using to his advantage.

I can’t judge his mental health. And clearly he has a drug issue that will last a lifetime. But I also think that a total lack of fear would look like insanity to the casual observer. And perhaps it is. But it’s a strangely great kind of crazy.

Hey, CBS, if Two and a Half Men starts up again, I’ll cancel whatever other plans I have so I can see it. Advantage: Charlie.

Seeing the Past

Posted February 28th, 2011 @ 8:29am in #General Nonsense

Imagine a future with no data privacy whatsoever. Imagine that the images from every video camera are public. Your health records, your web browsing history, your physical location at any moment, and even your financial records are public. We generally assume that having no privacy would be an awful thing. That’s not the debate for today. Instead, imagine what types of spectacular apps you could have in a world with no privacy. Allow me to describe a few.

Assume in this imagined future that the cost of data storage continues dropping, and all data gets sent to the so-called cloud. That way, everyone has access to all of the data in the world all of the time.

Assume also that someday almost every space in the populated world has cameras that stream to the Internet. Cameras will someday cost about $1 apiece.

One hypothetical app in the no-privacy world would allow you to see the past and the future through your phone. Just point the camera app in any direction, specify the date you’d like to view, and your phone gives you a video replay of what was happening in your vicinity during that time. You could also use face recognition to search the past for someone specific and replay just the time that individual was in the room. Can’t remember where you left your keys? No problem. Just replay the five minutes after you entered the room.

You could also see the future, in rough form, if you knew everyone’s current location and speed via GPS, plus any reservations they booked, their Outlook calendar entries, their addresses, their Evite status, and more. Just open your map application, say a name and a time, and a dot will appear on the map for that person’s predicted location. Now zoom in to street level to see the actual building.

How about a health scanner? Point your phone at a person and ask for a health scan. You’d instantly have access to the person’s health records and lifestyle information. You’d know how much alcohol he purchases, how many cigarettes he buys, and how many times he visits the gym. You’d know age, family history, medical records, and more. Your screen would show the image of the person along with animated highlights of any actual or likely problem areas. 

Airport security would be a lot faster. Every person would be so thoroughly profiled by the system that an x-ray would be unnecessary for 99% of fliers.

Finding a mate would be easier. Just point your camera toward a crowd and it would highlight anyone who is a match.

Making conversation with strangers would be easier. You’d instantly know what you have in common with any other person. That’s often all it takes to turn a stranger into a friend.

Imagine driving down the road and having access to the driving record of every other motorist. The risky drivers would be highlighted by the heads-up technology in your windshield. Give them a bit more room.

Privacy has its benefits, but you’re giving up a lot of cool apps.