Scott Adams's Blog, page 281

President Obama: Wizard or Failure?

Russia is moving into Old Syria. Iran already owns the parts of Old Iraq that ISIS and the Kurds do not. Israel fears that the nuclear deal with Iran is a mistake of unthinkable proportions.

The data suggests that President Obama is a total failure when it comes to the Middle East.

Or… he is one of the most gifted wizards of persuasion and strategy our generation has ever seen.

The data fits both interpretations. You already know the interpretation that says Obama failed. Allow me to give you another interpretation – one that isn’t necessarily true – but happens to fit the data.

And the fun part is that we can make predictions based on both filters and see which one does the best job of explaining our reality. Just for fun. Don’t get your opinions on world politics from cartoonists.

The Master Wizard Hypothesis says there are people so skilled in the art of persuasion that they control world events while sometimes pretending they are inept, to cover their tracks.

The Master Wizard filter says that President Obama – magnificent bastard and Commander in Chief – just suckered Russia and Iran into the quicksand while taking The United States out of an endless and unwinnable fight.

And … doomed ISIS in the process.

The United States can’t defeat ISIS militarily because doing so would require killing too many civilians. Russia and Iran will have fewer problems in that regard because they control their media and their leaders don’t need to ask permission.

And let’s say you want to build a virtual wall around ISIS to contain them. You would need a substantial military power to guard the coast.

You need Russia. 

Right where they are deploying.

The Master Wizard filter says President Obama has a winning plan for eradicating ISIS at the lowest cost for Americans. America’s frenemies have now encircled ISIS, and the American media with their freedom of the press will not be there to watch what happens next.

ISIS is reportedly planting landmines around captured cities to keep the civilian population from escaping. They expected the United States to avoid bombing population centers. 

They were right.

But they they did not expect the United States to turn over the fight to Russia and Iran.

ISIS is done. 

Unfortunately, so is the civilian population in ISIS-held territory. But living under ISIS probably isn’t much of a life either. And I have heard no one suggest a more humane solution.

The Master Wizard filter says President Obama either created this perfect situation or recognized the opportunity and encouraged it. 

That would be totally bad-ass. 

The Master Wizard filter also says Iran and the United States are cooperating behind the scenes and getting more comfortable as allies. In the long run, Iran was going to get a nuke if it wanted one. A Master Wizard of Persuasion would seek to keep his enemies close, where persuasion works best. Distance and non-contact are the enemies of persuasion. According to the Master Wizard filter, building an active engagement with Iran, combined with skillful persuasion, reduces risk. (Only a Master Wizard could feel confident in that plan.)

I’m not saying the Master Wizard interpretation of reality is true. I’m just saying the data fits the interpretation. We shall see what the future holds.

Donald Trump, another skilled deal-maker and persuader, also favors walling off ISIS territory to strangle them. In Trump’s case there is also a branding benefit when you define a border. One side can be TERRIBLE while the other is FABULOUS.

The Trump Confidence Thing

Politico got this right. Trump’s game isn’t as random as you thought.

Thanks to DJO for pointing it out.

California Legalizes Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill

Regular readers of this blog know I have some history with the topic of doctor-assisted dying.

My father died in 2013. That experience left my emotions raw, and prompted me to write this blog post.* It went viral.

At the time, a Gallup poll said 51% of Americans favored doctor-assisted dying. That seemed low to me. Indeed, when the question was asked in a more positive way, Gallup showed support in the high sixties.

A year later, according to Gallup, support for doctor-assisted dying law in America had jumped from 51% to 58%. Using positive phrasing for the same poll question, support was as high as 69%.

On October 5th, 2015, Governor Brown signed a bill legalizing doctor-assisted dying.

Polls say 76% of Californians are in favor of having the option.

I support the new law. But under the circumstances, celebration of its passing seems inappropriate.

Instead I would like to show some appreciation to the folks who opposed the law for reasons of human dignity, or because of risk to the differently abled. And special thanks to Jimmy Akin for artfully explaining his views for my blog readers. While I support the new law in California, I keep in mind that others are fighting for the value of human life, and fair treatment to all. I think the world is a better place for your voices, and they form the right kind of balance. I wouldn’t want to live on a planet where questions of life and death are treated casually. So thank you, sincerely, for that.

Scott Adams

*Find the persuasion techniques in my post about my father, linked above. Regular readers should recognize them by now.

Robots Read News - About Humans in Metal Cages

If your firewall is blocking the image, see it on my Twitter page here.

On an unrelated topic…

When I wrote God’s Debris in 2001, I thought it would be a decade or more before it caught on. The zeitgeist wasn’t ready, but it was heading in that direction. So I engineered the book to have a time-release trigger. (That was literally my plan.) Looks like we’re on schedule. It is number one in its sub-category.

And what triggered the time release?

Donald Trump.

I did not predict Trump specifically, but I did expect society to start realizing that humans do not use reason to make decisions. (That’s the lesson I learned in hypnosis class in my twenties.) Trump is demonstrating – via his powers of persuasion – that free will is an illusion, at least for some voters, and the impact of that realization will change the world in subtle but important ways. Once you let go of your certainty about your view of reality, God’s Debris is a fun read. Or so I hoped when I wrote it.

The sequel, The Religion War, published in 2004, also has a time-release trigger. I designed the trigger to activate when three specific things happened in the world: 

A caliphate forms in the Middle East. (check)

There is talk of walling off the caliphate. (check) 

Terrorists use hobby-sized drones for attacks on U.S. soil. (soon)

In the book, a conservative leader named Cruz rises to power in the United States and gains control of the military. That part seems unlikely. Right?

That’s what makes it fiction.

—

Check out Top Tech Blog, I wonder who was the first guy to volunteer for the shaver that uses lasers to burn your beard stubble off? 

The American Gun Problem - And How a Master Wizard of Persuasion Could Fix it.

Caution 1: This post includes real hypnosis and it will influence some readers to a different opinion on guns. If you don’t want to be influenced, please do not read.

Caution 2: You will not like what I say on this topic. That’s another reason to skip it.

— Start —

On one side of the gun debate in America we have a bunch of idiots spouting total bullshit arguments, generously sprinkled with cherry-picked statistics that are out of context or don’t apply to America’s situation. 

On the other side of the gun debate we have exactly the same thing.

And there is a simple explanation for this absurd situation. We make the same mistake every time when it comes to domestic issues: We look at averages and pretend those averages are useful for anything but starting fights. We do the same thing with all of our social issues:

Average woman

Average man

Average Immigrant (He’s a criminal and a good citizen at the same time!)

Average African-American

Average whatever.

There’s no such thing as an average person!!!

All gun arguments are based on average people doing average things in average places. I agree that the average person should live in a world with far fewer guns because that guy is an idiot with no common sense, no gun safety training, and no gun locks. Luckily, the average person does not exist. Instead, you have some people who are smart enough to safely own guns, people who are far too dangerous or dumb to own guns, and a lot of people in the middle.

Every individual has a different risk when it comes to guns. 

So forget about average people. Let’s consider a few real people. Take me, for example. I offend people for a living. I’m doing it right now. And I weigh 150 pounds. 

I am pro-gun. 

Because …  I might someday have a good reason to shoot someone who is bigger than me or armed. If your reason for supporting gun ownership involves loyalty to a document written hundreds of years ago by slave-owners with muskets, you probably have some explaining to do. Don’t include me in that camp. I support gun rights because I think there is a good chance I might someday need to shoot a human. Period. If the Constitution prohibited personal gun ownership, I would have to consider violating that document, for my own sense of safety.

My situation is unique, but it is easy to imagine there are other citizens who believe – correctly or not – that gun ownership makes them safer.

At the same time it is obvious that too many innocent people are being killed by guns. For most people, the more guns in the environment, the less safe they will feel, and probably with good reason. How can a government create one set of gun laws that satisfies such different risk profiles? It seems logically impossible.

The starting assumption that people are somewhat average in terms of gun risks is so absurd that any discussion on the topic turns into a debate over Schroedinger’s cat – it assumes the average citizen is simultaneously safer and less safe because there are people in both risk classes. 

Am I wrong to think a gun improves my personal safety? (I have no kids in the house, by the way.) Beats me. There are no statistics that apply to my specific situation. And no study can accurately account for my psychological sense of safety. The important question is who gets to make the decision about how safe I can feel in my own home – the government or me?

By way of context, I have been robbed three times at gunpoint in my life, including twice when I was a bank teller. On another day a gang member pointed a pistol at my head and pulled the trigger just to be funny. There was no round in the chamber. All of that happened in San Francisco, years ago. I mention those incidents so you know I understand the dangers of guns.

Eventually I earned enough money to move to the suburbs where I have not been assaulted in years. But you don’t forget the experience of having guns pointed at your head. 

I realize that nothing about my situation can be generalized to anyone else, and that is my point. We are all different in terms of gun risks. It is easy for me to imagine that millions of people are less safe because guns are readily available. That was probably the case for me when I was looking up those gun barrels in San Francisco. 

So how do we balance the legitimate safety interests of citizens who find themselves in wildly different risk situations? Some need more guns to feel safe and some need fewer.

The approach least-likely to work is the one we are trying now, in which the President pushes for gun restrictions while responsible gun owners resist. I don’t see that changing, no matter how many mass killings happen. 

So here’s one suggestion, based on the rules of persuasion that I have been blogging about lately. The idea is for President Obama (or our next president) to do the following:

Stop calling it a gun problem.Stop talking about gun control or even common-sense restrictions.
Start calling it gun safety and personal responsibility  (High ground maneuver.)
Ask the NRA to propose a gun safety plan that addresses the nation’s legitimate concerns. (Ask them to take responsibility for their freedom.)


Ask an independent body (The Swiss?) to score the NRA’s plan for budget impact, practicality, and impact on freedom.


Keep pushing until the NRA comes up with a plan that scores well. Then implement it in one volunteer state, as a test.
Put a billion-joule spotlight on the test, track results, and hold the NRA responsible for the outcome.If the plan works in one state, expand it. If not, tweak and try again.

Here are a few ideas the NRA might support, although I confess to know little about their organization. I include these for the purpose of creating mental anchors and thinking past the sale. (Those are methods of influence.) 

The NRA could propose…

1. A massive government push to provide gun locks and gun safes.

2. More gun safety training requirements.

3. Death penalty (by firing squad to be ironic) for anyone who provides a gun to a future killer without first doing a background check. Under this plan, you can still sell your gun to anyone, but you take the risk of your buyer being a nut. In this model, everyone takes responsibility for their own actions, including private gun sellers. 

4. Gun buy-back programs.

5. Better enforcement of laws already on the books. (That probably requires a budget increase.)

6. Law to require that a gun lock is included with every gun sold.

That is just a starter list, so you can see what a safety-focused effort looks like compared to standard gun control arguments. I don’t intend my list to be a good start for a plan. I am not well-informed on this topic. In this blog we take rough ideas and see if we can shape them up.

See what you can do with this one. Maybe you can save some lives.

Afterthought: A reader of this blog once commented that the safest gun strategy is to publicly announce that you support gun rights while not keeping any firearms in the house. 

The Moist Robot Ethical Code

The problem with my Moist Robot view of the world – the one that says we are all animated meat, bouncing around according to the laws of physics – is that there is no accounting for morality or ethical behavior in that world view.

Is that a problem?

I don’t subscribe to any religious belief and yet I am never tempted to hurt other people for personal gain. Most non-believers would say the same. So there must be something in the operating systems of our brains that provides the equivalent of a moral code no matter what we think of the afterlife. Today I will try to put that moral code for non-believers into words.

My suggestion for a non-believer’s moral code can be reduced to two words: 

Be useful.

That’s my personal way of seeing the world. I didn’t invent the notion, but it seems to fit me best.

To me, a well-lived life starts with total selfishness, as a baby, and over time you learn to take care of yourself before turning outward and trying to help those around you. I’m at the helpful age now. I enjoy recreation, but I only find meaning and satisfaction from being useful to other people. I think that change in a person happens automatically after we satisfy our own needs. Our strongest instincts after self-preservation are, apparently, to protect the tribe.

You probably think “useful” is a vague standard, and far too subjective. But you might be surprised at how often it clarifies your world and your role in it.

My only expectation from other humans is that they are trying to move up the scale from useless (as a baby) to relatively useful as an adult. And by that I mean you add to society more than you subtract. I don’t think we should assume some “normal” rate at which people should become useful. Everyone is different. But I do think the world is better when everyone is trying to move in that direction.

Keep in mind that we are flawed creatures, so our sense of what is useful at any given moment might be biased or totally mistaken. But as long as our intentions are leaning the right way, I think it all works out in the long run.

Intentions.

The first time I heard the word “intention” in a philosophical context was during a personal conversation with Salesforce’s founder and CEO, Marc Benioff, before I gave a talk to a gathering of his managers. I had always seen the world in terms of action, not intention. After ten minutes with Benioff, I started to think I lived on a different plane of existence. Benioff managed intentions – his own and others – and became a billionaire philanthropist. I was stuck on some plane that seemed more about the physical realm. 

Let me give you an example of intention from my Benioff experience. As the evening’s speaker, I was seated next to Benioff for dinner, along with several of his direct reports. One of the executives was updating Benioff about a PowerPoint slide deck he had just finished. Benioff asked if the first slide stated the company’s philanthropic intentions. The manager said no, and explained how his presentation was perfect the way it was.

But it wasn’t right according to Benioff. It didn’t set the right intention. It was merely information. So Benioff asked him to make the social objective the first page.

The executive resisted. It didn’t seem the right flow for the information.

I think it took Benioff three or four attempts to convey the idea that intention needs to be the first page, not the afterthought. But Benioff succeeded, largely because he was not willing to engage in any other part of the conversation until the executive confirmed that his first page would be about charitable giving. (And it helps to be the boss, obviously.)

Intention. Intention. Intention.

You might recall from my prior posts that a Master Wizard describes a better version of you and invites you to rise to it. Benioff invites his employees to be givers. And to be better givers, Salesforce has to make more money. It is capitalism, but Benioff-style.

I would love to tell you that billionaire philanthropist Marc Benioff is a regular guy who worked hard and got lucky. That wasn’t my sense of him. I think Benioff understands the power of intention, and his success follows from that. He is one of the least normal people I have ever met, but in a good way. And my impression was that it is 100% genuine. Benioff is trying to fix the world, starting with intentions first.

And that leads me to Be Useful. We humans will certainly fail to do the right things, at least sometimes. But in our intentions, we can be perfect. 

Intend to be useful. 

You will be amazed how right it feels.

—

For more on the topic of intentions, see the affirmations chapter in my book or hear it as one topic in this long podcast interview I did with Tim Ferriss.

—

In Top Tech Blog, soon we will have soft-skinned robots. And that means human lovers are becoming less competitive every day. 

Robots Read News Endorses Candidate

What candidate would robots support? I think the answer is obvious.

See the image on Twitter here if your firewall is being unfriendly.

One-on-One Match-ups - Trump Persuasion Series

Warning: This post will generate massive cognitive dissonance in some readers. If you think you can learn from that, please read on. If that prospect makes you uncomfortable, please don’t read it.

—

If you compare Donald Trump to whoever you have in mind as your ideal president, Trump probably comes up short. There are plenty of qualities one might want in a president that Trump doesn’t have. So I understand why people think he can’t get elected.

But Trump will not be running against anyone’s imaginary standard for president. He will run against real people. That’s where things get interesting. In my opinion, Trump only got serious about the presidency when he realized that the one-on-one match-ups all went his way. So let’s see how those match-ups look.

Here I am going to put a Trump filter on the opponents, meaning I will paint them the way Trump has, and will. That’s the best way to judge the head-to-head competition because the media will report every word Trump says.

Here are Trump’s competitors, as branded by Trump.

Rubio: Sweaty kid who lied about doing his homework while Trump built a business empire. Got “rolled over” on Obamacare, like a rube, in case you had not made that linguistic connection.

Clinton:

A “major security risk” and a grandmother who can’t do email right while Trump dominates Twitter. 

Carson: A doctor who is too nice to negotiate deals. The only job he created was for one nurse. (And for Carson to win, one must believe the Republican base wants 16 years of of continuous African-American presidents.)

Sanders: Can you win if you get zero Republican votes?

Fiorina: HP failure. Lucent failure. And of course, the “face” which many men interpret to mean her angry-wife persona. Compare that mixture of failure and anger to Trump’s business success (so he tells us) and positive message about America.

Bush: Low-energy, and yet another Bush. We already see how that is working out for Bush.

Biden: Biden says he isn’t sure he has the “emotional energy” to run. How does that match up against Trump? Ask Jeb Bush.

The rest: Career politicians. Trump will chain their corporate donors to them like anchors and push them off the boat to see how well they swim.

So there are your match-ups. Since I am still mostly alone in predicting a landslide Trump victory in the general election, please tell me which one of these match-ups you think Trump could lose.

I think this is another situation in which my degree in economics, along with my MBA, have wired me to think differently. The most important thing one learns when studying business and the economy is how to make valid comparisons. For example, one must always ignore sunk costs (the past) and one must compare all options to real alternatives, not to an ideal.

If you think Trump will lose, you are probably comparing him to an ideal you hold for what a president should be. If you believe he will win, you probably have a background in economics, or law, or engineering, and you have learned how to make valid comparisons to alternatives.

That’s your cognitive dissonance set-up. If you feel you are a rational person who knows how to weigh alternatives, let me know how any of the competitors could win in a one-on-one match-up with Trump.

If I did this right, and I am sure I did, I predict you will see the biggest mess of word-salad in the comments that you have ever seen. Roughly one-third of the comments to this post should make no sense whatsoever (as opposed to an opinion you simply disagree with).

And I remind you that I don’t know whether Trump would be a good president. I am not that smart. I just enjoy the show.

–

In Top Tech Blog, science is one step closer to being able to put your brain in a robot body. Check out this technology for letting paralyzed people type by thinking.

And what about the new technology that predicts where crime will happen before it happens? I call that a “map” but apparently there is more to it.

—

I always link to the Kindle version of my contrarian book about success but I wonder if this sort of book works best in paper form because it is an ideal gift for young employees. (See what I did there? I asked you to think past the sale. That’s a Trump trick.)

Super Soil Reduces the Odds of You Starving to Death in Retirement

As you know, people are not saving enough for retirement. Not even close. So in order to survive, we probably need to reduce the cost of retirement living. That brings me to a company called Click and Grow. 

Note: I am about to make a tiny investment in this company, primarily for social reasons. I think their technology has the potential to change the world. I am giving it some attention because that’s probably all they need. This is not investment advice.

Click and Grow makes a nanomaterial soil that is optimized for growing. It already works for their counter-top herb-growing device that you will see on the site. I tried it at home, after meeting the founder, and sure enough, several herbs grew quickly and perfectly with no effort on my part. Just add water once to its little reservoir.

The nanomaterial in the soil is engineered for each type of plant. It has the right nutrient levels and it controls moisture automatically because of its physical structure, so you don’t need to worry about any of that.

But does this consumer product scale up to farm size?

The company is moving forward on testing some small indoor-farm set-ups. The initial estimates are that this method of growing will reduce costs by 70-80% compared to hydroponics and aerponics. The savings come from reducing complexity. With Click and Grow, all you need is the soil, seed, and water. And you don’t need to try hard to get the watering right because the soil does that for you. 

Compare that simple model to this diagram of aerponics or this page of hydroponic operations. The farmer doesn’t want that level of complexity or cost.

The nanosoil will be completely biodegradable in the upcoming version. (Current version is 98% biodegradable.) The only downside is that you have to trade out the soil after using it. I suggested to the founder that they look into using it as a base for concrete or maybe using it as kitty litter. So that part hasn’t been fully worked out for large-scale farming, but it seems doable. Obviously that cuts into the economics. 

The company is focusing on testing commercial farm operations, but a back-of-envelope estimate by the founder is that a vertical garden (floor to ceiling) about the size of a kitchen table, with several levels up, might feed a typical family. The rapid growing speed compensates for the lack of space, and there is no farming skill needed. 

if you have any great ideas on how to reuse or easily replace a lot of nanosoil in pots, please put that in the comments. At the risk of exaggerating, coming up with that solution here could save a billion lives someday. If climate change makes outdoor farming less economical, we will need an indoor option ready to go.

Any ideas?

—

In Top Tech Blog, you have a technology for scrubbing carbon dioxide out of the oceans and an electric car that stores energy in salt water. How cool is that?

–

If you are reading this blog, you would probably enjoy my contrarian book about success. According to this reviewer, I am an “unlikely source” for anything helpful, and I have to agree with that observation. But sometimes a blind squirrel…

History’s First Quadruple-Wizard

This post is just for fun, as part of my Master Wizard series. The first half is inspired by a tweet from one of my Twitter followers. 

Master Wizard: A human that is extraordinarily skilled in the methods of persuasion.

I think historians would agree that Abraham Lincoln was one of the great Master Wizards of persuasion. Americans are well aware of Lincoln’s linguistic gifts. But you might not know that Lincoln and Mark Twain – another Master Wizard – were alive at the same time. History does not tell us if the two met. But if you have been reading my Master Wizard series, you know that skilled persuaders can recognize each other from their tells. At the very least, we can be sure Mark Twain studied Lincoln’s communication style, as writers do. Perhaps Twain even learned a few things.

Mark Twain later became friends with Andrew Carnegie, an American industrialist who was the richest man in the world. That level of success is a tell for a Master Wizard. Carnegie had a special interest in persuasive thinkers and authors, says Wikipedia. That too is a tell for a Master Wizard acquiring skills.

Carnegie asked writer Napoleon Hill to interview other successful people to determine whether there was some sort of formula for success. Hill went on to write the mega-hit self-help book Think and Grow Rich. (Keyword Think.)

Napoleon Hill’s writings were a big influence on another author, Norman Vincent Peale. Peale wrote the hugely successful book The Power of Positive Thinking. (Key word: Thinking)

Peale was also a pastor. He preached his message of positive thinking to his congregation. Imagine what it was like to hear Peale speak, as he channeled the wisdom and persuasive powers that came to him through the teachings of Jesus, Lincoln, Twain, Carnegie, and other Master Wizards as described in Napoleon Hill’s work. What effect did those sermons have on a young Donald Trump?

You probably think Trump only recently got serious about running for president. I think he decided when he was a child, listening to Pastor Peale.

When Trump says he plans to make America great again, you are hearing the power of positive thinking that came to him honestly, while sitting in church. Trump says he loved those sermons. Apparently Peale was a persuasive speaker. It is easy to imagine that everyone who heard Peale’s sermons would agree that the Bible is a terrific book.

Keep in mind that Carnegie was a hard-core capitalist until becoming a philanthropist and giving away 90% of his wealth. That is the school of influence that formed Trump. You think he is running for president because he is a narcissistic clown who loves attention. That might be the case. But it doesn’t give much credit to the persuasive powers of Jesus, Carnegie, Hill, and Peale. 

Now hold that thought.

In a prior post I told you that the father of modern hypnosis is Milton Erickson. He influenced the creators of NLP – Bandler and Grinder. Grinder trained Tony Robbins, the personal coach to world leaders. And Tony Robbins has advised Clinton, Obama, and Romney on debating. I don’t know how well Robbins and Trump know each other, but I can tell you Trump is pitch-perfect in technique. And we know Trump and Robbins have worked together on at least one project.

On top of those influences, Trump seems to have mastered everything modern psychology can teach us about negotiating and persuading. He even wrote a book about it.

Pulling all of this together, Trump is the result of four powerful schools of persuasion:

Jesus - ”Turn the other cheek” was a call to psychological warfareCarnegie, Hill, Peale - Use your mind to succeedErickson, Robbins - hypnosis/NLPScience - persuasion, negotiating

I am serious when I say I don’t know if Trump is the right fit for the presidency, especially after seeing his tax plan that won’t add up. But if you think he doesn’t have the skill to get elected, you will continue to be surprised. 

Update: Business Insider now ranks Trump second only to Clinton for likelihood of becoming president. And do you know why Business Insider ranks Clinton ahead of Trump?

Clinton is great at raising money.

Do you think Clinton’s fundraising skills will keep Trump from the presidency?

Maybe.

But I think Trump will roll up Clinton’s corporate supporters into a tight little bat and club her to death in front of the world for about a year.

Or Nate Silver could be right. His track record is better than mine. 

—

In Top Tech Blog, science might make it so easy to be a cartoonist that all I need to do is stare at the screen and think about what I want. Check this out.

—

It was nice to see God’s Debris at the top of its category 15 years after it was released. The book was originally published on September 15, 2001. As you might imagine, that was bad timing for an author trying to get some attention.