Scott Adams's Blog, page 344
May 6, 2012
Income Distribution Magic
Suppose you could snap your fingers and instantly reduce the huge disparity in income distribution across the globe. Would you do it?
Many of you will probably say yes. You'd take some of the "extra" money from the rich and use it to help the needy. But suppose I put one condition on this magic power of yours. Suppose the only thing you can do by magic is reduce by half the wealth of the top 1% while knowing the money would be transferred to no one. The money would simply cease to exist. The rich would have half as much, while everyone else remained the same. Would you use your powers then?
I keep reading opinions that the gigantic gaps we see in income distributions are corrosive to a healthy society. If that's the case, using your magic to screw the rich should be a good thing for the world - including the rich themselves - even if the poor are not directly helped at the same time.
So how about it - Would you use your magic to screw the rich, thus reducing the gap in income distribution?
Many of you will probably say yes. You'd take some of the "extra" money from the rich and use it to help the needy. But suppose I put one condition on this magic power of yours. Suppose the only thing you can do by magic is reduce by half the wealth of the top 1% while knowing the money would be transferred to no one. The money would simply cease to exist. The rich would have half as much, while everyone else remained the same. Would you use your powers then?
I keep reading opinions that the gigantic gaps we see in income distributions are corrosive to a healthy society. If that's the case, using your magic to screw the rich should be a good thing for the world - including the rich themselves - even if the poor are not directly helped at the same time.
So how about it - Would you use your magic to screw the rich, thus reducing the gap in income distribution?
May 3, 2012
Homes for Oldsters
Have you visited an assisted living facility for the elderly lately? If you have, I'll bet it was clean and professional, but also unspeakably sad. The residents are well cared for, but they look lonely and bored and forgotten. Maybe we should figure out how to fix that situation before it's our turn.
If you consider the huge demographic wave of retirees coming down the road, and the fact that many haven't saved enough for retirement, and the fact that science keeps finding ways to keep our withered bodies alive longer, we have a big problem brewing. Where will all of those old people live?
Some oldsters will live with family, of course, and some will be independent until the end. But that still leaves tens of millions of old people in need of assisted living. What will that look like?
Let's begin by imagining an elder care facility designed to stimulate the residents and provide a great quality of life. Current facilities appear to be designed for efficiency, more like hospitals than hotels. What we have now are clean and bright facilities that are needlessly depressing. Let's start by getting some better colors in there, and adding some real design. Every room should have a second floor view of something beautiful and interesting, a gas fireplace, porcelain tile floors, interesting lighting, beamed ceiling, and a little extra space. Think of a lake cabin or a Spanish bungalow. Good design costs more, of course, but I'll talk about economics later.
Now imagine that each room has a huge flat screen TV on the wall, and speakers in the ceilings. The residents would also have the option of wireless headphones with built-in microphones for Skype calling, or for listening to loud shows, or music, or books on tape. I imagine the remote control for all of this in the form of an arm band, so it never gets misplaced during the day.
The TV and speaker systems for the one-room apartments would have interfaces designed especially for old people. The upcoming wave of elderly people will be comfortable enough with technology that we will have more options than before. The onscreen menus would be large and simple, and also operate on voice command. The lights, phone, and temperature would also be controllable from the menu on the TV. Let's also assume the oldsters can use the armband controller to speak directly with the staff in case they need something.
The genius part of my idea involves locating the elder care facility next to an animal rescue facility. It's the perfect symbiotic relationship. Both the old people and the animals want company. They can have each other all day long. There will be some extra hygiene issues, but humans live with dogs and cats now without much trouble. We might want to create common areas for human and pet interaction, to keep the fleas out of the main living areas.
I would also combine the elder care facility in the same building with a childcare area. Kids are germ carriers, and you wouldn't want much direct contact between the snot nosed kids and the seniors. But I think you could let the healthier seniors work part time in the childcare facility to give them something active to do. And for the rest of the seniors, it's just a happier environment when you can see kids coming and going, and playing behind glass windows. Call it the ambiance of life. And in some cases, the kids might be the grandkids of residents.
I'd also want each senior to have his or her own garden space, arranged in rows, at wheelchair height, in a common greenhouse. This gives the seniors something to cultivate and have fun with. There's something about gardening that appeals to most old people.
Now imagine a kid-sized soccer field in the courtyard of the assisted living facility. During the school day, the kids from childcare would use it to run wild. After school, older kids from the area would schedule the field for team sports. The elderly residents would have front row wheelchair access to watch the action.
Now imagine that the seniors can use their big screen TVs to Skype with family and friends from anywhere in their apartment. And let's assume the interface is designed with only a few visible options, such as "Call Timmy" or "Answer Call." If your grandma is in the facility, just fire up your iPad and visit her without leaving your couch. If you're having a birthday party for a grandkid, set up the call on the iPad and just leave its camera pointing in the direction of the action. Grandma will feel like she's in the room.
I can also imagine wheelchairs of the future being motorized and guided by a sort of in-house GPS system. If grandma wants to visit the animal petting area, or take a ride through the adjacent park to get some sun, she just tells the chair where she wants to go and it takes off on a slow ride.
Let's also imagine that all recreational drugs become legal for people over the age of 75. While drugs are clearly bad for kids, can we say the same thing about senior citizens? Recreational drugs might actually keep seniors healthier by increasing their happiness, energy, appetites, and general interest in life. And it's not as if seniors in assisted living will be operating heavy equipment or making important decisions. I don't see a downside.
Now that we've done a great job designing the assisted living facilities to be stimulating and life-affirming, how do we pay for all of that extra stuff without government assistance?
For starters, the facility can have a few extra sources of income. The childcare wing would be an income source, as would the sports field that could be rented out. I could also imagine beautiful garden areas around the grounds that are suitable for weddings and events. That's another revenue source. The facility could cater the reception as well. All of this activity helps to make the residents feel connected to the circle of life.
Now imagine that these senior facilities are owned and operated by a company that also sells long term care insurance. People would start paying for their assisted living while still relatively young. With insurance, most people will pay and never reap the benefits. I think people would pay a premium to know they have a guaranteed spot in a high end assisted living place if the time comes. Compare that sort of investment to the stock market, which is iffy at best. I think an argument can be made that investing in your own future assisted living is the smartest retirement investment you can make.
If you consider the huge demographic wave of retirees coming down the road, and the fact that many haven't saved enough for retirement, and the fact that science keeps finding ways to keep our withered bodies alive longer, we have a big problem brewing. Where will all of those old people live?
Some oldsters will live with family, of course, and some will be independent until the end. But that still leaves tens of millions of old people in need of assisted living. What will that look like?
Let's begin by imagining an elder care facility designed to stimulate the residents and provide a great quality of life. Current facilities appear to be designed for efficiency, more like hospitals than hotels. What we have now are clean and bright facilities that are needlessly depressing. Let's start by getting some better colors in there, and adding some real design. Every room should have a second floor view of something beautiful and interesting, a gas fireplace, porcelain tile floors, interesting lighting, beamed ceiling, and a little extra space. Think of a lake cabin or a Spanish bungalow. Good design costs more, of course, but I'll talk about economics later.
Now imagine that each room has a huge flat screen TV on the wall, and speakers in the ceilings. The residents would also have the option of wireless headphones with built-in microphones for Skype calling, or for listening to loud shows, or music, or books on tape. I imagine the remote control for all of this in the form of an arm band, so it never gets misplaced during the day.
The TV and speaker systems for the one-room apartments would have interfaces designed especially for old people. The upcoming wave of elderly people will be comfortable enough with technology that we will have more options than before. The onscreen menus would be large and simple, and also operate on voice command. The lights, phone, and temperature would also be controllable from the menu on the TV. Let's also assume the oldsters can use the armband controller to speak directly with the staff in case they need something.
The genius part of my idea involves locating the elder care facility next to an animal rescue facility. It's the perfect symbiotic relationship. Both the old people and the animals want company. They can have each other all day long. There will be some extra hygiene issues, but humans live with dogs and cats now without much trouble. We might want to create common areas for human and pet interaction, to keep the fleas out of the main living areas.
I would also combine the elder care facility in the same building with a childcare area. Kids are germ carriers, and you wouldn't want much direct contact between the snot nosed kids and the seniors. But I think you could let the healthier seniors work part time in the childcare facility to give them something active to do. And for the rest of the seniors, it's just a happier environment when you can see kids coming and going, and playing behind glass windows. Call it the ambiance of life. And in some cases, the kids might be the grandkids of residents.
I'd also want each senior to have his or her own garden space, arranged in rows, at wheelchair height, in a common greenhouse. This gives the seniors something to cultivate and have fun with. There's something about gardening that appeals to most old people.
Now imagine a kid-sized soccer field in the courtyard of the assisted living facility. During the school day, the kids from childcare would use it to run wild. After school, older kids from the area would schedule the field for team sports. The elderly residents would have front row wheelchair access to watch the action.
Now imagine that the seniors can use their big screen TVs to Skype with family and friends from anywhere in their apartment. And let's assume the interface is designed with only a few visible options, such as "Call Timmy" or "Answer Call." If your grandma is in the facility, just fire up your iPad and visit her without leaving your couch. If you're having a birthday party for a grandkid, set up the call on the iPad and just leave its camera pointing in the direction of the action. Grandma will feel like she's in the room.
I can also imagine wheelchairs of the future being motorized and guided by a sort of in-house GPS system. If grandma wants to visit the animal petting area, or take a ride through the adjacent park to get some sun, she just tells the chair where she wants to go and it takes off on a slow ride.
Let's also imagine that all recreational drugs become legal for people over the age of 75. While drugs are clearly bad for kids, can we say the same thing about senior citizens? Recreational drugs might actually keep seniors healthier by increasing their happiness, energy, appetites, and general interest in life. And it's not as if seniors in assisted living will be operating heavy equipment or making important decisions. I don't see a downside.
Now that we've done a great job designing the assisted living facilities to be stimulating and life-affirming, how do we pay for all of that extra stuff without government assistance?
For starters, the facility can have a few extra sources of income. The childcare wing would be an income source, as would the sports field that could be rented out. I could also imagine beautiful garden areas around the grounds that are suitable for weddings and events. That's another revenue source. The facility could cater the reception as well. All of this activity helps to make the residents feel connected to the circle of life.
Now imagine that these senior facilities are owned and operated by a company that also sells long term care insurance. People would start paying for their assisted living while still relatively young. With insurance, most people will pay and never reap the benefits. I think people would pay a premium to know they have a guaranteed spot in a high end assisted living place if the time comes. Compare that sort of investment to the stock market, which is iffy at best. I think an argument can be made that investing in your own future assisted living is the smartest retirement investment you can make.
May 1, 2012
Climate Change
Warning: This blog is written for a rational audience that likes to have fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view. It is written in a style that can easily be confused as advocacy or opinion. It is not intended to change anyone's beliefs or actions. If you quote from this post or link to it, which you are welcome to do, please take responsibility for whatever happens if you mismatch the audience and the content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday I read that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening, and that human activity is a contributing factor. That sounds convincing to me. I'm not qualified to argue with climate scientists about climate science. But it makes me wonder how often experts have accurately predicted anything of this complexity.
That isn't a rhetorical question. I actually wonder what our track record is for predicting the outcomes of complex systems.
One might argue, by analogy, that an automobile is a complicated machine, yet it's easy to predict what will happen if you put sugar in the gas tank. Perhaps all we need to know about climate science is that any change to the global mix of chemistry is likely to change the temperature. Is it that simple?
Climate change skeptics suggest that the environment will somehow automatically regulate itself, perhaps through offsetting changes in cloud behavior. That sounds like something I wouldn't want to count on. And apparently the cloud theory of self-regulation has been debunked.
But back to my main question: Can you name some examples from history in which the strong consensus of experts - scientists or other - accurately predicted the outcome of something as complicated as the global climate?
It's no fair picking examples in which experts merely interpreted what happened in the past, such as evolution, or the birth of the universe. It's easier to figure out what happened in the past than it is to predict what will happen in the future.
I'm curious how many of you simultaneously hold the following two nearly-contradictory opinions:
1. Climate change is real because scientists say so.
2. Experts have never accurately predicted anything so complicated.
According to most climate scientists, we know that the average temperature of the world has increased in recent years. That part seems settled. But is it equally certain that the trend will continue and become a global catastrophe?
I believe that my question can't be objectively answered because climate change is too politicized. Your opinion on how well humans predict complex systems will depend on what you already decided about climate change. Please prove me wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday I read that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening, and that human activity is a contributing factor. That sounds convincing to me. I'm not qualified to argue with climate scientists about climate science. But it makes me wonder how often experts have accurately predicted anything of this complexity.
That isn't a rhetorical question. I actually wonder what our track record is for predicting the outcomes of complex systems.
One might argue, by analogy, that an automobile is a complicated machine, yet it's easy to predict what will happen if you put sugar in the gas tank. Perhaps all we need to know about climate science is that any change to the global mix of chemistry is likely to change the temperature. Is it that simple?
Climate change skeptics suggest that the environment will somehow automatically regulate itself, perhaps through offsetting changes in cloud behavior. That sounds like something I wouldn't want to count on. And apparently the cloud theory of self-regulation has been debunked.
But back to my main question: Can you name some examples from history in which the strong consensus of experts - scientists or other - accurately predicted the outcome of something as complicated as the global climate?
It's no fair picking examples in which experts merely interpreted what happened in the past, such as evolution, or the birth of the universe. It's easier to figure out what happened in the past than it is to predict what will happen in the future.
I'm curious how many of you simultaneously hold the following two nearly-contradictory opinions:
1. Climate change is real because scientists say so.
2. Experts have never accurately predicted anything so complicated.
According to most climate scientists, we know that the average temperature of the world has increased in recent years. That part seems settled. But is it equally certain that the trend will continue and become a global catastrophe?
I believe that my question can't be objectively answered because climate change is too politicized. Your opinion on how well humans predict complex systems will depend on what you already decided about climate change. Please prove me wrong.
April 29, 2012
Lust Dust
My editor thinks this comic is inappropriate for newspapers. He might be right. You won't see this one published anywhere else.
One of the tricks I use as a comic writer is the imaginary last scene. In this case, the funny part is what you imagine happening after the comic is over. Your mind fills in the details. If I do my job right, everyone fills in the last scene with whatever works best for them. Some of you imagine something subtle and some of you have a more graphic interpretation. Personally, I see a time-lapse scenario that features bulging eyes and seasons changing. The important thing is that each of you imagines a scene that is customized to your sensibilities.
One of the tricks I use as a comic writer is the imaginary last scene. In this case, the funny part is what you imagine happening after the comic is over. Your mind fills in the details. If I do my job right, everyone fills in the last scene with whatever works best for them. Some of you imagine something subtle and some of you have a more graphic interpretation. Personally, I see a time-lapse scenario that features bulging eyes and seasons changing. The important thing is that each of you imagines a scene that is customized to your sensibilities.
April 26, 2012
Virtual Bedroom
Imagine two small rooms in different cities. Each is filled with a bed and no other furniture. On the side walls, very near the bed, are huge flat screen TVs with 3D cameras. You make a date with someone in another city - perhaps a spouse who is traveling for work or in the military, or perhaps a romantic friend you met on the Internet. You agree to a time, and decide which direction you will be facing to see each other. The screen you face will be the one displaying the other person looking back at you, appearing as if he or she is in bed with you. The bedding and beds would be designed to look like an extension from one virtual room to the other.
The wall behind you would display whatever scenery the two of you had agreed would be your location. It would look as if each of you had a window behind you. Perhaps the two of you decided you would be on a tropical island, or in a high hotel tower overlooking Paris.
A big part of the illusion would involve sound and lighting. Sensitive microphones would pick up all of the ambient sounds of your bed sheets. The scenery program running in the background would supply subtle ocean sounds, cricket chirps, or traffic noise, depending on the situation.
The lighting would be low, so that everyone looks good. The room around the bed would appear dark except for the virtual window behind each person. That would enhance the illusion of your togetherness. The 3D cameras would add depth.
Each person would also have a warmed body pillow to snuggle into during the virtual sleepover. The pillow wouldn't try to emulate the other person; it's just there for some tactile comfort.
I imagine this starting as a sort of hotel business model. You check in for the night, and the bed portion of the room is equipped as I described. In the beginning, you might only need a few of these rooms per state or small country. If you haven't seen your spouse/lover/friend for a long time, you'll be willing to drive a few hours for your virtual sleepover.
Eventually, high end homes will have virtual bedrooms that the kids will use for sleepovers with friends in other places. Army bases will have virtual bedrooms for spouse visits. Singles will meet online and decide to have a first date in the safety of their virtual beds. The elderly might want another oldster to keep them company through the night without the bother of actually living with another old person. Snorers will be able to spend the night in the same virtual bed by turning down the volume.
Yes, yes, the concept lends itself to virtual sex. But I think you can build a business model that doesn't require that.
I think virtual rooms will someday provide elderly folks with an illusion of the mobility they once had. Someday they will be able to press the "Himalayas" button and take a virtual helicopter tour through the mountains without leaving the wheelchair.
If you know anyone who plays Xbox Live, in which you can put on headphones and chat with friends in other places while playing, you know how popular virtual rooms already are. Adding a bed and 3D video is the next natural step. Maybe Apple will get into the game after they finish dominating every other market.
The wall behind you would display whatever scenery the two of you had agreed would be your location. It would look as if each of you had a window behind you. Perhaps the two of you decided you would be on a tropical island, or in a high hotel tower overlooking Paris.
A big part of the illusion would involve sound and lighting. Sensitive microphones would pick up all of the ambient sounds of your bed sheets. The scenery program running in the background would supply subtle ocean sounds, cricket chirps, or traffic noise, depending on the situation.
The lighting would be low, so that everyone looks good. The room around the bed would appear dark except for the virtual window behind each person. That would enhance the illusion of your togetherness. The 3D cameras would add depth.
Each person would also have a warmed body pillow to snuggle into during the virtual sleepover. The pillow wouldn't try to emulate the other person; it's just there for some tactile comfort.
I imagine this starting as a sort of hotel business model. You check in for the night, and the bed portion of the room is equipped as I described. In the beginning, you might only need a few of these rooms per state or small country. If you haven't seen your spouse/lover/friend for a long time, you'll be willing to drive a few hours for your virtual sleepover.
Eventually, high end homes will have virtual bedrooms that the kids will use for sleepovers with friends in other places. Army bases will have virtual bedrooms for spouse visits. Singles will meet online and decide to have a first date in the safety of their virtual beds. The elderly might want another oldster to keep them company through the night without the bother of actually living with another old person. Snorers will be able to spend the night in the same virtual bed by turning down the volume.
Yes, yes, the concept lends itself to virtual sex. But I think you can build a business model that doesn't require that.
I think virtual rooms will someday provide elderly folks with an illusion of the mobility they once had. Someday they will be able to press the "Himalayas" button and take a virtual helicopter tour through the mountains without leaving the wheelchair.
If you know anyone who plays Xbox Live, in which you can put on headphones and chat with friends in other places while playing, you know how popular virtual rooms already are. Adding a bed and 3D video is the next natural step. Maybe Apple will get into the game after they finish dominating every other market.
April 25, 2012
Leopard Bike
When a leopard runs, it launches off its two back legs, lands with its two front legs, waits for the back legs to catch up to the front, and repeats. The power comes from the back legs. I wonder if you could create a bicycle that uses run-like-a-cat action.
I used to have a recurring dream about running like a cat. In my dream, gravity was weak, or perhaps my cat-person muscles were extra strong. But it in any case, it seemed effortless. There was something natural and awesome about being able to run in that fashion. I'd love to ride a bike that emulates a cat's running motion, but perhaps less parallel to the ground, for visibility reasons.
My back legs would be doing most of the work, pushing off together, and operating the back wheel of this hypothetical bike. My arms would power the front wheel, and it would be geared differently than the back wheel so that my arms don't travel as far, or work as hard, as my legs.
For long bike rides, current bike designs might be the best. But for a full body exercise that is more fun to ride, and doesn't require you to shove a seat up your anus, I might prefer the leopard-inspired bike. My hypothesis is that running like a leopard would be a more satisfying form of exercise than normal biking.
Does someone already make such a thing?
I used to have a recurring dream about running like a cat. In my dream, gravity was weak, or perhaps my cat-person muscles were extra strong. But it in any case, it seemed effortless. There was something natural and awesome about being able to run in that fashion. I'd love to ride a bike that emulates a cat's running motion, but perhaps less parallel to the ground, for visibility reasons.
My back legs would be doing most of the work, pushing off together, and operating the back wheel of this hypothetical bike. My arms would power the front wheel, and it would be geared differently than the back wheel so that my arms don't travel as far, or work as hard, as my legs.
For long bike rides, current bike designs might be the best. But for a full body exercise that is more fun to ride, and doesn't require you to shove a seat up your anus, I might prefer the leopard-inspired bike. My hypothesis is that running like a leopard would be a more satisfying form of exercise than normal biking.
Does someone already make such a thing?
April 24, 2012
How Much do the Rich Keep?
What percent of a rich person's income does he spend on himself?
To simplify the writing here, assume our hypothetical rich person is a guy. Let's say he pays about half of his income in taxes. That sounds about right, especially if you include sales taxes and property taxes. Now let's say he has a wife and three kids. Most of his living expenses, such as his houses, benefit all five members of the family. So divide most of his expenses by five to get his individual piece.
In our complicated world, the rich guy might have a first wife to whom he pays alimony, or he might support some other family members who need some help. And let's say he donates a healthy part of his income to charity.
So far, we've only discussed the money that flows in and out during the rich guy's lifetime. The bulk of a rich guy's wealth passes to heirs.
Net it all out, and I'll bet your typical rich guy spends only 5% of his income on himself. The rest goes to the government, family members, and charity. Therefore, arguably, every time a rich guy gets up and goes to work, it's 95% charity, roughly speaking.
Now let's say the rich guy made his money by starting a company that employs a hundred people. Half of the firm's gross income might flow to employees and investors. Then there is an economic multiplier effect as those employees buy goods and services, and pay their own taxes. A wealthy founder of a business might spend on himself only .001% of the gross income his company generates.
I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has a lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used. And every time he buys a Rolex instead of feeding a homeless family, he's not exactly walking with the saints. That's what society teaches us to think.
I prefer to divide the world into two groups: People who are trying, and people who aren't. I respect anyone who is making a constructive effort to improve any part of the world, including his or her own little piece. When people apply effort, wealth is mostly a result of luck, in terms of genetics, geography, or timing. I don't begrudge anyone their luck.
To simplify the writing here, assume our hypothetical rich person is a guy. Let's say he pays about half of his income in taxes. That sounds about right, especially if you include sales taxes and property taxes. Now let's say he has a wife and three kids. Most of his living expenses, such as his houses, benefit all five members of the family. So divide most of his expenses by five to get his individual piece.
In our complicated world, the rich guy might have a first wife to whom he pays alimony, or he might support some other family members who need some help. And let's say he donates a healthy part of his income to charity.
So far, we've only discussed the money that flows in and out during the rich guy's lifetime. The bulk of a rich guy's wealth passes to heirs.
Net it all out, and I'll bet your typical rich guy spends only 5% of his income on himself. The rest goes to the government, family members, and charity. Therefore, arguably, every time a rich guy gets up and goes to work, it's 95% charity, roughly speaking.
Now let's say the rich guy made his money by starting a company that employs a hundred people. Half of the firm's gross income might flow to employees and investors. Then there is an economic multiplier effect as those employees buy goods and services, and pay their own taxes. A wealthy founder of a business might spend on himself only .001% of the gross income his company generates.
I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has a lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used. And every time he buys a Rolex instead of feeding a homeless family, he's not exactly walking with the saints. That's what society teaches us to think.
I prefer to divide the world into two groups: People who are trying, and people who aren't. I respect anyone who is making a constructive effort to improve any part of the world, including his or her own little piece. When people apply effort, wealth is mostly a result of luck, in terms of genetics, geography, or timing. I don't begrudge anyone their luck.
April 22, 2012
God's Matchbox
I was in Reno this weekend with some friends and family, one of whom is widely recognized as the luckiest gambler in the universe. Let's call her Jane. Jane has reportedly won so many jackpots at slot machines that her track record seems to defy all reason. She's a gambling legend. I decided to put Jane's skills to the test in front of two witnesses: my wife, Shelly, and me. I gave Jane $50 and asked her to combine it with her own $50. Her assignment was to score a big win for our collective investment while my wife and I observed her technique.
Shelly pointed at the high roller slot machine room, where the $100 wouldn't last long without a win. Jane needed to feel the right vibe before picking a winning machine, so she asked us to follow her while she felt out the room. Jane is like the slot whisperer. I think the machines actually talk to her.
As you might expect, the high roller slots area was relatively empty. Far off in a darkened corner was a lone, bearded, creepy gambler. Jane walked straight over to the machine next to the creepy guy in the darkened corner and declared it to be a winning machine. I tried to wave her off, not wanting to spend more time than necessary in a darkened corner with a creepy guy, especially since the entire rest of the room was empty. Shelly stepped in and insisted that we let Jane pick the machine that spoke to her, without our unlucky influence. I reluctantly agreed. Jane sat down, inserted our $100, and started hitting win after win. Two minutes later, we split $600. WTF?
I took my $250 net profit and gave it to the control group for this experiment, i.e. me. I lost $200 on a variety of different slots in less than ten minutes. I didn't see another jackpot, big or small, that night. Jane had won about five jackpots in two minutes. I won none.
The freaky part happened the next morning. I was up early and took a long walk to a bagel shop. On my way back, I was crossing a huge empty parking lot, looking at the clear blue sky and snowcapped mountains. Suddenly a meteor crashed into the atmosphere directly in my view plane. The meteor streaked across the sky with a bright green trail of fire. It looked as if God had used the Earth to light a match. Seconds later, I heard the sonic boom. It was literally the coolest thing I have ever seen. Apparently this was the tail end of the Lyrid meteor shower. But unlike the nighttime meteor showers I've seen before, in which the meteors looked like fireflies in the distance, this meteor must have been relatively massive, and very near. Wow. It was a once-in-a-lifetime sight.
Across the street from me, facing the wrong direction, were four college students who missed the whole show. I was lucky to be looking in exactly the right direction. Wait. . . lucky? Lucky!!!
I decided this was a sign. I went back to the slots and hit them hard. I lost, and lost, and lost. I was down $200 in minutes. I tried one machine after another. I was confused. Jane had proven that luck exists, and I just saw my lucky meteor, so how could I keep losing? Then it hit me: There might be a pattern here.
If you recall, Jane picked the slot machine that no one else would have picked. Even if the creepy guy hadn't been in the far corner, how many of you would have entered a square room full of available slot machines and picked the one that was almost in the corner? Most people would probably play something nearer the middle of the room. If you preferred the corner, like the creepy guy, you would take the actual corner, not the machine one over from it. In other words, Jane picked one of the least attractive machines in the room, and it turned out to be "lucky."
From a business standpoint, it makes sense that the least attractive machine would pay best. If you're designing a casino layout, you know you can get suckers to play the losing machines in the best locations, and the ones with the most attractive lights and sounds, all night long. The casino can maintain whatever gambling odds are legally required over the entire body of slot machines while using psychology to steer people away from the ones that pay best. All of my losing spins involved machines that somehow appealed to me on a visceral or spatial level. What I needed was an undesirable machine. So I looked for one.
That's when I spotted a slot machine sporting the worst graphics I've ever seen. It was one of those full-screen types with a changing matrix of images. The artwork looked as if it had been created by a 13-year old for a school project. The graphics were so bad that you couldn't even tell what the images were supposed to represent. It looked intentionally unattractive. And I remembered from the prior evening that this machine had sat empty while most of the machines nearby were occupied. I had passed it up several times myself. If my economic theory of casino design was right, this was my winning machine. I sat down and fed it my last $100, which quickly turned into my last $25. And this is the part of my story that gets strange.
On what would have been nearly my last spin before quitting for the day, I hit a $400 jackpot. That was my biggest lifetime win at a slot machine. The machine's graphics went into celebration mode. At the end of the animation cycle, the onscreen image changed to a Western desert sky at twilight. The final animation was a meteor streaking across the sky, exactly like the one I had just seen. Freaky.
I don't actually believe in luck, or omens, or magic. I know that every part of my story can be explained by chance, or perhaps the economics of casino design. On the other hand, I also don't believe that reality is necessarily fixed and immutable. I can't rule out the possibility that we're experiencing some sort of Schrödinger's cat situation, in which all possibilities exist simultaneously until an observer intervenes. In any event, it was a fun weekend. I spent my winnings on a nice massage. And no, I didn't get lucky during the massage. But I like to think that in some parallel universe my twin did.
Shelly pointed at the high roller slot machine room, where the $100 wouldn't last long without a win. Jane needed to feel the right vibe before picking a winning machine, so she asked us to follow her while she felt out the room. Jane is like the slot whisperer. I think the machines actually talk to her.
As you might expect, the high roller slots area was relatively empty. Far off in a darkened corner was a lone, bearded, creepy gambler. Jane walked straight over to the machine next to the creepy guy in the darkened corner and declared it to be a winning machine. I tried to wave her off, not wanting to spend more time than necessary in a darkened corner with a creepy guy, especially since the entire rest of the room was empty. Shelly stepped in and insisted that we let Jane pick the machine that spoke to her, without our unlucky influence. I reluctantly agreed. Jane sat down, inserted our $100, and started hitting win after win. Two minutes later, we split $600. WTF?
I took my $250 net profit and gave it to the control group for this experiment, i.e. me. I lost $200 on a variety of different slots in less than ten minutes. I didn't see another jackpot, big or small, that night. Jane had won about five jackpots in two minutes. I won none.
The freaky part happened the next morning. I was up early and took a long walk to a bagel shop. On my way back, I was crossing a huge empty parking lot, looking at the clear blue sky and snowcapped mountains. Suddenly a meteor crashed into the atmosphere directly in my view plane. The meteor streaked across the sky with a bright green trail of fire. It looked as if God had used the Earth to light a match. Seconds later, I heard the sonic boom. It was literally the coolest thing I have ever seen. Apparently this was the tail end of the Lyrid meteor shower. But unlike the nighttime meteor showers I've seen before, in which the meteors looked like fireflies in the distance, this meteor must have been relatively massive, and very near. Wow. It was a once-in-a-lifetime sight.
Across the street from me, facing the wrong direction, were four college students who missed the whole show. I was lucky to be looking in exactly the right direction. Wait. . . lucky? Lucky!!!
I decided this was a sign. I went back to the slots and hit them hard. I lost, and lost, and lost. I was down $200 in minutes. I tried one machine after another. I was confused. Jane had proven that luck exists, and I just saw my lucky meteor, so how could I keep losing? Then it hit me: There might be a pattern here.
If you recall, Jane picked the slot machine that no one else would have picked. Even if the creepy guy hadn't been in the far corner, how many of you would have entered a square room full of available slot machines and picked the one that was almost in the corner? Most people would probably play something nearer the middle of the room. If you preferred the corner, like the creepy guy, you would take the actual corner, not the machine one over from it. In other words, Jane picked one of the least attractive machines in the room, and it turned out to be "lucky."
From a business standpoint, it makes sense that the least attractive machine would pay best. If you're designing a casino layout, you know you can get suckers to play the losing machines in the best locations, and the ones with the most attractive lights and sounds, all night long. The casino can maintain whatever gambling odds are legally required over the entire body of slot machines while using psychology to steer people away from the ones that pay best. All of my losing spins involved machines that somehow appealed to me on a visceral or spatial level. What I needed was an undesirable machine. So I looked for one.
That's when I spotted a slot machine sporting the worst graphics I've ever seen. It was one of those full-screen types with a changing matrix of images. The artwork looked as if it had been created by a 13-year old for a school project. The graphics were so bad that you couldn't even tell what the images were supposed to represent. It looked intentionally unattractive. And I remembered from the prior evening that this machine had sat empty while most of the machines nearby were occupied. I had passed it up several times myself. If my economic theory of casino design was right, this was my winning machine. I sat down and fed it my last $100, which quickly turned into my last $25. And this is the part of my story that gets strange.
On what would have been nearly my last spin before quitting for the day, I hit a $400 jackpot. That was my biggest lifetime win at a slot machine. The machine's graphics went into celebration mode. At the end of the animation cycle, the onscreen image changed to a Western desert sky at twilight. The final animation was a meteor streaking across the sky, exactly like the one I had just seen. Freaky.
I don't actually believe in luck, or omens, or magic. I know that every part of my story can be explained by chance, or perhaps the economics of casino design. On the other hand, I also don't believe that reality is necessarily fixed and immutable. I can't rule out the possibility that we're experiencing some sort of Schrödinger's cat situation, in which all possibilities exist simultaneously until an observer intervenes. In any event, it was a fun weekend. I spent my winnings on a nice massage. And no, I didn't get lucky during the massage. But I like to think that in some parallel universe my twin did.
April 19, 2012
National Security and Blackmail
Warning: This blog is written for a rational audience that likes to have fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view. It is written in a style that can easily be confused as advocacy or opinion. It is not intended to change anyone's beliefs or actions. If you quote from this post or link to it, which you are welcome to do, please take responsibility for whatever happens if you mismatch the audience and the content.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Security and Blackmail
You're probably following the story of President Obama's Secret Service advance team and the Colombian prostitutes. One of the arguments for firing the men involved is that this sort of behavior makes them potential targets for blackmail, which in turn endangers the President. But if blackmail is a risk, wouldn't the smarter play have been to treat it as a personal matter? That way, if another agent someday gets involved with a prostitute in a foreign country, which seems 100% likely, it won't create as much of a blackmail risk. Think of it like a limited version of diplomatic immunity. You can disapprove of the crime and still make a practical argument for not prosecuting.
Prostitution is legal in Colombia. But let's agree that there are plenty of reasons to question the judgment of the agents involved. They embarrassed the country and supported an industry that victimizes women. One of them allegedly tried to bully his way to a freebie. Each of them made bad decisions. If you ignore the Big Picture, those are good reasons to dole out some career punishment to the agents involved. All I'm suggesting is that doing so might make this President, or some future President, less safe. Is doing the right thing worth the risk?
Another situation that strikes me as unsafe for a president is a bunch of disgruntled ex-Secret Service guys. I think I've seen that movie a few times. I hope none of them get fired for reasons they perceive as unfair. I'd like to keep them on our side.
I don't know the full facts in this case. And I don't know if excusing this sort of behavior makes the President any safer. I just get nervous when I see morality and political correctness influencing security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Security and Blackmail
You're probably following the story of President Obama's Secret Service advance team and the Colombian prostitutes. One of the arguments for firing the men involved is that this sort of behavior makes them potential targets for blackmail, which in turn endangers the President. But if blackmail is a risk, wouldn't the smarter play have been to treat it as a personal matter? That way, if another agent someday gets involved with a prostitute in a foreign country, which seems 100% likely, it won't create as much of a blackmail risk. Think of it like a limited version of diplomatic immunity. You can disapprove of the crime and still make a practical argument for not prosecuting.
Prostitution is legal in Colombia. But let's agree that there are plenty of reasons to question the judgment of the agents involved. They embarrassed the country and supported an industry that victimizes women. One of them allegedly tried to bully his way to a freebie. Each of them made bad decisions. If you ignore the Big Picture, those are good reasons to dole out some career punishment to the agents involved. All I'm suggesting is that doing so might make this President, or some future President, less safe. Is doing the right thing worth the risk?
Another situation that strikes me as unsafe for a president is a bunch of disgruntled ex-Secret Service guys. I think I've seen that movie a few times. I hope none of them get fired for reasons they perceive as unfair. I'd like to keep them on our side.
I don't know the full facts in this case. And I don't know if excusing this sort of behavior makes the President any safer. I just get nervous when I see morality and political correctness influencing security.
April 17, 2012
Reality Distortion Field
I'm finally getting around to reading the Walter Isaacson biography of Steve Jobs. I'm fascinated by the discussion of how Jobs developed what became known as the Reality Distortion Field. Apparently Jobs had a lifelong battle with reality and won.
One way to look at Jobs' life is that he was a liar and a con man with a gift for design. According to Isaacson's reporting, Jobs had no love for truth. Jobs learned how to lie, cajole, manipulate, and charm until people believed whatever he wanted them to believe. By all accounts, Jobs' mixture of cruel and unsavory skills caused people to produce seemingly impossible results.
That's one way to interpret events. But it's not the only interpretation. According to Isaacson's book, Jobs spent years trying to understand the nature of reality before he started bending it. Jobs dropped a lot of acid, travelled to India, followed gurus, became a fruitarian, meditated, and studied religion. He was clearly looking for something. What if he found it?
Jobs' spiritual journey probably led him to believe reality is subjective - more like a complicated set of ideas than a huge clump of matter. I've never tried acid, but from what I hear, it changes your view of reality forever. Before you take acid, a rock is just a rock. After acid, a rock is sometimes a rock, and other times it's just one possibility. When you consider all of Jobs' spiritual experiences, it's fair to assume he had an open mind about the nature of reality.
For context, keep in mind that physicists also have some whacky ideas about the nature of reality. Some scientists believe we are experiencing just one of many universes. Others question the nature of time. Einstein showed us that reality is different for observers traveling at different speeds. And in the quantum world, reality is smeared across probabilities.
Maybe it's simplistic to say Jobs was a liar and a con man. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say he found the user interface for reality, and lying is simply one of the levers. We know Jobs spent years trying to find the keys to reality's engine. Maybe he found them.
The biggest head-scratcher about Jobs' career is how many times he transformed entire industries: computers, phones, music, animation, and more. And each success happened with a different mix of Apple employees. Do you believe all of that success was luck, or perhaps luck plus extraordinary business skill? Or is it possible something else was happening?
I don't believe in magic. But I can't rule out the possibility that reality has a user interface. Perhaps the Reality Distortion Field was exactly what it looked like.
One way to look at Jobs' life is that he was a liar and a con man with a gift for design. According to Isaacson's reporting, Jobs had no love for truth. Jobs learned how to lie, cajole, manipulate, and charm until people believed whatever he wanted them to believe. By all accounts, Jobs' mixture of cruel and unsavory skills caused people to produce seemingly impossible results.
That's one way to interpret events. But it's not the only interpretation. According to Isaacson's book, Jobs spent years trying to understand the nature of reality before he started bending it. Jobs dropped a lot of acid, travelled to India, followed gurus, became a fruitarian, meditated, and studied religion. He was clearly looking for something. What if he found it?
Jobs' spiritual journey probably led him to believe reality is subjective - more like a complicated set of ideas than a huge clump of matter. I've never tried acid, but from what I hear, it changes your view of reality forever. Before you take acid, a rock is just a rock. After acid, a rock is sometimes a rock, and other times it's just one possibility. When you consider all of Jobs' spiritual experiences, it's fair to assume he had an open mind about the nature of reality.
For context, keep in mind that physicists also have some whacky ideas about the nature of reality. Some scientists believe we are experiencing just one of many universes. Others question the nature of time. Einstein showed us that reality is different for observers traveling at different speeds. And in the quantum world, reality is smeared across probabilities.
Maybe it's simplistic to say Jobs was a liar and a con man. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say he found the user interface for reality, and lying is simply one of the levers. We know Jobs spent years trying to find the keys to reality's engine. Maybe he found them.
The biggest head-scratcher about Jobs' career is how many times he transformed entire industries: computers, phones, music, animation, and more. And each success happened with a different mix of Apple employees. Do you believe all of that success was luck, or perhaps luck plus extraordinary business skill? Or is it possible something else was happening?
I don't believe in magic. But I can't rule out the possibility that reality has a user interface. Perhaps the Reality Distortion Field was exactly what it looked like.
Scott Adams's Blog
- Scott Adams's profile
- 1258 followers
Scott Adams isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
