Scott Adams's Blog, page 345
April 10, 2012
Love and Safety
I have a hypothesis that the sensation we describe as love is actually a feeling of relative safety that another individual provides. The "relative" part is important. Allow me to expand on this idea.
Humans are essentially animals that somehow learned to read. Our most basic instincts for survival are still very much intact. We are living danger detectors. That feeling of stress you experience so often is your early warning system.
Danger can come in many exotic forms. One form of danger involves physical safety, and here we can see that our loved ones would be the most reliable when it comes to protecting us in a dangerous situation. When the bear goes after you in the forest, your coworker tries to outrun you, but your spouse is likely to grab a tree branch and join the fight.
You will be tempted to argue that an armed hunter who happens to be in the general area during the bear attack would be more beloved than your spouse, according to my hypothesis, because only he can shoot the bear and revive your feelings of safety. But I think the hunter example supports my argument. If the hunter kills the bear and saves your life, you will in fact feel an immediate and deep affection for him that is a lot like love. For cultural reasons, you won't define your feeling as love, but it will feel spookily similar. And you know that after you thank the hunter, he will no longer be your protector. Your feelings for him are temporary.
Likewise, there's probably a good reason that women are often attracted to men in uniform, particularly the ones in lifesaving professions, such as police, military, and firefighters. As further evidence for my hypothesis, a cool uniform doesn't benefit doormen or waiters in the love department. For women, it must be the feeling of safety that makes a difference. It probably also helps that healthy-lookin men are more likely to produce healthy babies, which in itself makes a mother safer as the children get older and can help out.
Danger comes in many forms beyond physical peril. For example, one of my worst fears involves the risk of loneliness, or the risk of not being seen as useful to others. For me, that would be worse than death. Our loved ones are the best protection from that sort of danger. As long as you have a good relationship with your family, significant other, and friends, you feel safe from the dangers of loneliness. And you always feel potentially useful.
From a species perspective, our fear of eventual death is closely related to our impulse to spread our genes and create a sort of immortality. We feel love for the person we see as baby-making material, even if we override the instinct for reproduction for practical reasons, such as economics, age, etc. We're simply wired to feel safer, gene-wise, when we're around someone who might help us reproduce.
Religion also supports my hypothesis. The pious don't simply prefer God, or find it convenient to obey God. They literally love God. This is consistent with my hypothesis because the opportunity for an afterlife is the ultimate safety net. Even if things go pear shaped during life, believers still feel safe in the long run, and therefore they feel love.
Your dog appears to love you above all others, but it's no accident that you are your dog's main protector. You feed it, shield it from bigger dogs, shelter it, and let it sleep near you at night for group protection. In return, you know your dog will make you feel less lonely. We're a species that relies on group size to keep us safe. The more creatures we have on our side, the less likely we will be attacked.
A cat is harder to explain by my hypothesis. A cat makes you feel less lonely, but it has little or no protective qualities beyond sensing approaching danger faster than you can. I think that explains why an unusual number of men dislike cats: Cats don't have your back when the trouble comes down.
Love has many flavors, of course. You experience different kinds of love for a spouse, a family member, a friend, a pet, a hero, and a deity. My hypothesis is that each of those flavors of love is related to how safe each individual makes you feel. A little bit safe feels different from very safe.
That's my moist robot explanation of love. I hope I didn't ruin it for you, or minimize its importance. Making another person feel safe is the most perfect gift you can give. Love is the glue that binds society. If my hypothesis is correct, love is how you know you're doing things right.
Humans are essentially animals that somehow learned to read. Our most basic instincts for survival are still very much intact. We are living danger detectors. That feeling of stress you experience so often is your early warning system.
Danger can come in many exotic forms. One form of danger involves physical safety, and here we can see that our loved ones would be the most reliable when it comes to protecting us in a dangerous situation. When the bear goes after you in the forest, your coworker tries to outrun you, but your spouse is likely to grab a tree branch and join the fight.
You will be tempted to argue that an armed hunter who happens to be in the general area during the bear attack would be more beloved than your spouse, according to my hypothesis, because only he can shoot the bear and revive your feelings of safety. But I think the hunter example supports my argument. If the hunter kills the bear and saves your life, you will in fact feel an immediate and deep affection for him that is a lot like love. For cultural reasons, you won't define your feeling as love, but it will feel spookily similar. And you know that after you thank the hunter, he will no longer be your protector. Your feelings for him are temporary.
Likewise, there's probably a good reason that women are often attracted to men in uniform, particularly the ones in lifesaving professions, such as police, military, and firefighters. As further evidence for my hypothesis, a cool uniform doesn't benefit doormen or waiters in the love department. For women, it must be the feeling of safety that makes a difference. It probably also helps that healthy-lookin men are more likely to produce healthy babies, which in itself makes a mother safer as the children get older and can help out.
Danger comes in many forms beyond physical peril. For example, one of my worst fears involves the risk of loneliness, or the risk of not being seen as useful to others. For me, that would be worse than death. Our loved ones are the best protection from that sort of danger. As long as you have a good relationship with your family, significant other, and friends, you feel safe from the dangers of loneliness. And you always feel potentially useful.
From a species perspective, our fear of eventual death is closely related to our impulse to spread our genes and create a sort of immortality. We feel love for the person we see as baby-making material, even if we override the instinct for reproduction for practical reasons, such as economics, age, etc. We're simply wired to feel safer, gene-wise, when we're around someone who might help us reproduce.
Religion also supports my hypothesis. The pious don't simply prefer God, or find it convenient to obey God. They literally love God. This is consistent with my hypothesis because the opportunity for an afterlife is the ultimate safety net. Even if things go pear shaped during life, believers still feel safe in the long run, and therefore they feel love.
Your dog appears to love you above all others, but it's no accident that you are your dog's main protector. You feed it, shield it from bigger dogs, shelter it, and let it sleep near you at night for group protection. In return, you know your dog will make you feel less lonely. We're a species that relies on group size to keep us safe. The more creatures we have on our side, the less likely we will be attacked.
A cat is harder to explain by my hypothesis. A cat makes you feel less lonely, but it has little or no protective qualities beyond sensing approaching danger faster than you can. I think that explains why an unusual number of men dislike cats: Cats don't have your back when the trouble comes down.
Love has many flavors, of course. You experience different kinds of love for a spouse, a family member, a friend, a pet, a hero, and a deity. My hypothesis is that each of those flavors of love is related to how safe each individual makes you feel. A little bit safe feels different from very safe.
That's my moist robot explanation of love. I hope I didn't ruin it for you, or minimize its importance. Making another person feel safe is the most perfect gift you can give. Love is the glue that binds society. If my hypothesis is correct, love is how you know you're doing things right.
April 8, 2012
When Companies Become Countries
I wonder when the first multinational company will form its own country to avoid wars, government red tape, and corporate taxes. It feels inevitable. I assume it will involve seasteading.
The current notion of seasteading involves floating cities that are outside the control of existing nations. That concept has its appeal, especially as a way to test new forms of government. But existing corporations already have their own form of government called management, and despite its warts, it generally works.
Imagine, for example, that one of the world's beloved companies such as Apple or Facebook someday decides to start its own country on the sea. The company's existing management structure would need to add several functions, such as education, healthcare, and police. The corporate government would look a lot like the Chinese government. In other words, it would be efficient in terms of profit, while giving up freedoms that employees are already accustomed to giving up. For example, company employees don't have freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing management. Somehow we live with that restriction and it doesn't seem too onerous.
There would be no taxes for permanent residents of the company country. Public services would be funded from corporate profits. Every paid service in the country, from banking, to insurance, to groceries, would be company-run. The accounting would be transparent and the profits would flow to public services.
The big worry with this model is the "company store" abuse that was common during the early days of the United States. In some cases, an employer would take advantage of its monopoly on goods and services to gouge its employees, turning them into virtual slaves. But I think that risk can be addressed by accounting transparency, and by capping the compensation of top management to a multiple of the average employee pay. It also helps if employees can choose to leave whenever they want. That keeps management in line.
Wages in the company country would be low while still attracting top talent, so long as the cost of living islow, taxes are non-existent, and the lifestyle is awesome. Employees could earn less while saving far more, especially if they own equity in the company.
This prediction assumes that traditional governments continue to bankrupt themselves and strangle their own industries with red tape. That feels like a safe bet. But the main reason a company might want to form its own country is to attract the best minds, and the lowest cost of labor, from all over the world without any immigration issues.
Do company countries seem inevitable or unlikely to you?
The current notion of seasteading involves floating cities that are outside the control of existing nations. That concept has its appeal, especially as a way to test new forms of government. But existing corporations already have their own form of government called management, and despite its warts, it generally works.
Imagine, for example, that one of the world's beloved companies such as Apple or Facebook someday decides to start its own country on the sea. The company's existing management structure would need to add several functions, such as education, healthcare, and police. The corporate government would look a lot like the Chinese government. In other words, it would be efficient in terms of profit, while giving up freedoms that employees are already accustomed to giving up. For example, company employees don't have freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing management. Somehow we live with that restriction and it doesn't seem too onerous.
There would be no taxes for permanent residents of the company country. Public services would be funded from corporate profits. Every paid service in the country, from banking, to insurance, to groceries, would be company-run. The accounting would be transparent and the profits would flow to public services.
The big worry with this model is the "company store" abuse that was common during the early days of the United States. In some cases, an employer would take advantage of its monopoly on goods and services to gouge its employees, turning them into virtual slaves. But I think that risk can be addressed by accounting transparency, and by capping the compensation of top management to a multiple of the average employee pay. It also helps if employees can choose to leave whenever they want. That keeps management in line.
Wages in the company country would be low while still attracting top talent, so long as the cost of living islow, taxes are non-existent, and the lifestyle is awesome. Employees could earn less while saving far more, especially if they own equity in the company.
This prediction assumes that traditional governments continue to bankrupt themselves and strangle their own industries with red tape. That feels like a safe bet. But the main reason a company might want to form its own country is to attract the best minds, and the lowest cost of labor, from all over the world without any immigration issues.
Do company countries seem inevitable or unlikely to you?
April 4, 2012
Robot Love
Every time I come home, my dog is so happy to see me that she literally runs in circles around the kitchen. Her happiness rubs off on me. I wonder if someday humans will bond with their robots the same way we bond with pets. Your first reaction to this idea is probably dismissive. Pets are alive, and that's why we form bonds with them. A robot is nothing more than a clever tool. But just for fun, let's reverse-engineer the emotional bond we have with pets.
Consider the impact of appearance. Dogs are absurdly cute, and that helps us bond with them. We like babies and attractive adults for the same reason. Humans are wired to respond to cuteness. At the moment, robots are not cute in the same way as dogs and babies. But it's easy to imagine that situation changing as robot developers learn to make their products physically appealing. Someday robots will be soft and warm to the touch. And I would expect robots to move as naturally and unpredictably as animals within a few decades.
I can also imagine robots that appear to breathe while actually functioning as air filters for the home. And I would think that someday robots will have the same subtle smells and pheromones as living creatures.
Building a robot to imitate a person, as opposed to a dog, has an extra level of difficulty because human speech and intelligence are hard to mimic exactly. Building a robot dog is much easier. Perhaps your future robot dog will bark to get your attention if there's an intruder, or the house is on fire, and it might softly whine when it needs a service call.
If you accept the notion that a robot dog can someday look, act, sound, and smell like the real thing, what else does it need to generate an emotional bond with a human? Will it matter that we know it isn't alive?
Consider movies. A well-made movie generates strong emotions in people even though we know the movie screen is not alive. We know the actors are acting, and the story isn't real, and still we have an emotional response. I believe our future robotic dogs will have the same impact on us as movies. We will always be aware of their non-living nature, but we'll be helpless to resist forming emotional connections. If you doubt that humans can form emotional connections with objects, check out the stock price of Apple.
You've seen a lot of science fiction stories about our robot-filled future. Sometimes we can't tell who is a robot and who is human. Sometimes the robots try to kill us. Sometimes the robots make us stupid because we learn to depend on them for all of the hard decisions. But I think the real danger from robots is in the emotional bonds humans will form with them. I fear that robots will be far better companions than pain-in-the-ass humans, and we'll lose our incentive to reproduce. When robots become awesome and economical, no one will want to spend time with a smelly, inconvenient, annoying, overpriced human.
My prediction is that robots will eradicate humankind with love, not laser cannons.
Consider the impact of appearance. Dogs are absurdly cute, and that helps us bond with them. We like babies and attractive adults for the same reason. Humans are wired to respond to cuteness. At the moment, robots are not cute in the same way as dogs and babies. But it's easy to imagine that situation changing as robot developers learn to make their products physically appealing. Someday robots will be soft and warm to the touch. And I would expect robots to move as naturally and unpredictably as animals within a few decades.
I can also imagine robots that appear to breathe while actually functioning as air filters for the home. And I would think that someday robots will have the same subtle smells and pheromones as living creatures.
Building a robot to imitate a person, as opposed to a dog, has an extra level of difficulty because human speech and intelligence are hard to mimic exactly. Building a robot dog is much easier. Perhaps your future robot dog will bark to get your attention if there's an intruder, or the house is on fire, and it might softly whine when it needs a service call.
If you accept the notion that a robot dog can someday look, act, sound, and smell like the real thing, what else does it need to generate an emotional bond with a human? Will it matter that we know it isn't alive?
Consider movies. A well-made movie generates strong emotions in people even though we know the movie screen is not alive. We know the actors are acting, and the story isn't real, and still we have an emotional response. I believe our future robotic dogs will have the same impact on us as movies. We will always be aware of their non-living nature, but we'll be helpless to resist forming emotional connections. If you doubt that humans can form emotional connections with objects, check out the stock price of Apple.
You've seen a lot of science fiction stories about our robot-filled future. Sometimes we can't tell who is a robot and who is human. Sometimes the robots try to kill us. Sometimes the robots make us stupid because we learn to depend on them for all of the hard decisions. But I think the real danger from robots is in the emotional bonds humans will form with them. I fear that robots will be far better companions than pain-in-the-ass humans, and we'll lose our incentive to reproduce. When robots become awesome and economical, no one will want to spend time with a smelly, inconvenient, annoying, overpriced human.
My prediction is that robots will eradicate humankind with love, not laser cannons.
April 3, 2012
What if Stupid People Organized?
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if Stupid People Organized?
What would happen if stupid people figured out how to organize their vast numbers into a cohesive political force? It's a scary thought. Luckily for Earth, stupid people have always had trouble grooming effective leaders from among their ranks. Historically, that simple fact has always kept their power in check. But now it looks as if stupid people have discovered a workaround - one that requires no leader. We're screwed.
Don't jump ahead and assume I'm talking about one of the major political parties in the United States. That would be too easy. Sure, every major organization has its share of stupid members. But the smarter members of any group almost always bubble to the top and run things. Historically, smart people have always found a way to jump on any runaway horse and get ahold of the reins. But lately, thanks to the Internet, there are far too many runaway horses.
I'm talking about a site called Change.org. It allows anyone (gasp) to start a petition and gather millions of virtual signatures. How much research do you think those millions of people do before piling on? Answer: not enough. And how much impact do those petitions have? Answer: Sometimes a lot. You see the problem here.
I assume many of the petitions at Change.org are worthy and helpful. As the saying goes, a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut. What we don't know is how many times stupid people have used Change.org to leverage their ignorance and multiply their power. Does that represent 5% of the petitions on Change.org or 95%? There's no way to know.
Regular readers of this blog might recall that members of the LRC (low reading comprehension) community went after me on Change.org last year. An LRC activist took something I wrote out of context, started a petition, and duped thousands of stupid people into piling on. I assumed at the time it was an exception, and an annoyance, but nothing more sinister or important. That was until I heard that over two million people signed a petition on Change.org to prosecute the killer of Trayvon Martin. Amazingly, millions of people who know they don't have the full facts of the case have demanded that the shooter be prosecuted.
It's possible, maybe even likely, that every signer of the petition is 100% correct. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence in their favor. But anyone watching the slow trickle of changing "facts" in this case understands that none of us really knows what happened that night. One thing we know for sure is that the people who have the most information - the police investigators and prosecutors - apparently don't think a jury would rule out self-defense. That situation could change, obviously. The point is that the circumstantial evidence is fluid, and it points in at least two different directions.
I don't know if the good work that comes out of Change.org offsets the bad. In any case, I don't think free speech should be curtailed. My point is that Change.org is a tool that can empower both smart people and stupid people, and that only one of those situations is good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if Stupid People Organized?
What would happen if stupid people figured out how to organize their vast numbers into a cohesive political force? It's a scary thought. Luckily for Earth, stupid people have always had trouble grooming effective leaders from among their ranks. Historically, that simple fact has always kept their power in check. But now it looks as if stupid people have discovered a workaround - one that requires no leader. We're screwed.
Don't jump ahead and assume I'm talking about one of the major political parties in the United States. That would be too easy. Sure, every major organization has its share of stupid members. But the smarter members of any group almost always bubble to the top and run things. Historically, smart people have always found a way to jump on any runaway horse and get ahold of the reins. But lately, thanks to the Internet, there are far too many runaway horses.
I'm talking about a site called Change.org. It allows anyone (gasp) to start a petition and gather millions of virtual signatures. How much research do you think those millions of people do before piling on? Answer: not enough. And how much impact do those petitions have? Answer: Sometimes a lot. You see the problem here.
I assume many of the petitions at Change.org are worthy and helpful. As the saying goes, a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut. What we don't know is how many times stupid people have used Change.org to leverage their ignorance and multiply their power. Does that represent 5% of the petitions on Change.org or 95%? There's no way to know.
Regular readers of this blog might recall that members of the LRC (low reading comprehension) community went after me on Change.org last year. An LRC activist took something I wrote out of context, started a petition, and duped thousands of stupid people into piling on. I assumed at the time it was an exception, and an annoyance, but nothing more sinister or important. That was until I heard that over two million people signed a petition on Change.org to prosecute the killer of Trayvon Martin. Amazingly, millions of people who know they don't have the full facts of the case have demanded that the shooter be prosecuted.
It's possible, maybe even likely, that every signer of the petition is 100% correct. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence in their favor. But anyone watching the slow trickle of changing "facts" in this case understands that none of us really knows what happened that night. One thing we know for sure is that the people who have the most information - the police investigators and prosecutors - apparently don't think a jury would rule out self-defense. That situation could change, obviously. The point is that the circumstantial evidence is fluid, and it points in at least two different directions.
I don't know if the good work that comes out of Change.org offsets the bad. In any case, I don't think free speech should be curtailed. My point is that Change.org is a tool that can empower both smart people and stupid people, and that only one of those situations is good.
April 1, 2012
Talent or Handicap
What's the difference between a talent and a handicap? Your first reaction to that question might be some sort of a snort, mixed with a duh, and finished with a fine spray of pfffft. Clearly, talents are useful skills while handicaps involve limits that are imposed on us.
But is it really that clear?
It's the rare sculptor, musician, or actor who finds a career to match his or her talent. It's far more typical for a wannabe actor to be waiting tables, and a wannabe landscape artist to have a day job in the insurance industry. My best guess is that 99% of all supposed talent has no use whatsoever. In fact, talent probably distracts wannabe artists and prevents them from putting their full efforts into something more useful.
Handicaps are hard to define too. If only two humans existed in the universe, it could be said that each has handicaps relative to the other. Perhaps one runs relatively slowly and the other is relatively bad at spelling. It's no wonder the term "differently abled" has become fashionable. It's more accurate and less judgy.
Recently I have been thinking about talents versus handicaps in the context of religious belief. Research indicates that some people are born with a natural inclination for belief and some are not. I'm firmly in the "not" category. Would it be fair to say I have a talent for skepticism? Or is it more accurate to say I have a handicap when it comes to belief? How do I label my condition?
I could start by asking if belief is useful. Based on my personal observation, and what I have read on the topic, religious people are generally healthier and happier than others. That's the ultimate form of usefulness. Belief passes the utility test even if you factor in the occasional inquisition, terrorist attack, religious war, and whatnot. Those are the exceptions, and have more to do with power than religion. In most modern societies, the vast majority of religious people aren't causing trouble for anyone.
When it comes to usefulness, I would rank religious belief higher than most other talents, including, for example, yodeling, line dancing, juggling, and so on.
Our gut feeling is that "truth" has to be important in this discussion. With so many different and mutually exclusive religious beliefs, either all of them are false or, in the best possible case, all but one of them is false. Arguably, whichever subset of believers has the "right" understanding of reality has the most useful talent of all, especially if it leads to an eternity of bliss in heaven, or paradise, or an awesome new life after reincarnation.
As a non-believer, part of the package is that I don't believe my mind is delivering to me an accurate picture of reality. I can't rule out the possibility that we're all living in our own illusions, in which case the atheist and the believer are both so completely wrong that their differences are immaterial. If you add 2 plus 2 and your answer is orange, you can't say you had a better answer than the guy who added 2 plus 2 and got zebra.
The bottom line is that I'm a non-believer who is strongly pro-religion because of what I perceive as its usefulness. And I think my genetic inability to believe is more of a "differently abled" situation than a talent.
But is it really that clear?
It's the rare sculptor, musician, or actor who finds a career to match his or her talent. It's far more typical for a wannabe actor to be waiting tables, and a wannabe landscape artist to have a day job in the insurance industry. My best guess is that 99% of all supposed talent has no use whatsoever. In fact, talent probably distracts wannabe artists and prevents them from putting their full efforts into something more useful.
Handicaps are hard to define too. If only two humans existed in the universe, it could be said that each has handicaps relative to the other. Perhaps one runs relatively slowly and the other is relatively bad at spelling. It's no wonder the term "differently abled" has become fashionable. It's more accurate and less judgy.
Recently I have been thinking about talents versus handicaps in the context of religious belief. Research indicates that some people are born with a natural inclination for belief and some are not. I'm firmly in the "not" category. Would it be fair to say I have a talent for skepticism? Or is it more accurate to say I have a handicap when it comes to belief? How do I label my condition?
I could start by asking if belief is useful. Based on my personal observation, and what I have read on the topic, religious people are generally healthier and happier than others. That's the ultimate form of usefulness. Belief passes the utility test even if you factor in the occasional inquisition, terrorist attack, religious war, and whatnot. Those are the exceptions, and have more to do with power than religion. In most modern societies, the vast majority of religious people aren't causing trouble for anyone.
When it comes to usefulness, I would rank religious belief higher than most other talents, including, for example, yodeling, line dancing, juggling, and so on.
Our gut feeling is that "truth" has to be important in this discussion. With so many different and mutually exclusive religious beliefs, either all of them are false or, in the best possible case, all but one of them is false. Arguably, whichever subset of believers has the "right" understanding of reality has the most useful talent of all, especially if it leads to an eternity of bliss in heaven, or paradise, or an awesome new life after reincarnation.
As a non-believer, part of the package is that I don't believe my mind is delivering to me an accurate picture of reality. I can't rule out the possibility that we're all living in our own illusions, in which case the atheist and the believer are both so completely wrong that their differences are immaterial. If you add 2 plus 2 and your answer is orange, you can't say you had a better answer than the guy who added 2 plus 2 and got zebra.
The bottom line is that I'm a non-believer who is strongly pro-religion because of what I perceive as its usefulness. And I think my genetic inability to believe is more of a "differently abled" situation than a talent.
March 28, 2012
Geraldo and the Mob
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.
----------
I can remember an innocent time, long ago, when the public only got angry at people they disagreed with. Those were simpler times. Today we get mad at people we agree with.
Consider Geraldo Rivera's recent experience. Geraldo inadvertently created a controversy by stating the obvious: Our choice of clothes can influence how people treat us. That's a view that every living human agrees upon. Most of us act upon that belief once or twice a day. When I get dressed, the first two questions I ask myself are 1) "Who is going to see me?" and 2) "What do I want them to think of me?" You probably do the same thing. If not, there's something deeply wrong with you, or possibly you're an engineer.
When I was twenty, I was escorted out of an office building because of my choice of clothes. It happened at one of the top accounting firms in the country, and I was there for an interview during my last semester of college. I was so naïve that I didn't realize anyone would have a problem with me showing up with my long hair and casual clothes, college style. After all, it was no secret I was in college. It said so right on my resume. My interviewer sat down at the conference table, looked at me, and said, "Apparently you don't know why you're here. Let me show you the door." And he did.
Did the interviewer make a mistake in judging me by my appearance? Arguably, he did. Apart from my wardrobe misstep, I was smart, qualified, motivated, and low maintenance. In those days, all I wanted was a chance to work hard for my employer, under the mistaken belief that doing so would benefit me in the long run. The accounting firm would have gotten a good ten years out of me before I realized my plan wasn't working. And I clean up well, so my appearance was easily fixable.
Was I partly responsible for what I believe was the interviewer's mistake when he judged me by my temporary appearance? Yes. I brought it on myself.
Years later, when I was working for Crocker Bank in San Francisco, in an entry level position, a Senior Vice President called me into his office to tell me my shoes were ugly. My one-and-only pair of dress shoes was scuffed and hideous. I listened to his advice and bought new shoes the next day. The Senior Vice President was a colorful character himself, and didn't make the mistake of judging me by my appearance. But he was smart enough to know that others would. I went on to do good work for him. Clothes aren't destiny, but they clearly have an influence on outcomes. Does anyone think Trayvon Martin would have been shot if he had been wearing a Rick Santorum sweater vest that tragic day?
We're left to wonder if Trayvon's choice of clothing contributed a trivial 1% to the tragedy, or something closer 20%. There's no way to know. But if you're being objective, you can't rule out the possibility that the hoody contributed to the shooter's confirmation bias.
The public fight starts when the word "responsible" enters the conversation. Responsibility isn't a natural element of the universe. It's a useful but artificial concept, like fairness, that society uses to control its members. If I want to exert power over you, and nudge you to do something that benefits me, I would argue that you're responsible for doing it. When you accept responsibility without extra power to offset it, you lose. In the Trayvon Martin situation, I understand why so many people consider it repugnant to transfer a fraction of responsibility - and with it the blame, from a surviving adult to a deceased minor. It feels very wrong. But that feeling doesn't make Geraldo inaccurate when he says clothing can influence behavior. Even the people who signed a petition to demand an apology from Geraldo agree with his point.
As a professional humorist, I think the Geraldo hoody controversy is partly fueled by the fact that the words Geraldo and hoody are naturally funny, and that Geraldo's eighties-porn mustache makes him less credible on the topic of appearance. But none of that makes him wrong. In fact, the way he's being treated probably supports his thesis.
----------
I can remember an innocent time, long ago, when the public only got angry at people they disagreed with. Those were simpler times. Today we get mad at people we agree with.
Consider Geraldo Rivera's recent experience. Geraldo inadvertently created a controversy by stating the obvious: Our choice of clothes can influence how people treat us. That's a view that every living human agrees upon. Most of us act upon that belief once or twice a day. When I get dressed, the first two questions I ask myself are 1) "Who is going to see me?" and 2) "What do I want them to think of me?" You probably do the same thing. If not, there's something deeply wrong with you, or possibly you're an engineer.
When I was twenty, I was escorted out of an office building because of my choice of clothes. It happened at one of the top accounting firms in the country, and I was there for an interview during my last semester of college. I was so naïve that I didn't realize anyone would have a problem with me showing up with my long hair and casual clothes, college style. After all, it was no secret I was in college. It said so right on my resume. My interviewer sat down at the conference table, looked at me, and said, "Apparently you don't know why you're here. Let me show you the door." And he did.
Did the interviewer make a mistake in judging me by my appearance? Arguably, he did. Apart from my wardrobe misstep, I was smart, qualified, motivated, and low maintenance. In those days, all I wanted was a chance to work hard for my employer, under the mistaken belief that doing so would benefit me in the long run. The accounting firm would have gotten a good ten years out of me before I realized my plan wasn't working. And I clean up well, so my appearance was easily fixable.
Was I partly responsible for what I believe was the interviewer's mistake when he judged me by my temporary appearance? Yes. I brought it on myself.
Years later, when I was working for Crocker Bank in San Francisco, in an entry level position, a Senior Vice President called me into his office to tell me my shoes were ugly. My one-and-only pair of dress shoes was scuffed and hideous. I listened to his advice and bought new shoes the next day. The Senior Vice President was a colorful character himself, and didn't make the mistake of judging me by my appearance. But he was smart enough to know that others would. I went on to do good work for him. Clothes aren't destiny, but they clearly have an influence on outcomes. Does anyone think Trayvon Martin would have been shot if he had been wearing a Rick Santorum sweater vest that tragic day?
We're left to wonder if Trayvon's choice of clothing contributed a trivial 1% to the tragedy, or something closer 20%. There's no way to know. But if you're being objective, you can't rule out the possibility that the hoody contributed to the shooter's confirmation bias.
The public fight starts when the word "responsible" enters the conversation. Responsibility isn't a natural element of the universe. It's a useful but artificial concept, like fairness, that society uses to control its members. If I want to exert power over you, and nudge you to do something that benefits me, I would argue that you're responsible for doing it. When you accept responsibility without extra power to offset it, you lose. In the Trayvon Martin situation, I understand why so many people consider it repugnant to transfer a fraction of responsibility - and with it the blame, from a surviving adult to a deceased minor. It feels very wrong. But that feeling doesn't make Geraldo inaccurate when he says clothing can influence behavior. Even the people who signed a petition to demand an apology from Geraldo agree with his point.
As a professional humorist, I think the Geraldo hoody controversy is partly fueled by the fact that the words Geraldo and hoody are naturally funny, and that Geraldo's eighties-porn mustache makes him less credible on the topic of appearance. But none of that makes him wrong. In fact, the way he's being treated probably supports his thesis.
March 26, 2012
The One that Didn't Get Published
People often ask me if my editor ever rejects particular Dilbert comics for one reason or another. It's rare, but it happens. In fact, it happened yesterday. You won't see this comic in newspapers. I guess I went, um, a little too far. You be the judge.
March 25, 2012
Designer Degrees
Forget college degrees. What the world needs is Designer Degrees. A Designer Degree is a certification that a student has completed a series of classes specified by a particular designer. Let's say the designers are successful and respected people, such as Warren Buffett. The idea is that a designer would publish a set of classes that he or she considers most useful for any newcomer to the field in which the designer is an expert.
The designer would not be limited to one college for specifying classes. For example, if Warrant Buffett designed the Warren Buffett Business Degree, he would specify the general type of classes that need to be completed, and the student would be free to find those classes across any number of institutions and sources, including online classes or work experience. A graduate who earns the Warren Buffett Business Degree might take a few classes at the local community college, spend a year in China learning Chinese, work for an Internet startup for a year, join Toastmasters International to practice public speaking, read a number of specific business books, and so on.
The power of this idea is that it allows students whose grades are not in the top 1% to get degrees that are both relevant to their chosen fields and respected by potential employers. In most cases, Designer Degrees would cost a fraction of what a traditional college degree might cost.
In our current system, a college student usually ends up taking unwanted classes because the preferred classes get filled early. When you're a captive of a college degree program, you're limited to the college's class schedule options, high prices, and location. With a Designer Degree, you're free to compile your classes from whatever sources you can. In the long run, competition should drive down the cost of a degree.
The Designer Degree approach would need a system to verify that students complete the specified classes, and that the classes were of sufficient quality. Perhaps the system needs auditors to approve classes in advance, and examine and certify the claims of students. There would be cheating in the system I described, but I think it could be limited.
I don't think a Designer Degree system would have been possible in pre-Internet days. And it wouldn't be practical for people in rural areas. But where I live, in the San Francisco Bay Area, almost every type of learning experience is available within a one hour drive. That would be true of most metro areas.
You may now commence ripping this idea to shreds.
The designer would not be limited to one college for specifying classes. For example, if Warrant Buffett designed the Warren Buffett Business Degree, he would specify the general type of classes that need to be completed, and the student would be free to find those classes across any number of institutions and sources, including online classes or work experience. A graduate who earns the Warren Buffett Business Degree might take a few classes at the local community college, spend a year in China learning Chinese, work for an Internet startup for a year, join Toastmasters International to practice public speaking, read a number of specific business books, and so on.
The power of this idea is that it allows students whose grades are not in the top 1% to get degrees that are both relevant to their chosen fields and respected by potential employers. In most cases, Designer Degrees would cost a fraction of what a traditional college degree might cost.
In our current system, a college student usually ends up taking unwanted classes because the preferred classes get filled early. When you're a captive of a college degree program, you're limited to the college's class schedule options, high prices, and location. With a Designer Degree, you're free to compile your classes from whatever sources you can. In the long run, competition should drive down the cost of a degree.
The Designer Degree approach would need a system to verify that students complete the specified classes, and that the classes were of sufficient quality. Perhaps the system needs auditors to approve classes in advance, and examine and certify the claims of students. There would be cheating in the system I described, but I think it could be limited.
I don't think a Designer Degree system would have been possible in pre-Internet days. And it wouldn't be practical for people in rural areas. But where I live, in the San Francisco Bay Area, almost every type of learning experience is available within a one hour drive. That would be true of most metro areas.
You may now commence ripping this idea to shreds.
March 21, 2012
Insults and Context
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insults and Context
Imagine a guy who loves his mother, sister, wife, and daughters. He has a history of mentoring and promoting women at work, and he has lots of female friends. Politically, he supports all of the so-called women's issues, from birth control to abortion. But he hates one particular female politician, and during a speech he refers to her by one of the socially unacceptable insults that are generally reserved for women. Perhaps that word begins with B or C or S.
Someone in the audience records the offensive insult and puts it on YouTube. The clip rapidly becomes a national story. Here's my question: Is this man a misogynist, or just a guy who hates one particular politician and chose his words poorly?
Let's do another example. This time, imagine a woman who is active in a number of organizations that support women's issues. She sees the world as a boy's club in which women need to fight hard for their rights. One day, while giving a speech about a woman's right to choose, she refers to an odious male politician by one of the insulting words normally hurled only at men, such as bastard, dick, or a**hole. Here's my question: Is the woman guilty of misandry (hatred of males), or is she just a woman who hates one particular politician and used a male-exclusive insult because it seemed like the right word to fit the moment?
I think we judge people we know personally in the context of their entire lives. Nothing else would make sense or seem fair. But we judge strangers and public figures by statements taken out of context. Removing context is what turns a non-story into a story. And it allows the news media to put a face on evil, which is a good way to attract eyeballs and sell advertising.
I can think of a lot of people I suspect of being misogynists. The one thing they all have in common is that they are public figures. That means I don't know their context. Over the span of my entire life, I can't think of any man I've personally known who seemed to hate women in general. And the only overt employment discrimination against women I've ever seen was perpetrated by other women.
Sure, sure, I live in a bubble in Northern California. And I suppose I was raised in a bubble in upstate New York. I'll grant you that misogyny exists. Let's prove you're right in the comments below. My question today is this: Is there any man that you know well that you suspect of hating women in general? (It doesn't count if the man is guilty of only stereotyping. Misogyny is specifically about hatred.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insults and Context
Imagine a guy who loves his mother, sister, wife, and daughters. He has a history of mentoring and promoting women at work, and he has lots of female friends. Politically, he supports all of the so-called women's issues, from birth control to abortion. But he hates one particular female politician, and during a speech he refers to her by one of the socially unacceptable insults that are generally reserved for women. Perhaps that word begins with B or C or S.
Someone in the audience records the offensive insult and puts it on YouTube. The clip rapidly becomes a national story. Here's my question: Is this man a misogynist, or just a guy who hates one particular politician and chose his words poorly?
Let's do another example. This time, imagine a woman who is active in a number of organizations that support women's issues. She sees the world as a boy's club in which women need to fight hard for their rights. One day, while giving a speech about a woman's right to choose, she refers to an odious male politician by one of the insulting words normally hurled only at men, such as bastard, dick, or a**hole. Here's my question: Is the woman guilty of misandry (hatred of males), or is she just a woman who hates one particular politician and used a male-exclusive insult because it seemed like the right word to fit the moment?
I think we judge people we know personally in the context of their entire lives. Nothing else would make sense or seem fair. But we judge strangers and public figures by statements taken out of context. Removing context is what turns a non-story into a story. And it allows the news media to put a face on evil, which is a good way to attract eyeballs and sell advertising.
I can think of a lot of people I suspect of being misogynists. The one thing they all have in common is that they are public figures. That means I don't know their context. Over the span of my entire life, I can't think of any man I've personally known who seemed to hate women in general. And the only overt employment discrimination against women I've ever seen was perpetrated by other women.
Sure, sure, I live in a bubble in Northern California. And I suppose I was raised in a bubble in upstate New York. I'll grant you that misogyny exists. Let's prove you're right in the comments below. My question today is this: Is there any man that you know well that you suspect of hating women in general? (It doesn't count if the man is guilty of only stereotyping. Misogyny is specifically about hatred.)
March 20, 2012
Universal Password Formula
If you're like most computer-using people, you have about four hundred different passwords for various accounts. If you're smart, those passwords aren't all the same. You don't want a thief who gets one of your passwords to effectively have all of them. Is there a solution to this problem that doesn't involve technology? Could one come up with a scheme for remembering all four hundred passwords even if each was different?
Allow me to describe one potential solution. Then, according to tradition, you can tell me how stupid it is. Consider the idea that follows as nothing more than the inspiration for you own better idea that you will triumphantly put in the comments.
Here's my idea: Suppose that instead of remembering a password, you remember a formula for how you created the password in the first place, and that formula applies to all of your passwords for every system. In that case, all you'd need to remember is one formula instead of four hundred passwords. Allow me to give you an example.
Suppose, just to illustrate the idea, you decide that your personal formula for creating all of your passwords is always comprised of the following components:
The first letter is for the type of service. F might be for financial services, such as a banking or investment account. G might be for game accounts. E might be for email, and so on. Next is the first three letters of your birth city.Next is a two digit number based on the alphabetical order of the first two letters of the service's name. For example, AOL starts with an A, which would be 1. The letter O is the 13th letter of the alphabet. Together they are 113.The last digit would be the sum of the numbers generated by step 3. In this example that would equal 1 1 3=5.Your formula would be your own invention, and potentially different from every other person's approach to passwords. If someone steals one of your passwords, the thief is unlikely to guess what formula you used to create it. In theory, if an experienced code-breaker got ahold of perhaps three of your formula-derived passwords, and he had lots of information about your personal life, he could deduce your master formula. But that's asking a lot of your common password thief. And realistically, if someone gets three of your passwords, the thief either lives with you or stole your laptop, so you have bigger problems.
The most obvious risk with the formula approach is that if it became widespread, some people would create formulas that are too easy to deduce, such as their cat's name plus the first two letters of the online service. But that's not your problem.
The second problem is that all of your formula-created passwords would be awkward and hard to remember. You'd have to apply the formula in your head almost every time you wanted to enter a password. But that's how passwords are supposed to be. That's more of a feature than a bug.
With the formula approach, you'd have an extra complication with services that require you to change your password periodically. And you might want to change an individual password now and then for your own reasons. Those new passwords would be off formula, unless you added a version number to the end. That way, if your formula doesn't work, you next try it with 1 at the end, then 2, and so on. It's not a perfect solution, I know.
That's my craptastic idea for today. I call on your collective genius to fix all that is broken with this idea and make it a winner. When you tell me how you'd approach this problem, remember your solution must meet these criteria:
The formula must always work and be unambiguous.The formula must not be obvious for a thief who sees one or two passwords.The formula itself must be easy enough to remember.You need a way to deal with password changes that go off formula.No technology is involved. Okay, now it's your turn. Is this approach feasible?
Allow me to describe one potential solution. Then, according to tradition, you can tell me how stupid it is. Consider the idea that follows as nothing more than the inspiration for you own better idea that you will triumphantly put in the comments.
Here's my idea: Suppose that instead of remembering a password, you remember a formula for how you created the password in the first place, and that formula applies to all of your passwords for every system. In that case, all you'd need to remember is one formula instead of four hundred passwords. Allow me to give you an example.
Suppose, just to illustrate the idea, you decide that your personal formula for creating all of your passwords is always comprised of the following components:
The first letter is for the type of service. F might be for financial services, such as a banking or investment account. G might be for game accounts. E might be for email, and so on. Next is the first three letters of your birth city.Next is a two digit number based on the alphabetical order of the first two letters of the service's name. For example, AOL starts with an A, which would be 1. The letter O is the 13th letter of the alphabet. Together they are 113.The last digit would be the sum of the numbers generated by step 3. In this example that would equal 1 1 3=5.Your formula would be your own invention, and potentially different from every other person's approach to passwords. If someone steals one of your passwords, the thief is unlikely to guess what formula you used to create it. In theory, if an experienced code-breaker got ahold of perhaps three of your formula-derived passwords, and he had lots of information about your personal life, he could deduce your master formula. But that's asking a lot of your common password thief. And realistically, if someone gets three of your passwords, the thief either lives with you or stole your laptop, so you have bigger problems.
The most obvious risk with the formula approach is that if it became widespread, some people would create formulas that are too easy to deduce, such as their cat's name plus the first two letters of the online service. But that's not your problem.
The second problem is that all of your formula-created passwords would be awkward and hard to remember. You'd have to apply the formula in your head almost every time you wanted to enter a password. But that's how passwords are supposed to be. That's more of a feature than a bug.
With the formula approach, you'd have an extra complication with services that require you to change your password periodically. And you might want to change an individual password now and then for your own reasons. Those new passwords would be off formula, unless you added a version number to the end. That way, if your formula doesn't work, you next try it with 1 at the end, then 2, and so on. It's not a perfect solution, I know.
That's my craptastic idea for today. I call on your collective genius to fix all that is broken with this idea and make it a winner. When you tell me how you'd approach this problem, remember your solution must meet these criteria:
The formula must always work and be unambiguous.The formula must not be obvious for a thief who sees one or two passwords.The formula itself must be easy enough to remember.You need a way to deal with password changes that go off formula.No technology is involved. Okay, now it's your turn. Is this approach feasible?
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.
