Scott Adams's Blog, page 351
November 17, 2011
Questions about my Presidency
I saw two good objections to my description of how I would govern the country after being elected President. (See prior post.) Allow me to address both objections.
Objection 1: Supreme Court justices shouldn't be picked to mirror the country's majority opinion. Their job is to decide what the Constitution intends.
Response: That's true in principle. But in reality, justices insert their own philosophical leanings into the gray areas, and the Supreme Court's job is entirely about the gray areas. I'd pick justices who lean the same way as the majority of the public, whatever that might be. That's the most stable system.
Objection 2: How will you get Congress to actually do any of the things you are promising? It's one thing to promise spending cuts, tax increases, etc. But Congress has to pass them.
Response: For starters, an independent, one-term president with triangulated, middle-of-the-road proposals probably wouldn't get the knee-jerk 100% opposition on every issue that a Republican or Democrat would get.
But I'd also go all "Steve Jobs" on Congress's asses and redefine the game. (That was the secret of Jobs' Rasputin-like charisma: He upgraded the context of every discussion to the bigger picture.) The current mindset of government is about which party wins. I'd upgrade the context to focus on which elected individuals are earning their pay. And I'd attack incompetence in both parties with the same intensity. After I ruined the careers of a few members of Congress, the rest would fall in line and start making decisions based on where the data leads.
In our current system, a Democrat president might campaign for a member of his own party against a Republican incumbent. Voters see that as self-serving. As an independent president, I'd campaign against corrupt and incompetent representatives in a very public way and advise voters to pick someone more honest and capable from their own party. That's a context changer. It pushes "winning" to the sidelines and makes competence and objectivity the focus.
Third, I'd also give the major philosophical approaches of both parties full and public vetting (using the Judge Judy model) until the public forms a super majority on important points of fact. That process would make it clearer to voters which politicians oppose the facts. And it would give every major point of view a fair look.
Fourth, in some cases, the states could try out various conservative or liberal approaches and the country as a whole can evaluate which methods work before they are more broadly adopted.
Objection 1: Supreme Court justices shouldn't be picked to mirror the country's majority opinion. Their job is to decide what the Constitution intends.
Response: That's true in principle. But in reality, justices insert their own philosophical leanings into the gray areas, and the Supreme Court's job is entirely about the gray areas. I'd pick justices who lean the same way as the majority of the public, whatever that might be. That's the most stable system.
Objection 2: How will you get Congress to actually do any of the things you are promising? It's one thing to promise spending cuts, tax increases, etc. But Congress has to pass them.
Response: For starters, an independent, one-term president with triangulated, middle-of-the-road proposals probably wouldn't get the knee-jerk 100% opposition on every issue that a Republican or Democrat would get.
But I'd also go all "Steve Jobs" on Congress's asses and redefine the game. (That was the secret of Jobs' Rasputin-like charisma: He upgraded the context of every discussion to the bigger picture.) The current mindset of government is about which party wins. I'd upgrade the context to focus on which elected individuals are earning their pay. And I'd attack incompetence in both parties with the same intensity. After I ruined the careers of a few members of Congress, the rest would fall in line and start making decisions based on where the data leads.
In our current system, a Democrat president might campaign for a member of his own party against a Republican incumbent. Voters see that as self-serving. As an independent president, I'd campaign against corrupt and incompetent representatives in a very public way and advise voters to pick someone more honest and capable from their own party. That's a context changer. It pushes "winning" to the sidelines and makes competence and objectivity the focus.
Third, I'd also give the major philosophical approaches of both parties full and public vetting (using the Judge Judy model) until the public forms a super majority on important points of fact. That process would make it clearer to voters which politicians oppose the facts. And it would give every major point of view a fair look.
Fourth, in some cases, the states could try out various conservative or liberal approaches and the country as a whole can evaluate which methods work before they are more broadly adopted.
November 15, 2011
My Presidential Bid
Today I'm declaring my candidacy for President of the United States. I'll be running as an Independent. Getting on the ballot in every state won't be a problem, thanks to Americaselect.org.
Campaign funding won't be an issue, thanks to the Internet. Any good ideas I might have will be viral, and the bad ideas will die. That's the way it should be. It won't cost me a penny.
You might have some concern about the fact that I have no moral center, no relevant experience, a history of public pranks, and a penchant for flip-flopping. But watch now as I convert those problems into advantages.
Let's start with my lack of experience. Being an outsider probably isn't as good as it sounds. So, as President, I would appoint ex-President Bill Clinton as my only advisor. I'd publish all of his advice to me that doesn't involve top-secret issues, and I'd pretty much do whatever he told me to do. (He could have his own advisors.) In essence, you'd be electing Bill Clinton for a third term. Remember, he had that triangulation thing going for him, where both Democrats and conservative independents liked him. Republicans would support me too if they saw it as the only realistic way to beat President Obama. Unlike President Obama, I'd always give Republican philosophies a fair look, just as Clinton did. The truth, along with most Americans, is somewhere in the middle.
I'd also keep Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, if she were willing. She's plenty experienced, and she hasn't broken anything yet. My second choice would be Bill Gates. He's all about what works. And thanks to his charitable activities, when he says, "I'm here to help," it actually means something.
For my Supreme Court appointments, I'd pick qualified candidates whose opinions map to the majority of Americans. If you don't like where the majority is at, change the minds of your fellow citizens. If you succeed, and I'm still in office, I'll pick the next candidate to reflect that change in public opinion. The Supreme Court works for the country, not the President. My opinions shouldn't matter. I'd only act as a safeguard in case the majority decided to discriminate against some group in particular. I don't like bullies.
On the budget, I propose a plan to cut every Federal government expense by 10% and increase every Federal tax by 10%. I'd call that the default plan, meaning I prefer a better plan, but I wouldn't expect anyone to come up with one. The advantage of this plan is that it's bad for every American. That's a little something I call "fair."
I'd also call a public debate on the topic of supply side economics, to end once and for all the question of whether lowering taxes increases government revenues. I would host the debate myself, with a Judge Judy sort of approach, and decide the winner. If it turns out that my proposed 10% tax increase would reduce government revenue, I'd cancel that part of my plan the same day.
I'd propose capping the amount any one person can inherit per death at $50 million. Estates can choose to donate the rest to charities, distribute it to stockholders, or give it up in taxes. $50 million is more than enough to turn any offspring into a lazy, self-absorbed, drug addicted, douche bag. Any more would be a waste. That plan needs some fine tuning, but you get the idea.
As President, I would remain deeply committed to flip-flopping. If new information or better thinking changes my opinion, so be it. That's how brains are supposed to work.
I can also promise that I won't try to remember the names of other world leaders, federal agencies, or even my own staff. Only an idiot believes a president can remember all of that stuff.
I'll commit one gaffe after another to keep the media busy with nonsense. I'll appear to confuse China with Japan, suggest withdrawing troops from North Korea, and let slip some ethnic insults around live microphones. The public loves that stuff, and I would not disappoint.
On day one of my presidency I would form a committee of libertarians to recommend ways to shrink government. But I would require them to describe in detail how the country would look when those government functions disappear. When they finish, I'll turn over their recommendations to independent economists and other smart people for evaluation. Then I'd open it up for public scrutiny and debate. Then I'd let Bill Clinton decide which reductions in government passed the common sense filter.
I'd use states as test laboratories for social policies, education plans, healthcare schemes, tax policies, and that sort of thing. If a state wants to try something new, and the change goes against current federal policies, I'd favor giving the state a temporary exception, and perhaps some funding, to try out its plan. I might even encourage another state to try the same plan, just so we have a control group (roughly speaking) to evaluate the results. After a reasonable test period, the state's plan would either be terminated if it didn't work, or encouraged in other states if it did. I see the federal government as an objective broker trying to maximize best practices in the states.
On the environment, I'd try to make America the least polluted place on Earth, and the most visited by tourists. A clean environment is a good way to keep healthcare costs down too. But I wouldn't reflexively say no to pipelines and drilling and fracking if the cost-benefit ratio seems reasonable. We don't live in a risk-free world, and windmills can't do it all. At the same time, I'd also go hog wild for geothermal energy and other clean technologies so we can someday lower our collective risks.
Unlike most politicians, I'll admit I'm in it for the money. I'll only accept $1 per year in salary, but I think I can make it up later in book deals, licensing, and speaking gigs. I'll be the most economical president ever.
If you don't like any of the ideas I just explained, tell me why. There's a good chance I'll flip-flop to your point of view.
Campaign funding won't be an issue, thanks to the Internet. Any good ideas I might have will be viral, and the bad ideas will die. That's the way it should be. It won't cost me a penny.
You might have some concern about the fact that I have no moral center, no relevant experience, a history of public pranks, and a penchant for flip-flopping. But watch now as I convert those problems into advantages.
Let's start with my lack of experience. Being an outsider probably isn't as good as it sounds. So, as President, I would appoint ex-President Bill Clinton as my only advisor. I'd publish all of his advice to me that doesn't involve top-secret issues, and I'd pretty much do whatever he told me to do. (He could have his own advisors.) In essence, you'd be electing Bill Clinton for a third term. Remember, he had that triangulation thing going for him, where both Democrats and conservative independents liked him. Republicans would support me too if they saw it as the only realistic way to beat President Obama. Unlike President Obama, I'd always give Republican philosophies a fair look, just as Clinton did. The truth, along with most Americans, is somewhere in the middle.
I'd also keep Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, if she were willing. She's plenty experienced, and she hasn't broken anything yet. My second choice would be Bill Gates. He's all about what works. And thanks to his charitable activities, when he says, "I'm here to help," it actually means something.
For my Supreme Court appointments, I'd pick qualified candidates whose opinions map to the majority of Americans. If you don't like where the majority is at, change the minds of your fellow citizens. If you succeed, and I'm still in office, I'll pick the next candidate to reflect that change in public opinion. The Supreme Court works for the country, not the President. My opinions shouldn't matter. I'd only act as a safeguard in case the majority decided to discriminate against some group in particular. I don't like bullies.
On the budget, I propose a plan to cut every Federal government expense by 10% and increase every Federal tax by 10%. I'd call that the default plan, meaning I prefer a better plan, but I wouldn't expect anyone to come up with one. The advantage of this plan is that it's bad for every American. That's a little something I call "fair."
I'd also call a public debate on the topic of supply side economics, to end once and for all the question of whether lowering taxes increases government revenues. I would host the debate myself, with a Judge Judy sort of approach, and decide the winner. If it turns out that my proposed 10% tax increase would reduce government revenue, I'd cancel that part of my plan the same day.
I'd propose capping the amount any one person can inherit per death at $50 million. Estates can choose to donate the rest to charities, distribute it to stockholders, or give it up in taxes. $50 million is more than enough to turn any offspring into a lazy, self-absorbed, drug addicted, douche bag. Any more would be a waste. That plan needs some fine tuning, but you get the idea.
As President, I would remain deeply committed to flip-flopping. If new information or better thinking changes my opinion, so be it. That's how brains are supposed to work.
I can also promise that I won't try to remember the names of other world leaders, federal agencies, or even my own staff. Only an idiot believes a president can remember all of that stuff.
I'll commit one gaffe after another to keep the media busy with nonsense. I'll appear to confuse China with Japan, suggest withdrawing troops from North Korea, and let slip some ethnic insults around live microphones. The public loves that stuff, and I would not disappoint.
On day one of my presidency I would form a committee of libertarians to recommend ways to shrink government. But I would require them to describe in detail how the country would look when those government functions disappear. When they finish, I'll turn over their recommendations to independent economists and other smart people for evaluation. Then I'd open it up for public scrutiny and debate. Then I'd let Bill Clinton decide which reductions in government passed the common sense filter.
I'd use states as test laboratories for social policies, education plans, healthcare schemes, tax policies, and that sort of thing. If a state wants to try something new, and the change goes against current federal policies, I'd favor giving the state a temporary exception, and perhaps some funding, to try out its plan. I might even encourage another state to try the same plan, just so we have a control group (roughly speaking) to evaluate the results. After a reasonable test period, the state's plan would either be terminated if it didn't work, or encouraged in other states if it did. I see the federal government as an objective broker trying to maximize best practices in the states.
On the environment, I'd try to make America the least polluted place on Earth, and the most visited by tourists. A clean environment is a good way to keep healthcare costs down too. But I wouldn't reflexively say no to pipelines and drilling and fracking if the cost-benefit ratio seems reasonable. We don't live in a risk-free world, and windmills can't do it all. At the same time, I'd also go hog wild for geothermal energy and other clean technologies so we can someday lower our collective risks.
Unlike most politicians, I'll admit I'm in it for the money. I'll only accept $1 per year in salary, but I think I can make it up later in book deals, licensing, and speaking gigs. I'll be the most economical president ever.
If you don't like any of the ideas I just explained, tell me why. There's a good chance I'll flip-flop to your point of view.
November 13, 2011
Banks
I got a new credit card recently, serviced through a major bank that is unpopular at the moment. The bank's website lets me schedule an automatic electronic payment of the minimum monthly amount due. That's convenient, right? Nice feature. But from that point, things get evil quickly.
The bank's site doesn't allow me to schedule an automatic monthly payment of the entire balance. If I could conveniently pay the entire balance every month, it would be convenient for me, and bad for the bank. Do you think the bank left off that feature by accident?
But they aren't done with me yet.
When I navigate to the page where I can enter any amount I want to pay that month, the site no longer displays my current balance. I assume the bank hopes I don't remember that figure from the previous page. An accidental underpayment is good for the bank, and bad for me.
You might wonder if what I'm describing is simply shoddy interface design. But consider that perhaps half of the people who go to the payment screen want to pay the entire balance, and it would take the bank about five minutes of programming to display that figure. Also consider that the bank's biggest competitor had the same suspiciously bad interface design until recently.
So my first point today is that people have good reasons for distrusting banks. It's not paranoia.
Now let's move to my second point: What the hell is going on with Greece and Italy?
As a general rule, you can usually assume that someone is trying to screw someone else whenever you find these two elements working together:
ComplexityMoneyComplexity is how evil schemes are hidden from the public. Complexity is what caused so many people to get mortgages they couldn't afford. Complexity is how hedge funds hide their treachery. Complexity is how the derivatives debacle was possible. Complexity is how your financial manager can get away with charging you for doing nothing. Complexity is why you don't know if you can get a better deal with another phone carrier.
When it comes to the Greek debt situation, the public has been warned of the scary possibility of a domino effect. Exactly how does that domino thing work in this particular case? It seems...complicated.
I understand what a default is, and I know what a domino is, but I don't understand how Greece's debt problems, and Italy's too, will destroy the rest of Europe. And when I don't understand something, I automatically assume someone, somewhere, is trying to screw someone.
I know my readers, and you'll try to explain to me in simple terms how Greece's and Italy's debt problems will ripple through the economy. But I'll bet you can't do it without resorting to a psychological element such as "And then people will be afraid to make loans to anyone."
You should always be suspicious of psychological explanations. In my reality, there is plenty of money on the sidelines, thanks to the famous 1%, and there will always be a willingness to lend to the creditworthy.
So my question to you is this: If the situation in Greece and Italy causes some big banks to go under, how much will that affect anyone who isn't a stockholder or a depositor of those banks? Won't the surviving banks, of which we have too many, end up stronger, with greater market share, when the dust settles?
Just to be clear, I'm not saying the problems in Greece and Italy can't create a devastating ripple effect. All I'm saying about that situation is that three things are involved:
ComplexityMoneyBanks
The bank's site doesn't allow me to schedule an automatic monthly payment of the entire balance. If I could conveniently pay the entire balance every month, it would be convenient for me, and bad for the bank. Do you think the bank left off that feature by accident?
But they aren't done with me yet.
When I navigate to the page where I can enter any amount I want to pay that month, the site no longer displays my current balance. I assume the bank hopes I don't remember that figure from the previous page. An accidental underpayment is good for the bank, and bad for me.
You might wonder if what I'm describing is simply shoddy interface design. But consider that perhaps half of the people who go to the payment screen want to pay the entire balance, and it would take the bank about five minutes of programming to display that figure. Also consider that the bank's biggest competitor had the same suspiciously bad interface design until recently.
So my first point today is that people have good reasons for distrusting banks. It's not paranoia.
Now let's move to my second point: What the hell is going on with Greece and Italy?
As a general rule, you can usually assume that someone is trying to screw someone else whenever you find these two elements working together:
ComplexityMoneyComplexity is how evil schemes are hidden from the public. Complexity is what caused so many people to get mortgages they couldn't afford. Complexity is how hedge funds hide their treachery. Complexity is how the derivatives debacle was possible. Complexity is how your financial manager can get away with charging you for doing nothing. Complexity is why you don't know if you can get a better deal with another phone carrier.
When it comes to the Greek debt situation, the public has been warned of the scary possibility of a domino effect. Exactly how does that domino thing work in this particular case? It seems...complicated.
I understand what a default is, and I know what a domino is, but I don't understand how Greece's debt problems, and Italy's too, will destroy the rest of Europe. And when I don't understand something, I automatically assume someone, somewhere, is trying to screw someone.
I know my readers, and you'll try to explain to me in simple terms how Greece's and Italy's debt problems will ripple through the economy. But I'll bet you can't do it without resorting to a psychological element such as "And then people will be afraid to make loans to anyone."
You should always be suspicious of psychological explanations. In my reality, there is plenty of money on the sidelines, thanks to the famous 1%, and there will always be a willingness to lend to the creditworthy.
So my question to you is this: If the situation in Greece and Italy causes some big banks to go under, how much will that affect anyone who isn't a stockholder or a depositor of those banks? Won't the surviving banks, of which we have too many, end up stronger, with greater market share, when the dust settles?
Just to be clear, I'm not saying the problems in Greece and Italy can't create a devastating ripple effect. All I'm saying about that situation is that three things are involved:
ComplexityMoneyBanks
November 8, 2011
Cain's Inexplicably High Polling
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.
------------
Prior to five women accusing Herman Cain of sexual harassment, I predicted he would become the Republican nominee. After the accusations, most pundits expect Cain to go down in flames. I'm going to double down and reaffirm my prediction that Cain will win the Republican nomination.
Let me begin by clearly stating a few things:
I don't think Cain is qualified to be president.Sexual harassment is a serious offense.With so much smoke, it's hard to believe there's no fire.
But none of that might matter to a good number of Republican voters. 40% of voters would prefer any Republican over President Obama. So whoever has the best chance of winning the election will be preferred by most Republicans, no matter what his qualifications and offenses are.
But that's not the heart of my argument today. To make my next point, first we need to do a little poll.
Consider all of the employee lawsuits and out of court settlements of which you have personal knowledge. Your list can include sexual harassment claims plus all other types of employee claims, including cases involving injuries and unfair practices. Include only situations in which you were personally involved or you know the people who were. My question is this: What percentage of these employee claims do you know for sure to be bullshit?
I'll go first. I owned two restaurants for years, and you can imagine how many claims I saw. Before that, I worked at the local phone company, and before that for a large bank. I've had personal knowledge of perhaps twenty employee claims against employers. To the best of my knowledge, 100% of them were bullshit. I could be wrong, but that's my impression. And impressions matter. (None were sexual harassment cases.)
I'm using the term bullshit instead of "true" because there's a slight difference. In some cases the employees took advantage of obscure labor laws and found ways to force settlements without ever experiencing any damages.
Now consider the average Republican mindset. We're talking about a pro-employer group of voters. For many of these voters, Cain's situation will remind them of all the dishonest employee claims they've seen. For many people, especially men, Cain will look like a typical employer getting sued every five minutes by employees looking for cash settlements. Voting for Cain will feel like a vote against fraudulent employee claims, even if that is the opposite of reality. It will FEEL like a referendum against fraudulent claims.
The other factor working in Cain's favor is his absurd level of confidence and optimism. You have to figure he's always had it. It's easy to imagine that if the allegations happened exactly as the women described, he saw it differently at the time. In the mind of an optimist with a huge ego, he probably thought he was doing nothing more than giving the women a chance to have some career assistance and also enjoy the extraordinary pleasure of his company.
Our system is designed so you can't escape justice by claiming you didn't know you violated a law. That's the only way the system can work. But I think it's entirely plausible that Cain believed he was doing these women two favors: help with their careers and the option of great sex too. It's easy to imagine that's how he saw it. I think a lot of Republicans who believe the women's stories are going to give Cain a pass because there's a fine line between optimism and stupidity, and if you want an optimist for your leader, you know he's going to cross the line into stupidity now and again. It's a package deal. It's Ronald Reagan. It's Bill Clinton.
For the bad readers who might be visiting from other sites, I will end by reiterating:
I don't think Cain is qualified to be president.Sexual harassment is a serious offense.With so much smoke, it's hard to believe there's no fire.I'll also add that I'm not a Republican. I'm just predicting how the Republicans who have a soft spot for employers and optimists might think.
------------
Prior to five women accusing Herman Cain of sexual harassment, I predicted he would become the Republican nominee. After the accusations, most pundits expect Cain to go down in flames. I'm going to double down and reaffirm my prediction that Cain will win the Republican nomination.
Let me begin by clearly stating a few things:
I don't think Cain is qualified to be president.Sexual harassment is a serious offense.With so much smoke, it's hard to believe there's no fire.
But none of that might matter to a good number of Republican voters. 40% of voters would prefer any Republican over President Obama. So whoever has the best chance of winning the election will be preferred by most Republicans, no matter what his qualifications and offenses are.
But that's not the heart of my argument today. To make my next point, first we need to do a little poll.
Consider all of the employee lawsuits and out of court settlements of which you have personal knowledge. Your list can include sexual harassment claims plus all other types of employee claims, including cases involving injuries and unfair practices. Include only situations in which you were personally involved or you know the people who were. My question is this: What percentage of these employee claims do you know for sure to be bullshit?
I'll go first. I owned two restaurants for years, and you can imagine how many claims I saw. Before that, I worked at the local phone company, and before that for a large bank. I've had personal knowledge of perhaps twenty employee claims against employers. To the best of my knowledge, 100% of them were bullshit. I could be wrong, but that's my impression. And impressions matter. (None were sexual harassment cases.)
I'm using the term bullshit instead of "true" because there's a slight difference. In some cases the employees took advantage of obscure labor laws and found ways to force settlements without ever experiencing any damages.
Now consider the average Republican mindset. We're talking about a pro-employer group of voters. For many of these voters, Cain's situation will remind them of all the dishonest employee claims they've seen. For many people, especially men, Cain will look like a typical employer getting sued every five minutes by employees looking for cash settlements. Voting for Cain will feel like a vote against fraudulent employee claims, even if that is the opposite of reality. It will FEEL like a referendum against fraudulent claims.
The other factor working in Cain's favor is his absurd level of confidence and optimism. You have to figure he's always had it. It's easy to imagine that if the allegations happened exactly as the women described, he saw it differently at the time. In the mind of an optimist with a huge ego, he probably thought he was doing nothing more than giving the women a chance to have some career assistance and also enjoy the extraordinary pleasure of his company.
Our system is designed so you can't escape justice by claiming you didn't know you violated a law. That's the only way the system can work. But I think it's entirely plausible that Cain believed he was doing these women two favors: help with their careers and the option of great sex too. It's easy to imagine that's how he saw it. I think a lot of Republicans who believe the women's stories are going to give Cain a pass because there's a fine line between optimism and stupidity, and if you want an optimist for your leader, you know he's going to cross the line into stupidity now and again. It's a package deal. It's Ronald Reagan. It's Bill Clinton.
For the bad readers who might be visiting from other sites, I will end by reiterating:
I don't think Cain is qualified to be president.Sexual harassment is a serious offense.With so much smoke, it's hard to believe there's no fire.I'll also add that I'm not a Republican. I'm just predicting how the Republicans who have a soft spot for employers and optimists might think.
November 7, 2011
Our Cyborg Evolution
I've written before that our smartphones will someday be seen as the first substantial step in our evolution to cyborgs (part human, part machines). Some will argue that contact lenses and hearing aids were the first step, but those are sideways changes, allowing humans see and hear normally. A true step on the cyborg evolution involves artificial parts that make us better, or give us greater powers. I've been wondering what the next steps will be.
I predict that health monitoring will be the next substantial phase of cyborg evolution. I think we'll have embedded chips to continuously monitor our blood for sugar levels, cholesterol, vitamins, minerals, salt, specific diseases, and more. I think we'll also have monitors on our bodies to tell us when our brains are at their peak levels (for thinking tasks) and when our bodies are most energetic (for exercise). Perhaps our monitors will tell us when to eat and what to eat. Monitors might tell us when we are hydrated, when we have enough fiber in our diets, and when we need more sleep. You can imagine a long list of what the monitors might tell us. The embedded monitors might be powered by your body chemistry and communicate with your smartphone when it's near.
Coincidentally, Gizmag.com sent me an automatic email about a device that looks like the first step along the path.
If your first reaction to our next cyborg phase is no big deal because you already know how to eat right and exercise, I think you're wrong. Humans aren't wired to easily distinguish between tired, thirsty, and hungry. Sometimes you think you're tired, only to bounce back after a snack or a beverage. And no one knows when they are getting the right nutritional levels.
We've trained ourselves to ignore sleep deprivation, and we kid ourselves about how well we eat, and how much. We also find it easy to skip exercise. And obviously we don't continuously monitor our blood for diseases.
I think the health benefits, and the mood benefits, of nailing a healthy lifestyle are huge. People would be happier, more productive, and more creative. Healthy living literally makes you smarter, too.
You might argue that the hard part of healthy living is getting past the inconvenience. Fast food is, well, faster, and sometimes tastier, than healthy food. Not exercising is easier than exercising. Sleep is a luxury we don't always have. But I think the technology could help you in the motivation department too.
Humans like structure. We like knowing what to do. That in itself is motivating. There's a big difference between the vague knowledge that exercise is good and the specific guidance that you need 20 minutes of cardio before bedtime. And if your exercise reminder goes off while you're with friends or family, it creates an acceptable excuse, and perhaps even some peer pressure to work out.
Consider also that the health reminders are cumulative. A reminder to drink some water because you're dehydrated will cause you to have more energy and thus make it more likely you will be in the mood for exercise. Likewise, a reminder to go to bed early will give you more energy to exercise the next day. Health-wise, doing anything right makes it easier to do other things right.
Now suppose your monitors not only tell you what types of food you need, but in conjunction with your smartphone, and a profile of your eating preferences, and GPS service, makes specific shopping and cooking recommendations. Your smartphone might even cue up a local restaurant that delivers, and display a suggested menu. Your phone might even place the order online and pay the bill electronically. Eating right could someday become as easy as pressing "OKAY" on your phone and waiting for the food to arrive.
Looking even further ahead, your brain, or some digital version of it, will be living in a robotic body such as this, unless the robots rise up and kill us first. Judging from this particular robot video, I'd say it's a 50-50 sort of thing.
Update: Reader Kapoing points us to this handy list of monitors already available.
I predict that health monitoring will be the next substantial phase of cyborg evolution. I think we'll have embedded chips to continuously monitor our blood for sugar levels, cholesterol, vitamins, minerals, salt, specific diseases, and more. I think we'll also have monitors on our bodies to tell us when our brains are at their peak levels (for thinking tasks) and when our bodies are most energetic (for exercise). Perhaps our monitors will tell us when to eat and what to eat. Monitors might tell us when we are hydrated, when we have enough fiber in our diets, and when we need more sleep. You can imagine a long list of what the monitors might tell us. The embedded monitors might be powered by your body chemistry and communicate with your smartphone when it's near.
Coincidentally, Gizmag.com sent me an automatic email about a device that looks like the first step along the path.
If your first reaction to our next cyborg phase is no big deal because you already know how to eat right and exercise, I think you're wrong. Humans aren't wired to easily distinguish between tired, thirsty, and hungry. Sometimes you think you're tired, only to bounce back after a snack or a beverage. And no one knows when they are getting the right nutritional levels.
We've trained ourselves to ignore sleep deprivation, and we kid ourselves about how well we eat, and how much. We also find it easy to skip exercise. And obviously we don't continuously monitor our blood for diseases.
I think the health benefits, and the mood benefits, of nailing a healthy lifestyle are huge. People would be happier, more productive, and more creative. Healthy living literally makes you smarter, too.
You might argue that the hard part of healthy living is getting past the inconvenience. Fast food is, well, faster, and sometimes tastier, than healthy food. Not exercising is easier than exercising. Sleep is a luxury we don't always have. But I think the technology could help you in the motivation department too.
Humans like structure. We like knowing what to do. That in itself is motivating. There's a big difference between the vague knowledge that exercise is good and the specific guidance that you need 20 minutes of cardio before bedtime. And if your exercise reminder goes off while you're with friends or family, it creates an acceptable excuse, and perhaps even some peer pressure to work out.
Consider also that the health reminders are cumulative. A reminder to drink some water because you're dehydrated will cause you to have more energy and thus make it more likely you will be in the mood for exercise. Likewise, a reminder to go to bed early will give you more energy to exercise the next day. Health-wise, doing anything right makes it easier to do other things right.
Now suppose your monitors not only tell you what types of food you need, but in conjunction with your smartphone, and a profile of your eating preferences, and GPS service, makes specific shopping and cooking recommendations. Your smartphone might even cue up a local restaurant that delivers, and display a suggested menu. Your phone might even place the order online and pay the bill electronically. Eating right could someday become as easy as pressing "OKAY" on your phone and waiting for the food to arrive.
Looking even further ahead, your brain, or some digital version of it, will be living in a robotic body such as this, unless the robots rise up and kill us first. Judging from this particular robot video, I'd say it's a 50-50 sort of thing.
Update: Reader Kapoing points us to this handy list of monitors already available.
November 6, 2011
Your Fellow Citizens
This weekend, the Wall Street Journal published a piece I wrote about using the Internet to improve the user interface for our government, so citizens would be better informed. Readers of this blog will recognize some of the ideas. That's not the interesting part. Check out the comments if you want to lose all faith in humanity.
Some commenters say the Founders of the country intentionally designed the government to be inefficient and perpetually near gridlock so it can't easily become a gaping black hole for the nation's wealth. I agree. But how's that working out so far?
Other commenters believe that smart people cause all of the big problems in the world and therefore the solution is to have decisions made by people who don't even understand the question.
Some commenters believe that the Constitution shouldn't be changed because it was designed perfectly. (Coincidentally, these commenters are all white males who own property.)
And some people misunderstood my article entirely and thought I was suggesting changing the republic to a direct democracy. What I actually suggested is that government could help citizens become better informed.
After reading the comments to my article, I think this would be a good time to trot out my catch phrase: "And then they voted."
Some commenters say the Founders of the country intentionally designed the government to be inefficient and perpetually near gridlock so it can't easily become a gaping black hole for the nation's wealth. I agree. But how's that working out so far?
Other commenters believe that smart people cause all of the big problems in the world and therefore the solution is to have decisions made by people who don't even understand the question.
Some commenters believe that the Constitution shouldn't be changed because it was designed perfectly. (Coincidentally, these commenters are all white males who own property.)
And some people misunderstood my article entirely and thought I was suggesting changing the republic to a direct democracy. What I actually suggested is that government could help citizens become better informed.
After reading the comments to my article, I think this would be a good time to trot out my catch phrase: "And then they voted."
November 4, 2011
When I Was Bad
Is it my imagination, or did Entertainment Weekly just reward me for bad writing?
I would have paid a million dollars to be on that list. And they just gave it away. Suckers!
I would have paid a million dollars to be on that list. And they just gave it away. Suckers!
November 3, 2011
The Comparison Advantage
Studies show that it's stressful to be the least successful person in your reference group. You don't want to be the worst performer at work, the weakest member of your sports team, the least successful person at your class reunion, and so on.
My guess is that status-related stress is becoming more of a problem than at any time in human history because the media is changing our reference group. We're continuously bombarded with stories about people who are fabulously successful. It's hard to watch The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills and feel as if your own career is a raging success. And I'll bet most of you know Steve Jobs was worth $7 billion when he passed.
Stress is obviously bad for you. It makes you unhappy in the short run, and it leads to health issues later. Stress probably holds back your career, too. I would think that people who project a relaxed and confident vibe are generally more successful at work.
On the other end of this phenomenon, there's a risk that kids are getting too much self-esteem. These days, every kid gets a trophy just for participating. Some observers think this isn't good preparation for real life.
Your first reaction might be to assume nothing can be done to fix status-related stress. In adult life, success is almost always distributed unevenly. But maybe there's a way to program our perceptions of success in a healthy way without altering the underlying reality.
I've always felt that the best balance for happiness is to make sure you're near the top of at least one reference group in your life. In other words, be great at one thing, even if it's just a hobby. Any type of success can provide a psychological safe harbor when everything else goes to hell. And success breeds confidence that can help you power through the harder challenges.
I was thinking of this in the context of our nation's unemployment issues. For the most part, our unemployed and underemployed citizens aren't literally starving, and most have shelter. But their stress levels are presumably high, both for practical reasons (paying the rent), and for psychological reasons (status).
Interestingly, the Occupy Wall Street protests provide a means to change the reference group for these folks and perhaps accomplish something meaningful at the same time. If I were unemployed, I would find comfort in being in a crowd of people who were in the same situation. I think that's part of the reason the protests show no sign of tapering off. The protesters literally feel good when they turn off the television and control their perceived reference group. Demonizing the wealthy probably also helps because no one perceives their enemies as a reference group for status.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters are probably feeling successful. They've become a popular movement and received lots of attention. There's a good chance that their actions will lead to positive changes. All of that has to feel good.
I think back to my corporate days, and the feeling of low status I experienced in my tiny gray cubicle. I took psychological refuge by playing pick-up soccer games on weekends at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. I wasn't a great player, but on many weekends I was among the better 20%, at least in my own mind. And it felt good.
When I decided to become a cartoonist, I think it was partly because I didn't know anyone else who was good at that sort of thing. Within my artificial reference group of cubicle-dwellers, I was the best comic artist, even though I would have been near the bottom of a reference group of actual artists. I think my artificial reference group gave me the confidence to think that with no professional experience whatsoever I could become a syndicated cartoonist.
My point is that if you're unhappy, look for a strategy that can change your reference group and create a positive change at the same time. Boost your happiness and confidence first, and use that platform to reach for whatever you define as a higher level of success.
My guess is that status-related stress is becoming more of a problem than at any time in human history because the media is changing our reference group. We're continuously bombarded with stories about people who are fabulously successful. It's hard to watch The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills and feel as if your own career is a raging success. And I'll bet most of you know Steve Jobs was worth $7 billion when he passed.
Stress is obviously bad for you. It makes you unhappy in the short run, and it leads to health issues later. Stress probably holds back your career, too. I would think that people who project a relaxed and confident vibe are generally more successful at work.
On the other end of this phenomenon, there's a risk that kids are getting too much self-esteem. These days, every kid gets a trophy just for participating. Some observers think this isn't good preparation for real life.
Your first reaction might be to assume nothing can be done to fix status-related stress. In adult life, success is almost always distributed unevenly. But maybe there's a way to program our perceptions of success in a healthy way without altering the underlying reality.
I've always felt that the best balance for happiness is to make sure you're near the top of at least one reference group in your life. In other words, be great at one thing, even if it's just a hobby. Any type of success can provide a psychological safe harbor when everything else goes to hell. And success breeds confidence that can help you power through the harder challenges.
I was thinking of this in the context of our nation's unemployment issues. For the most part, our unemployed and underemployed citizens aren't literally starving, and most have shelter. But their stress levels are presumably high, both for practical reasons (paying the rent), and for psychological reasons (status).
Interestingly, the Occupy Wall Street protests provide a means to change the reference group for these folks and perhaps accomplish something meaningful at the same time. If I were unemployed, I would find comfort in being in a crowd of people who were in the same situation. I think that's part of the reason the protests show no sign of tapering off. The protesters literally feel good when they turn off the television and control their perceived reference group. Demonizing the wealthy probably also helps because no one perceives their enemies as a reference group for status.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters are probably feeling successful. They've become a popular movement and received lots of attention. There's a good chance that their actions will lead to positive changes. All of that has to feel good.
I think back to my corporate days, and the feeling of low status I experienced in my tiny gray cubicle. I took psychological refuge by playing pick-up soccer games on weekends at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. I wasn't a great player, but on many weekends I was among the better 20%, at least in my own mind. And it felt good.
When I decided to become a cartoonist, I think it was partly because I didn't know anyone else who was good at that sort of thing. Within my artificial reference group of cubicle-dwellers, I was the best comic artist, even though I would have been near the bottom of a reference group of actual artists. I think my artificial reference group gave me the confidence to think that with no professional experience whatsoever I could become a syndicated cartoonist.
My point is that if you're unhappy, look for a strategy that can change your reference group and create a positive change at the same time. Boost your happiness and confidence first, and use that platform to reach for whatever you define as a higher level of success.
November 1, 2011
Calendar Interface
Okay, this has been bugging me forever. I've been trying to figure out why entering a calendar event on my smartphone or Google calendar or Outlook feels so...annoying?
It takes too many clicks. That's one issue. But I always feel more annoyed than I would expect to feel from a few extra clicks. So I have a new hypothesis. Let me run it by you.
I think entering a calendar event is, for your brain, the equivalent of patting your head while rubbing your stomach at the same time. In both cases, the components are individually easy. They only become annoyingly when combined. Some thought processes don't combine well.
By contrast, listening to music and washing dishes at the same time is easy. So is walking and chewing gum, at least for most people. Fortunately, some parts of the brain do work well together.
I started thinking along these lines when I realized I couldn't drive a car and navigate too if my wife added the complexity of asking me to imagine a spatial task, such as how we might arrange the patio furniture. The spatial processing part of my brain would get overloaded and I would drive right past my turn.
Hypnotists take advantage of this effect too. Some inductions cause the subject to activate several brain regions at once. This technique quickly "exhausts" the brain and puts you in a frame of mind where you just want someone to tell you what to think.
Now back to calendars. When I think of months, I reflexively picture a circle, with January 1st at the top and June at the bottom. That uses the spatial processing part of my brain. When I think of a day within a month, I picture a wall calendar grid with four horizontal weeks. That's a different spatial model. When I think of the time of day, I think of a round clock with two complete cycles for AM and PM. My smartphone unhelpfully adds another spatial model by making me enter times in a sort of slot machine interface with rolling windows, which causes me to imagine a tire shape, with the tire heading toward me. Meanwhile, the other options I need to click are spread around the screen and require a mental scavenger hunt, which is another spatial task.
Add to this spatial overload that my calendar likes to present itself sometimes in a month format, and other times by week. Worse yet, on some of my calendar interfaces the months scroll in a left-right orientation, and on other interfaces the months scroll up-down.
I also have to jump back and forth between my keyboard and my mouse. That's another brain complication with spatial implications. Individually, every component I mentioned is simple. It only becomes a problem when they are clustered.
So what's the solution?
First, you want to separate your keyboard tasks from the clicking tasks. I want to do all of my clicking first and my typing of descriptions at the end. My Droid calendar interface asks me for the "What," then makes me click something else, then I must rotate the roulette wheel, then go back to typing for the "Where" and the "Description." Meanwhile, my brain stubbornly believes the "What" box and the "Description" box should be the same thing. If I'm entering "Bob's birthday," what is the "What" and which is the "Description"? Stop screwing with me, Google!
Now let's consider my brilliant new calendar interface idea. The date and time need to be arranged on a single screen using the same spatial metaphor. On the left you have years, starting from the current year at the top and ascending. The user clicks one to select. No scrolling needed.
On the same screen, to the right of the years column is the month column, with January at the top, descending to December at the bottom. The user clicks a month, no scrolling needed.
To the right of the month column is a column for the hour, with Midnight at the top, descending through the hours. The range between 6 AM and 6PM would be shaded to call out the normal workday range. Click once for the hour.
Next is the minutes column, from zero at the top to 55 at the bottom, in 5-minute increments. The 15/30/45 increments would be larger for easy selection.
With this model, time is organized from big (year) to small (minutes), from left to right, just as you would expect. And it requires your mind to stay in one spatial model throughout. It might require some tweaking to make it finger-friendly for smartphone screens, but that seems doable. Perhaps on the day column, where you need to fit 31 choices, touching it once zooms the general area of your choice so the next click can pick the date with more specificity, then it unzooms.
And I suppose you need another column at the end to pick the length of the meeting.
While I'm complaining, get rid of the "All day" default. If I want a meeting with no start or stop, let me specify the date without the time and move to the next screen.
I'm sure my approach has its own problems. The main idea is to keep the user's brain in the same spatial processing model throughout the process.
On a related note, I wonder if this brain overload problem is more important to our daily lives than we notice. For example, I have a hypothesis that ping pong can cure attention deficit disorder. A good player will focus intensely on the ball at the moment of impact and instantly switch his attention to the other player, and the larger strategy, until the ball is struck on the other side of the table. In the course of a match, a player quickly switches from intense concentration on the ball to a broader concentration and back hundreds of times. Does the brain of a ping pong player become extra good at controlling concentration as needed?
And is it possible to manipulate people, in terms of marketing or sales, by cleverly overloading the resistance areas of the brain with the sort of thought processes that are meant to exhaust it? That's probably happening now, but in more of an accidental and trial-and-error way. What if we discovered that asking for a favor works best when the other person is involved in a certain type of mental task?
I need to go combine some spatial planning with some language processing tasks and make a comic now.
It takes too many clicks. That's one issue. But I always feel more annoyed than I would expect to feel from a few extra clicks. So I have a new hypothesis. Let me run it by you.
I think entering a calendar event is, for your brain, the equivalent of patting your head while rubbing your stomach at the same time. In both cases, the components are individually easy. They only become annoyingly when combined. Some thought processes don't combine well.
By contrast, listening to music and washing dishes at the same time is easy. So is walking and chewing gum, at least for most people. Fortunately, some parts of the brain do work well together.
I started thinking along these lines when I realized I couldn't drive a car and navigate too if my wife added the complexity of asking me to imagine a spatial task, such as how we might arrange the patio furniture. The spatial processing part of my brain would get overloaded and I would drive right past my turn.
Hypnotists take advantage of this effect too. Some inductions cause the subject to activate several brain regions at once. This technique quickly "exhausts" the brain and puts you in a frame of mind where you just want someone to tell you what to think.
Now back to calendars. When I think of months, I reflexively picture a circle, with January 1st at the top and June at the bottom. That uses the spatial processing part of my brain. When I think of a day within a month, I picture a wall calendar grid with four horizontal weeks. That's a different spatial model. When I think of the time of day, I think of a round clock with two complete cycles for AM and PM. My smartphone unhelpfully adds another spatial model by making me enter times in a sort of slot machine interface with rolling windows, which causes me to imagine a tire shape, with the tire heading toward me. Meanwhile, the other options I need to click are spread around the screen and require a mental scavenger hunt, which is another spatial task.
Add to this spatial overload that my calendar likes to present itself sometimes in a month format, and other times by week. Worse yet, on some of my calendar interfaces the months scroll in a left-right orientation, and on other interfaces the months scroll up-down.
I also have to jump back and forth between my keyboard and my mouse. That's another brain complication with spatial implications. Individually, every component I mentioned is simple. It only becomes a problem when they are clustered.
So what's the solution?
First, you want to separate your keyboard tasks from the clicking tasks. I want to do all of my clicking first and my typing of descriptions at the end. My Droid calendar interface asks me for the "What," then makes me click something else, then I must rotate the roulette wheel, then go back to typing for the "Where" and the "Description." Meanwhile, my brain stubbornly believes the "What" box and the "Description" box should be the same thing. If I'm entering "Bob's birthday," what is the "What" and which is the "Description"? Stop screwing with me, Google!
Now let's consider my brilliant new calendar interface idea. The date and time need to be arranged on a single screen using the same spatial metaphor. On the left you have years, starting from the current year at the top and ascending. The user clicks one to select. No scrolling needed.
On the same screen, to the right of the years column is the month column, with January at the top, descending to December at the bottom. The user clicks a month, no scrolling needed.
To the right of the month column is a column for the hour, with Midnight at the top, descending through the hours. The range between 6 AM and 6PM would be shaded to call out the normal workday range. Click once for the hour.
Next is the minutes column, from zero at the top to 55 at the bottom, in 5-minute increments. The 15/30/45 increments would be larger for easy selection.
With this model, time is organized from big (year) to small (minutes), from left to right, just as you would expect. And it requires your mind to stay in one spatial model throughout. It might require some tweaking to make it finger-friendly for smartphone screens, but that seems doable. Perhaps on the day column, where you need to fit 31 choices, touching it once zooms the general area of your choice so the next click can pick the date with more specificity, then it unzooms.
And I suppose you need another column at the end to pick the length of the meeting.
While I'm complaining, get rid of the "All day" default. If I want a meeting with no start or stop, let me specify the date without the time and move to the next screen.
I'm sure my approach has its own problems. The main idea is to keep the user's brain in the same spatial processing model throughout the process.
On a related note, I wonder if this brain overload problem is more important to our daily lives than we notice. For example, I have a hypothesis that ping pong can cure attention deficit disorder. A good player will focus intensely on the ball at the moment of impact and instantly switch his attention to the other player, and the larger strategy, until the ball is struck on the other side of the table. In the course of a match, a player quickly switches from intense concentration on the ball to a broader concentration and back hundreds of times. Does the brain of a ping pong player become extra good at controlling concentration as needed?
And is it possible to manipulate people, in terms of marketing or sales, by cleverly overloading the resistance areas of the brain with the sort of thought processes that are meant to exhaust it? That's probably happening now, but in more of an accidental and trial-and-error way. What if we discovered that asking for a favor works best when the other person is involved in a certain type of mental task?
I need to go combine some spatial planning with some language processing tasks and make a comic now.
October 30, 2011
Good News Day
Let's see how much good news we can put in one blog entry. For today only, skip the usual negative comments and leave only optimistic thoughts based on real trends and actual news items. I'll start. Remember to suspend skepticism for just one day. My examples focus on the United States because I know it best. Feel free to expand.
Energy: Amazingly, some say the United States is well on its way to being energy self-sufficient, thanks in part to huge new oil fields in North Dakota and hundreds of other developments in conservation and green energy. One good example is a recent discovery that the United States has far more geothermal potential than anyone predicted.
Crime: On a historical basis, it's low. And if the trend of public opinion about legalizing marijuana continues, one entire category of crime will disappear. We're near the tipping point.
Healthcare: It's better than at any time in human history. Doctors can successfully treat more problems than ever. It's expensive, but arguably there has never been a better value for your dollar.
Inflation: It's low.
Housing costs: If you have a job, it's a great time to be shopping for a house. If you own one, prices have stabilized in some regions.
Cars: Gas mileage is better, safety is better every year, and GPS navigation is simply awesome.
Iraq: We're getting out by the end of the year.
Terrorists: Bin Laden is dead and so are dozens of his commanders. Al Qaeda has probably never been weaker.
Arab Spring: Dictators are falling. Democracy is springing up. Is Iraq's success with democracy part of that inspiration? Maybe. Iraq was like the first runner to break the four minute mile. Egypt proved it wasn't a fluke.
Israel/Palestine: It's relatively peaceful in that region lately, with only minor flare-ups. Abbas has taken his fight to the United Nations and shown that political success can make a Palestinian leader as popular as violence has in the past. Prisoners have been exchanged. The Palestinian economy is growing at a nice clip.
Kids: I read somewhere that the IQ of kids has increased so much that we have to continuously adjust what qualifies as the "average" score of 100. An average kid in 2011 is a relative genius compared to an average kid a few decades ago.
Stock Market: At this writing, the stock market has had a terrific month. Corporate profits are good.
Social Security: The program is well-funded for decades.
Outsourcing : The manufacturing advantage of China and other countries compared to the United States is lessening. A factory robot costs the same no matter where you buy it, and wage gaps are narrowing. As the Chinese start demanding the same safety and environmental standards of other developed countries, which is inevitable, the playing field will become even. That's probably good for everyone.
Smartphones: They have their flaws, but we're still in the early days of this technology. Battery life will improve, 4G networks will expand, and there will be an app for everything.
Communication: We're all lucky to be alive in the age of the Internet.
Occupy Wall Street: I love those hippies and nuts. They're honest, committed, and right about the system being broken. And I give a solid B+ to the local police and governments for being flexible. Nicely done. I'm inspired by the whole situation.
Your turn. What else is going great lately?
Energy: Amazingly, some say the United States is well on its way to being energy self-sufficient, thanks in part to huge new oil fields in North Dakota and hundreds of other developments in conservation and green energy. One good example is a recent discovery that the United States has far more geothermal potential than anyone predicted.
Crime: On a historical basis, it's low. And if the trend of public opinion about legalizing marijuana continues, one entire category of crime will disappear. We're near the tipping point.
Healthcare: It's better than at any time in human history. Doctors can successfully treat more problems than ever. It's expensive, but arguably there has never been a better value for your dollar.
Inflation: It's low.
Housing costs: If you have a job, it's a great time to be shopping for a house. If you own one, prices have stabilized in some regions.
Cars: Gas mileage is better, safety is better every year, and GPS navigation is simply awesome.
Iraq: We're getting out by the end of the year.
Terrorists: Bin Laden is dead and so are dozens of his commanders. Al Qaeda has probably never been weaker.
Arab Spring: Dictators are falling. Democracy is springing up. Is Iraq's success with democracy part of that inspiration? Maybe. Iraq was like the first runner to break the four minute mile. Egypt proved it wasn't a fluke.
Israel/Palestine: It's relatively peaceful in that region lately, with only minor flare-ups. Abbas has taken his fight to the United Nations and shown that political success can make a Palestinian leader as popular as violence has in the past. Prisoners have been exchanged. The Palestinian economy is growing at a nice clip.
Kids: I read somewhere that the IQ of kids has increased so much that we have to continuously adjust what qualifies as the "average" score of 100. An average kid in 2011 is a relative genius compared to an average kid a few decades ago.
Stock Market: At this writing, the stock market has had a terrific month. Corporate profits are good.
Social Security: The program is well-funded for decades.
Outsourcing : The manufacturing advantage of China and other countries compared to the United States is lessening. A factory robot costs the same no matter where you buy it, and wage gaps are narrowing. As the Chinese start demanding the same safety and environmental standards of other developed countries, which is inevitable, the playing field will become even. That's probably good for everyone.
Smartphones: They have their flaws, but we're still in the early days of this technology. Battery life will improve, 4G networks will expand, and there will be an app for everything.
Communication: We're all lucky to be alive in the age of the Internet.
Occupy Wall Street: I love those hippies and nuts. They're honest, committed, and right about the system being broken. And I give a solid B+ to the local police and governments for being flexible. Nicely done. I'm inspired by the whole situation.
Your turn. What else is going great lately?
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.
