Scott Adams's Blog, page 356
August 6, 2011
The Benefits of Boredom
You might be interested in my article in the Wall Street Journal on the connection between boredom and creativity. It grew from an idea I blogged about here.
August 4, 2011
How's it Done?
See if you can figure out how this classic con works.
One day you get an unsolicited email from someone who claims to have a secret algorithm for picking stocks. To prove his claim, he gives you one free tip of a stock that will beat the average for the next month. You ignore it, but you remember it.
A month later, the follow-up email says the recommended stock indeed beat the market average. You check, and it's true. The email goes on to recommend a second stock for the coming month. That too beats the average. The same thing is repeated for a third stock.
A fourth email, in the fourth month, asks $1,000 for the next stock tip. Three average-beating winners in a row are unlikely to be chance, so you figure you can make up that $1,000 quickly with the next stock. You pay it. The next stock is a dud. You're out $1,000.
How did the scammer do it? Remember, all three recommended stocks beat the averages. Had the victim purchased any of those stocks he would have made real money.
One day you get an unsolicited email from someone who claims to have a secret algorithm for picking stocks. To prove his claim, he gives you one free tip of a stock that will beat the average for the next month. You ignore it, but you remember it.
A month later, the follow-up email says the recommended stock indeed beat the market average. You check, and it's true. The email goes on to recommend a second stock for the coming month. That too beats the average. The same thing is repeated for a third stock.
A fourth email, in the fourth month, asks $1,000 for the next stock tip. Three average-beating winners in a row are unlikely to be chance, so you figure you can make up that $1,000 quickly with the next stock. You pay it. The next stock is a dud. You're out $1,000.
How did the scammer do it? Remember, all three recommended stocks beat the averages. Had the victim purchased any of those stocks he would have made real money.
August 2, 2011
Trivial yet Awesome
This will be my most trivial blog post of all time, and that's saying a lot. Yet, for some small number of you, it will be totally awesome. The topic is clothes hangers.
My old method of closet management involved using any sort of clothes hanger and leaving it on the closet pole-thing when not actively holding an item of clothes. This presented a few problems.
1. It's hard to find the naked hangers when you are putting the clean stuff back in the closet.
2. When you select a shirt and pull it out, it takes with it several naked hangers that end up on the floor.
3. Naked hangers get tangled up.
The solution is twofold. First, I invested in all wooden hangers. They don't tangle up as much. Second - and this is the genius part - I put a wicker basket on a closet shelf to hold all orphaned hangers until they are ready to be put back into the rotation. Here's a picture of my solution.
Now, I realize 95% of you either have your own solutions for this problem or you didn't know it was a problem in the first place. But 5% of you just slapped your foreheads and updated your Christmas lists. (Dear Santa - Bring wooden hangers and a wicker basket.)
I'll get back to fixing the entire world later. But I thought it was important to sort out this hanger thing first. You're welcome.
My old method of closet management involved using any sort of clothes hanger and leaving it on the closet pole-thing when not actively holding an item of clothes. This presented a few problems.
1. It's hard to find the naked hangers when you are putting the clean stuff back in the closet.
2. When you select a shirt and pull it out, it takes with it several naked hangers that end up on the floor.
3. Naked hangers get tangled up.
The solution is twofold. First, I invested in all wooden hangers. They don't tangle up as much. Second - and this is the genius part - I put a wicker basket on a closet shelf to hold all orphaned hangers until they are ready to be put back into the rotation. Here's a picture of my solution.
Now, I realize 95% of you either have your own solutions for this problem or you didn't know it was a problem in the first place. But 5% of you just slapped your foreheads and updated your Christmas lists. (Dear Santa - Bring wooden hangers and a wicker basket.)
I'll get back to fixing the entire world later. But I thought it was important to sort out this hanger thing first. You're welcome.
July 31, 2011
L-to-E ratio
Congress allegedly agreed on a budget plan last night. The great thing about this plan is that both sides can blame the other when the economy continues its long march into the crapper. Conservatives will say we didn't cut the budget enough. Liberals will say the decrease in government spending will choke off growth and make things worse. Who's right?
Democrats like to point to the Clinton era as proof that the economy can flourish even as taxes are increased. But how would things have fared in the Clinton years without the Dotcom bubble? Beats me. You don't know either.
Economies usually find their direction from large, unpredictable events, such as wars and other disasters, moving from communism to capitalism, huge demographic shifts, and irrationality that leads to economic bubbles. For any given ten-year period, luck is the biggest driver of a nation's economy. But what single factor is most predictive of, say, a nation's fifty-year economic direction? I think it's the L-to-E ratio (lawyers-to-engineers).
My hypothesis is that the best indicator of long term economic health is the number of engineers a country produces relative to the number of lawyers. A country that is cranking out more engineers than lawyers will trend up. A country that is moving toward a lawyer-heavy economy will grind to a stop.
This idea is nothing more than a wordy way of saying, "To a man who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Engineers build stuff and lawyers sue people. If we assume both professions like to stay busy all the time, you need more engineers than lawyers to create net growth. And I think you'd agree that the countries with the best engineers also win wars and survive disasters the best.
I tried and failed to Google some statistics to back up my hypothesis. Anecdotally, the idea seems about right. I can't think of a country with a strong economy that isn't also known for its engineering prowess.
Some of you will argue that education in general is the biggest predictor of success. But I think you'd agree that if everyone started majoring in English, we'd all starve to death with impeccable grammar.
My take on the budget compromise is that any budget that doesn't kill us right away will be good enough. Our economic fate is primarily in the hands of engineers. And when our collective cynicism reverts back to its baseline, maybe we'll be lucky enough to have another economic bubble. I hope so. I enjoy those while they last.
Democrats like to point to the Clinton era as proof that the economy can flourish even as taxes are increased. But how would things have fared in the Clinton years without the Dotcom bubble? Beats me. You don't know either.
Economies usually find their direction from large, unpredictable events, such as wars and other disasters, moving from communism to capitalism, huge demographic shifts, and irrationality that leads to economic bubbles. For any given ten-year period, luck is the biggest driver of a nation's economy. But what single factor is most predictive of, say, a nation's fifty-year economic direction? I think it's the L-to-E ratio (lawyers-to-engineers).
My hypothesis is that the best indicator of long term economic health is the number of engineers a country produces relative to the number of lawyers. A country that is cranking out more engineers than lawyers will trend up. A country that is moving toward a lawyer-heavy economy will grind to a stop.
This idea is nothing more than a wordy way of saying, "To a man who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Engineers build stuff and lawyers sue people. If we assume both professions like to stay busy all the time, you need more engineers than lawyers to create net growth. And I think you'd agree that the countries with the best engineers also win wars and survive disasters the best.
I tried and failed to Google some statistics to back up my hypothesis. Anecdotally, the idea seems about right. I can't think of a country with a strong economy that isn't also known for its engineering prowess.
Some of you will argue that education in general is the biggest predictor of success. But I think you'd agree that if everyone started majoring in English, we'd all starve to death with impeccable grammar.
My take on the budget compromise is that any budget that doesn't kill us right away will be good enough. Our economic fate is primarily in the hands of engineers. And when our collective cynicism reverts back to its baseline, maybe we'll be lucky enough to have another economic bubble. I hope so. I enjoy those while they last.
July 28, 2011
Feeling Smarter
One way to feel smart is to pursue a lifetime of learning. But that's a lot of work. An easier method is to make the people around you appear dumber. I'll share with you some tricks for making your friends, coworkers, family members, and spouses (your victims) look and feel like morons.
1. When your victim makes any statement of fact or opinion, look at him as if he's wearing a turd for a hat. Repeat what he said, but slowly, as if you're prompting him to see how stupid he is on his own.
2. After your victim utters a statement of any kind, slowly shake your head in the "no" direction and make a dismissive sound such as "pffft." When challenged to explain your reaction, insist there is no problem, but do so unconvincingly.
3. Pounce on your victim's every mispronunciation, misspelling, and poor choice of words like a hobo on a ham sandwich. Make sure you dwell long enough on your GOTTCHA moment that it creates a lasting memory. (If people try the same trick on you, dismiss them as pedantic.)
4. When confronted with a new but minor task, such as opening an unfamiliar container, most people require a few seconds of thinking and perhaps a failed attempt or two before they work out a solution. If you see someone in this state, grab the object out your victim's hand and try whatever solutions have not yet been tried, thus making you the successful container opener and your victim the failed container opener.
5. Continuously instruct your victim to do whatever you think he or she is likely to do on his own anyway, e.g. "Don't step in that puddle." If you do it often enough it creates the illusion that the victim can't navigate the simplest obstacles in life without adult supervision.
6. Ask your victim to remember details that no normal human could be expected to recall, such as the exact wording of a conversation that happened a month ago. This method can also be used to frame your victim as a liar.
7. Ask your victim to remind you to do a future task. Pick a time for your request when the victim is distracted or can't write a note to himself, such as when he or she is driving or swimming. Later, after you remember on your own to do the task, remind your victim of his forgetfulness.
8. Give your victim vague and unintelligible instructions such as "Can you go find the thing I put in the (mumble)?" When your victim fails to find the object, go directly to the correct drawer, produce the object you want, hold it high like Excalibur, and give a victory TA-DA!
9. Steer conversations away from topics you know little about and toward topics your victim knows little about. If the victim tries the same trick on you, excuse yourself to make a phone call.
10. Ask your victim to do a minor task for you. After he or she agrees, add a layer of complexity that will guarantee failure. The initial request might be something simple such as "pick up something from the store." The extra layer of complexity is that the item doesn't exist in this dimension.
That's a starter list. You might have some tips of your own to add.
1. When your victim makes any statement of fact or opinion, look at him as if he's wearing a turd for a hat. Repeat what he said, but slowly, as if you're prompting him to see how stupid he is on his own.
2. After your victim utters a statement of any kind, slowly shake your head in the "no" direction and make a dismissive sound such as "pffft." When challenged to explain your reaction, insist there is no problem, but do so unconvincingly.
3. Pounce on your victim's every mispronunciation, misspelling, and poor choice of words like a hobo on a ham sandwich. Make sure you dwell long enough on your GOTTCHA moment that it creates a lasting memory. (If people try the same trick on you, dismiss them as pedantic.)
4. When confronted with a new but minor task, such as opening an unfamiliar container, most people require a few seconds of thinking and perhaps a failed attempt or two before they work out a solution. If you see someone in this state, grab the object out your victim's hand and try whatever solutions have not yet been tried, thus making you the successful container opener and your victim the failed container opener.
5. Continuously instruct your victim to do whatever you think he or she is likely to do on his own anyway, e.g. "Don't step in that puddle." If you do it often enough it creates the illusion that the victim can't navigate the simplest obstacles in life without adult supervision.
6. Ask your victim to remember details that no normal human could be expected to recall, such as the exact wording of a conversation that happened a month ago. This method can also be used to frame your victim as a liar.
7. Ask your victim to remind you to do a future task. Pick a time for your request when the victim is distracted or can't write a note to himself, such as when he or she is driving or swimming. Later, after you remember on your own to do the task, remind your victim of his forgetfulness.
8. Give your victim vague and unintelligible instructions such as "Can you go find the thing I put in the (mumble)?" When your victim fails to find the object, go directly to the correct drawer, produce the object you want, hold it high like Excalibur, and give a victory TA-DA!
9. Steer conversations away from topics you know little about and toward topics your victim knows little about. If the victim tries the same trick on you, excuse yourself to make a phone call.
10. Ask your victim to do a minor task for you. After he or she agrees, add a layer of complexity that will guarantee failure. The initial request might be something simple such as "pick up something from the store." The extra layer of complexity is that the item doesn't exist in this dimension.
That's a starter list. You might have some tips of your own to add.
July 26, 2011
Windows Phone Challenge - update
[Update: Sprint replaced my HTC phone and solved all of my freeze problems. The jury has reconvened in my head to evaluate Android.]
After I blogged about my bad experience with both iPhone and Android phones, Brandon Watson from Microsoft made this offer, which i have accepted:
--- Start ---
Scott - My name is Brandon Watson and I am responsible for the developer platform on Windows Phone. Since your readership has a high probability of cross over with our developer base, how about I make you a deal with one of the phones we reserve for developers. Take Windows Phone for a spin. I'll send you a developer phone with the new Mango OS on it. Give it an honest run, and if you don't love it more than either of your iPhone or Android experiences, I'll make a $1000 donation to the charity of your choice. You can't really lose on this deal. Do we have 500K apps? No. Do we have 25K, growing as fast as iPhone did, and 2x as fast as Android? Yes. Do developers love the dev environment? Uh huh. Do we have the only phone that puts people and communications first? You bet. If Androids dream of electronic iSheep, people dream about people - and that's what you will get with Windows Phone. Keep in constant contact with those most important to you with Live Tiles, groups, messaging threads, and native Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. And no special instructions on how to hold the phone to make calls. Oh, and the battery lasts a long time. I can be reached at ThePhone [at] microsoft. You can call me if you want - [number removed]. Windows Phone devs will tell you that's the right contact info, because it's shared with every one of them. I hope you take me up on this one...there's no reason to hate your phone.
--- End ---
My first thought was that this was a bad idea for Brandon. I make my living wittily criticizing things. But on second thought, all the Windows Phone needs to do is make phone calls, handle email, have battery life that lasts half a day, do a little web browsing without locking up and it will win. I'll give you an update in a few weeks.
Windows Phone Challenge
After I blogged about my bad experience with both iPhone and Android phones, Brandon Watson from Microsoft made this offer, which i have accepted:
--- Start ---
Scott - My name is Brandon Watson and I am responsible for the developer platform on Windows Phone. Since your readership has a high probability of cross over with our developer base, how about I make you a deal with one of the phones we reserve for developers. Take Windows Phone for a spin. I'll send you a developer phone with the new Mango OS on it. Give it an honest run, and if you don't love it more than either of your iPhone or Android experiences, I'll make a $1000 donation to the charity of your choice. You can't really lose on this deal. Do we have 500K apps? No. Do we have 25K, growing as fast as iPhone did, and 2x as fast as Android? Yes. Do developers love the dev environment? Uh huh. Do we have the only phone that puts people and communications first? You bet. If Androids dream of electronic iSheep, people dream about people - and that's what you will get with Windows Phone. Keep in constant contact with those most important to you with Live Tiles, groups, messaging threads, and native Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. And no special instructions on how to hold the phone to make calls. Oh, and the battery lasts a long time. I can be reached at ThePhone [at] microsoft. You can call me if you want - 425-985-5568. Windows Phone devs will tell you that's the right contact info, because it's shared with every one of them. I hope you take me up on this one...there's no reason to hate your phone.
--- End ---
My first thought was that this was a bad idea for Brandon. I make my living wittily criticizing things. But on second thought, all the Windows Phone needs to do is make phone calls, handle email, have battery life that lasts half a day, do a little web browsing without locking up and it will win. I'll give you an update in a few weeks.
--- Start ---
Scott - My name is Brandon Watson and I am responsible for the developer platform on Windows Phone. Since your readership has a high probability of cross over with our developer base, how about I make you a deal with one of the phones we reserve for developers. Take Windows Phone for a spin. I'll send you a developer phone with the new Mango OS on it. Give it an honest run, and if you don't love it more than either of your iPhone or Android experiences, I'll make a $1000 donation to the charity of your choice. You can't really lose on this deal. Do we have 500K apps? No. Do we have 25K, growing as fast as iPhone did, and 2x as fast as Android? Yes. Do developers love the dev environment? Uh huh. Do we have the only phone that puts people and communications first? You bet. If Androids dream of electronic iSheep, people dream about people - and that's what you will get with Windows Phone. Keep in constant contact with those most important to you with Live Tiles, groups, messaging threads, and native Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. And no special instructions on how to hold the phone to make calls. Oh, and the battery lasts a long time. I can be reached at ThePhone [at] microsoft. You can call me if you want - 425-985-5568. Windows Phone devs will tell you that's the right contact info, because it's shared with every one of them. I hope you take me up on this one...there's no reason to hate your phone.
--- End ---
My first thought was that this was a bad idea for Brandon. I make my living wittily criticizing things. But on second thought, all the Windows Phone needs to do is make phone calls, handle email, have battery life that lasts half a day, do a little web browsing without locking up and it will win. I'll give you an update in a few weeks.
What Happened to Books?
I looked for a nice book to read on the plane. I couldn't find one. What's up with that? There are nine trillion books in the world and I couldn't find a single one that I imagined would interest me for more than a paragraph. I blame the Internet.
I consume content on the Internet like an anteater with a vacuum attachment. I like my information in small bites, no fat. And skip the fiction, please. Reality is far more interesting than wading through six hundred pages of some ghost writer's imagined universe to figure out which imaginary character killed which other imaginary character. I want to read about Lady Gaga wearing a dress made out of a homeless guy's gutted carcass because she cares deeply about the economy. Can your crime novel give me that? I didn't think so.
My already-short attention span has been further shortened by the bite sized portions of the Internet, to the point where I can't imagine reading more than one page on any particular topic unless I'm literally doing research.
To be fair, the only books I ever enjoyed were humor and biographies. But humor has mostly died as a book category. The exception is humor books written by women and apparently aimed at women. Men are getting their humor from Youtube.
The biography category is mostly tapped out too. I don't need to read another book about yet another dead president. There simply aren't that many fascinating historical characters. It was only a matter of time before biographers ran out of interesting dead people to write about.
Did a fascinating diet book just hit the digital shelves? Great. I'll read the one-paragraph summary on the Internet. If I'm feeling ambitious I'll Google the counter-arguments that say diets never work. But I'll probably skip it altogether because the curse of being several decades into this earthly existence is that it's easy to tell from the title when a book is complete bullshit.
Can you recommend a good book about how the (fill in the blank) are ruining the country? I hear enough of that in real life. Did someone do painstaking research and come up with a fascinating thesis about the future of the planet? Great. I'll read the two-paragraph summary on Newser.com. If I'm feeling ambitious, I'll read a full page about it on Huffingtonpost.com.
Business management books were hot for years. I probably helped kill that category by reminding the public that the primary skill of management involves claiming credit for the work of subordinates.
Thanks to technology, I predict that the book market will evolve from a one-author-per-book model into something that is more of a crowd effort. I don't want to read one person's thoughts for hundreds of pages. I want to see a model more like this blog, in which one person primes the pump with an idea and the public takes it in whatever direction makes sense, including changing the topic entirely. I'd like to see a book that changes every day, with the most interesting comments leading the change.
Something of that nature could work with fiction as well. I can imagine a book in which the "author" creates a starting point, or a framework, and wannabe writers take it from there, creating thousands of versions of that book, each with characters based on their own lives and personalities. The best efforts will get voted to the top.
Anyway, my main point is that the Internet will transform books into something we haven't yet imagined.
I consume content on the Internet like an anteater with a vacuum attachment. I like my information in small bites, no fat. And skip the fiction, please. Reality is far more interesting than wading through six hundred pages of some ghost writer's imagined universe to figure out which imaginary character killed which other imaginary character. I want to read about Lady Gaga wearing a dress made out of a homeless guy's gutted carcass because she cares deeply about the economy. Can your crime novel give me that? I didn't think so.
My already-short attention span has been further shortened by the bite sized portions of the Internet, to the point where I can't imagine reading more than one page on any particular topic unless I'm literally doing research.
To be fair, the only books I ever enjoyed were humor and biographies. But humor has mostly died as a book category. The exception is humor books written by women and apparently aimed at women. Men are getting their humor from Youtube.
The biography category is mostly tapped out too. I don't need to read another book about yet another dead president. There simply aren't that many fascinating historical characters. It was only a matter of time before biographers ran out of interesting dead people to write about.
Did a fascinating diet book just hit the digital shelves? Great. I'll read the one-paragraph summary on the Internet. If I'm feeling ambitious I'll Google the counter-arguments that say diets never work. But I'll probably skip it altogether because the curse of being several decades into this earthly existence is that it's easy to tell from the title when a book is complete bullshit.
Can you recommend a good book about how the (fill in the blank) are ruining the country? I hear enough of that in real life. Did someone do painstaking research and come up with a fascinating thesis about the future of the planet? Great. I'll read the two-paragraph summary on Newser.com. If I'm feeling ambitious, I'll read a full page about it on Huffingtonpost.com.
Business management books were hot for years. I probably helped kill that category by reminding the public that the primary skill of management involves claiming credit for the work of subordinates.
Thanks to technology, I predict that the book market will evolve from a one-author-per-book model into something that is more of a crowd effort. I don't want to read one person's thoughts for hundreds of pages. I want to see a model more like this blog, in which one person primes the pump with an idea and the public takes it in whatever direction makes sense, including changing the topic entirely. I'd like to see a book that changes every day, with the most interesting comments leading the change.
Something of that nature could work with fiction as well. I can imagine a book in which the "author" creates a starting point, or a framework, and wannabe writers take it from there, creating thousands of versions of that book, each with characters based on their own lives and personalities. The best efforts will get voted to the top.
Anyway, my main point is that the Internet will transform books into something we haven't yet imagined.
July 18, 2011
Uncommunication Devices
I remember when my only communication device was a phone connected to the wall. I'm old! Then came wireless handsets. They seemed so space age. I was untethered! I could wander all over the entire living room without dropping a call. The bedroom was too far for the signal to travel, but hey, you can't have everything.
Time passed.
Then along came the brick-sized cell phone. I thought of it as more of an emergency device. I kept it in the car and tried to use it as little as possible.
Then came the Blackberry. OMG. It was like a little miracle in my hand. Not only could I walk around (anywhere!) and talk on the phone, but I could do email like a demon thanks to its nifty keyboard. I was talking and typing all day long. I was addicted. I was a communicating fiend.
Then came the iPhone. In theory, it would do all that the Blackberry did plus apps! In practice, it dropped every call that lasted more than a minute. That has more to do with the AT&T network where I live and how the iPhone works with it, I'm told. No problem. I weaned myself off of voice calls. I don't like talking on the phone anyway. I trained my friends to use email to contact me.
But I couldn't do email anymore either. At least not much of it. The iPhone keyboard was too frustrating. Every message came out like xmopoi aljsdo vooe. I could go back and fix each word, but it wasn't worth the time. Instead, I used the iPhone to check incoming mail, but I waited until I was back at my computer to respond with more than a sentence.
Then came the Android phone. I just got one. I can make phone calls again! It's just like the 1970s! I sound like I'm underwater in a barrel, but you can usually tell what I'm saying, unless I call another cell phone, in which case the call is largely unintelligible. And that's not counting the dumbass things I actually say that don't make much sense even if you hear me perfectly. I'm just saying you should email me. Don't call.
To make things worse, a call between cell phones creates just enough of a transmission delay that I can't interrupt the other person. And if you happen to get a talker on the other end, you're in for a long ride. You can't break in.
By the way, if you're one of the people who owns a cell phone and doesn't understand that you have to use it like a CB radio, meaning you say your part and then pause a second to see if there is a response, let me be the first to say everyone hates talking to you on the phone. Talk briefly, pause at least a second, and listen for a response. That's the rule. The talk-until-you-get-interrupted model is something that only works in person and on landlines.
Anyway, my Android phone works most of the time for voice calls. But I'm afraid to actually use it because the battery life is about an hour and it's no good to me with no power.
Now I only think of my phone as an emergency device, like my first brick-sized cell phone. I wouldn't use it to make a social phone call. My battery wouldn't last. And I wouldn't often use it for email because the keyboard sucks and the battery drains then as well.
Yes, I have researched all the many ways to save battery life. I have apps that kill other apps. I turn off Wi-Fi and 4G and Bluetooth until I need them. Nothing seems to keep my battery from draining like a frat boy's bladder on a Saturday night. Result: I leave my Android plugged in all the time, whether I am at my desk, near my bed, or in the car.
Thank you Google for inventing a corded phone. I can't wait for your next innovation: the butter churn.
Time passed.
Then along came the brick-sized cell phone. I thought of it as more of an emergency device. I kept it in the car and tried to use it as little as possible.
Then came the Blackberry. OMG. It was like a little miracle in my hand. Not only could I walk around (anywhere!) and talk on the phone, but I could do email like a demon thanks to its nifty keyboard. I was talking and typing all day long. I was addicted. I was a communicating fiend.
Then came the iPhone. In theory, it would do all that the Blackberry did plus apps! In practice, it dropped every call that lasted more than a minute. That has more to do with the AT&T network where I live and how the iPhone works with it, I'm told. No problem. I weaned myself off of voice calls. I don't like talking on the phone anyway. I trained my friends to use email to contact me.
But I couldn't do email anymore either. At least not much of it. The iPhone keyboard was too frustrating. Every message came out like xmopoi aljsdo vooe. I could go back and fix each word, but it wasn't worth the time. Instead, I used the iPhone to check incoming mail, but I waited until I was back at my computer to respond with more than a sentence.
Then came the Android phone. I just got one. I can make phone calls again! It's just like the 1970s! I sound like I'm underwater in a barrel, but you can usually tell what I'm saying, unless I call another cell phone, in which case the call is largely unintelligible. And that's not counting the dumbass things I actually say that don't make much sense even if you hear me perfectly. I'm just saying you should email me. Don't call.
To make things worse, a call between cell phones creates just enough of a transmission delay that I can't interrupt the other person. And if you happen to get a talker on the other end, you're in for a long ride. You can't break in.
By the way, if you're one of the people who owns a cell phone and doesn't understand that you have to use it like a CB radio, meaning you say your part and then pause a second to see if there is a response, let me be the first to say everyone hates talking to you on the phone. Talk briefly, pause at least a second, and listen for a response. That's the rule. The talk-until-you-get-interrupted model is something that only works in person and on landlines.
Anyway, my Android phone works most of the time for voice calls. But I'm afraid to actually use it because the battery life is about an hour and it's no good to me with no power.
Now I only think of my phone as an emergency device, like my first brick-sized cell phone. I wouldn't use it to make a social phone call. My battery wouldn't last. And I wouldn't often use it for email because the keyboard sucks and the battery drains then as well.
Yes, I have researched all the many ways to save battery life. I have apps that kill other apps. I turn off Wi-Fi and 4G and Bluetooth until I need them. Nothing seems to keep my battery from draining like a frat boy's bladder on a Saturday night. Result: I leave my Android plugged in all the time, whether I am at my desk, near my bed, or in the car.
Thank you Google for inventing a corded phone. I can't wait for your next innovation: the butter churn.
July 17, 2011
The End of Free Will
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.
The End of Free Will
What if free will exists but not everyone has it?
First we need to define free will. In the past, I've defined it as the brain's magical ability to make decisions independent of the physical laws of the universe. And since I don't believe in magic, or souls, I conclude that free will doesn't exist, at least by that limited definition. In my view, we're just moist robots bumping around and imagining we have control.
Some of you have argued that free will should be defined as the ability of the brain to process new information and make decisions based on that information. That description of free will is easier to accept, and it's the definition of free will that I'll adopt for this discussion. My hypothesis is that even if some people do have that sort of free will, most people do not - at least not for important questions.
This is where confirmation bias comes in. Ideally, a human with free will could change his or her mind whenever new information warrants it. In practice, humans see new information as supporting whatever dumbass thing they already believe is right. And when we make decisions based on emotion, which is most of the time, we rationalize our actions after the fact. None of that is free will in the sense of evaluating new information and rationally acting upon it.
You can see confirmation bias in a lot of arenas. A third of you will argue that confirmation bias is the Republican platform. Another third of you will point out that Democrats are the real data-ignorers. The remaining third of you will say both groups are nuts. And we're all quite certain that people who have different religious beliefs are suffering confirmation bias. The point is that you can't recognize confirmation bias in yourself. No one can. That's how it works. It's something we only see in others. We imagine ourselves to be exempt.
Recently I had an online conversation with an intelligent human being who claimed I opposed a point of view she holds dear. I pointed to my own public writing on that topic and quoted myself as being in complete agreement with her. At that point, the new information should have ended the conversation, right? Her free will should have processed the new data and declared that she and I were in complete agreement. And then she would have apologized for the misunderstanding on her part.
That didn't happen.
Instead, she dug in and argued that my use of the words "seems right" was my way of saying "is wrong." She wasn't claiming I wrote satire, where meanings are reversed. She argued that the words "seems wrong" literally mean the same as "is right." And she was not embarrassed by that argument. That's confirmation bias in action.
The fascinating thing about confirmation bias is that I have to allow the possibility that I'm the one who was deluded in the very example I just gave. Perhaps I'm blind to the new information she provided. Her claim is that normal people would read the words "seems right" and interpret the meaning as "is wrong." There's no way for me to know which one of us was experiencing confirmation bias in that example. The only thing I can know for sure is that neither of us experienced anything like free will. We both started with our own beliefs and maintained them even as information was exchanged.
This makes me wonder if scientists could test people for their relative degree of free will. How well can we change our views as the information changes? This would be different from standard intelligence testing. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that educated people are the most sure of their opinions and therefore have the most confirmation biases and the least free will. We assume that education makes people more open-minded, but has that ever been tested?
If you were a hermit, and had no exposure to different points of view, would it be easier for you to process new information and form new opinions? What if contention is the thing that hardens viewpoints and makes us immune to new data? If that's the case, we're all screwed, because voters aren't hermits. We're bombarded by opposing viewpoints.
In a world of 24-hour news, non-stop punditry, and the Internet, my hypothesis is that confirmation bias has moved to critical levels. I'm concerned that the free flow of information has effectively eliminated free will in our voters and in our elected officials. George Washington might have had free will. Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner, not so much. They're locked in.
Do you think contention increases confirmation bias and therefore eliminates free will?
The End of Free Will
What if free will exists but not everyone has it?
First we need to define free will. In the past, I've defined it as the brain's magical ability to make decisions independent of the physical laws of the universe. And since I don't believe in magic, or souls, I conclude that free will doesn't exist, at least by that limited definition. In my view, we're just moist robots bumping around and imagining we have control.
Some of you have argued that free will should be defined as the ability of the brain to process new information and make decisions based on that information. That description of free will is easier to accept, and it's the definition of free will that I'll adopt for this discussion. My hypothesis is that even if some people do have that sort of free will, most people do not - at least not for important questions.
This is where confirmation bias comes in. Ideally, a human with free will could change his or her mind whenever new information warrants it. In practice, humans see new information as supporting whatever dumbass thing they already believe is right. And when we make decisions based on emotion, which is most of the time, we rationalize our actions after the fact. None of that is free will in the sense of evaluating new information and rationally acting upon it.
You can see confirmation bias in a lot of arenas. A third of you will argue that confirmation bias is the Republican platform. Another third of you will point out that Democrats are the real data-ignorers. The remaining third of you will say both groups are nuts. And we're all quite certain that people who have different religious beliefs are suffering confirmation bias. The point is that you can't recognize confirmation bias in yourself. No one can. That's how it works. It's something we only see in others. We imagine ourselves to be exempt.
Recently I had an online conversation with an intelligent human being who claimed I opposed a point of view she holds dear. I pointed to my own public writing on that topic and quoted myself as being in complete agreement with her. At that point, the new information should have ended the conversation, right? Her free will should have processed the new data and declared that she and I were in complete agreement. And then she would have apologized for the misunderstanding on her part.
That didn't happen.
Instead, she dug in and argued that my use of the words "seems right" was my way of saying "is wrong." She wasn't claiming I wrote satire, where meanings are reversed. She argued that the words "seems wrong" literally mean the same as "is right." And she was not embarrassed by that argument. That's confirmation bias in action.
The fascinating thing about confirmation bias is that I have to allow the possibility that I'm the one who was deluded in the very example I just gave. Perhaps I'm blind to the new information she provided. Her claim is that normal people would read the words "seems right" and interpret the meaning as "is wrong." There's no way for me to know which one of us was experiencing confirmation bias in that example. The only thing I can know for sure is that neither of us experienced anything like free will. We both started with our own beliefs and maintained them even as information was exchanged.
This makes me wonder if scientists could test people for their relative degree of free will. How well can we change our views as the information changes? This would be different from standard intelligence testing. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that educated people are the most sure of their opinions and therefore have the most confirmation biases and the least free will. We assume that education makes people more open-minded, but has that ever been tested?
If you were a hermit, and had no exposure to different points of view, would it be easier for you to process new information and form new opinions? What if contention is the thing that hardens viewpoints and makes us immune to new data? If that's the case, we're all screwed, because voters aren't hermits. We're bombarded by opposing viewpoints.
In a world of 24-hour news, non-stop punditry, and the Internet, my hypothesis is that confirmation bias has moved to critical levels. I'm concerned that the free flow of information has effectively eliminated free will in our voters and in our elected officials. George Washington might have had free will. Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner, not so much. They're locked in.
Do you think contention increases confirmation bias and therefore eliminates free will?
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.
