Scott Adams's Blog, page 357
July 14, 2011
Google+ Will Be Your New Government
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.
Google+ Will Be Your New Government
As I watch our system of government in the United States circle the drain, unable to do the most basic function of government - and by that I mean agreeing on a workable budget - I wonder what will replace our failed republic.
Yes, I'm assuming our system of government is finished. If Congress agrees on a temporary budget, it will only kick the can down the street a few yards. I'm not expecting any breakthroughs.
And I'm not expecting our government officials to abandon their jobs and leave the capitol. I think they will stay in place but be unable to lead.
I've blogged before on the question of what would be the ideal form of government if you could start from scratch and take advantage of the power of the Internet. But we won't have time for all that. We'll soon be a country adrift. Arguably, we already are.
I think our new system of government might be Google+ . That's how we'll identify our new leader. The person with the most adult friends in this country will come to speak for the people and simply inform the government-in-name what to do. In a sense, we'll imitate the Chinese form of government where the party decides on a leader and the leader sets the direction of the government.
I make this prediction with my usual level of faux confidence, knowing almost nothing about Google+ , the budget battle, or the Chinese government. The only thing I'm confident about is that our government is broken and it won't fix itself. We need a new layer of leadership above it. And Google+ might be just the answer.
I'm not entirely sure we need just one leader. Perhaps we need one leader on economic issues and another leader on international issues, and so on. The respective leaders would simply be the ones with the most friends.
I don't think Google+ has the following feature, but it seems as if it would be an easy upgrade. I'd like to see "war lord" mode (or parliament mode), in which one person with lots of friends can create an alliance with another person who has lots of friends and join forces temporarily to form a larger group for political reasons. Google+ would need to account for any duplicate friends, but the idea is that sub-groups could merge to form larger groups. If you don't like the direction of your group, you can defriend at any time.
I think you'd find that the top leaders on Google+ would be scientists, economists, and other credible people in their respective fields. Or maybe that's the optimist in me. Perhaps we'd just see cults of personality. In my ideal world, the political parties would still elect the traditional government full of dogmatic deadwood and the Google+ layer would be the rational folks who just look at the data to make decisions. I wouldn't care who signed the bills into law as long as I knew he got his marching orders from a rational source.
My basic questions for you are these:
1. Can the U.S. government create a rational budget?
2. If not, can some future version of Google+ create enough influence to augment our failed leadership?
Google+ Will Be Your New Government
As I watch our system of government in the United States circle the drain, unable to do the most basic function of government - and by that I mean agreeing on a workable budget - I wonder what will replace our failed republic.
Yes, I'm assuming our system of government is finished. If Congress agrees on a temporary budget, it will only kick the can down the street a few yards. I'm not expecting any breakthroughs.
And I'm not expecting our government officials to abandon their jobs and leave the capitol. I think they will stay in place but be unable to lead.
I've blogged before on the question of what would be the ideal form of government if you could start from scratch and take advantage of the power of the Internet. But we won't have time for all that. We'll soon be a country adrift. Arguably, we already are.
I think our new system of government might be Google+ . That's how we'll identify our new leader. The person with the most adult friends in this country will come to speak for the people and simply inform the government-in-name what to do. In a sense, we'll imitate the Chinese form of government where the party decides on a leader and the leader sets the direction of the government.
I make this prediction with my usual level of faux confidence, knowing almost nothing about Google+ , the budget battle, or the Chinese government. The only thing I'm confident about is that our government is broken and it won't fix itself. We need a new layer of leadership above it. And Google+ might be just the answer.
I'm not entirely sure we need just one leader. Perhaps we need one leader on economic issues and another leader on international issues, and so on. The respective leaders would simply be the ones with the most friends.
I don't think Google+ has the following feature, but it seems as if it would be an easy upgrade. I'd like to see "war lord" mode (or parliament mode), in which one person with lots of friends can create an alliance with another person who has lots of friends and join forces temporarily to form a larger group for political reasons. Google+ would need to account for any duplicate friends, but the idea is that sub-groups could merge to form larger groups. If you don't like the direction of your group, you can defriend at any time.
I think you'd find that the top leaders on Google+ would be scientists, economists, and other credible people in their respective fields. Or maybe that's the optimist in me. Perhaps we'd just see cults of personality. In my ideal world, the political parties would still elect the traditional government full of dogmatic deadwood and the Google+ layer would be the rational folks who just look at the data to make decisions. I wouldn't care who signed the bills into law as long as I knew he got his marching orders from a rational source.
My basic questions for you are these:
1. Can the U.S. government create a rational budget?
2. If not, can some future version of Google+ create enough influence to augment our failed leadership?
July 13, 2011
The Economic Value of a Business Startup
A hundred years ago, if you had a good idea and you had good execution skills, your odds of making money were also good. It didn't matter that someone in another state had the same idea and the same skills. In those days, another state was like another planet.
Today, no matter how good your idea is, and no matter how well you can execute, there is probably someone who already filed a patent on some part of your idea, and someone with more resources who is already working on it. And thanks to the Internet, anyone can sell just about anything anywhere. And anyone can acquire through the Internet whatever skills and resources they need. So if your product is a hit today, it will be knocked off tomorrow.
Yeah, yeah, I know. You're going to mention Facebook and Twitter and a few hundred other startups that are big successes. There will always be exceptions. But in general, my hypothesis is that the incentive to start a business is plunging because the odds are shrinking that you'll come up with a novel idea that isn't patented and isn't being worked on by a dozen different startups right now.
You've seen on this blog that any idea I suggest is met with comments saying someone is already working on that very idea. And I get a lot of private email saying, "Damn you! You just described to the world the secret startup I'm working on."
On the plus side, getting a regular job at an existing company is no picnic either. People will always be attracted to start ups because of the glamor, the lifestyle, and the non-zero chance of being a Facebook-like success. The number of entrepreneurs might continue to climb while the potential payoff for each of them trends toward zero.
The good news is that capitalism is mostly fueled by failure. Most startups fail, but during the process of failing they provide jobs for a lot of people. And most established businesses will eventually fail too. The economy is almost entirely comprised of companies that will fail soon and companies that will fail later.
The other good news is that the global reach of the Internet means that your potential market is gigantic. On the risk-reward scale, an 80% chance of having a thousand customers isn't as good as a 5% chance of having millions of customers.
Given all of that, here's my question: Do you think the odds of success for the average startup (Internet or otherwise) are trending toward zero, staying about the same, or improving?
Today, no matter how good your idea is, and no matter how well you can execute, there is probably someone who already filed a patent on some part of your idea, and someone with more resources who is already working on it. And thanks to the Internet, anyone can sell just about anything anywhere. And anyone can acquire through the Internet whatever skills and resources they need. So if your product is a hit today, it will be knocked off tomorrow.
Yeah, yeah, I know. You're going to mention Facebook and Twitter and a few hundred other startups that are big successes. There will always be exceptions. But in general, my hypothesis is that the incentive to start a business is plunging because the odds are shrinking that you'll come up with a novel idea that isn't patented and isn't being worked on by a dozen different startups right now.
You've seen on this blog that any idea I suggest is met with comments saying someone is already working on that very idea. And I get a lot of private email saying, "Damn you! You just described to the world the secret startup I'm working on."
On the plus side, getting a regular job at an existing company is no picnic either. People will always be attracted to start ups because of the glamor, the lifestyle, and the non-zero chance of being a Facebook-like success. The number of entrepreneurs might continue to climb while the potential payoff for each of them trends toward zero.
The good news is that capitalism is mostly fueled by failure. Most startups fail, but during the process of failing they provide jobs for a lot of people. And most established businesses will eventually fail too. The economy is almost entirely comprised of companies that will fail soon and companies that will fail later.
The other good news is that the global reach of the Internet means that your potential market is gigantic. On the risk-reward scale, an 80% chance of having a thousand customers isn't as good as a 5% chance of having millions of customers.
Given all of that, here's my question: Do you think the odds of success for the average startup (Internet or otherwise) are trending toward zero, staying about the same, or improving?
July 12, 2011
Creativity
I read someplace that the brain needs some boredom during the day to process thoughts and generate creativity. That sounds right. My best ideas always bubble up when I'm bored. And my period of greatest creative output was during my corporate years when every meeting felt like a play date for coma patients.
So what would happen if everyone in the world stopped being bored? You might be there already. I know I am. If I have access to my phone, or my computer, I'm never bored. If I'm watching TV, I can fast-forward through commercials. If I'm standing in line at the store, I can check email or play Angry Birds. When I work out, I listen to my iPod. I wake up in the morning and walk straight to my iPad to browse the headlines while my coffee is brewing. The last thing I do before shutting my eyes at night is browse the news again on my phone.
As recently as a year ago I would drive my car in silence and cook up all sorts of ideas on the go. Now I have satellite radio and can always find some auditory diversion. The only reliable place to be bored these days is in the shower.
Now let's suppose that the people who are leaders and innovators around the world are experiencing a similar lack of boredom. I think it's fair to say they are. What change would you expect to see in a world with declining boredom and therefore declining creativity?
I'll take some guesses.
For starters, you might see people acting more dogmatic than usual. If you don't have time to think for yourself, and think creatively, the easiest opinion to adopt is the default position of your political party, religion, or culture. Check.
You might see more movies that seem derivative or based on sequels. Check.
You might see more reality shows and fewer scripted shows. Check.
You might see the bestseller lists dominated by fiction "factories" where ghost writers churn out work under the brand of someone famous. Check.
You might see almost no humor books on the bestseller lists except for ones built around a celebrity. Check.
You might see the economy flatline for lack of industry-changing innovation. Check.
You might see the news headlines start to repeat, like the movie Groundhog Day, with nothing but the names changed. Check.
You might find that bloggers are spending most of their energy writing about other bloggers. Check.
You might find that people seem almost incapable of even understanding new ideas. Check.
To be fair, there might be lots of reasons why the world appears to have less creativity. Some of it is simple economics. A movie studio can make more money with a sequel than with something creative. A similar dynamic is true in every industry.
And also to be fair, sometimes things seem to be getting worse when in fact you're only noticing it more. It seems as if folks are more dogmatic than ever, but maybe that's not the case.
Still, it's worth keeping an eye on the link between our vanishing boredom and innovation. It's the sort of thing that could literally destroy the world without anyone realizing what the hell is going wrong. If it reaches critical proportions, we probably won't recognize the root cause of the problem. A lack of creativity always looks like some other problem.
Do you think the world is becoming less creative?
So what would happen if everyone in the world stopped being bored? You might be there already. I know I am. If I have access to my phone, or my computer, I'm never bored. If I'm watching TV, I can fast-forward through commercials. If I'm standing in line at the store, I can check email or play Angry Birds. When I work out, I listen to my iPod. I wake up in the morning and walk straight to my iPad to browse the headlines while my coffee is brewing. The last thing I do before shutting my eyes at night is browse the news again on my phone.
As recently as a year ago I would drive my car in silence and cook up all sorts of ideas on the go. Now I have satellite radio and can always find some auditory diversion. The only reliable place to be bored these days is in the shower.
Now let's suppose that the people who are leaders and innovators around the world are experiencing a similar lack of boredom. I think it's fair to say they are. What change would you expect to see in a world with declining boredom and therefore declining creativity?
I'll take some guesses.
For starters, you might see people acting more dogmatic than usual. If you don't have time to think for yourself, and think creatively, the easiest opinion to adopt is the default position of your political party, religion, or culture. Check.
You might see more movies that seem derivative or based on sequels. Check.
You might see more reality shows and fewer scripted shows. Check.
You might see the bestseller lists dominated by fiction "factories" where ghost writers churn out work under the brand of someone famous. Check.
You might see almost no humor books on the bestseller lists except for ones built around a celebrity. Check.
You might see the economy flatline for lack of industry-changing innovation. Check.
You might see the news headlines start to repeat, like the movie Groundhog Day, with nothing but the names changed. Check.
You might find that bloggers are spending most of their energy writing about other bloggers. Check.
You might find that people seem almost incapable of even understanding new ideas. Check.
To be fair, there might be lots of reasons why the world appears to have less creativity. Some of it is simple economics. A movie studio can make more money with a sequel than with something creative. A similar dynamic is true in every industry.
And also to be fair, sometimes things seem to be getting worse when in fact you're only noticing it more. It seems as if folks are more dogmatic than ever, but maybe that's not the case.
Still, it's worth keeping an eye on the link between our vanishing boredom and innovation. It's the sort of thing that could literally destroy the world without anyone realizing what the hell is going wrong. If it reaches critical proportions, we probably won't recognize the root cause of the problem. A lack of creativity always looks like some other problem.
Do you think the world is becoming less creative?
July 10, 2011
You in the Crowd [updated]
[update at bottom]
The other day I overheard a conversation in which someone referred to one member of a coaching staff as "the black one." It struck me as a bit jarring, in the racist sense, but it was also the fastest way to make the identification. It made me wonder how people describe me when they're trying to save time. Something tells me I wouldn't like it.
But enough about me. How would someone describe you to a stranger if the goal were to help locate you in a crowded room? Be honest. Leave your comment below.
I have a half-hypothesis about how your answers will run. I'll tell you later. For now, leave a comment and tell me what shorthand (up to three descriptors) would describe you uniquely in a room full of people. Let's assume that the people in the room are a representative sample of your fellow citizens.
UPDATE: My hypothesis was that people would describe themselves using the same factors that single people most often look for in online dating. Women looking for men generally filter first for height and hair-sufficiency. Men looking for women generally filter first for weight. Yes, humans are shallow. But I don't think my hypothesis was quite validated.
I also expected lots of facial hair on the males reading this blog. That's a correlation I noticed about my readers years ago. I didn't expect so many male readers with long hair and so many red heads of both genders.
The other day I overheard a conversation in which someone referred to one member of a coaching staff as "the black one." It struck me as a bit jarring, in the racist sense, but it was also the fastest way to make the identification. It made me wonder how people describe me when they're trying to save time. Something tells me I wouldn't like it.
But enough about me. How would someone describe you to a stranger if the goal were to help locate you in a crowded room? Be honest. Leave your comment below.
I have a half-hypothesis about how your answers will run. I'll tell you later. For now, leave a comment and tell me what shorthand (up to three descriptors) would describe you uniquely in a room full of people. Let's assume that the people in the room are a representative sample of your fellow citizens.
UPDATE: My hypothesis was that people would describe themselves using the same factors that single people most often look for in online dating. Women looking for men generally filter first for height and hair-sufficiency. Men looking for women generally filter first for weight. Yes, humans are shallow. But I don't think my hypothesis was quite validated.
I also expected lots of facial hair on the males reading this blog. That's a correlation I noticed about my readers years ago. I didn't expect so many male readers with long hair and so many red heads of both genders.
You in the Crowd
The other day I overheard a conversation in which someone referred to one member of a coaching staff as "the black one." It struck me as a bit jarring, in the racist sense, but it was also the fastest way to make the identification. It made me wonder how people describe me when they're trying to save time. Something tells me I wouldn't like it.
But enough about me. How would someone describe you to a stranger if the goal were to help locate you in a crowded room? Be honest. Leave your comment below.
I have a half-hypothesis about how your answers will run. I'll tell you later. For now, leave a comment and tell me what shorthand (up to three descriptors) would describe you uniquely in a room full of people. Let's assume that the people in the room are a representative sample of your fellow citizens.
But enough about me. How would someone describe you to a stranger if the goal were to help locate you in a crowded room? Be honest. Leave your comment below.
I have a half-hypothesis about how your answers will run. I'll tell you later. For now, leave a comment and tell me what shorthand (up to three descriptors) would describe you uniquely in a room full of people. Let's assume that the people in the room are a representative sample of your fellow citizens.
July 7, 2011
Opinions vs. Ideas
If you hear an idea without knowing who came up with it, you can evaluate the idea on its merits. But if you know the originator of the idea, the idea gets slimed with everything you know about the originator and his motives. When an idea is associated with a personality it transforms into an opinion. And we fucking hate other people's opinions. Ideas are kind of cool, but we don't like opinions.
There's probably some sort of evolutionary reason why we automatically hate the opinions of others. Maybe it's a competition thing. Maybe it's an ego thing. I'm just saying that we reject the opinions of others almost reflexively. We reject first and then we try to cook up some reasons later.
The exception is when an opinion matches our own. That is seen as confirmation of our brilliance. But in any case, the underlying idea become subordinate to the personalities involved.
For existing ideas, it's too late to separate them from their authors. But maybe there's a way to save future ideas from death-by-association. How much better off would the world be if new ideas could be freed from the slimy and infected shackles of their originators? What if all new ideas went through some sort of filter that stripped off the identity of the originator and allowed us to evaluate the ideas on their merits?
The first problem with anonymity is economics. If you're a journalist or pundit, your income depends on being associated with ideas, even if doing so kills the ideas. So even if an idea were to have some sort of virgin birth, the first group or person to embrace it would become the adopting parent and slime the idea by association.
This is a big problem. I fear that the best ideas for the economy, the environment, and social contracts are destroyed by association with, ugh, humans. So I wonder if the Internet can offer some sort of solution.
Let's imagine a website that requires all participants to be anonymous. Users are invited to submit original ideas on any topic. Popular ideas are voted up until the best ideas bubble to the top. And let's say the participants on this site agree as a matter of principle to not discuss the new ideas outside the forum. And let's say that the only people who can see the ideas are those who are members. The only ideas that are released to the general public are the ones that bubble to the top and are then published in press releases.
Partisans would obviously sign up to game the system and fill it with the ideas of their political parties and advocacy groups. That's where moderators would need to be involved. Any ideas that seem nearly the same as existing ideas in the outside world would be deleted. Only new ideas, including novel twists on existing ideas, would be allowed.
That still leaves the problem of one advocacy group or another signing up in large numbers to pump up votes for ideas that are at least compatible with their philosophies. Maybe one of you has an idea for how to prevent that problem.
The main point is this: Humanity would become far more efficient at solving its biggest problems if ideas could be separated from personalities.
There's probably some sort of evolutionary reason why we automatically hate the opinions of others. Maybe it's a competition thing. Maybe it's an ego thing. I'm just saying that we reject the opinions of others almost reflexively. We reject first and then we try to cook up some reasons later.
The exception is when an opinion matches our own. That is seen as confirmation of our brilliance. But in any case, the underlying idea become subordinate to the personalities involved.
For existing ideas, it's too late to separate them from their authors. But maybe there's a way to save future ideas from death-by-association. How much better off would the world be if new ideas could be freed from the slimy and infected shackles of their originators? What if all new ideas went through some sort of filter that stripped off the identity of the originator and allowed us to evaluate the ideas on their merits?
The first problem with anonymity is economics. If you're a journalist or pundit, your income depends on being associated with ideas, even if doing so kills the ideas. So even if an idea were to have some sort of virgin birth, the first group or person to embrace it would become the adopting parent and slime the idea by association.
This is a big problem. I fear that the best ideas for the economy, the environment, and social contracts are destroyed by association with, ugh, humans. So I wonder if the Internet can offer some sort of solution.
Let's imagine a website that requires all participants to be anonymous. Users are invited to submit original ideas on any topic. Popular ideas are voted up until the best ideas bubble to the top. And let's say the participants on this site agree as a matter of principle to not discuss the new ideas outside the forum. And let's say that the only people who can see the ideas are those who are members. The only ideas that are released to the general public are the ones that bubble to the top and are then published in press releases.
Partisans would obviously sign up to game the system and fill it with the ideas of their political parties and advocacy groups. That's where moderators would need to be involved. Any ideas that seem nearly the same as existing ideas in the outside world would be deleted. Only new ideas, including novel twists on existing ideas, would be allowed.
That still leaves the problem of one advocacy group or another signing up in large numbers to pump up votes for ideas that are at least compatible with their philosophies. Maybe one of you has an idea for how to prevent that problem.
The main point is this: Humanity would become far more efficient at solving its biggest problems if ideas could be separated from personalities.
July 5, 2011
Useful Business Web Sites
It bugs me that there are tools on the Internet that I would find handy if only I knew they existed. I did a bit of searching and pulled together a list of useful, single-purpose, free, business utility sites that you probably didn't know exist.
boxoh.com - Track any shipment
whichdateworks.com - Find a date that works for everyone
everytimezone.com - A clear graphic of world time zones
followupthen.com - Quick way to set up a reminder email to yourself
www.dafont.com - Thousands of free fonts for PC and Mac
www.anonymouse.org - Surf the web without revealing your identity
encrypted.google.com - Keeps your search queries private from nosey bosses
www.hipmunk.com - Best interface for finding a flight to book
seatguru.com - Best way to find the right seat on a flight
flightstats.com - Track flights
Do you know of other sites that meet the criteria of being a useful, single-purpose, free, business utility that most people would find useful but probably don't know exist? I'll update the list from your input. (No entertainment sites, please.)
boxoh.com - Track any shipment
whichdateworks.com - Find a date that works for everyone
everytimezone.com - A clear graphic of world time zones
followupthen.com - Quick way to set up a reminder email to yourself
www.dafont.com - Thousands of free fonts for PC and Mac
www.anonymouse.org - Surf the web without revealing your identity
encrypted.google.com - Keeps your search queries private from nosey bosses
www.hipmunk.com - Best interface for finding a flight to book
seatguru.com - Best way to find the right seat on a flight
flightstats.com - Track flights
Do you know of other sites that meet the criteria of being a useful, single-purpose, free, business utility that most people would find useful but probably don't know exist? I'll update the list from your input. (No entertainment sites, please.)
July 3, 2011
Winning Kills
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.
Winning Kills
Research shows that winning, especially on the home field, boosts your testosterone levels. And research shows that high levels of testosterone can cause health problems such as raising your bad cholesterol, accelerating some types of cancer, and increasing cardiovascular disease. Hypothetically, too much winning could kill you.
Okay, okay, I know that the testosterone boost one gets from winning is temporary. And I know most of the people who compete and win are young whereas the people most at risk for cancer and heart attacks are old. But could it be true that modern society creates too many opportunities for winning, which in turn boosts the average testosterone levels of both men and women to ranges that humans haven't yet evolved to handle? If so, what's the downside?
In cave-dwelling days, I'm guessing that only the chief of the clan had high testosterone. Research shows that leaders generally have a bit extra. In those times, when survival was the main agenda item, the rest of the clan had few opportunities to do anything that felt like "winning." And no one was worried about cancer and heart attacks because the life expectancy was 25.
Fast-forward to today. We surround ourselves with artificial situations that cause us to feel like winners. School kids get medals for simply participating. Parents praise kids for any little success. Childhood is designed to build high self-esteem.
Throughout life, almost everyone plays some sort of game or sport. And we gravitate toward the competitions we win more than we lose. If you golf, your handicap is designed to allow you to win against better players. If video games are your game of choice, you can play at whatever level ensures you will win more than you lose.
In modern times we don't have just one leader. You can be the president of a club, the captain of your team, the manager of your department, or run your own business. The options for being in charge of one thing or another are endless. And being in charge of just about anything boosts testosterone.
If being in charge isn't your thing, you can acquire a sort of symbolic power by getting lots of Facebook friends or lots of Twitter followers. Any sort of status, and any sort of special attention, no matter how trivial in real importance, probably boosts testosterone. Society has accidentally evolved into a testosterone delivery system. That makes sense because higher levels of testosterone have been associated with feelings of well-being. Perhaps humans are literally addicted to the hormone.
If we assume that nature has distributed testosterone normally across humans, with some people having too little, most people having just the right amount, and some folks having too much, what is the impact of so many temporary boosts in testosterone? Are the people who already have plenty of testosterone getting poisoned?
Doctors can test for testosterone deficiency, but does anyone test for testosterone overload? And how important is it anyway? If you Google "testosterone behavior" you can see a number of experts weighing in on the question of how testosterone influences behavior.
I've recently learned that lots of educated people believe biology doesn't have a decisive influence on human behavior because we have the power of reason. To others, that view falls somewhere between superstition and ignorance. To be fair, sometimes the biology-doesn't-count view is more of an advocacy-based position, which is entirely reasonable to the degree that it helps accomplish something useful to society, such as reducing crime.
We humans have an instinct for sorting things into categories. We like clean boundaries. For example, we like to imagine that all of our thinking is done by our brains. But I wonder if it would be more accurate to extend our definition of "brain" to include the endocrine system.
Winning Kills
Research shows that winning, especially on the home field, boosts your testosterone levels. And research shows that high levels of testosterone can cause health problems such as raising your bad cholesterol, accelerating some types of cancer, and increasing cardiovascular disease. Hypothetically, too much winning could kill you.
Okay, okay, I know that the testosterone boost one gets from winning is temporary. And I know most of the people who compete and win are young whereas the people most at risk for cancer and heart attacks are old. But could it be true that modern society creates too many opportunities for winning, which in turn boosts the average testosterone levels of both men and women to ranges that humans haven't yet evolved to handle? If so, what's the downside?
In cave-dwelling days, I'm guessing that only the chief of the clan had high testosterone. Research shows that leaders generally have a bit extra. In those times, when survival was the main agenda item, the rest of the clan had few opportunities to do anything that felt like "winning." And no one was worried about cancer and heart attacks because the life expectancy was 25.
Fast-forward to today. We surround ourselves with artificial situations that cause us to feel like winners. School kids get medals for simply participating. Parents praise kids for any little success. Childhood is designed to build high self-esteem.
Throughout life, almost everyone plays some sort of game or sport. And we gravitate toward the competitions we win more than we lose. If you golf, your handicap is designed to allow you to win against better players. If video games are your game of choice, you can play at whatever level ensures you will win more than you lose.
In modern times we don't have just one leader. You can be the president of a club, the captain of your team, the manager of your department, or run your own business. The options for being in charge of one thing or another are endless. And being in charge of just about anything boosts testosterone.
If being in charge isn't your thing, you can acquire a sort of symbolic power by getting lots of Facebook friends or lots of Twitter followers. Any sort of status, and any sort of special attention, no matter how trivial in real importance, probably boosts testosterone. Society has accidentally evolved into a testosterone delivery system. That makes sense because higher levels of testosterone have been associated with feelings of well-being. Perhaps humans are literally addicted to the hormone.
If we assume that nature has distributed testosterone normally across humans, with some people having too little, most people having just the right amount, and some folks having too much, what is the impact of so many temporary boosts in testosterone? Are the people who already have plenty of testosterone getting poisoned?
Doctors can test for testosterone deficiency, but does anyone test for testosterone overload? And how important is it anyway? If you Google "testosterone behavior" you can see a number of experts weighing in on the question of how testosterone influences behavior.
I've recently learned that lots of educated people believe biology doesn't have a decisive influence on human behavior because we have the power of reason. To others, that view falls somewhere between superstition and ignorance. To be fair, sometimes the biology-doesn't-count view is more of an advocacy-based position, which is entirely reasonable to the degree that it helps accomplish something useful to society, such as reducing crime.
We humans have an instinct for sorting things into categories. We like clean boundaries. For example, we like to imagine that all of our thinking is done by our brains. But I wonder if it would be more accurate to extend our definition of "brain" to include the endocrine system.
June 30, 2011
Chipping Away at the Superstition of Free Will
Here's another blow to the Nature Deniers. Yes, I did just invent a new label for people who believe human nature is not an important factor in human actions.
June 29, 2011
Death by Hypnosis. Or Not.
The story on WCTV's website says, "Florida police are investigating a high school principal who hypnotized three students who later died." Several of you sent me a link to the story and asked my opinion on the bullshit quotient.
By way of explaining my credentials, most of you know I once trained to become a hypnotist. The field is fairly shallow, in the sense that an expert wouldn't know that much more than a person who went through hypnosis training and did some reading on the topic.
Let's jump right in. Researchers have studied hypnosis to see if it's possible to make a person act against his best interest in any meaningful way. There has never been a documented case of hypnosis causing a person to hurt himself. But it would be fair to wonder if such a thing can be studied, since a hypnotized subject knows on some level that the researcher isn't really going to hand him a loaded gun and ask him to blow his brains out. Even a hypnotized subject understands that he's safe. It's a tough thing to study in the lab.
Obviously a stage hypnotist can get subjects to do some interesting things on stage, but part of the secret is that in any large group there are always people willing to do just about anything. The illusion for the audience is that the people on stage are as shy as you imagine you might be in that situation. They aren't.
In my own experience, both as a subject of hypnosis and as a hypnotist, I've never seen a hint that hypnosis might be harmful. Contrary to popular understanding, the hypnotized subject is always aware of his situation in exactly the same way you are right now. The difference is that the subconscious shows up at the dance at the same time. Your conscious mind has the option of being somewhat of an observer, like a driver's ed teacher, while your subconscious causes your arm to feel cold, or whatever the hypnotist suggests. But like a driver's ed teacher, your conscious mind always has the option of intervening. A subject can snap out of it anytime he wants. Indeed, he is never asleep in any common sense of the word. It's more of a relaxed state in which the subconscious is less dominated than usual by the conscious mind.
That's the quick and dirty explanation of what's happening. I think you could have a debate about whether there is really such a thing as a subconscious mind. It might be more accurate to say that a deeply relaxed mind functions differently than a non-relaxed mind, and in predictable ways, and leave it at that.
Now, about this principal in Florida - I don't think he is the first hypnotist in the world to discover some sort of hypnotic death spell that accidentally kicks in when he tries to help a point guard increase his free throw percentages.
So how do I explain the coincidence? One word: coincidence. I'll bet somewhere in the United States is a man who has had a cup of coffee with three people who died within the year. It doesn't imply causation.
Also, if you sort the world into two groups, with the people who feel their lives are just fine in one group, and the people who think only a hypnotist can help them in the other, I think the latter group might be a bit more suicidal on average. That's just a guess. The point is that the 75 people who got hypnotized probably aren't a representative sample of the students.
The wildcard in all of this is whether the principal was using the hypnosis sessions as a smokescreen to get private time with minors. There's no allegation of the sort, and he reportedly did lots of sessions with adults, so I'm guessing he was just trying to be helpful and it didn't work out.
When you combine the topics of hypnosis, suicide, children, and the Bible Belt, it's a perfect storm. There's no surprise that this story got attention. But my verdict is that death-by-hypnosis is bullshit.
By way of explaining my credentials, most of you know I once trained to become a hypnotist. The field is fairly shallow, in the sense that an expert wouldn't know that much more than a person who went through hypnosis training and did some reading on the topic.
Let's jump right in. Researchers have studied hypnosis to see if it's possible to make a person act against his best interest in any meaningful way. There has never been a documented case of hypnosis causing a person to hurt himself. But it would be fair to wonder if such a thing can be studied, since a hypnotized subject knows on some level that the researcher isn't really going to hand him a loaded gun and ask him to blow his brains out. Even a hypnotized subject understands that he's safe. It's a tough thing to study in the lab.
Obviously a stage hypnotist can get subjects to do some interesting things on stage, but part of the secret is that in any large group there are always people willing to do just about anything. The illusion for the audience is that the people on stage are as shy as you imagine you might be in that situation. They aren't.
In my own experience, both as a subject of hypnosis and as a hypnotist, I've never seen a hint that hypnosis might be harmful. Contrary to popular understanding, the hypnotized subject is always aware of his situation in exactly the same way you are right now. The difference is that the subconscious shows up at the dance at the same time. Your conscious mind has the option of being somewhat of an observer, like a driver's ed teacher, while your subconscious causes your arm to feel cold, or whatever the hypnotist suggests. But like a driver's ed teacher, your conscious mind always has the option of intervening. A subject can snap out of it anytime he wants. Indeed, he is never asleep in any common sense of the word. It's more of a relaxed state in which the subconscious is less dominated than usual by the conscious mind.
That's the quick and dirty explanation of what's happening. I think you could have a debate about whether there is really such a thing as a subconscious mind. It might be more accurate to say that a deeply relaxed mind functions differently than a non-relaxed mind, and in predictable ways, and leave it at that.
Now, about this principal in Florida - I don't think he is the first hypnotist in the world to discover some sort of hypnotic death spell that accidentally kicks in when he tries to help a point guard increase his free throw percentages.
So how do I explain the coincidence? One word: coincidence. I'll bet somewhere in the United States is a man who has had a cup of coffee with three people who died within the year. It doesn't imply causation.
Also, if you sort the world into two groups, with the people who feel their lives are just fine in one group, and the people who think only a hypnotist can help them in the other, I think the latter group might be a bit more suicidal on average. That's just a guess. The point is that the 75 people who got hypnotized probably aren't a representative sample of the students.
The wildcard in all of this is whether the principal was using the hypnosis sessions as a smokescreen to get private time with minors. There's no allegation of the sort, and he reportedly did lots of sessions with adults, so I'm guessing he was just trying to be helpful and it didn't work out.
When you combine the topics of hypnosis, suicide, children, and the Bible Belt, it's a perfect storm. There's no surprise that this story got attention. But my verdict is that death-by-hypnosis is bullshit.
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.
