Scott Adams's Blog, page 360
May 25, 2011
May 24, 2011
Acting
Before Ronald Reagan became governor of California, and then president of the United States, people wondered if an actor could become a good politician. It's no surprise that actors are excellent at campaigning and giving speeches. But lately I've noticed that acting is becoming the most important skill involved in policy too. Let's look at some examples.
1. The U.S. acts as though it doesn't have permission from Pakistan to attack Al Qaeda on Pakistani soil. The government of Pakistan has to publicly complain about it and threaten vague consequences to be seen as defending its sovereignty.
2. The U.S. has to act as though the Israelis and Palestinians can come up with a workable peace plan if they try hard enough.
3. Republican politicians that don't agree with the main party lines have to act as though they do or else face consequences.
4. Donald Trump acted as though he was seriously considering running for president. The media acted as though they believed him.
5. Democrat politicians have to act as though the rich are a bunch of immoral tax dodgers that are the main cause of the budget problem, as opposed to the main source of funding.
You can probably add to the list. But I think you see the point. During the Reagan era, I believe the acting was mostly limited to how one presented one's self to the public. Now the acting is integrated with most major policies. For example, it is generally understood that any politician who says he knows how to solve the budget problem is literally acting. In the past, that sort of claim might have been interpreted as lying. But a lie is something that the perpetrator expects the recipient to believe. We're way past that point. What we have now is pure theater. Our politicians aren't lying in the technical sense of the word because their fiction is as transparent as any movie or stage play. The audience is in on it.
I've seen some in the media claim that certain groups and politicians are not reality-based, as though some of their actions can be explained by collective delusions. I think that might be how things got started. The world became so complicated that no one could see obvious solutions for any of the bigger problems. That situation breeds hallucination. But I think we've moved beyond that point, at least partially. To me, it is starting to look more like a stage play where the audience expects fiction and the actors deliver. Meanwhile, with any luck, engineers and entrepreneurs are working behind the scenes to invent solutions to solve all of our reality-based problems.
Am I correct in saying that in recent years, government policy and literal acting (as opposed to lying) have merged in a way that is unprecedented?
1. The U.S. acts as though it doesn't have permission from Pakistan to attack Al Qaeda on Pakistani soil. The government of Pakistan has to publicly complain about it and threaten vague consequences to be seen as defending its sovereignty.
2. The U.S. has to act as though the Israelis and Palestinians can come up with a workable peace plan if they try hard enough.
3. Republican politicians that don't agree with the main party lines have to act as though they do or else face consequences.
4. Donald Trump acted as though he was seriously considering running for president. The media acted as though they believed him.
5. Democrat politicians have to act as though the rich are a bunch of immoral tax dodgers that are the main cause of the budget problem, as opposed to the main source of funding.
You can probably add to the list. But I think you see the point. During the Reagan era, I believe the acting was mostly limited to how one presented one's self to the public. Now the acting is integrated with most major policies. For example, it is generally understood that any politician who says he knows how to solve the budget problem is literally acting. In the past, that sort of claim might have been interpreted as lying. But a lie is something that the perpetrator expects the recipient to believe. We're way past that point. What we have now is pure theater. Our politicians aren't lying in the technical sense of the word because their fiction is as transparent as any movie or stage play. The audience is in on it.
I've seen some in the media claim that certain groups and politicians are not reality-based, as though some of their actions can be explained by collective delusions. I think that might be how things got started. The world became so complicated that no one could see obvious solutions for any of the bigger problems. That situation breeds hallucination. But I think we've moved beyond that point, at least partially. To me, it is starting to look more like a stage play where the audience expects fiction and the actors deliver. Meanwhile, with any luck, engineers and entrepreneurs are working behind the scenes to invent solutions to solve all of our reality-based problems.
Am I correct in saying that in recent years, government policy and literal acting (as opposed to lying) have merged in a way that is unprecedented?
May 22, 2011
Hello from Heaven
Heaven is great! I came here unexpectedly at 6 PM on May 21st. One moment I was petting the dog, and the next I was ascending to Heaven without my fillings. As far as I can tell, I was the only person on Earth to qualify for the Rapture. My strategy of remaining a virgin is starting to look pretty smart. And I guess I can admit my other little secret: When you thought I was taking the Lord’s name in vain, I was really saying “gob.” I know, right? It’s so clever. I totally beat the system.
Anyway, let me tell you what it’s like up here, since apparently you won’t be visiting. For starters, the Internet is blazing fast, and I’m typing this at 1,000 words per minute. No typos, ever! And I’m not the only one up here maintaining a website that you can see from Earth. Most of the angel-run sites are nothing but home videos of our everyday life. It’s easy to tell which sites are run by angels because everyone in Heaven is young and fit. We have no clothes, no shame, no disease, and no need for contraceptives. I believe you sinners call these angel videos “porn.” By the way, we can all see what you do when you watch angel videos. And let me tell you – that will not get you to Heaven. But you seem happy, so whatever.
Satan runs a website too, but I can’t tell you the URL. There’s some sort of rule that Satan is supposed to mask his activities on Earth. That’s so you’ll never know when he’s pranking you and when your problems are your own gob-damn fault. But when it comes to his website, he doesn’t even try to hide what he’s doing. He thinks people aren’t perceptive enough to know the difference between a site run by angels and one that is run by the Prince of Darkness **COUGH COUGH Gawker.com COUGH**. He calls it “hiding in plain sight,” which he thinks is hilarious, because he’s sort of an asshole.
Everything is opposite up here. You know the spam email you get from people who are trying to con you? We get that too, but up here all the offers are real! When a Nigerian banker offers to share his millions with you, he does! And every offer for penis-related pills is legitimate too! All of the guys up here are popping them like crazy, except for Saint Peter, for obvious reasons. Angel trivia: His real name is Larry.
I was a vegetarian on Earth, for health reasons. But we angels don’t worry about our health, and we still enjoy eating just for the pleasure. What do angels eat, you ask? For marketing reasons, we like to keep that hush-hush. But I was never good at keeping secrets, so here it is: We eat sinners. It turns out that Hell is nothing but a huge barbecue, and Earth is an elaborate marinade. You’ve heard the saying that “the good die young,” but you never knew why. It’s because crack addicts taste awful. We kill them last. And you probably think exercise makes you live longer, but what it really does is make you hard to chew. You healthy people can live forever for all we angels care. But your plump neighbor, well, he’s good eatin’. We might help him shuffle off early.
Did you ever wonder why Heaven likes to keep you sinners perpetually frightened? We’re the ones causing all of the global warming and financial meltdowns and natural disasters. That’s because when you’re scared, you taste like chicken. That’s where the saying comes from. And you won’t believe me if I tell you which ones of you guys taste like pork. That’s an inside joke up here.
I could go on and on about how my iPhone never drops calls, how I never see pop-up ads, and how I never do ab crunches and yet I can still use my “situation” for a cheese grater. But I don’t want you to feel jealous. I want you to feel frightened. By the way, there might be an asteroid heading your way. Or not. Just saying.
May 19, 2011
Pocket Equality
Let's say that the country of Elbonia has been discriminating against left-handed people for the past 800 years. Eventually the lefties organize politically and they fight for their rights. How will the lefties know when they have won the fight?
Conceptually, equality happens when everyone is treated the same. You can easily measure that for an issue such as voting. If lefties have the right to vote, and full access to information, and there are no reports of intimidation at the polls, you're probably there.
And you can easily examine laws to see that they apply equally to lefties and righties. You can even check to see if juries comprised of both lefties and righties convict all types of people at the same rate in all parts of Elbonia.
But how do you measure economic equality? Obviously you could measure the average salaries for both lefties and righties, and you could measure rates of hiring. But somewhere along the path to full economic equality, the country will have pockets that favor righties and pockets that favor lefties. For example, some companies will be actively recruiting lefties to comply with political pressures, and other companies will continue discriminating, perhaps at a subconscious level. Some regions in Elbonia will be more progressive and others will lag. And lefty entrepreneurs might start doing some discrimination of their own by hiring mostly lefties.
My question is this: When the lefties can find plenty of employers that favor lefties, and the righties can find plenty of employers that favor righties, and the occupations and compensation across all of these jobs are similar, has economic equality been achieved? This is an important question for Elbonia because the nation might reach "pocket equality" decades before every individual employer starts treating lefties and righties the same. Somewhere on the path to economic equality, the problem transforms into one of mobility and information. And in the modern age, neither mobility nor information is much of an obstacle.
By analogy, an army of a hundred fighters can defeat an army of a thousand if the smaller army has better mobility and information. The trick is for the army of a hundred to catch small groups of fighters from the larger army in isolated situations, kill them and run. Repeat.
My view is that left-handed Elbonians have full economic equality when the only obstacles to equal pay are mobility, information, and strategy. And that point happens when perhaps only half of the employers in Elbonia have become enlightened.
I was thinking about this as I read a pundit's article that said American women make 70 cents on the dollar compared to men, but in metropolitan areas, young women are starting to earn more than young men. (Most of my readers already know that the 70 cents figure is bogus, but that's another issue.) My question is this: When should women declare victory in economic equality? Is pocket equality close enough?
Conceptually, equality happens when everyone is treated the same. You can easily measure that for an issue such as voting. If lefties have the right to vote, and full access to information, and there are no reports of intimidation at the polls, you're probably there.
And you can easily examine laws to see that they apply equally to lefties and righties. You can even check to see if juries comprised of both lefties and righties convict all types of people at the same rate in all parts of Elbonia.
But how do you measure economic equality? Obviously you could measure the average salaries for both lefties and righties, and you could measure rates of hiring. But somewhere along the path to full economic equality, the country will have pockets that favor righties and pockets that favor lefties. For example, some companies will be actively recruiting lefties to comply with political pressures, and other companies will continue discriminating, perhaps at a subconscious level. Some regions in Elbonia will be more progressive and others will lag. And lefty entrepreneurs might start doing some discrimination of their own by hiring mostly lefties.
My question is this: When the lefties can find plenty of employers that favor lefties, and the righties can find plenty of employers that favor righties, and the occupations and compensation across all of these jobs are similar, has economic equality been achieved? This is an important question for Elbonia because the nation might reach "pocket equality" decades before every individual employer starts treating lefties and righties the same. Somewhere on the path to economic equality, the problem transforms into one of mobility and information. And in the modern age, neither mobility nor information is much of an obstacle.
By analogy, an army of a hundred fighters can defeat an army of a thousand if the smaller army has better mobility and information. The trick is for the army of a hundred to catch small groups of fighters from the larger army in isolated situations, kill them and run. Repeat.
My view is that left-handed Elbonians have full economic equality when the only obstacles to equal pay are mobility, information, and strategy. And that point happens when perhaps only half of the employers in Elbonia have become enlightened.
I was thinking about this as I read a pundit's article that said American women make 70 cents on the dollar compared to men, but in metropolitan areas, young women are starting to earn more than young men. (Most of my readers already know that the 70 cents figure is bogus, but that's another issue.) My question is this: When should women declare victory in economic equality? Is pocket equality close enough?
May 17, 2011
Slowing the Decline in Your Personal Appeal
We humans start our lives at the peak of your popularity. Everyone loves babies. The trouble starts when we learn to speak. Talking is the process by which we transform from adorable to insufferable. The more we talk, the less appealing we become.
No topic is safe. If things are going well for you, and you make the mistake of talking about it, others will think you're a self-absorbed bragger. If things are going poorly for you, and you talk about it, others will think you're a gloomy downer. If you talk about other people, you're a gossip. If you freely offer your opinion on the pros and cons of things, you'll be seen as too critical or too opinionated.
If you talk about politics, the people who disagree with you will see you as either an immoral ass hat or a superstitious simpleton. The people who share your viewpoint will see you as a bore because you're stating the obvious and probably taking too long to do it.
The old saying is that it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. It's unambiguously true that the more you talk, the higher your odds of saying something that is memorably stupid, cruel, selfish, or evil.
Telling amusing stories is okay in small doses. But storytelling is a rare skill. And the people who know you well have heard all of your best stories. Every story you tell will lower your average.
One situation in which talking works well is when two analytical or academic people share opinions and information on topics of common interest. That can be stimulating, especially if one or both people have a sense of humor. But if those two people spend much time together, they start running out of fresh topics. The more they talk, the less interesting they become to each other.
The rules of conversation are a bit different for people who don't know each other well or don't see each other often. In those cases, a bit of extra chatter is useful to keep the awkwardness at bay. But as you spend more time with an individual, every word you utter makes you less desirable.
Lately I have been wondering if there's an antidote for the social decay caused by talking. One fix is to spend more time with strangers. But that would be exhausting and hollow.
You could try doing more listening and less talking. People like that. But listening with empathy has the perverse effect of rewarding the talker for sharing his woes. That's a problem because if you cause someone to focus on his own misfortune, you make things worse for him. In time, the talker will associate you with all of his most unpleasant thoughts because that's the connection you keep reinforcing.
My best solution for the scourge of talking is this: Be brief and say something positive.
Brevity will slow the inevitable decline in your popularity caused by talking. And saying something positive as often as possible will be a mood booster to whoever is in the room with you. Humans are followers, and if you set a positive tone, it rubs off.
You'll never regain the personal appeal you enjoyed as a baby. But if you say nice things, and don't say much, you might become relatively less unappealing than the people around you. And that's not nothing.
No topic is safe. If things are going well for you, and you make the mistake of talking about it, others will think you're a self-absorbed bragger. If things are going poorly for you, and you talk about it, others will think you're a gloomy downer. If you talk about other people, you're a gossip. If you freely offer your opinion on the pros and cons of things, you'll be seen as too critical or too opinionated.
If you talk about politics, the people who disagree with you will see you as either an immoral ass hat or a superstitious simpleton. The people who share your viewpoint will see you as a bore because you're stating the obvious and probably taking too long to do it.
The old saying is that it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. It's unambiguously true that the more you talk, the higher your odds of saying something that is memorably stupid, cruel, selfish, or evil.
Telling amusing stories is okay in small doses. But storytelling is a rare skill. And the people who know you well have heard all of your best stories. Every story you tell will lower your average.
One situation in which talking works well is when two analytical or academic people share opinions and information on topics of common interest. That can be stimulating, especially if one or both people have a sense of humor. But if those two people spend much time together, they start running out of fresh topics. The more they talk, the less interesting they become to each other.
The rules of conversation are a bit different for people who don't know each other well or don't see each other often. In those cases, a bit of extra chatter is useful to keep the awkwardness at bay. But as you spend more time with an individual, every word you utter makes you less desirable.
Lately I have been wondering if there's an antidote for the social decay caused by talking. One fix is to spend more time with strangers. But that would be exhausting and hollow.
You could try doing more listening and less talking. People like that. But listening with empathy has the perverse effect of rewarding the talker for sharing his woes. That's a problem because if you cause someone to focus on his own misfortune, you make things worse for him. In time, the talker will associate you with all of his most unpleasant thoughts because that's the connection you keep reinforcing.
My best solution for the scourge of talking is this: Be brief and say something positive.
Brevity will slow the inevitable decline in your popularity caused by talking. And saying something positive as often as possible will be a mood booster to whoever is in the room with you. Humans are followers, and if you set a positive tone, it rubs off.
You'll never regain the personal appeal you enjoyed as a baby. But if you say nice things, and don't say much, you might become relatively less unappealing than the people around you. And that's not nothing.
May 15, 2011
Osama's Productivity
Let's see if you can solve this puzzle. We've learned that Osama Bin Laden's compound had marijuana, pornography, and some sort of herbal Viagra. He had no air conditioning to keep him cool in the blistering heat of summer, and no heat to protect him from the cold of winter. He had no phone and no Internet connection. He had a home office and three wives living with him. Using only these clues, help the CIA solve the following puzzle:
Why didn't Bin Laden come up with any good plans lately?
I'm no expert on terrorism, but I do have a few ideas about Osama's lack of productivity. Let's start with the fact that every time Osama had a few minutes of quiet time - and he wasn't stuck to the floor - he was spanking the martyr like it was his job.
The official story is that we found Osama by identifying his courier. I think a more likely scenario is that the CIA got a tip from whoever's job it was to clean Osama's room. I imagine that the end of that conversation went like this. "I don't want the reward money. Just make it stop."
Is it any coincidence that all of Osama's targets were shaped like penises? He started with jets, towers, and ships. Then he moved on to trains. Maybe we can save some money by eliminating security at anything that isn't shaped like a dick.
The marijuana at the compound explains a lot too. When we see pictures of other terrorist leaders, they always look angry. Every time we see a picture of Osama, he's just chillin' with his homeys. Here he is asking for some curly fries.
I wonder how stoned you need to be before you come up with a plan to conquer the planet using nothing but bearded men as weapons. I have a feeling that plan B involved showing up at the Grammy's inside a giant egg. It's obvious that he wasn't a beer drinker because his most ambitious plot didn't involve sneaking up on camels and tipping them over.
We have this image of the World's Biggest Terrorist being sort of a king in his castle. But I'll bet it didn't work that way. If you're a 6'8" guy with three wives, someone is asking you to reach a high shelf every three or four minutes. I have a hypothesis that the whole terrorist mastermind thing started because there aren't any golf courses in that region and Osama needed an excuse to get out of the house. We've been told that he didn't have a phone because he wanted to avoid being located by the United States military. But if you had more than one wife, you'd toss your phone in the nearest dumpster too. My point is that it's not all about us. His personal life was complicated.
Now imagine that you have no phone and no email and you want to communicate a complicated plot to your henchmen around the world. You have to rely on your courier to remember the message and deliver it in a persuasive manner to your operations guy. If you have ever met a human being, you know we're not good at transmitting simple messages from one person to another. Now imagine that the courier was probably the guy tending the marijuana garden and you see what I'm getting at here. I'll bet a lot of those conversations went like this.
Courier: Osama wants you to bomb the embassy on 4/20.
Terrorist: Which embassy?
Courier: That's an awesome question. I'll have to get back to you.
Terrorist: Maybe the American Embassy somewhere?
Courier: All I remember is that the target is shaped like...this.
Terrorist: Get out of my tent.
I'm no expert on terrorism, but I do have a few ideas about Osama's lack of productivity. Let's start with the fact that every time Osama had a few minutes of quiet time - and he wasn't stuck to the floor - he was spanking the martyr like it was his job.
The official story is that we found Osama by identifying his courier. I think a more likely scenario is that the CIA got a tip from whoever's job it was to clean Osama's room. I imagine that the end of that conversation went like this. "I don't want the reward money. Just make it stop."
Is it any coincidence that all of Osama's targets were shaped like penises? He started with jets, towers, and ships. Then he moved on to trains. Maybe we can save some money by eliminating security at anything that isn't shaped like a dick.
The marijuana at the compound explains a lot too. When we see pictures of other terrorist leaders, they always look angry. Every time we see a picture of Osama, he's just chillin' with his homeys. Here he is asking for some curly fries.
I wonder how stoned you need to be before you come up with a plan to conquer the planet using nothing but bearded men as weapons. I have a feeling that plan B involved showing up at the Grammy's inside a giant egg. It's obvious that he wasn't a beer drinker because his most ambitious plot didn't involve sneaking up on camels and tipping them over.
We have this image of the World's Biggest Terrorist being sort of a king in his castle. But I'll bet it didn't work that way. If you're a 6'8" guy with three wives, someone is asking you to reach a high shelf every three or four minutes. I have a hypothesis that the whole terrorist mastermind thing started because there aren't any golf courses in that region and Osama needed an excuse to get out of the house. We've been told that he didn't have a phone because he wanted to avoid being located by the United States military. But if you had more than one wife, you'd toss your phone in the nearest dumpster too. My point is that it's not all about us. His personal life was complicated.
Now imagine that you have no phone and no email and you want to communicate a complicated plot to your henchmen around the world. You have to rely on your courier to remember the message and deliver it in a persuasive manner to your operations guy. If you have ever met a human being, you know we're not good at transmitting simple messages from one person to another. Now imagine that the courier was probably the guy tending the marijuana garden and you see what I'm getting at here. I'll bet a lot of those conversations went like this.
Courier: Osama wants you to bomb the embassy on 4/20.
Terrorist: Which embassy?
Courier: That's an awesome question. I'll have to get back to you.
Terrorist: Maybe the American Embassy somewhere?
Courier: All I remember is that the target is shaped like...this.
Terrorist: Get out of my tent.
May 12, 2011
Happiness and Risk
Do you take bigger risks when you're happy or unhappy? Logically, you should take bigger risks when you're unhappy. There's less to lose, since you're already unhappy, and the thrill of the risk might be enough to snap you out of your funk.
The common view of people who continuously make dangerous choices is that they are reckless idiots. If that's true, nothing can be done to fix the situation. But suppose the problem is that risk-takers are simply less happy than people who are cautious. Does that give you a tool to work with?
Maybe.
My hypothesis is that you can reduce risky behavior by increasing a person's happiness. The basic tools of happiness are diet, exercise, social support, and optimism about the future. Interestingly, none of those things need to be expensive.
Here's a simple test to see the link between happiness and risky behavior. When you're in a bad mood, do you drive faster or slower?
The common view of people who continuously make dangerous choices is that they are reckless idiots. If that's true, nothing can be done to fix the situation. But suppose the problem is that risk-takers are simply less happy than people who are cautious. Does that give you a tool to work with?
Maybe.
My hypothesis is that you can reduce risky behavior by increasing a person's happiness. The basic tools of happiness are diet, exercise, social support, and optimism about the future. Interestingly, none of those things need to be expensive.
Here's a simple test to see the link between happiness and risky behavior. When you're in a bad mood, do you drive faster or slower?
May 11, 2011
Video Testosterone
I wonder if one could produce a website that is designed to directly manipulate the body chemistry of viewers. Think of it as video drug therapy.
We know that the things we experience in life have an immediate impact on our body chemistry. If you watch a sad movie, you get sad. If you listen to upbeat music, you get excited. If you watch porn, you get aroused. So the principle is well-established. How far could you take it if you got all scientific about it?
Let's take a specific example. Suppose you want to boost a man's testosterone levels, perhaps so he can more easily build muscles, perform better on certain tasks, be more attractive to women, or simply experience a greater sense of well-being. Would it be possible to put together a series of sounds and images involving victory, conquest, and power that directly manipulates a man's testosterone level? I think the answer is yes. Although my guess is that you'd need to create a continuous stream of new images to make it work more than once. And you might want to keep a lid on the sexual imagery so it's socially acceptable and he can view it anywhere.
How about oxytocin? That's the chemical your body produces when you hug or fall in love or make love. It simply makes you feel good. Could you produce a series of sounds and images that directly boost oxytocin? I'll bet the answer is yes.
Movies are already designed to manipulate the chemistry of viewers. But a good movie will take you from one end of the spectrum to the other. That's like starving you so your next meal tastes extra good. I think it would make more sense to develop media that does nothing but move you in the right direction, chemistry-wise. Ideally, this content could be consumed a few minutes at a time from any phone or web browser. A big advantage of this approach is that, compared to movies, the content would be less expensive to produce.
I also wonder if one could make money producing what I will call "social porn." I'll define that as a movie that involves no sex whatsoever, but plenty of violations of social norms. Imagine watching a film in which the actor can slap anyone he wants, make his boss wash his car, and make strangers get on all fours and bark like dogs. Like regular porn, you wouldn't try too hard to inject a plot. It's more about a series of scenes that can be produced on a shoestring budget with untalented actors. And again the point of it would be to generate specific chemical changes in the viewer.
I assume this so-called social porn would need a wide variety of approaches to capture everyone's tastes. Women might have their own genre that involves - I have no idea what. I won't presume to guess what that would look like. I'm just saying it won't be a one-size-fits-all situation.
A video chemistry website would be easy to monetize. Advertisers would have a good idea what kind of ads to feed to the site based on what sort of material the user selects. For example, you know that men would be asking for the testosterone boosting content and women would be asking for the - again, I have no idea. That's what the science is for. You'd need to do a lot of testing before you knew what worked. But it all seems doable.
We know that the things we experience in life have an immediate impact on our body chemistry. If you watch a sad movie, you get sad. If you listen to upbeat music, you get excited. If you watch porn, you get aroused. So the principle is well-established. How far could you take it if you got all scientific about it?
Let's take a specific example. Suppose you want to boost a man's testosterone levels, perhaps so he can more easily build muscles, perform better on certain tasks, be more attractive to women, or simply experience a greater sense of well-being. Would it be possible to put together a series of sounds and images involving victory, conquest, and power that directly manipulates a man's testosterone level? I think the answer is yes. Although my guess is that you'd need to create a continuous stream of new images to make it work more than once. And you might want to keep a lid on the sexual imagery so it's socially acceptable and he can view it anywhere.
How about oxytocin? That's the chemical your body produces when you hug or fall in love or make love. It simply makes you feel good. Could you produce a series of sounds and images that directly boost oxytocin? I'll bet the answer is yes.
Movies are already designed to manipulate the chemistry of viewers. But a good movie will take you from one end of the spectrum to the other. That's like starving you so your next meal tastes extra good. I think it would make more sense to develop media that does nothing but move you in the right direction, chemistry-wise. Ideally, this content could be consumed a few minutes at a time from any phone or web browser. A big advantage of this approach is that, compared to movies, the content would be less expensive to produce.
I also wonder if one could make money producing what I will call "social porn." I'll define that as a movie that involves no sex whatsoever, but plenty of violations of social norms. Imagine watching a film in which the actor can slap anyone he wants, make his boss wash his car, and make strangers get on all fours and bark like dogs. Like regular porn, you wouldn't try too hard to inject a plot. It's more about a series of scenes that can be produced on a shoestring budget with untalented actors. And again the point of it would be to generate specific chemical changes in the viewer.
I assume this so-called social porn would need a wide variety of approaches to capture everyone's tastes. Women might have their own genre that involves - I have no idea what. I won't presume to guess what that would look like. I'm just saying it won't be a one-size-fits-all situation.
A video chemistry website would be easy to monetize. Advertisers would have a good idea what kind of ads to feed to the site based on what sort of material the user selects. For example, you know that men would be asking for the testosterone boosting content and women would be asking for the - again, I have no idea. That's what the science is for. You'd need to do a lot of testing before you knew what worked. But it all seems doable.
May 9, 2011
Pirate Peg Leg
Here's a comic that you won't see in newspapers, for obvious reasons. It's a rough draft. Sometimes I have to go ahead and draw a comic that I know can never be published just to get the mental picture out of my head so I can move on.
May 8, 2011
Something Out of Place
Lately, I've been listening to a lot of comedians on satellite radio. When you hear twenty comedians in a row, their methods start to become transparent. I didn't realize how formulaic most standup humor is.
The technique I hear most often involves creating a scenario in which one type of person or way of doing things is imagined in a different context. For example, you might say, "I wonder if any of the members of SEAL Team 6 are married." Then you do a bunch of jokes in a wife's voice as if she is the only person on Earth who has no respect whatsoever for the heroic warriors who ended Osama Bin Laden: "So, you can find the world's most wanted terrorist in Pakistan, but you can't find the scissors in...the scissor drawer." And "I'd better drive. I don't want you hard-landing the minivan in someone's courtyard and then blowing it up."
See how easy that is? It's a bit different than a "fish out of water" method because most SEALS will probably end up married at some point, so the fish is right where it belongs. It's the juxtaposition of the heroic history of a SEAL with the mundane routine of marriage that is out of place.
In this example I also used the humor trick of making sure someone is unhappy in the imagined scenario. Humor doesn't require someone to be unhappy, but it's an easy way to get a laugh. In this example the SEAL is henpecked.
Familiarity is another dimension that helps humor. By grounding jokes in the familiar, such as the scissor drawer and the minivan, people can better relate. If I had tried to move the SEAL context to someplace unfamiliar to the audience, such as an imagined alien planet, it would fall flat.
Another humor trick is to use current topics. SEAL jokes are funny today, but by next year they will seem stale.
Yet another humor trick is the "bad solution." The bad solution is something that makes sense on some level while at the same time being ridiculous. For example, blowing up the minivan because of mechanical difficulties is a concept that your brain tries to make sense of while simultaneously knowing it to be ridiculous. It's the "almost makes sense" part that makes you laugh. The master of that method is Steven Wright. He has lots of jokes that almost make sense but don't, such as "I like to reminisce with people I don't know."
Cleverness is important in humor too. The audience has to be wondering how the comedian thought to combine unrelated topics and still connect the dots in a way that almost makes sense. Sometimes the easiest way to be clever, create a loser, and insert familiarity at the same time is with sarcasm and exaggeration in the voice of an imagined other.
So here's your humor toolbox:
1. Pick a topic that is current.
2. Put something in the wrong context.
3. Make someone in the scenario a loser.
4. Add familiar and mundane elements to ground the joke.
5. Create a solution or logic that almost makes sense but doesn't.
6. Use sarcasm and exaggeration if necessary.
The technique I hear most often involves creating a scenario in which one type of person or way of doing things is imagined in a different context. For example, you might say, "I wonder if any of the members of SEAL Team 6 are married." Then you do a bunch of jokes in a wife's voice as if she is the only person on Earth who has no respect whatsoever for the heroic warriors who ended Osama Bin Laden: "So, you can find the world's most wanted terrorist in Pakistan, but you can't find the scissors in...the scissor drawer." And "I'd better drive. I don't want you hard-landing the minivan in someone's courtyard and then blowing it up."
See how easy that is? It's a bit different than a "fish out of water" method because most SEALS will probably end up married at some point, so the fish is right where it belongs. It's the juxtaposition of the heroic history of a SEAL with the mundane routine of marriage that is out of place.
In this example I also used the humor trick of making sure someone is unhappy in the imagined scenario. Humor doesn't require someone to be unhappy, but it's an easy way to get a laugh. In this example the SEAL is henpecked.
Familiarity is another dimension that helps humor. By grounding jokes in the familiar, such as the scissor drawer and the minivan, people can better relate. If I had tried to move the SEAL context to someplace unfamiliar to the audience, such as an imagined alien planet, it would fall flat.
Another humor trick is to use current topics. SEAL jokes are funny today, but by next year they will seem stale.
Yet another humor trick is the "bad solution." The bad solution is something that makes sense on some level while at the same time being ridiculous. For example, blowing up the minivan because of mechanical difficulties is a concept that your brain tries to make sense of while simultaneously knowing it to be ridiculous. It's the "almost makes sense" part that makes you laugh. The master of that method is Steven Wright. He has lots of jokes that almost make sense but don't, such as "I like to reminisce with people I don't know."
Cleverness is important in humor too. The audience has to be wondering how the comedian thought to combine unrelated topics and still connect the dots in a way that almost makes sense. Sometimes the easiest way to be clever, create a loser, and insert familiarity at the same time is with sarcasm and exaggeration in the voice of an imagined other.
So here's your humor toolbox:
1. Pick a topic that is current.
2. Put something in the wrong context.
3. Make someone in the scenario a loser.
4. Add familiar and mundane elements to ground the joke.
5. Create a solution or logic that almost makes sense but doesn't.
6. Use sarcasm and exaggeration if necessary.
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.
