Scott Adams's Blog, page 364
March 15, 2011
Brain-Hat
Every normal person is rational when relaxed. And everyone has the potential to become irrational when emotions kick in. That's obvious enough. The thing that fascinates me is that irrationality is something you're generally not equipped to recognize in yourself while it's happening. In a perfect world, we'd have an objective way to measure irrationality, the same way a breathalyzer measures drunkenness.
In this context, being rational doesn't mean you're brilliant or entirely logical. It just means you're willing to evaluate information and attempt to draw reasonable conclusions.
I wonder if scientists can determine when you are using the rational part of your brain and when your irrational part is getting a bit too involved. That seems doable. I believe we know enough about the architecture of the brain and we have the technology to see which parts are most active at any given moment. The problem is that it's not practical to do a brain scan outside a lab setting.
But will that always be the case?
Technology will probably reach a point where you can put on a hat with sensors that see which parts of your brain are being most active. An LED screen on the hat will indicate whether you're using the rational part of your brain or the crazy part.
Using the rational part of your brain doesn't mean your opinion is right, of course. But it's a start. We can also measure IQ, and we can measure a person's knowledge on a particular topic. That would give you a good idea who to believe on any particular issue.
That leaves self-interest as the wild card. I assume a politician or business leader would be capable of using the rational part of his brain to mislead others for personal gain. But here again I'll bet the brain-hat of the future will be able to detect deception based on the totality of which parts of the brain are being active.
Politics would never be the same. Voters would insist that politicians wear brain-hats for all speeches, press conferences, and debates. No one would pay attention to any pundit who wasn't wearing the brain-hat.
The interesting question is whether some topics, by their very nature, make every participant irrational. I don't think anyone could pass the brain-hat test when considering topics such as gender equality, war, religion, evolution, race, taxes, Israel, evolution, sexuality, and the like.
I hope I'm dead before technology reaches a point where we can know for sure that people aren't rational about anything that matters. Because at that point we'll see there is no reason for debate. Force is all that will matter. Arguably, force is all that matters now, for anything important, but at least the illusion that rationality is an option for persuasion slows down our impulse to bulldoze the opposition. That's probably a good thing.
In this context, being rational doesn't mean you're brilliant or entirely logical. It just means you're willing to evaluate information and attempt to draw reasonable conclusions.
I wonder if scientists can determine when you are using the rational part of your brain and when your irrational part is getting a bit too involved. That seems doable. I believe we know enough about the architecture of the brain and we have the technology to see which parts are most active at any given moment. The problem is that it's not practical to do a brain scan outside a lab setting.
But will that always be the case?
Technology will probably reach a point where you can put on a hat with sensors that see which parts of your brain are being most active. An LED screen on the hat will indicate whether you're using the rational part of your brain or the crazy part.
Using the rational part of your brain doesn't mean your opinion is right, of course. But it's a start. We can also measure IQ, and we can measure a person's knowledge on a particular topic. That would give you a good idea who to believe on any particular issue.
That leaves self-interest as the wild card. I assume a politician or business leader would be capable of using the rational part of his brain to mislead others for personal gain. But here again I'll bet the brain-hat of the future will be able to detect deception based on the totality of which parts of the brain are being active.
Politics would never be the same. Voters would insist that politicians wear brain-hats for all speeches, press conferences, and debates. No one would pay attention to any pundit who wasn't wearing the brain-hat.
The interesting question is whether some topics, by their very nature, make every participant irrational. I don't think anyone could pass the brain-hat test when considering topics such as gender equality, war, religion, evolution, race, taxes, Israel, evolution, sexuality, and the like.
I hope I'm dead before technology reaches a point where we can know for sure that people aren't rational about anything that matters. Because at that point we'll see there is no reason for debate. Force is all that will matter. Arguably, force is all that matters now, for anything important, but at least the illusion that rationality is an option for persuasion slows down our impulse to bulldoze the opposition. That's probably a good thing.
Noprivacyville
I heard a report on NPR about an auto insurance company giving drivers the options of putting GPS tracking devices on their vehicles to lower insurance rates by as much as 30%. The idea is that, for example, the device could confirm to the insurance company that the car wasn't being used in high risk situations, such as commute traffic. Safe driving situations would be rewarded with lower rates.
This made me wonder how much money could be saved by creating an entire city with no privacy except in the bedroom and bathroom. I will stipulate in advance that you do not want to live in such a place because you're an urban pirate. You want the freedom to do "stuff" that no one ever finds out about. I get it. This is just an economic thought experiment.
Although you would never live in a city without privacy, I think that if one could save 30% on basic living expenses, and live in a relatively crime-free area, plenty of volunteers would come forward.
Let's assume that residents of this city agree to get "chipped" so their locations are always known. Everyone's online activities are also tracked, as are all purchases, and so on. We'll have to assume this hypothetical city exists in the not-so-distant future when technology can handle everything I'm about to describe.
This city of no privacy wouldn't need much of a police force because no criminal would agree to live in such a monitored situation. And let's assume you have to have a chip to enter the city at all. The few crooks that might make the mistake of opting in would be easy to round up. If anything big went down, you could contract with neighboring towns to get SWAT support in emergency situations.
You wouldn't need police to catch speeders. Cars would automatically report the speed and location of every driver. That sucks, you say, because you usually speed, and you like it. But consider that speed limits in this hypothetical town would be much higher than normal because every car would be aware of the location of every other car, every child, and every pet. Accidents could be nearly eliminated.
Healthcare costs might plunge with the elimination of privacy. For example, your pill container would monitor whether you took your prescription pills on schedule. I understand that noncompliance of doctor-ordered dosing is a huge problem, especially with older folks.
Without privacy you would also begin to build a database of which drugs are actually working and which ones have deadly side effects. Every patient's history would be meticulously and automatically collected. The same goes for detailed diet and exercise patterns. Healthcare today involves an alarming amount of educated guesswork. In time, with a total lack of privacy, we'd know precisely which kinds of choices have better health outcomes.
Now imagine that your doctor has a full screen of your DNA so together you can modify your lifestyle or healthcare choices to avoid problems for which you are prone. This city would need to have universal healthcare to make this work. No one would be denied coverage because of an existing or potential condition.
Employment would seem problematic in this world of no privacy. You assume that no employer would hire someone who has risky lifestyle preferences, or DNA that suggests major health problems. But I'll bet employers would learn that everyone has issues of one kind or another, so hiring a qualified candidate who might later become ill will look like a good deal. And on the plus side, employers would rarely hire someone who had a bad employment record, as that information would not be as hidden as it is today. Bad workers would end up voluntarily moving out of the city to find work. Imagine a world where your coworkers are competent. You might need a lack of privacy to get to that happy situation.
Public transportation would be cheap in this city of no privacy. Once you know where everyone is, and where everyone wants to go, you can design a system that has little wasted capacity. That means lower costs.
Now let's say that your house is aware of your location and even your patterns of activities. Smart systems in the home can turn off your lights whenever a room is unoccupied, power down your computer as needed, and generally manage your power consumption smartly. And if you insisted on being an energy hog, your neighbors would be aware of it. Studies have shown that peer pressure has a huge impact on conservation. It's not as bad as it sounds; if your neighbor is elderly, and using a lot of energy for extra heating, you would understand. In most cases your neighbor's excessive energy use would have a perfectly good explanation.
At tax time, you'd be done before you started. All of your financial activities would be tracked in real time, so your taxes would always be up to date.
Advertisements would transform from a pervasive nuisance into something more like useful information. Advertisers would know so much about your lifestyle and preferences that you would only see ads that made perfect sense for your situation.
This lack of privacy would extend to businesses as well, although the better description in this case would be transparency. As a consumer, you'd know where to get the best prices. You'd know how long the wait is at your favorite restaurant. And you'd know how every consumer felt about his experience with every business.
When you considered applying for a new job, you'd have access to the latest employee opinion survey for that business. Bad employee practices would be driven out and best practices would more easily spread.
Confusopolies wouldn't be tolerated in this city. Confusing pricing plans are a weasel method of hiding information from consumers. If a company wants to offer cell phone service, or insurance, or banking, in this city they have to meet standards for pricing clarity.
On the personal side of things, a complete surrendering of privacy means it's always easy to locate and hook up with people who have similar interests and similar schedules. Dating, and every other social activity would become far easier. And cheating would be nearly impossible.
You worry about the slippery slope of zero privacy. The government could easily abuse this information. But that problem is somewhat minimized because the situation is limited to a single city, and the residents can simply leave if they don't like how things are going.
I know you don't want to live in that city. I'm just curious what sort of price, in economic terms, and in convenience and in social benefits, we pay for our privacy. My guess is that it's expensive.
This made me wonder how much money could be saved by creating an entire city with no privacy except in the bedroom and bathroom. I will stipulate in advance that you do not want to live in such a place because you're an urban pirate. You want the freedom to do "stuff" that no one ever finds out about. I get it. This is just an economic thought experiment.
Although you would never live in a city without privacy, I think that if one could save 30% on basic living expenses, and live in a relatively crime-free area, plenty of volunteers would come forward.
Let's assume that residents of this city agree to get "chipped" so their locations are always known. Everyone's online activities are also tracked, as are all purchases, and so on. We'll have to assume this hypothetical city exists in the not-so-distant future when technology can handle everything I'm about to describe.
This city of no privacy wouldn't need much of a police force because no criminal would agree to live in such a monitored situation. And let's assume you have to have a chip to enter the city at all. The few crooks that might make the mistake of opting in would be easy to round up. If anything big went down, you could contract with neighboring towns to get SWAT support in emergency situations.
You wouldn't need police to catch speeders. Cars would automatically report the speed and location of every driver. That sucks, you say, because you usually speed, and you like it. But consider that speed limits in this hypothetical town would be much higher than normal because every car would be aware of the location of every other car, every child, and every pet. Accidents could be nearly eliminated.
Healthcare costs might plunge with the elimination of privacy. For example, your pill container would monitor whether you took your prescription pills on schedule. I understand that noncompliance of doctor-ordered dosing is a huge problem, especially with older folks.
Without privacy you would also begin to build a database of which drugs are actually working and which ones have deadly side effects. Every patient's history would be meticulously and automatically collected. The same goes for detailed diet and exercise patterns. Healthcare today involves an alarming amount of educated guesswork. In time, with a total lack of privacy, we'd know precisely which kinds of choices have better health outcomes.
Now imagine that your doctor has a full screen of your DNA so together you can modify your lifestyle or healthcare choices to avoid problems for which you are prone. This city would need to have universal healthcare to make this work. No one would be denied coverage because of an existing or potential condition.
Employment would seem problematic in this world of no privacy. You assume that no employer would hire someone who has risky lifestyle preferences, or DNA that suggests major health problems. But I'll bet employers would learn that everyone has issues of one kind or another, so hiring a qualified candidate who might later become ill will look like a good deal. And on the plus side, employers would rarely hire someone who had a bad employment record, as that information would not be as hidden as it is today. Bad workers would end up voluntarily moving out of the city to find work. Imagine a world where your coworkers are competent. You might need a lack of privacy to get to that happy situation.
Public transportation would be cheap in this city of no privacy. Once you know where everyone is, and where everyone wants to go, you can design a system that has little wasted capacity. That means lower costs.
Now let's say that your house is aware of your location and even your patterns of activities. Smart systems in the home can turn off your lights whenever a room is unoccupied, power down your computer as needed, and generally manage your power consumption smartly. And if you insisted on being an energy hog, your neighbors would be aware of it. Studies have shown that peer pressure has a huge impact on conservation. It's not as bad as it sounds; if your neighbor is elderly, and using a lot of energy for extra heating, you would understand. In most cases your neighbor's excessive energy use would have a perfectly good explanation.
At tax time, you'd be done before you started. All of your financial activities would be tracked in real time, so your taxes would always be up to date.
Advertisements would transform from a pervasive nuisance into something more like useful information. Advertisers would know so much about your lifestyle and preferences that you would only see ads that made perfect sense for your situation.
This lack of privacy would extend to businesses as well, although the better description in this case would be transparency. As a consumer, you'd know where to get the best prices. You'd know how long the wait is at your favorite restaurant. And you'd know how every consumer felt about his experience with every business.
When you considered applying for a new job, you'd have access to the latest employee opinion survey for that business. Bad employee practices would be driven out and best practices would more easily spread.
Confusopolies wouldn't be tolerated in this city. Confusing pricing plans are a weasel method of hiding information from consumers. If a company wants to offer cell phone service, or insurance, or banking, in this city they have to meet standards for pricing clarity.
On the personal side of things, a complete surrendering of privacy means it's always easy to locate and hook up with people who have similar interests and similar schedules. Dating, and every other social activity would become far easier. And cheating would be nearly impossible.
You worry about the slippery slope of zero privacy. The government could easily abuse this information. But that problem is somewhat minimized because the situation is limited to a single city, and the residents can simply leave if they don't like how things are going.
I know you don't want to live in that city. I'm just curious what sort of price, in economic terms, and in convenience and in social benefits, we pay for our privacy. My guess is that it's expensive.
March 14, 2011
Vacation
I was having one of those extra stressful years, for no single reason. Call it statistical clustering. The universe was being a total asshole. Shelly was having the same kind of year, if not worse. It was time to find some relaxation. Shelly booked us a trip.
To Hawaii. On March 10th. Nice little room on the beach.
Damn you, universe!
Before I begin my personal account, allow me to extend my thoughts to Japan. It feels inappropriate to tell my little story in the context of their devastation. But it's the only story I know.
We were preparing for bed on our first night in Hawaii. Shelly gets a call from her aunt. I'm brushing my teeth and listening to one side of the conversation.
Shelly: "Earthquake?"
Now I am left wondering how large is this earthquake, presumable in California, that it warrants a call? Californians don't get excited about anything below a 6.0. Is our house still standing? Did our dog survive? Shelly has my full attention.
Shelly: "...Japan..."
Phew.
Shelly: "8.9..."
What? That can't be right.
Shelly: "...tsunami..."
Poor Japan!
Shelly: "...heading our way..."
I'm not entirely sure that I finished brushing my teeth. There are many ways to begin a relaxing vacation, but none of them involves a wall of water heading your way at 600 miles per hour.
A text message pops up on Shelly's phone. It was our local contact, Joe. The message included the scariest phrase you're likely to see in a text: "Turn on your television." I've used that phrase exactly once without first saying "hello." That was September 11th, 2001. I grabbed the remote.
Video from Japan was streaming in. You've seen it. Pure destruction. Walls of water are sweeping away people, cars, boats, and buildings. And it's scheduled to arrive in Hawaii at 3 am.
There aren't many disasters that have such precise schedules. From our window, if the earth weren't so round, and my eyes were telescopes, we could see Japan. It was a straight line to our door. Luckily for us, we were seven stories up.
The tsunami alarms sounded every hour. Residents in coastal areas were told to get the hell out. And they did. The only people advised to stay were those of us on high floors of buildings. The security department was keeping us updated via the public address system. Lower floors were told to go upstairs to designated areas. We watched as the lights went out in all but a few windows. And we waited.
It was an odd sort of emergency situation. There wasn't a thing we could do to prepare. I decided to sleep, thus proving my claim that I can literally sleep any time I want. But that plan was disturbed every hour by announcements and alarms. The moon was lighting the ocean earlier in the evening, but eventually even the moon evacuated. We knew that somewhere out in the pitch black, coming our way, was enough energy to power, well, everything. And it wasn't happy. The experts emphasized that you can't predict how high a tsunami wave will be. The last big tsunami scare in Hawaii turned out to be mere inches. But it's not news unless you show the worst case scenario. So all night long, the news showed coverage of the tsunami destroying Japan. We waited for our turn, able to visualize the worst case scenario in creepy detail.
Did I mention that I wasn't relaxed? And by that I mean when I was awake. I did manage about seven naps between sirens. That's how I roll.
In the end, the wave reached six feet, flooded some roads, damaged some harbors, but generally behaved itself. Our biggest problem the next morning was finding food. Every business on the island was closed because the town had headed for the hills. And the roads back into town were still closed. So we waited.
That day brought with it the oddest feeling. No one on the island had slept the night of the tsunami. And yet everyone was in a good mood, relieved that the tsunami had been mild. There was no such thing as a stranger that day. We all had a shared experience. You could talk to anyone as if you had known them forever. And we did. It was a rare and wonderful thing. You felt connected to every person as if by telepathy. I know what you did last night.
Then we heard the news of the damage to the nuclear power plants in Japan. I wondered how far and how fast radiation travels. We finished our brief time in Hawaii, and had a great time in spite of the universe's obviously bad mood. Now we're back in California. But the minivan is all gassed up and pointing East.
To Hawaii. On March 10th. Nice little room on the beach.
Damn you, universe!
Before I begin my personal account, allow me to extend my thoughts to Japan. It feels inappropriate to tell my little story in the context of their devastation. But it's the only story I know.
We were preparing for bed on our first night in Hawaii. Shelly gets a call from her aunt. I'm brushing my teeth and listening to one side of the conversation.
Shelly: "Earthquake?"
Now I am left wondering how large is this earthquake, presumable in California, that it warrants a call? Californians don't get excited about anything below a 6.0. Is our house still standing? Did our dog survive? Shelly has my full attention.
Shelly: "...Japan..."
Phew.
Shelly: "8.9..."
What? That can't be right.
Shelly: "...tsunami..."
Poor Japan!
Shelly: "...heading our way..."
I'm not entirely sure that I finished brushing my teeth. There are many ways to begin a relaxing vacation, but none of them involves a wall of water heading your way at 600 miles per hour.
A text message pops up on Shelly's phone. It was our local contact, Joe. The message included the scariest phrase you're likely to see in a text: "Turn on your television." I've used that phrase exactly once without first saying "hello." That was September 11th, 2001. I grabbed the remote.
Video from Japan was streaming in. You've seen it. Pure destruction. Walls of water are sweeping away people, cars, boats, and buildings. And it's scheduled to arrive in Hawaii at 3 am.
There aren't many disasters that have such precise schedules. From our window, if the earth weren't so round, and my eyes were telescopes, we could see Japan. It was a straight line to our door. Luckily for us, we were seven stories up.
The tsunami alarms sounded every hour. Residents in coastal areas were told to get the hell out. And they did. The only people advised to stay were those of us on high floors of buildings. The security department was keeping us updated via the public address system. Lower floors were told to go upstairs to designated areas. We watched as the lights went out in all but a few windows. And we waited.
It was an odd sort of emergency situation. There wasn't a thing we could do to prepare. I decided to sleep, thus proving my claim that I can literally sleep any time I want. But that plan was disturbed every hour by announcements and alarms. The moon was lighting the ocean earlier in the evening, but eventually even the moon evacuated. We knew that somewhere out in the pitch black, coming our way, was enough energy to power, well, everything. And it wasn't happy. The experts emphasized that you can't predict how high a tsunami wave will be. The last big tsunami scare in Hawaii turned out to be mere inches. But it's not news unless you show the worst case scenario. So all night long, the news showed coverage of the tsunami destroying Japan. We waited for our turn, able to visualize the worst case scenario in creepy detail.
Did I mention that I wasn't relaxed? And by that I mean when I was awake. I did manage about seven naps between sirens. That's how I roll.
In the end, the wave reached six feet, flooded some roads, damaged some harbors, but generally behaved itself. Our biggest problem the next morning was finding food. Every business on the island was closed because the town had headed for the hills. And the roads back into town were still closed. So we waited.
That day brought with it the oddest feeling. No one on the island had slept the night of the tsunami. And yet everyone was in a good mood, relieved that the tsunami had been mild. There was no such thing as a stranger that day. We all had a shared experience. You could talk to anyone as if you had known them forever. And we did. It was a rare and wonderful thing. You felt connected to every person as if by telepathy. I know what you did last night.
Then we heard the news of the damage to the nuclear power plants in Japan. I wondered how far and how fast radiation travels. We finished our brief time in Hawaii, and had a great time in spite of the universe's obviously bad mood. Now we're back in California. But the minivan is all gassed up and pointing East.
March 9, 2011
Analogies are Fighting Words - update
If I were to say that Elbonians and rats have something in common - specifically their love of cheese, would that be seen as an insult to Elbonians?
Answer: Yes. While the point of the analogy is extraordinarily clear, and limited to a love of cheese, most people would wonder why I chose rats for the comparison when mice would have worked just as well. Mice are not nearly as insulting as rats.
Suppose you didn't know that I had contemplated using rats in my analogy. Instead, all you heard me say is that Elbonians and mice have something in common - specifically their love of cheese. Would that be seen as an insult to Elbonians?
Answer: Yes. No one wants to be like a mouse, even in a way that happens to be true for just about all mammals. Who doesn't like cheese?
Analogies are fighting words. When I was younger and dumber I often used analogies to try and make my point. This strategy worked exactly zero times. When people hear analogies, it flips a switch in their brains that turns on the crazy. Even the simplest analogies fail when you use them in an attempt to persuade. And they fail every time.
With that said, there are two proper times to use analogies. One way is in the service of humor. Humor is all about activating the crazy part of the brain. If I say I witnessed more horrible things than Charlie Sheen's cat, your brain leaves your logical mode behind. The analogy sets you free.
The second proper time to use analogies is when you want to cause trouble. You should not try this at home. Leave it to the professionals. For example, when you hear Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh getting a lot of heat for something they said, often there is an objectionable analogy at the heart of it. The most famous example is Limbaugh's coining of the word feminazi. If your job involves making people talk about you, analogies can be powerful tools.
[Update: As if on cue, a serious debate turns into a discussion of the appropriateness of the analogy instead. And notice how well analogies work in the service of humor in this example.]
Answer: Yes. While the point of the analogy is extraordinarily clear, and limited to a love of cheese, most people would wonder why I chose rats for the comparison when mice would have worked just as well. Mice are not nearly as insulting as rats.
Suppose you didn't know that I had contemplated using rats in my analogy. Instead, all you heard me say is that Elbonians and mice have something in common - specifically their love of cheese. Would that be seen as an insult to Elbonians?
Answer: Yes. No one wants to be like a mouse, even in a way that happens to be true for just about all mammals. Who doesn't like cheese?
Analogies are fighting words. When I was younger and dumber I often used analogies to try and make my point. This strategy worked exactly zero times. When people hear analogies, it flips a switch in their brains that turns on the crazy. Even the simplest analogies fail when you use them in an attempt to persuade. And they fail every time.
With that said, there are two proper times to use analogies. One way is in the service of humor. Humor is all about activating the crazy part of the brain. If I say I witnessed more horrible things than Charlie Sheen's cat, your brain leaves your logical mode behind. The analogy sets you free.
The second proper time to use analogies is when you want to cause trouble. You should not try this at home. Leave it to the professionals. For example, when you hear Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh getting a lot of heat for something they said, often there is an objectionable analogy at the heart of it. The most famous example is Limbaugh's coining of the word feminazi. If your job involves making people talk about you, analogies can be powerful tools.
[Update: As if on cue, a serious debate turns into a discussion of the appropriateness of the analogy instead. And notice how well analogies work in the service of humor in this example.]
Analogies are Fighting Words
If I were to say that Elbonians and rats have something in common - specifically their love of cheese, would that be seen as an insult to Elbonians?
Answer: Yes. While the point of the analogy is extraordinarily clear, and limited to a love of cheese, most people would wonder why I chose rats for the comparison when mice would have worked just as well. Mice are not nearly as insulting as rats.
Suppose you didn't know that I had contemplated using rats in my analogy. Instead, all you heard me say is that Elbonians and mice have something in common - specifically their love of cheese. Would that be seen as an insult to Elbonians?
Answer: Yes. No one wants to be like a mouse, even in a way that happens to be true for just about all mammals. Who doesn't like cheese?
Analogies are fighting words. When I was younger and dumber I often used analogies to try and make my point. This strategy worked exactly zero times. When people hear analogies, it flips a switch in their brains that turns on the crazy. Even the simplest analogies fail when you use them in an attempt to persuade. And they fail every time.
With that said, there are two proper times to use analogies. One way is in the service of humor. Humor is all about activating the crazy part of the brain. If I say I witnessed more horrible things than Charlie Sheen's cat, your brain leaves your logical mode behind. The analogy sets you free.
The second proper time to use analogies is when you want to cause trouble. You should not try this at home. Leave it to the professionals. For example, when you hear Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh getting a lot of heat for something they said, often there is an objectionable analogy at the heart of it. The most famous example is Limbaugh's coining of the word feminazi. If your job involves making people talk about you, analogies can be powerful tools.
Answer: Yes. While the point of the analogy is extraordinarily clear, and limited to a love of cheese, most people would wonder why I chose rats for the comparison when mice would have worked just as well. Mice are not nearly as insulting as rats.
Suppose you didn't know that I had contemplated using rats in my analogy. Instead, all you heard me say is that Elbonians and mice have something in common - specifically their love of cheese. Would that be seen as an insult to Elbonians?
Answer: Yes. No one wants to be like a mouse, even in a way that happens to be true for just about all mammals. Who doesn't like cheese?
Analogies are fighting words. When I was younger and dumber I often used analogies to try and make my point. This strategy worked exactly zero times. When people hear analogies, it flips a switch in their brains that turns on the crazy. Even the simplest analogies fail when you use them in an attempt to persuade. And they fail every time.
With that said, there are two proper times to use analogies. One way is in the service of humor. Humor is all about activating the crazy part of the brain. If I say I witnessed more horrible things than Charlie Sheen's cat, your brain leaves your logical mode behind. The analogy sets you free.
The second proper time to use analogies is when you want to cause trouble. You should not try this at home. Leave it to the professionals. For example, when you hear Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh getting a lot of heat for something they said, often there is an objectionable analogy at the heart of it. The most famous example is Limbaugh's coining of the word feminazi. If your job involves making people talk about you, analogies can be powerful tools.
March 8, 2011
The Wally Interface Awards
Today's runner-up for the Wally Interface Award goes to HP for its Officejet Pro 8500 printer. The designers cleverly built a key pad with numbers that are almost the same color as the background of the keys, making them effectively invisible in most lighting situations.
You might be quick to point out that the touch screen gives you an easy-to-read alternative to the physical keys. But I've never successfully entered a phone number on it, thanks to the what-you-touch-is-not-what-you-get feature.
And while we're on the topic, I'd like to give a special shout out to the troglodytes who still ask me to send them faxes.
The winner of the Wally Interface Award goes to whoever invented the toilet paper holder with an open side. I suppose the idea was that it was easy to change rolls. And it is.
The downside is that you can't reel in the escaped roll without making things worse.
You might think that people can learn to yank in the correct direction to avoid launching the roll across the room. That would be a good theory if you had never met an actual human being.
You might be quick to point out that the touch screen gives you an easy-to-read alternative to the physical keys. But I've never successfully entered a phone number on it, thanks to the what-you-touch-is-not-what-you-get feature.
And while we're on the topic, I'd like to give a special shout out to the troglodytes who still ask me to send them faxes.
The winner of the Wally Interface Award goes to whoever invented the toilet paper holder with an open side. I suppose the idea was that it was easy to change rolls. And it is.
The downside is that you can't reel in the escaped roll without making things worse.
You might think that people can learn to yank in the correct direction to avoid launching the roll across the room. That would be a good theory if you had never met an actual human being.
March 7, 2011
Post Deleted
I deleted today's post. My regular readers have the capacity to deal with this sort of topic but it gained a bit too much attention from outside my normal reading circle.
Knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Men's Rights
The topic my readers most want me to address is something called men's rights. (See previous post.) This is a surprisingly good topic. It's dangerous. It's relevant. It isn't overdone. And apparently you care.
Let's start with the laundry list.
According to my readers, examples of unfair treatment of men include many elements of the legal system, the military draft in some cases, the lower life expectancies of men, the higher suicide rates for men, circumcision, and the growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women.
You might add to this list the entire area of manners. We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?
Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.
Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.
How about the higher rates for car insurance that young men pay compared to young women? Statistics support this inequity, but I don't think anyone believes the situation would be legal if women were charged more for car insurance, no matter what the statistics said.
Women will counter with their own list of wrongs, starting with the well-known statistic that women earn only 80 cents on the dollar, on average, compared to what men earn for the same jobs. My readers will argue that if any two groups of people act differently, on average, one group is likely to get better results. On average, men negotiate pay differently and approach risk differently than women.
Women will point out that few females are in top management jobs. Men will argue that if you ask a sample group of young men and young women if they would be willing to take the personal sacrifices needed to someday achieve such power, men are far more likely to say yes. In my personal non-scientific polling, men are about ten times more likely than women to trade family time for the highest level of career success.
Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men's rights:
Get over it, you bunch of pussies.
The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.
How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It's called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you're still crying about your pawn when you're having your way with the queen, there's something wrong with you and it isn't men's rights.
Fairness is an illusion. It's unobtainable in the real world. I'm happy that I can open jars with my bare hands. I like being able to lift heavy objects. And I don't mind that women get served first in restaurants because I don't like staring at food that I can't yet eat.
If you're feeling unfairly treated because women outlive men, try visiting an Assisted Living facility and see how delighted the old ladies are about the extra ten years of pushing the walker around. It makes dying look like a bargain.
I don't like the fact that the legal system treats men more harshly than women. But part of being male is the automatic feeling of team. If someone on the team screws up, we all take the hit. Don't kid yourself that men haven't earned some harsh treatment from the legal system. On the plus side, if I'm trapped in a burning car someday, a man will be the one pulling me out. That's the team I want to be on.
I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying women are similar to either group. I'm saying that a man's best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he's smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don't care about 90% of what is happening around us.
I just did a little test to see if I knew what pajama bottoms I was wearing without looking. I failed.
Let's start with the laundry list.
According to my readers, examples of unfair treatment of men include many elements of the legal system, the military draft in some cases, the lower life expectancies of men, the higher suicide rates for men, circumcision, and the growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women.
You might add to this list the entire area of manners. We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?
Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.
Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.
How about the higher rates for car insurance that young men pay compared to young women? Statistics support this inequity, but I don't think anyone believes the situation would be legal if women were charged more for car insurance, no matter what the statistics said.
Women will counter with their own list of wrongs, starting with the well-known statistic that women earn only 80 cents on the dollar, on average, compared to what men earn for the same jobs. My readers will argue that if any two groups of people act differently, on average, one group is likely to get better results. On average, men negotiate pay differently and approach risk differently than women.
Women will point out that few females are in top management jobs. Men will argue that if you ask a sample group of young men and young women if they would be willing to take the personal sacrifices needed to someday achieve such power, men are far more likely to say yes. In my personal non-scientific polling, men are about ten times more likely than women to trade family time for the highest level of career success.
Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men's rights:
Get over it, you bunch of pussies.
The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It's just easier this way for everyone. You don't argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn't eat candy for dinner. You don't punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don't argue when a women tells you she's only making 80 cents to your dollar. It's the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.
How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It's called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you're still crying about your pawn when you're having your way with the queen, there's something wrong with you and it isn't men's rights.
Fairness is an illusion. It's unobtainable in the real world. I'm happy that I can open jars with my bare hands. I like being able to lift heavy objects. And I don't mind that women get served first in restaurants because I don't like staring at food that I can't yet eat.
If you're feeling unfairly treated because women outlive men, try visiting an Assisted Living facility and see how delighted the old ladies are about the extra ten years of pushing the walker around. It makes dying look like a bargain.
I don't like the fact that the legal system treats men more harshly than women. But part of being male is the automatic feeling of team. If someone on the team screws up, we all take the hit. Don't kid yourself that men haven't earned some harsh treatment from the legal system. On the plus side, if I'm trapped in a burning car someday, a man will be the one pulling me out. That's the team I want to be on.
I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying women are similar to either group. I'm saying that a man's best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he's smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don't care about 90% of what is happening around us.
I just did a little test to see if I knew what pajama bottoms I was wearing without looking. I failed.
March 4, 2011
Reader's Choice
Pick a topic and I'll write about it. Or vote in the comment section for the topic you like best and I'll be most influenced by popular demand.
This is more of an experiment than a time-saving device on my part. Let's see what happens.
This is more of an experiment than a time-saving device on my part. Let's see what happens.
March 3, 2011
I Hate it When That Happens
I need you to tell me what's wrong with the line of reasoning I'll describe below. I'm embarrassed that I can't figure it out myself. It's not a trick. I'm genuinely curious where my blind spot is.
The argument I'll describe isn't new. I've written on this topic before, just for fun. But I don't recall seeing anyone explain why it's wrong. I'll number the assumptions and components so you can more easily tell me where the reasoning is broken.
1. If humanity survives long enough, our technology will reach the point where we can send an unmanned rocket to a distant planet that we deduce has a reasonable chance of sustaining life.
2. By the time we can do such a thing, hundreds or even thousands of years from now, the cost of each space flight will be far more affordable than now.
3. Private organizations could have the resources to send such rockets, so there might be a wide variety of reasons to do so, including religious, scientific, and philosophical motives.
4. One of those reasons could be to "seed" other planets with the building blocks of life as found on Earth. The impulse to do this will seem greater if life on Earth is threatened with an impending natural disaster.
5. We humans often perceive that the end of the world is near. If it isn't a meteor, or nuclear war, or climate change, or super virus, it's something new. We're good at feeling doomed.
6. Those unmanned space flights might take millions of years apiece, but unless a rocket strikes something in the vast emptiness of space, it can be built to survive the trip.
7. The rockets will contain the basic building blocks of life, and by then we will have the knowhow to store those ingredients without the risk of degrading.
8. Future humans will assume that evolution will do its thing on the new planet and create a wide variety of life. And there would be a strong possibility that in at least one of the seeded planets some version of intelligent life, much like us, would evolve.
9. Future humans will know that they need to send many rockets toward many planets if their goal is to successfully seed at least one with life.
10. When the intelligent life on those other planets evolves to the same level of technology as the civilization that created them, they are likely to repeat the cycle, sending out their own rockets to seed yet more planets with their own building blocks of life.
11. If all of these steps are likely to happen in the future, there is a strong chance it has already happened, and we are an intermediate step and not the ones who will someday go first.
12. Considering all of these assumptions and likelihoods, we are more likely than not a result of an alien seeding operation.
One argument against this line of thinking is that we won't ever have the technology, resources, or desire to seed other planets. But I think all of those things are likely unless technological and financial progress ends within the next thousand years. I'm optimistic that humans can last at least that long.
Another argument against this line of thinking is that life might happen routinely whenever a planet with water and chemical diversity is a certain distance from its sun. Therefore, no seeding is needed. But assuming we can’t know that for sure at the time we send out the seed ships, given that the distances will make direct observations impossible, that could mean that some number of planets have both naturally occurring and seeded forms of life at the same time.
Where is the argument broken?
The argument I'll describe isn't new. I've written on this topic before, just for fun. But I don't recall seeing anyone explain why it's wrong. I'll number the assumptions and components so you can more easily tell me where the reasoning is broken.
1. If humanity survives long enough, our technology will reach the point where we can send an unmanned rocket to a distant planet that we deduce has a reasonable chance of sustaining life.
2. By the time we can do such a thing, hundreds or even thousands of years from now, the cost of each space flight will be far more affordable than now.
3. Private organizations could have the resources to send such rockets, so there might be a wide variety of reasons to do so, including religious, scientific, and philosophical motives.
4. One of those reasons could be to "seed" other planets with the building blocks of life as found on Earth. The impulse to do this will seem greater if life on Earth is threatened with an impending natural disaster.
5. We humans often perceive that the end of the world is near. If it isn't a meteor, or nuclear war, or climate change, or super virus, it's something new. We're good at feeling doomed.
6. Those unmanned space flights might take millions of years apiece, but unless a rocket strikes something in the vast emptiness of space, it can be built to survive the trip.
7. The rockets will contain the basic building blocks of life, and by then we will have the knowhow to store those ingredients without the risk of degrading.
8. Future humans will assume that evolution will do its thing on the new planet and create a wide variety of life. And there would be a strong possibility that in at least one of the seeded planets some version of intelligent life, much like us, would evolve.
9. Future humans will know that they need to send many rockets toward many planets if their goal is to successfully seed at least one with life.
10. When the intelligent life on those other planets evolves to the same level of technology as the civilization that created them, they are likely to repeat the cycle, sending out their own rockets to seed yet more planets with their own building blocks of life.
11. If all of these steps are likely to happen in the future, there is a strong chance it has already happened, and we are an intermediate step and not the ones who will someday go first.
12. Considering all of these assumptions and likelihoods, we are more likely than not a result of an alien seeding operation.
One argument against this line of thinking is that we won't ever have the technology, resources, or desire to seed other planets. But I think all of those things are likely unless technological and financial progress ends within the next thousand years. I'm optimistic that humans can last at least that long.
Another argument against this line of thinking is that life might happen routinely whenever a planet with water and chemical diversity is a certain distance from its sun. Therefore, no seeding is needed. But assuming we can’t know that for sure at the time we send out the seed ships, given that the distances will make direct observations impossible, that could mean that some number of planets have both naturally occurring and seeded forms of life at the same time.
Where is the argument broken?
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.
