Scott Adams

Scott Adams, the man most known for his Dilbert comic, died this morning.  I first became aware of Adams when Dilbert appeared in the comic section.  Of course, I didn't much like Dilbert.  I preferred The Far Side and Calvin & Hobbes.  More than 20 years later, I encountered his blog.  He had taken up political writing, which fell right into my field of interests.  Though I often disagreed with his views on subjects, he was quite engaging and often came at topics from an interesting angle.  He would often preface his opinions by saying "I'm a trained hypnotist."  To him, persuasion was the most important thing, while being right or wrong was often secondary.  Not that it wasn't important to be right, but an unpersuasive right will lose every time to a persuasive wrong.  This was keen observation, especially when facts are weak persuasion compared to emotion.

During the 2016 campaign, Scott became a key source for me.  His analysis frequently annoyed me, but all too often proved more accurate than I expected.  He and I were looking at things differently, but his views tracked better.  So I bought his book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.  Then I bought God's Debris.  Loserthink and Reframe Your Brain also joined my library.  He switched from blogging to streaming.  I watched his stream and was a paying member of his Locals channel for a while.  Though clearly a fan, I still couldn't get into Dilbert.  But that's okay.  He was so much more than the Dilbert guy.

RIP

Thoughts on the Simulation

For those not in the know, the simulation hypothesis is that we are nothing more than a computer simulation by a vastly more advanced civilization.  Kind of like The Sims game, only with more polygons.  Scott Adams and Elon Musk are proponents of the hypothesis.  After all, we have begun making computer simulations that have rapidly improved.  What will they be like in a hundred years?  Will it be possible to tell reality from virtual reality?  It's the Matrix.  It is inevitable that there will be many simulations as computer technology advances.  What are the odds that we are the original and will be the ones who produce countless virtual realities with NPCs who think they are real vs. we are one of the many simulations created by the originals?  Adams and Musk think it is unlikely that we are the first.

One thing I find particularly interesting about the simulation hypothesis is that Christianity has an odd compatibility with it.  God (i.e., the programmer) has indeed created the universe.  Like most programmers of such simulations, he has an avatar so he too can "play" the game: Jesus.  Ergo, Jesus really is God.  That parallel is weird.  The Holy Spirit would be the program itself, the coding that makes the world work the way it works.  Gee, that's always present.  Moreover, the program literally knows all.  The data logs of a well-designed program will show what everything has done and when.  Yeah, the programmer has a record of all the errors (i.e., sins) committed by the players.

Scott Adams holds that those who embrace the simulation hypothesis are able to influence reality.  Of course, he is all about framing, viewing things in a way that maximizes your odds of success, which might not correspond with actual reality.

Reframe Your Brain

Scott Adams holds that your brain is just a moist computer and, just like a computer, it can be programmed.  This book provides the code to reprogram your brain.  If your thoughts guide your actions, then changing your thoughts will lead to a change in your actions.  Often times, the code doesn't need to make sense.  One of his more effective ways of cutting down on drinking was to say to himself that 'alcohol is poison.'  Though not literally true, his brain soon accepted this reframe and he very rarely drinks.  Really, who wants to drink poison.  Some have used this same reframe except for sugar.  'Sugar is poison' might be a good way to lose weight.  The idea is to have a particular thought appear when you are tempted.

You: Gee, that candy bar looks tasty.

Your brain: Sugar is poison.

You: Better not.

The point is to get the reframe stuck in your head.  Many of his reframes are just looking at things from a different perspective.  He suggests replacing 'be yourself' with 'become a better version of yourself.'

The book is packed with reframes to implement.  There are reframes for success, mental health, social life, physical fitness, and even reality.  Many appeared silly, but a reframe does not need to make sense to be effective.  If you view the world as a computer simulation and yourself as just a player, that might be an effective way to motivate yourself.  Won't work for everyone, but you just need to find the reframes that work for you.

As a regular viewer of his podcast, Coffee with Scott Adams, I had been exposed to his reframes already.  This is a great resource for upgrading the software in your brain.  Recommended.

Quiz for Low Info Voters

Scott Adams proposed a test to determine if one is a low-information voter.  Here are some of his suggested questions:

1. Did Trump colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 election?

2. Did the FBI colluded to overthrow the government?

3. Do you believe the Fine People hoax?

4. Has science proven that HCQ is ineffective for COVID and in fact is dangerous?

5. Do we already know which leaders did a good vs. bad job on coronavirus management?

6. Do you believe China is more of a threat or a partner?

None of these are opinion questions.  All have factual answers.  Have you answered them?  Okay, here are the correct answers, per Scott Adams:

1. No

2. Yes

3. No

4. No

5. No

6. Threat

Depending on how many you got correct, you may be a low information voter.  If you are a low information voter, expand your sources for news.

The Coming Civil Wars

Scott Adams has predicted that civil wars - yes, plural! - are coming.

Civil War # 1: The coming election is likely to be a disaster, by design.  Mail-in voting will provide for a huge amount of fraud and/or disenfranchisement.  Unless one candidate wins by landslide regardless of voting concerns, the losing side will go ballistic.  Mail-in voting increases the likely would of an unclear outcome and will lead to a contested election like 2000 where individual votes were argued based on the condition of the chad on the ballot.  That was in Florida only.  Now do that nationwide.

If Biden pulls out a win in the same manner of Al Franken in 2008 (i.e. after the initial count and first recount gave the win to his opponent, a 2nd recount 'found' votes that put Franken in office), we might see a civil war where red states secede.  Unlikely, but it has been a high-stress year; high stress can lead to crazy results.

If Trump wins by anything other than a massive landslide (unlikely), it will inevitably be declared a rigged election.  There will be claims of disenfranchisement or Russian collusion or Chinese collusion or whatever sounds good at the time.  That will probably happen even if Trump wins 50 states and the District of Columbia.  If it is less than a landslide (likely), Antifa and BLM will up their games.

Civil War # 2: The body camera footage of the George Floyd arrest has been released.  He had been placed in the back of the police car but struggled to get back out, saying he couldn't breath.  He was making claims about being unable to breath prior to being held on the ground.  That would obviously change what the officers thought when he continued saying it.  The likelihood that they are found not guilty just rose dramatically.  If we've had nationwide protests in the wake of Floyd's death, what will happen when the officers are acquitted?

Scott views these as coming and we should prepare.  He has been shown to be pretty good at predicting events.

Loserthink

Scott Adams latest book gives advice on how to avoid unproductive thinking, Loserthink is the term he coins.  Perhaps the most common type of loserthink is to believe one can read minds.  For example, when someone says they are opposed to illegal immigration, critics invariably accuse the person of racism.  The critic presumes what is in the mind of the border control advocate.  Such does not advance opposing sides to a reasonable solution but only hardens differences and makes a compromise more difficult.  That is a key factor in loserthink; it doesn't lead toward resolution and is thus unhelpful.

Each chapter proposes that one think like a different kind of professional: economist, entrepreneur, historian, psychologist, leader, etc.  Each has a particular way of viewing issues that is unique to them and a cure for various types of loserthink.  Some of the suggestions are:

- Use ego as a tool, not an identity.  Too often ego prevents one from recognizing errors.

- The past is gone.  Don't let it influence current thinking.  Don't throw good money after bad.

- If the big picture is good, don't get caught arguing over the little things.
- Fairness is subjective.  The best you can do is equality under the law.
- Arguing by coincidence/anecdote is usually just confirmation bias.
- Analogies are good for explaining, not predicting.

There are many and all far more thoroughly discussed.  Everyone is in a bubble of their own biases and these are tools to help recognize when you are in a bubble and also how to pop the bubble of others.  He freely admits to committing loserthink on a regular basis himself but these techniques have helped to identify when or, in many cases, have it shoved in his face by others who have read the book.

 

Worthwhile read.

Hoaxed (2019)

Hoaxed is a movie about the fake news, mainly told by fringe figures of the media landscape.  Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich, Scott Adams, Jordan Peterson, James O'Keefe, Tim Pool, and other online personalities provide their perspectives.  Having read two of Scott Adams' books, Jordan Peterson's book, and being a regular viewer of Tim Pool's YouTube channel, I was familiar with most of the complaints leveled.  Of course, the leftist slant of the media is covered, which was old news to me.  However, there were some surprises.

 

Cassie Jaye, an actress turned documentary director, had some success with feminist films.  She decided to tackle the men's rights movement in her next film.  Though she expected to uncover bigotry and misogyny, her interviews and research led her to different conclusions.  To her surprise, she was attacked by former allies for creating a pro-male film and abandoning feminism.  Though I have not seen the film, I did watch her Ted Talk.  She diverged from the party line and was attacked.

 

Multiple personalities noted that the media highlights conflict because it leads to more viewers on TV or more clicks on the internet.  If it bleeds, it leads.  That's hardly a surprise.  However, a Black Lives Matter activist was interviewed.  While in Washington DC with his group, he had seen some All Lives Matter folks and things looked tense.  But he was invited to speak and the two groups found common ground.  He was cheered by the crowd.  Here was the feel-good story of the day and somehow it didn't make it into the news.  The BLM activist was asked if he had heard of Dylan Roof storming into a black church in South Carolina.  Of course.  How about Emanuel Samson (a black man) storming into a church and shooting white people in Tennessee?  No, had not heard that story.  Nor had I.  One fits the America is racist narrative and the other doesn't.

 

The big surprise was that the media hypes conflict.  Conflict generates viewers and viewers generate money.  A war provides a 24/7 news cycle and high ratings.  Does the media provide fake news to lead to war?  The Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened.  The media floated the government line and Vietnam escalated dramatically.  Was the media more circumspect the next time government pushed for war?  Well, it has since been proven that the babies being yanked from incubators story that turned opinion for the first Gulf War (1991) was false.  Never happened.  Again, the media was fooled.  Or were they?  CNN had awesome ratings throughout the Gulf War.  Was Saddam really trying to build nukes as George W Bush said?  Judith Miller was eventually dumped by the New York Times because her stories about weapons of mass destruction proved inaccurate.  Oh, but the ratings were fabulous.  This is a really dark view of the media.

 

This only scratches the surface of topics from the two-hour movie.  It is an exploration of what the media has become.  The media has become an echo chamber - best exemplified by Twitter - and it thrives on conflict.  Rather than providing news, it sows division.  At least, that is what is argued here.  Check it out.

Funny Tweet

Not a Twitter person myself, I do visit sites that reference tweets or give links to them with surprising frequency.  Here is a particularly funny one that Scott Adams linked in a recent blog:

It's still early days and much too soon to think this tweet will hold for his entire presidency.  Indeed, he only just got his Attorney General confirmed.  Maybe he will use the IRS to silence his enemies, just like his predecessor.  Dr. Ben Carson endured his first IRS audit in the wake of speaking against Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast and countless Tea Party groups were harassed by IRS and other federal agencies.  Maybe he will selectively enforce laws to punish his critics, just like his predecessor did to Dinesh D'Souza or Senator Bob Menendez.  He has already rolled out the attacks on some news agencies, just like Obama did with regard to Fox News Channel.  I suppose all of these would just be a status quo ante with new management.

God's Debris

A delivery man arrives at a house with a package.  No one answers when he knocks.  Not wanting to come back, he checks the door.  Open!  He enters and finds a wizened old man sitting near a fire.  The man, claiming to be The Avatar, declares that he has been expecting him.  A debate soon follows as to whether the delivery man delivered the package or the package delivered the delivery man.  The entire book is a conversation - mostly a lecture - in front of the fire place.  A variety of philosophical questions are addressed where the old man explains how the universe works.

 

Considering the title, it is not surprising that God figures heavily.  After extracting a description of God from the delivery man, the old man offers some clear conclusions.  First, if God is omniscient, how can there be free will?  If God knows every decision that will be made beforehand, then all was predestined.  Therefore, if God is omniscient, why bother with creation?  He knows all the answers before he begins.  What is the one thing an omniscient, omnipotent being might not know?  The old man suggests that such a being might not know if he can destroy himself.  Thus, the Big Bang was God's attempt to destroy himself and all of creation is God's debris.  Interesting thought.  But with God out of action, do we have free will?  No.  Every decision is a result of inputs and there is only an illusion of free will.  But doesn't that mean no one is truly responsible for their actions?  The old man explains that it is useful to an orderly society to act as though they do.  Huh?  Isn't it all foreordained?

 

The old man does not limit himself to such philosophical questions but ventures into physics, biology, and statistics.  He lays a foundation by noting how a quantum physics has shown particles appear from empty space.  He then proposes that all matter phases in and out of existence and where it returns is based on probability.  God dust is more likely to appear near other God dust, which is why we have gravity.  The purpose of existence is to reconstruct God, thus evolution is always in the direction of more complex and advanced creatures.

 

Each chapter offers random musings on some aspect of the world.  Several things that the old man has to say is repeated in the other Scott Adams book that I read.  One notable thing was that everyone is living in a personal delusion and that the truth is unknowable.  The human mind evolved to survive, not objectively determine truth.  The best one can hope for is that your delusion - be it religion, science, philosophy, etc. - provides the opportunity to procreate.  But going back to that free will thing, why discuss any of this?  We don't have free will, it is all predetermined.  Understanding changes nothing though it might provide a more palatable delusion.

 

The book is meant as a thought experiment and Adams did warn that some of what the Avatar said was demonstrably wrong.  Adams also states that his belief system is not covered in this fictional story.  Therefore, this is not Adams' philosophy offered in a fictional story.  In the end, the delivery man has achieved a higher state of awareness, the highest that a human mind can achieve.

 

Mediocre but happily brief.

How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big

A couple of months ago, I started reading Scott Adams blog; he's the guy that does Dilbert.  At the end of every blog, he has a line about buying his book because of some random and often unrelated fact.  Amazingly, he convinced me!  I bought the book and finished it this morning.

It is not a long book and is surprisingly autobiographical.  He outlines his system for success and posits that it might work for you too.  One of the first things he hits and repeats through the book is that 'goals are for losers.'  Wow, there's a line I've not heard.  He reasoning is that a goal is a perpetual defeat until you get there.  Many will give up before the goal is achieved.  He suggests having a system, a series of habits that will inevitably lead in the chosen direction.  By using a system, every advance becomes a success.  Really, it is almost the same thing but it changes the psychology.  He really likes to change the psychology to address problems.

Being a computer programmer and very tech savvy, Adams views his brain as a moist computer that can be programmed.  He offers many examples where he would reprogram his brain, which often comes down to forming new habits.

Personal energy enables you to do more with the finite amount of time you have.  This leads to long chapters on remaining fit and eating healthy, requirements for keeping personal energy high.  Every new skill you acquire doubles your chances for success.  Well, he admits the doubling is arbitrary but the point is that more skills will provide more opportunities.  Happiness = health + freedom.  Luck is somewhat manageable.  Conquer shyness by being a phony (that's a good one).  Lastly, simplicity turns the ordinary into the extraordinary.  I list these almost verbatim from the summary in the introduction.

Early in the book, he mentions a score of get-rich projects that he tried, almost all of which failed; Dilbert was the great success.  Among the failures were a couple of restaurants, multiple computer programs, the Dilberito, a grocery delivery service, a video-sharing site before YouTube (timing is everything; internet connections were too slow for such a site when he tried it), and many others.  The moral is that if you try lots of things, you increase your odds of success while also gaining new skills even if these ideas fail.  See, even in failure, he chose to view them as projects that gained him skills and insights to use in future endeavors.

 

Interestingly, I have never much liked the Dilbert comic despite having been in the tech field for many years.  I rarely find them funny and, even when I do, it evokes a wry smile rather than a laugh.  However, I very much enjoyed the book and will likely read another of his non-Dilbert books.  I've already sought to implement some of his suggestions.  Thumbs up!

Who Does ISIS Prefer?

Scott Adams, famed for his Dilbert comic strip, also has an interesting blog.  In a recent twitter post, he posited that ISIS could influence the election if it sponsored a big terror attack before election day.  Trump has seen his numbers rise after recent attacks as his border wall and Muslim immigration ban look more reasonable.  If no attack, the relentless stories of his racism and bigotry lessen approval of these plans and see Hillary's numbers improve comparatively.  Therefore, staging or not staging an attack will tell which candidate that ISIS prefers as president.

 

The goal of his tweet was to see how Clinton supporters reacted to the suggestion that ISIS may prefer Hillary.  He called it a Lesson in Cognitive Dissonance.  Worth reading.