> This was the world of Dilbert’s rise. You’d put a Dilbert comic on your cubicle wall, and feel like you’d gotten away with something
My former manager used to have Dilbert comic strips on his wall. It always puzzled me - was it self deprecating humor? At a certain point though it became clear that in his mind the PHB was one layer ABOVE him in the management chain and not anyone at his level. I suspect it may be a recursive pattern.
> “Dilbert” was a war cry against the management class — the system of deluded jerks you work for who think they know better. Workers posted it on their cubicles like resistance fighters chalking V’s on walls in occupied Paris. But their bosses posted “Dilbert” in their offices too, since they also had a boss who was an idiot.
When in the 1990s-00s people posted Dilbert strips, it wasn't, IME, because they identified with the character Dilbert.
They did it because they saw in their work environment echoes of the environment portrayed in the comic, of which Dilbert was as much a part as the PHB.
For what it's worth, the only company where I posted Dilbert art (two animation cels that my wife bought for me from eBay) was nothing like the Dilbert world. It's just that I loved Dilbert and I thought it was a funny decoration.
Someone told me early in my career that the longer you work in an office, the more Office Space transforms from a comedy to a documentary. They weren't wrong...
The day before the night I first saw Office Space, way after becoming an underground hit, I had my first encounter with the TPS communication barrage. It made the movie funnier and my work life sadder.
Yeah that. Some ethics and management training programmes leveraged it because they thought it was popular. I still have a dilbert ethics training certificate somewhere as a reminder of how fucked up corp culture is.
American corp in Europe for ref. Defence. Absolute top tier stereotype asshats.
There is a Dilbert takeaway i use at work today: the only thing an employee really wants is more money for the same work/pain, or less work/pain for the same money. I dont do trinkets and titles. My people get as much time off as i can provide, and i will sign most anything that means they get paid a little more.
Titles are useful, because they are essentially free to the company, and (some) employees value them. And valuing titles can be rational, even if worker herself doesn't care, because they can look good on the CV and to friends and families.
Some 'trinkets' are worth more to the employees than they cost the company to provide. So it's rational to provide them. Think of Wally's beloved coffee for an example. Or look at Googlers' lunch.
I believe a lot of workers want a fulfilling career, a sense of purpose and the knowledge their work matters. After they have their material needs covered, other aspects start becoming dominant.
Cubicle, you say? LUXURY! We had to code 12 of us to a desk inside a cardboard box in the middle of the road. At the end of every day, Pointed-Haired Boss would replace us with A.I. and fire us, only to re-hire us the next day at half the salary.
The open workroom was a relatively short fad pioneered by Frank Lloyd Wright. If you look at office buildings before that, they're much more similar to houses and apartments. Lots of rooms connected by hallways, staircases, and atriums. You can imagine the difficulty and expense of lighting a large open space without electricity.
Your manager had a boss, too. She had to deal with the oddities and frustrations of corporate life and expectations, too.
Even your CEO has a board to deal with.
I always think it's strange when people draw a mental dividing line between ICs and managers and think people on the other side are living in totally different experiences of the world.
A decent manager, especially a low level manager of ICs, will work hard to shield her charges from the full impact of the company's bureaucracy. And even a mediocre manager can't help but do some of that: they usually still have to approve time off requests and deal with the paperwork for performance evaluations etc.
Yeah, I sometimes miss the more simple IC life. Office politics is a more of a problem in management, but also dealing with humans all the time is just more messy.
I get that we’re all part of the same system, but I consider Office Space a nihilistic rejection of the entirety of that system. It’s not just “my boss is dumb,” it’s “this whole system is anti-human and dumb, and we’d all be happier working outside with our muscles.”
And it’s totally appropriate for that message to resonate with my boss, but it’s weird for my boss to make that message the focus of what is ostensibly a corporate team-building event.
Edit: just realized I used a “it’s not just this, it’s that” construction. I swear I’m not an LLM, but maybe their prose is infecting my brain.
> but it’s weird for my boss to make that message the focus of what is ostensibly a corporate team-building event.
Having been a manager: I bet your boss didn't want to be there any more than you did. They were forced to do corporate team-building and they recognized the absurdity of it all.
So they tried to come up with something entertaining that they could claim was passably work-related. They were trying to do their best by you within the constraints of what was mandated by their job.
This looks like a nice gesture. You are too occupied viewing your manager as "the other" to recognize when they were trying to bond and do something nice for the team within the constraints of their job.
You're lucky. At corporate team-building retreats I never got to watch any fun movies. One had us listen to lectures by a manager whose primary experience was as a little league coach and who thought leading his team was the same thing. The other involved the manager giving us a psychology test of his own creation and trying to lecture us about what he thought our learning styles and weaknesses were based on all the different self-help books he read.
Totally valid that my boss probably didn’t want to be there either, but for context this was circa 2008 Google where “offsite” meant “go spend company money to do something fun.”
Alternatives were literally things like going to Napa or an amusement park or go-karting. Or if you really wanted to watch a movie, the options were all other movies. Why pick the one that digs at the tenets of your shared reality?
Office Space has become a part of the corporate culture's shared language. You are out of the loop if you haven't seen it, and it wouldn't surprise me that a lot of people are introduced to it in a work-related environment (as I was).
Because your manager might have been dealing with something privately, and didn't feel like doing something fun, but had to because the Gods Of Corporate decreed it so.
And so, an act of rebellion against a shared reality that forces you to have fun on schedule when it's time for the quarterly offsite.
Don't worry, your use of its not X, it's Y did not trigger the LLM pattern match for me. I think the main reason is that your two clauses are of very disparate lengths. LLMs use its X not Y as a rhetorical device that relies on brevity and punchiness, while your longer quote has the authentic ring of clumsy, human phrasing.
>And it’s totally appropriate for that message to resonate with my boss, but it’s weird for my boss to make that message the focus of what is ostensibly a corporate team-building event.
That just means they valued their actual sentiments more than keeping appearances. Doesn't sound weird: it sounds humane.
>Alternatives were literally things like going to Napa or an amusement park or go-karting. Or if you really wanted to watch a movie, the options were all other movies. Why pick the one that digs at the tenets of your shared reality?
To point at the elephant in the room, as opposed to just go on with the program and have another forced fun session.
I mean, your questions amount to "why couldn't she just be a good cog and pretend like the rest of us?"
It's like being surprised a coworker is a human on the inside.
> Edit: just realized I used a “it’s not just this, it’s that” construction. I swear I’m not an LLM, but maybe their prose is infecting my brain.
LLMs didn't come up with their quirks in a vacuum. Humans always influenced each other in their language use.
It used to be over sound waves mostly but they don't travel far, then came the printing press, later radio and TV. LLMs are just another language blender.
It seems to me that line managers straddle the line somewhat and above that is where it is a really different world. I have started a company and now back to being an IC so been on both sides of it. It's not totally different, but it is a lot.
I've been back and forth between manager and IC, too.
It is different. I won't deny that.
However, politics and corporate absurdist formalities aren't exclusive to management. A lot of the corporate politics and face-palm worthy office games I've dealt with came from ICs, either as my peers, reports, or as some other manager's reports.
We just tend to give a pass to ICs when they do it because they're not viewed as having as much power in the office.
Can confirm, as an EM this is very true. The best you can hope for is that we're transparent with you about the BS and don't BS you. That's what I try to do.
> my former manager organized an offsite where we all watched Office Space together.
Working in management is infinitely more soul crushing than being Peter Gibbons.
I literally brought up The Peter Principle when I quit a job like that.
Office Space is a parable about a software developer who doesn’t want to be promoted beyond his core competency. Peter Gibbons is fighting the Peter Principle.
> Office Space is a parable about a software developer who doesn’t want to be promoted beyond his core competency.
I always thought Lumberg gets a somewhat un-derserved bad rap in that flick. He is characterized as the villain and of course is—from Peter’s perspective which is where the story is told. But within that universe and at a 10,000 foot POV was he? He seems to be the only one within the corporation that is actually functional, capable, motivated and excelling in his role. No doubt he is a dick, but that’s just part of his role and he’s good at it. He’s a cog, knows he’s a cog, but realizes the machine still needs to run. He recognizes that Peter has hit that competence/incompetence point. He also realizes the Bob’s are incompetent, but powerful. He really is the only one that seems to realize everything that is going on.
His communication deficit was too big to actually be a good manager, no?
(Well, maybe not. Maybe being soul-crushingly efficient is optimal if you know most people will fluctuate out soon anyway, so your lack of ability to actually build a rapport with them is not a material impediment to deliver results sustainably.)
Shit rolls downhill...and most people just try to keep an eye on where the next turd comes from without bothering to watch where it goes after it's past them.
I watched Office Space with a bunch of coworkers at a previous job. It's a funny movie that most people in startups view as a parody of big company office life. Our company didn't function like the movie.
You sound as though you worked for one of my managers, though he just gave everyone a copy of the DVD for Christmas one year. The thing is, he definitely got it, knew he was part of the system, and did his best to take care of the people working for him.
I don't have stats to back it up, but many people claim that Office Space made a lot of people resign their cubicle jobs and this was a sharp effect on its release.
Office Space was released in 1999, at the peak of the dot-com bubble. So, of course office jobs (particularly software jobs) would decrease when that bubble popped.
I specifically avoided making the claim because you really cannot prove either way
I remember when it was released, I graduated that year, and I remember the reactions at the time
it would still be anecdotal and it's hard to know how many people did in fact resign as a result of the impact from this film, and if it's something that would make any difference in the grand scheme of things
Any truly popular art relies on finding an emotional hook that’s specific enough to identify with strongly but broad enough that most people can see themselves in it. Everyone’s felt their boss is an asshole and their underlings are idiots, so they identify with that emotion rather than the specifics of Dilbert being an engineer. Most of Dilbert’s complaints map pretty well to the conflict between any other kind of individual contributor role dealing with management.
I think everybody, with few exceptions, is in the system involuntarily. And also you can't say that that you don't want to be in the system. You have to fake it very hard if you want to "win". You have to demonstrate "passion" and such.
My boss refused to allow people to call him boss, for example. He really hated the system.
Great question. The best team I can name had these things going for them:
- Constrained scope (they were the UI team on an internal product; by the time they got their marching orders the whole thing was a very well understood problem domain)
- Excellent manager (he has infinite calm, deep empathy for the fact that real people are messy and complicated, and an incredible nose for time estimates). There was basically no amount of pressure up-chain could put on him that would shake his cool; he seems to be completely confident internally that the worst-case scenario is he goes and lands on his feet somewhere else.
As a result, his team was basically always happy and high-performing and he consistently missed up-chain expectations set by project managers above him who had to consistently report that UI wasn't going to be delivered on the timeline they set because they had taken his estimates and shaved three weeks off of them, only to discover that the estimates were dead-on and they were the liars. He was insulated from this by (a) keeping consistently good notes on his initial estimates, everything that bumped them, and the final deliverable dates and (b) having skip-level meetings where he could present all of this to his boss's boss clearly.
"His contract in another division at Apple had just ended, so he told his manager that he would start reporting to me. She didn't ask who I was and let him keep his office and badge. In turn, I told people that I was reporting to him. Since that left no managers in the loop, we had no meetings and could be extremely productive."
For those looking for a "successor theory" to the Dilbert Principle, I highly suggest Venkatesh Rao's Gervais Principle [0].
To use Dilbert terms: Adams would say that PHB is dumb and he is promoted into management as that's where he can do the least damage.
Rao would say that PHB is actually put there by upper management to be a combination of:
- fall guy/lightning rod to take blame for failed projects
- dumb subordinates are less likely to try to take your job (dumb doesn't mean unintelligent. Rather, Rao uses the term "clueless" to highlight smart people who are not political)
There's also the Commander In-Chief of the German reichswehr quote about officers:
"I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
It's nice to see someone else (unsurprisingly) reached identical conclusions as me! I would like to try adding a 3rd reason: dumb subordinates don't upset the apple cart because they don't really have the capacity to do so, and people in power hate upsetting the apple cart as they love the status quo that puts them in power.
Smart, moral people have practically a compulsion to improve things, or at least call out idiocy.
I would also add the need for an actual reason to promote the PHB, and I would argue that one quantifiable way upper management can try to argue for a promotion of the PHB is how "hard they work" (regardless if they achieve results or not). Putting in many, many hours also help promote PHBs who will defer to authority.
It also helps explain the phenomenon where the manager class becomes soulless. Institutions that focus on preserving their own power rather than creating value will promote people (at least to middle management) who are willing to put their nose to the grindstone, sacrifice their health and relationship, producing nothing of value, all to walk on some concept of a career treadmill faster.
Ive seen it in action. When you get lazy, you start to notice that the single most important aspect is posturing.
So to be lazy you start posturing, selling people how great you and your project is. The more projects you have under you, the higher the chance of something very successful too.
It works, suddenly they can work even less and get promoted.
Ofc this is horrible for the company, having the worst people doing the most “internal sales for positioning”. This also creates a giant middle management layer.
I wouldn’t say they are dumb, they just noticed that great work has no correlation with performance. What does have a correlation is how you act and speak. The All-In Chamaths of the world (not saying he is dumb, he isnt, but damn if boosting isn’t everything for him).
This is why Manifesting, was so popular for the management layer, suddenly it wasnt “being untruthful” it was “manifesting into existence”.
The Gervais Principle is much more accurate in my experience. One of the important reasons middle management has to be "clueless" to drink the kool-aid and take on more responsibility for minimal extra compensation. The checked out employees of the world know their work is meaningless, but the clueless ascribe to it some greater meaning which makes them trustworthy.
Based on who's definition? Plenty of people use "middle management" to describe anyone under executives, but who doesn't spend time closely aligned with front-line work. In some structures, lowest level management is closely integrated with front-line, but I'd argue PHB has next to zero exposure to the actual work or goings-on.
PHB is Dilbert’s boss, yes? That’s front line manager, first level manager, whatever. By definition a middle manager has managers above and below them.
No. A first level manager cannot be middle management. A small company might not have middle management but the first level manager is bottom management.
When I ponder this, the "Isn't it obvious?" frame ends up cutting both ways: ex. isn't it obvious this isn't actually an active thought when people make these decisions? (to wit, the theory cited is based on The Office TV series, which also never depicts this)
I mean it sounds like they're firing tons of people, competent and incompetent. If it's the only way to do it, no wonder the incompetent doesn't get fired.
>The Peter Principle holds that people are promoted until they prove incompetent in their role, and then they remain there; competence is rewarded with promotion and incompetence is rewarded with the status quo.
>The Dilbert Principle, with more of a knowledge-worker focus, rings true to those of us who have seen terrible programmers promoted to project managers. It states that bad employees are promoted into management to prevent them from doing damage with their incompetence.
>The Gervais Principle gives a lot more credit to those at the very top (which, in my opinion, makes it far more accurate in its reasoning about corporate leadership); it says that the sociopaths that run the organization knowingly over-promote dedicated but relatively inept people into middle management [and this is done so execs can use them as canon fodder, buffer in interaction, and and avoid having their own jobs threatened]
We are teaching the sand to think and working on 3d printing organs and peering at the beginning of time with super-telescopes and landing rockets.
Then look at our leadership class. Look at the leaders of the most powerful countries. Look at the most powerful leaders in finance and business.
Look at that contrast. It’s very clear where the actually smart people are.
But those actually smart people keep putting leaders like that in power. It’s not a conspiracy. We do it. We need them for some reason.
I have two hypotheses.
One is familiar: they are sacrificial lightning rods. Sacrifice the king when things don’t go well.
The other is what I call the dopamine donor hypothesis. Compared to the speed and complexity of the modern world, most human beings are essentially catatonic. Our dopamine systems are not calibrated for this. So we sit there and do nothing by default, or we play and invent but lack the intrinsic motivation to do the hardest parts.
So we find these freaks: narcissists, delusional manic prophets, psychopaths. They’re deeply dysfunctional people but we use them. We use the fact that they have tireless non stop motivation. Dopamine always on. Go go go.
We place them in positions of authority and let them drive us, even to the point of abuse, as a hack to get around the fact that our central nervous systems don’t natively do this.
Then of course if things go wrong, it’s back to their other purpose: sacrificial scapegoats.
So in a sense we are both victims of these people and exploiters of them. It’s a dysfunctional relationship.
If we could find ways to tweak our systems like amphetamine but without the side effects, we could perhaps replace this system with a pill.
It would be more compassionate for the freaks too. They’re not happy people. If we stopped using them this way they might get help and be happier.
Governance creates markets -> markets create innovation. These things have feedback loops into governance, but the tail ultimately does not wag the dog.
Engineers-- especially in the Bay where discussion of such is written off as mental illness-- often dismiss politics and governance as nonsense subjects that lack rules and are run by the mob/emotions. The reality however, is that these societal constructs have their own "physics" and operate like a (very complex and challenging to study) system just like everything else in the natural world.
The attitude itself is of course something has been designed and implemented into engineering culture by precisely the leaders you contend are scape goats to society. POSIWID.
> The attitude itself is of course something has been designed and implemented into engineering culture by precisely the leaders you contend are scape goats to society. POSIWID.
I don’t know if this particular statement is true or not, but the number of smart people I know who thinks they’re not affected by propaganda is wild. We’re all affected by propaganda.
I am not sure this is necessarily the case, at least historically. We have good evidence of long distance trade from the Stone Age, and even some Neanderthal sites contain stones whose origin can be traced to distant regions (over 100 km, IIRC, which is far away in a primordial roadless countryside).
I would agree that markets cannot grow beyond a certain size without a government, though.
Those games operate far more probablistically and high dimensionally than programming and I suspect engineers would rather dismiss them as “dumb” than accept they are simply inferior players in those games.
Primary multi agent multi dimension probabilistic resolution problems model human and crowd interaction better than “code do this every time”.
I’ve spent a long time in the valley and I’ve come to the personal conclusion that engineers are often the dumbest (and most narrowly useful) in the room not the smartest. And the rest of them let them think they are very smart (tm) so they do what we say.
How very Dilbertian. If one were to compress the above post into a comic, it would star Dilbert wondering why people with towering intellects like Dilbert weren't running the world in the first panel and then humorously demonstrating in subsequent panels Dilbert's disastrous and irreparable lack of understanding of messy human interrelationships and motivations that have to be navigated to not implode as a leader.
Well observed. And seen in tragic relief as the piles of dead in Russia and China during their most technocratic periods run by engineers.
Which wasn’t just about refusal to interact with humanity but to acknowledge that complex multi factor problems can’t be solved as top down heuristics.
The piles of bodies in China came from Mao and his cultural revolution, and he can hardly be called an engineer. The recent success of China has come when it was run by engineers. And when was Russia ever run by engineers? So I think you have it backwards here.
"Russia was never run by engineers?" That's a massive oversight of 20th-century history. The Soviet Union was the world’s first and most committed technocracy. The GOSPLAN (State Planning Committee) was a literal attempt to run a continent-sized economy as a deterministic engineering problem. By the 70s, the Soviet leadership was more densely packed with engineers than any administration in US history.
They failed because they tried to 'refactor' nature. Stalin’s 'Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature' and Mao’s 'Great Leap Forward' (which applied industrial throughput logic to biology/close-planting) are the ultimate warnings of what happens when you treat complex, probabilistic systems (ecology and humanity) like a closed-loop machine.
Mao wasn’t an engineer by degree, but he was a High Modernist by practice. He believed society could be 'debugged' and 'optimized' through central planning. The result wasn't a more efficient system; it was a total system crash that cost tens of millions of lives.
Current China is a perfect example of 'Success by Engineering'—high-speed rail and ghost cities built on a demographic 'memory leak' (the One Child Policy) that is now crashing the entire stack. This is exactly my point: Engineers optimize for the metric they can see, while ignoring the high-dimensional chaos that actually sustains life.
i dont think this matches what you said earlier, that when there was the most engineers is when there was the most death.
instead, the most engineers corresponds with some time after the mass death. an alternative explanation would be that they started with non-engineers wanting to enforce high modernism and it didnt work, and then they switched to engineers and it did
> We are teaching the sand to think and working on 3d printing organs and peering at the beginning of time with super-telescopes and landing rockets.
There are a lot of smart and skilled people involved in making a cutting edge chip fab. It's not one ubermensch in a basement inventing a new TSMC process by thinking really hard. There's technicians, scientists, researchers in multiple disciplines. All of those people have to be organized.
I don't know where you think the "smart" people are, but maybe meditate on the fact that "smartness" is not a single variable that dictates a person's value or success. Someone who is an expert at researching extreme UV patterning isn't going to necessarily run a great chip manufacturer.
It's pretty simple: those people are the absolute experts in their field, similar to those top chemists or whatever. That field is societal power systems.
Of course someone who dedicated his time to climbing and understanding power systems will have more power than someone who doesn't.
Sure, but then my question is why we need them. What service do they provide? That’s what I was speculating about. I don’t buy the conspiracy theory that they’re pure parasites, since hosts without parasites would then be stronger and would ultimately outcompete.
We have all the skills to do all the things without these power systems so what are they for?
I don’t mean policing and courts. Those are administrative and managerial functions. I mean power of the sort that makes large numbers of people do stuff. I mean gurus and aggrandizers, basically. The people who con and goad us into doing hard things.
My hypothesis is that we can’t self generate that due to neurological limitations rooted in our evolutionary history in a much slower world that rarely changed.
Amphetamine could work too but it has ugly side effects. Social pressure is less hazardous and scales better.
Managers are here to accommodate the need for cooperation, while compensating for lack of telepathy.
Put two people with a lot of expertise in different domain. Require them to come up with a solution to a problem you have.
That's three people. You'll get at the very least four opinions about each and every step.
Scale the complexity of the problems and the number of people.
You end up with full time jobs consisting purely in routing information from brain A to brain Z.
Unfortunately, the skills to do this job are never properly taught, but learnt in the job. (MBA don't teach management - they either teach the mechanism of some administration, or ways to get rich consulting.)
Problems occur because we conflate management, supervision, decision making, strategy setting, etc...
P.H.B. is an antipattern, a caricature, a stereotype like all other : it's funny cause there is truth to it. But we are by no mean condemned to fulfill our stereotypes (should I remind all engineers here about the stigmas attached to nerd in the real world ?)
The WIDGET model of "working geniuses" is one possible answer, it does explain a lot of team dynamics in my experience.
Since no one has all six working geniuses, and you're only a genius at two, it takes a collection of people, proportional to the work that needs to be done, of each type.
> I don’t mean policing and courts. Those are administrative and managerial functions.
Middle management is also an admininstrative and managerial function. Even in a best-case scenario, coördinating work among a huge amount of people within enterprises that are mostly run via command-and-control mechanisms and inside politics (as opposed to any self-regulating "market") obviously takes a whole lot of effort. That's really the natural job description for PHB's.
You got it backwards. We (which we?) don't need them, they need us. They can't play the games they like without massive resource extraction. If someone continually catches the flu, it doesn't mean they need the flu.
We don’t just use these people we create them. Since ancient Egypt the priest class of every society is employed to apply ritual trauma to psychologically prepare princes for their vocation of restless leadership.
>For Adams, God took a more creative and – dare I say, crueler – route. He created him only-slightly-above-average at everything except for a world-historical, Mozart-tier, absolutely Leonardo-level skill at making silly comics about hating work.
I was caught off guard by how brutal this article was at points. I don't really follow Scott Alexander much, so I was pleasantly surprised by it. While I don't have the same relationship with Scott Adams... I can see parts of this in my relationship with Kanye.
Pretty easy to take pot shots at a dead guy who lacks the ability to punch back. Especially when the dead guy hosted a daily show and would have been thrilled to have him come on and debate! Why didnt Mr Codex get around to stating his opinion re: Adams for the past 10 years?
Seems like he's just quoting Adams himself. Adams was popular for his self-deprecating humor.
Adams used to tell people the secret to success was being in the top 25% at multiple things - he could draw and he could make corporate jokes, but he was not exceptional in either of those things. It's not really a pot shot, more of a tribute. He's still saying Adams was just below Leonardo da Vinci.
Less about the degree to which Adams was talented (which, as you note, Adams might agree), more about how much his books sucked and the ideas within them were ridiculous, arguing that Adams' claims regarding hypnosis were entirely bogus, and that gaining popularity as Scott Adams the blogger-slash-podcast host (as opposed to "Dilbert guy") "destroyed him."
For what it’s worth, I think a lot of people were pretty happy to shit on Scott Adams for the last decade.
I don’t know anything about Scott Alexander, but even well before Adams had cancer, there was a thread on Something Awful making fun of all the stupid weird shit Adams would say.
That's fine - the man was certainly not above being criticized, and he had plenty of flaws. Point is, do it while he's alive, don't wait until he's dead (especially when his death was not a surprise)
Adams got plenty of criticism while alive and had plenty of chance to defend himself. He doesn't get a heckler's veto on the living. We are entitled to tell the truth about the dead to ensure the accuracy of their memory.
But this wasn't an obituary. It wasnt a recalling of facts about his life. It wasnt written for a news outlet which publishes obits about most notable figures. It was an opinion piece and a discussion of how Adams affected the writer.
Of course Alexander, or anyone, has the right to be critical. It's just cowardly to wait till he's dead when he isn't able to refute any of the points (or even to absorb them and say, yea, he's right about this, I'm going to try doing better).
"cowardly to wait till he's dead when he isn't able to refute any of the points"
It's only here in the past few days that I have ever heard this particular view: that it's somehow "cowardly" or uncouth or otherwise inappropriate to speak critically of someone who has died because being dead, they are unable to respond.
I am genuinely curious where this idea came from. I've heard "don't speak ill of the dead" all my (by now, getting to be pretty long) life but I never heard this rationale for it except here in threads related to this guy.
I agree that it would be inappropriate to, say, attend someone's funeral and walk around saying you know, in a lot of ways, this guy was a real asshole.
But to claim it as some kind of general principle, with that rationale? That is... deeply weird, or at least it strikes me that way. How on earth could anyone ever discuss any historical figure while abiding by this rule?
Or on a much smaller scale, imagine a family with an abusive member who dies. Are the remaining members never to speak of the ways they were affected by that person? That's crazy.
People are who they are, live the lives they live, and do the things they do. Most people are better than the worst thing they ever did and worse than the best thing they ever did. There's nothing wrong with assessing that fully after they die.
But it's the "because they can't respond" rationale that surprises me. I had no idea that rationale even existed, let alone seems (at least here, with respect to this guy) to be somewhat widespread.
If you're just now hearing about something which is "somewhat widespread" (your words) maybe that's a "you problem"
Were you caught off-guard when Scott Alexander wrote, of his own essay, I previously felt bad for writing this essay after Adams’ death; it seems kind of unsporting to disagree with someone who can’t respond.?
I think it boils down to the idea of "if you have something to say, say it to my face"
Abuse is an outlier, especially within a family, it is accompanied by complex, ongoing issues with trauma and possible retribution and isolation. It is perfectly normal that people would choose not to speak out while their abuser is alive. It's the reason why sexual abuse and DV victims are often granted anonymity as witnesses or accusers in criminal cases, which isn't allowed in normal situations.
"If you're just now hearing about something which is 'somewhat widespread' (your words) maybe that's a 'you problem'"
That could be but seems a little unlikely. For now, I'm sticking with what I know, which is that I have heard this idea expressed in exactly one context: people who seem to be fans of the Dilbert guy on Hacker News.
Maybe this is really a widespread, commonly-held view in the broader American culture that I somehow never heard of my entire life. Like I say, could be, but seems unlikely.
What seems more likely is that it's a somewhat common view in some subculture that I'm not familiar with but that is over-represented on HN for some reason.
Maybe I'll encounter it in other contexts also as time goes by, I don't know.
Your comment seems almost completely divorced from the tone of someone who actually read the article in good faith. It's almost like you got to the first critical thing that was said, stopped, and came back to the comments section to pout.
In no way was Scott Alexander dancing on the man's grave, in fact he spends a considerable portion of the article going over the positive influence Scott had on his life, despite not endorsing his politics and being dubious of his self-help methods.
I disagree, for me, the most objectionable parts were subjective evaluations of Adams' last chapter of life, which come rather late in the article:
The man who had dreamed all his life of being respected for something other than cartooning had finally made it.
Obviously, it destroyed him.
and later, Adams was willing to sacrifice everything for the right to say “It’s Okay To Be White”
Who is Alexander to say he was destroyed, or sacrificed anything? Yes, it is factual that Dilbert was removed from newspapers and Adams' income probably dropped 99%. But Adams was already a senior citizen who had millions of dollars and no children. I doubt he cared about the money any more. Adams probably also lost a huge number of fans. But who cares? Those fans were at arms length at best. He found (or created) a community of people he could interact with daily who deeply, deeply admired him. He "found his tribe." I can't speak for you, or for most celebrities, as I've never been one, but I'd probably feel more satisfied having a few dozen super-close friends who I admire back and with whom I'm engaged in a two-way discourse than millions of anonymous admirers that I've never met and don't know anything about.
Adams was not entirely stupid. He knew that his comic strip would be in jeopardy if he made comments about black people, and he did it anyway. He made a calculation and proceeded. It probably isn't the same decision that most people, including Alexander, would have made, but that doesn't mean it "destroyed him" or even that it was a sacrifice. He shed all the "admirers" and distant "fans" and found out who his true allies were. Far fewer, yes, but now he knew those who stood by him were aligned. Especially later in life when you have less time and patience for fighting, for nonsense, for explaining things over and over, it seems like a win.
The funny part is that Alexander comes to the exact same conclusion:
Adams is easy and fun to mock - as is everyone who lives their life uniquely and unapologetically. I’ve had a good time psychoanalyzing him, but everyone does whatever they do for psychological reasons, and some people end up doing good.
Though I can’t endorse either Adams’ politics or his persuasive methods, everything is a combination of itself and an attempt to build a community. And whatever the value of his ideas, the community seems real and loving.
My point is that I don’t think anyone “waited” like you seem to be suggesting. People were happy to insult him and make fun of him well before he died.
Scott Alexander waited. He could have written this post much earlier, when Adams was alive and could respond (if he felt it was worthy of such). Or, he could have said nothing at all about Adams when he died. Even Alexander admits "it seems kind of unsporting to disagree with someone who can’t respond" (but ignores his own gut feeling.)
> But this wasn't an obituary. It wasnt a recalling of facts about his life. It wasnt written for a news outlet which publishes obits about most notable figures. It was an opinion piece and a discussion of how Adams affected the writer.
Of course it was an obituary. It did recall facts of his life. There is no rule requiring obituaries to be positive or published in mainstream, dead-tree newspapers. There is a long historical tradition of heavily opinionated obituaries. Here's a great example about Margaret Thatcher [1].
If we can set aside your nit-picking about the word "obituary," I still don't understand your position that it's somehow "cowardly" to criticize dead people. As I've already pointed out, Adams got lots of criticism while alive and the timing of Alexander's article certainly isn't motivated by cowardice. To say only kind things of the dead is to be dishonest. We owe it to ourselves to not sugarcoat the past. Or do you think that a history book that accurately recounts Joseph Stalin's rule of the Soviet Union is "cowardly"?
Its cowardly because he had plenty of opportunities to write this piece or to criticize Adams in other ways while he was alive and could respond. The bulk of the essay is about books over a decade old, which Alexander had read long ago. The comments make it clear Adams respected Alexander and linked to his work - surely he would have invited him on to his podcast to debate. As Alexander notes, they had plenty in common and were peers in a way.
It's cowardly to go to a restaurant, smile, eat your meal, say nothing, and then decide not to leave a tip because you thought the service sucked - without ever speaking up or allowing the restaurant to fix the problem. Its just as lame to leave a 1-star review because you perecived the food to be awful without mentioning it and giving the kitchen a chance to prepare the food in a manner you'd like.
And to respond to your initial confusion, an obituary is about the dead person. This essay is about Alexander, his interpretation of Adams' work and how Adams' work affected his life.
I don’t really get your logic. Is it always “cowardly” to criticize dead people?
I don’t like Hitler, I think he was a bad person, but he’s also dead. Is it cowardly to insult him? You might argue that he died before I was born so it’s different but these kinds of dividers are getting kind of arbitrary at that point.
Just because someone dies should not make them immune to being insulted. Scott Adams is someone I have a complicated relationship with myself, but ultimately he said a lot of stupid, problematic shit. I was happy to insult him and make fun of him while he was still alive. I will also make fun of him and insult him while he’s dead.
I don’t know anything about Alexander but I don’t think it’s cowardly at all.
"It's cowardly to go to a restaurant, smile, eat your meal, say nothing, and then decide not to leave a tip because you thought the service sucked - without ever speaking up or allowing the restaurant to fix the problem."
You seem to frame many more things in terms of "coward[ice]" than I would. I'd describe the scenario above as rude but not "cowardly" and it wouldn't occur to me to frame it that way or think of it in those terms.
In the real world, in that scenario, I would leave a tip because I know how servers get paid. If this is a restaurant I've never been to before, I'm not going to speak up about it because I just don't really care very much. Not my problem.
It's also sort of hard for me to imagine hypothetically a restaurant where the "service sucked": it's not an experience I've ever had and I don't have much in the way of expectations about restaurant service. Just get me seated reasonably quickly (or tell me that you won't be able to), give me a menu, take my order, bring the food, bring the check. It's not a high bar.
"Its just as lame to leave a 1-star review because you perecived the food to be awful without mentioning it and giving the kitchen a chance to prepare the food in a manner you'd like."
Again, I can't really imagine this scenario. It's one thing, I guess, if there's something objectively wrong with the food. I remember, for example, once being served a steak marinated in whiskey that I had definitely not ordered, and I sent that back. To me, it was pretty much inedible, although I guess if someone didn't like it, it wouldn't be on the menu.
But if the food is just not very good? Ehh, I don't have time to fuss over that. I'm not gonna leave a one-star review because I don't leave reviews. I'm probably just not coming back.
All this strikes me as pretty normal, and definitely not something that can be usefully framed in terms of "cowardice." I mean, if it's "cowardly" to not complain about poor service right then and there, is it "brave" to do so? That characterization seems sort of absurd.
As a reader, can you summarize what Alexander is referencing in the two quoted paragraphs that overcomes his initial doubt and decides "after his death is the best time to disagree"?
The only thing I can possibly see is Adams writing "the reader is supposed to be looking for flaws" but it's also clear that Adams is very interested in hearing people's reactions and responses to his work, which he (obviously) can't do any more.
Other has mentioned it, but I think it's worth quoting it directly for easier reference
> I previously felt bad for writing this essay after Adams’ death; it seems kind of unsporting to disagree with someone who can’t respond. These paragraphs cured me of my misgivings: after his death is by far the best time to disagree with Scott Adams.
Also I don't think this is a slander article only published after death so no one can answer. If anything I see this as a beautiful article from someone who (used to?) love him and it raises his image in my (not really cared about it before) mind.
a) my initial comment was a response to someone who called the essay "brutal." Indeed, there are some tender passages, but it feels like on balance, Alexander was more interested in getting his attacks in than the nicer stuff. In my opinion.
b) yes he tries to make an excuse for "curing his misgivings" and ignoring his initial doubt but it's an awful one. Can you succinctly describe what it is about the quoted paragraphs that would indicate "after his death is the best time to disagree"?
I really enjoyed How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
I think you also have to mention along his talent stack, all his failed business ideas. He really seemed to give his ideas a shot even if they didn't make much sense. I don't think most people would even pursue the Dilbert idea.
I actually watched the podcast in question. As I saw it he made a very reasonable and 100% non-racist comment (in the context of the discussion the soundbytes were later taken out of), which related more to the inflammatory, caustic nature of the media narrative on black-white relationships, and whether as a white person it is even fruitful to be engaging in that narrative, if the end outcome is that your engagement will be used out of context to cause even more strife and division by the people pushing this narrative. I.e. you will make more of a difference as a white person by trying to improve the "systems" around you, in a manner that benefits everyone, rather than by engaging in pointless arguments and debates with people who are blinded by a very deliberately promoted agenda.
I very much agree with that point, and have experienced it myself. Ironically, if nothing else, this whole affair and the rush to cancel him and call him racist and disgraced, ultimately proved his very point. Just look at how the links you shared choose to word their posthumous articles.
If you really want an accurate source, just go watch the (entire) podcast. No better source than this. Best case scenario you'll disagree with my take, but now your take is informed rather than misinformed.
And to set the record straight, Adams was the very opposite of racist in my view. He had very nuanced and pragmatic views, including how the best thing the country could do to help black communities should be investing in education across the board, instead of funding and pandering to apologists who inflame the masses but then drain the money from the education system, perpetuating ghetto-like communities.
Long before the racism thing, I remember how grossed out I was by him complaining that he only got to have sex when his girlfriend wanted it, therefore his girlfriend, and women in general, were the "gatekeepers" of sex.
Completing failing to recognize that consent is a two person affair.
Sure sounds like Adams was consenting to sex and the person gatekeeping the sex and making the consent not a two person affair was his girlfriend, which is why Adams was complaining to begin with.
You're entitled to feel grossed out by this I suppose but your feelings have nothing to do with whether Adams was correct or reasonable or not.
The weird part is, calling women gatekeepers of sex. When it is also men who gatekeeps.
The gross part is, that this reminds of older times, when men had the legal right to have sex with their wife whenever they wanted (it is a quite new thing, that there can be rape in marriage, the current chancellor of germany famously opposed this legal change). In short, patriarcharical BS that women are objects owned by men and that this is the natural order.
I would guess that Adams probably wanted to have sex more than his girlfriend did, which meant that he had lots of personal experiences of his girlfriend not wanting to have sex when he did; and few if any personal experiences of not wanting to have sex when his girlfriend did. From his perspective, this looks like women (his girlfriend in particular) being the gatekeeper of sex. And this is what he was complaining about.
On a society-wide level, men are systematically more interested in having sex more often and in more contexts than women are. So lots of people in heterosexual relationships have experiences similar to Adams' (sex not happening in cases where the man wants it and the woman doesn't), which is why the rhetorical trope that women are the gatekeepers of sex exists.
Adams took an almost deliberately obtuse interpretation of a single poll and used it to state, explicitly and not ironically, that white people should completely avoid all black people.
Like the author I was fortunate enough to be exposed to Dilbert as a teenager, before I got caught up in the rush of the university-professional-yuppie-industrial-complex.
I found the Dilbert principle book in my parents downstairs cloakroom (wedged between magazines and other generic bathroom reading material).
At a superficial level I just read the comic strips in the book and laughed, I thought to myself - haha look at those poor corporate workers, that won't happen to me.
In a way it didn't happen to me vis-a-vis cubicles, suits and water cooler gossip, TPS reports etc.
However, in other ways it did happen to me, the frustrations of working with incompetent people, working in teams who brainwash themselves that they are making something useful or being productive, hilarious executive decisions made without any scientific or rational thought. (startup - https://youtu.be/iwan0xJ_irU)
I still like to add Dilbert comic strips to closing slides in presentations, my go to one is this, when we are discussing new technologies to use.
I haven't seen full height cubicles since my 2006-2011 job.
Still even half-height cubicle desks tended to give you a good sense of "your space" relative to the open concept rows of tables/flat desks.
Currently I go to the office once a week, where I sit at a tiny mobile desk pressed against the side of someone else's cubicle. I'm almost "in" a walkway. Can't imagine how that interferes with focus!
Power to you but I absolutely hate open offices. They’re often loud and it’s easy to get distracted by random conversations.
I know people fantasize about these “random conversations” leading to innovations from overhearing, but that hasn’t been my experience at all; instead because it’s so distracting a lot of people would just wear headphones all day.
I would so prefer an office. Ideally something that allows me to play music at a reasonable volume without headphones, use my mechanical keyboard, and have my own desk that I am not neighboring up against someone.
As it stands I work from home so I actually have that, which is why I am dreading the eventual RTO. If I could get my own dedicated office at a company, I think I would have way less desire to WFH.
I certainly have been around for conversations leading to this or that change in direction. It happens.
But the bigger reason it's useful is to get facetime with the decision makers and the folks adjacent to the decision makers who might think of you when opportunities arise.
I don't find open spaces noisier than cubicles but I am able to easily block out distracting sounds.
I am interrupted, and when I am is generally somebody giving me a useful quick update or an informal greeting from an office buddy when they notice I make welcoming eye contact.
I don't think I ever felt a lack of privacy in the office or expected it in any way? I wonder what kind of privacy I would need that the restroom doesn't cover, I'm sure there are some instances since it's been called out.
Sounds like, oddly enough, eighteenth century London when coffee houses provided venues for business transactions. People (ok men of the right class) toddled around visiting various offices and patronising coffee houses. Everyone knew the players. [2][3]
I think this might be a good development. Meet to drink beverage and achieve 'common understanding' in the sense of the Royal Navy. Then disperse to various private locations to actually carry out the tasks. Would suit a '15 minute' city layout very well.
I actually think cubicles’ faux privacy might encourage more noise. When I was in cubicles years ago, there were people who would take calls on speakerphone. I’ve never experienced that in an open office space, but it’s hard to know if that’s just because I’ve had more conscientious colleagues in open spaces.
I like being able to work at the office because then I don't have to pay for electricity and internet, although commuting is bad for my ecological footprint.
I will never support forcing RTO on people who prefer WFH, nor the opposite (unless dire circumstances mandate it, like a pandemic or other natural disaster).
I can tolerate open offices, but prefer plans with private spaces which make it easier to go into and maintain full focus mode.
I've never done pair programming, but I imagine I would like it, if me and my colleague use my computer (set up how I like it, Dvorak layout and everything) for my part of the programming and we switch to my colleague's computer when it's their turn.
Cubicles are terrible. Especially the full height ones. They have all the same noisy neighbor problems as open spaces but you’re stuck in a tiny box all day. You get a tiny modicum of privacy but not enough to make up for feeling like you’re stuck in a gray box all day.
> Scott Adams felt the contradictions of nerd-dom more acutely than most. As compensation, he was gifted with two great defense mechanisms. The first was humor (which Freud grouped among the mature, adaptive defenses), aided by its handmaiden self-awareness. The second (from Freud’s “neurotic” category) was his own particular variety of reaction formation, “I’m better than those other nerds because, while they foolishly worship rationality and the intellect, I’ve gotten past it to the real deal, marketing / manipulation / persuasion / hypnosis.”
Scott Adams was basically a classic Sophist, believing that rhetoric was the only thing worth cultivating. Nobody special; snake oil salesmen are up there with prostitutes and mercenaries in oldness of profession.
For those who haven't read it, Scott Alexander's "Unsong" (https://unsongbook.com/) is a very fun piece of historical fiction / religious fantasy. Basic premise is that the world is incredibly shocked when the Apollo 10 mission crashes into the Dome of the Sky and (a) proves that the Biblical cosmology was the true cosmology this whole time and (b) damages reality. It includes the idea that there is a whole cottage industry of people trying to apply technology to deciphering the True Name of God by essentially Mechanical Turking it ("If we divide up all possible syllable combinations into tranches and pay folks minimum wage to sit around reciting every syllable combination possible, we're bound to hit it sometime!").
The book is okay (I think I gave it three stars on Goodreads?) but in my opinion it suffers from Neal Stephenson syndrome: the book kinda just ends without a whole lot of anticlimax or resolution. The pacing is all over the place and the supporting cast are more like character sketches than characters.
I think Foucault’s Pendulum is a significantly better novel that uses the basic themes in more compelling ways.
It was an online serial. Any new plotline or character is a live experiment that might publicly fail to work out. That kind of thing does indeed need a lot of work to become a conventionally structured novel. That said I actually thought the ending was pretty alright. Well, most of it.
I read the whole thing and enjoyed both the premise and the writing, but yeah, it would have benefited considerably from the attention of a professional editor and a couple of rounds of rewrites.
I found Dilbert in 2013, when I was working in a dead end dev job in a small software company. Felt nice to see others seem to have the same issues.
I quit that job and started freelancing. Not only because of those comics, but at least they didn't give me any doubts about that endeavour.
What I learned: engineering skills give you power, but it's not the only thing you can be nerdy at.
You can be nerdy about anything.
It just happens to be that software engineering is something that people with much money are willing to pay for.
Just imagine you're history nerd. Not much options to profit quickly from that.
Same goes the other direction. If you happen to really like financial markets and math, you might find ways to make even more money with less work than an engineer.
I’m not the person you’re asking the question from but I’m a consultant that has been to well over a hundred organisations big and small.
Employee happiness and team success is essentially random. More accurately: you can go to two “identical” companies directly competing in the same industry at the same scale and they can still be wildly different internally. One can be a depressing march to retirement and death, the other a place where people literally(!) sing with joy in the corridors.
Everything is likely to also be totally different: procedures (or lack thereof), policy, tools, training, etc…
Despite this, all organisations above a certain size are filled with people that are certain that their way is the only way things are done. They’ll argue until they’re blue in the face that nothing else could possibly work… with someone who was at their totally different competitor last week and saw that in fact a different approach is massively superior.
This variability is greatest for small scale workplace practices as typically decided by a “pointy haired boss” (PHB).
They also tend to be most convinced of their own methods, and the most resistant to change.
This article keeps saying that Adams was more clever than the others.
What are the proof of that. It looks like he was like those usual rationalists who come up with obvious theories that a lot of people have come up with and think they are super clever, when they are not.
As clues it is the case: 1) Adams came up with very stupid easily proven wrong physics theories and still was convinced it was correct, which is not what a clever will do, 2) as said in other comment here, some people who identifies themselves as "clever like Adams" were also incapable to get their head around the fact that their own boss was displaying dilbert comics, as if they were not clever enough to understand that the manager see themselves as "dilbert" the same way they do.
Yes, he was an idiot, but that doesn't contradict that he was smart. In his own words, from The Dilbert Principle book:
"People are idiots.
Including me. Everyone is an idiot, not just the people with low SAT scores. The only differences among us is that we're idiots about different things at different times. No matter how smart you are, you spend much of your day being an idiot. That's the central premise of this scholarly work. I proudly include myself in the idiot category. Idiocy in the modern age
isn't an all-encompassing, twenty-four-hour situation for most people. It's a condition that everybody slips into many times a day. Life is just too complicated to be smart all the time."
Not sure this really obvious analysis really helps. I've seen a lot of people thinking they are really smart for saying that everyone including them are idiots. Adams made a lot of declarations or actions that shows that he really thought of himself as "able to see what the idiot sheeple were not able to see", and this quote is not out of character at all: "you idiots don't even realise that everyone is an idiot including me".
I think The Relativity of Wrong (Asimov, https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html) is a nice counterpoint to this. Sure, we may say everyone is an idiot in some area. But there are relative levels of idiocy, and there are basic tasks you can sort of master. At the very least you can minimize your own idiocy if never eliminate it. I think mastering most essential areas in life can make you unworthy of the title of 'idiot', at least not overwhelmingly so.
There are infinitely many things to know, but not all of them are important. Knowing finitely many things (which is all we can do) can still keep us alive and well, at least for a while. And we can know some of those finitely many things increasingly well, if never perfectly.
Just as an example, if you manage say your personal finances pretty well, your health pretty well, perform any civic duties you might have, maybe do some social good or social work or charity etc., if your relationships are reasonably agreeable, respectful and pleasant, etc. and if you have a good amount of joy or peace or satisfaction, etc. in your life, then I wouldn't call you an idiot. This is not an impossible ask to know infinitely many things or infinitely precisely.
And we can learn it over 30 or 40 years, or more, prioritizing the most essential first.
Moreover, I'd say whether you can be called an idiot is context-dependent. If you get a typical (non-idiot) person, and put him in a highly specific job (which he isn't qualified for), say manager of inspectors of nuclear power plants, then he might behave like an idiot; in this case the best ability is probably the meta-ability to recognize one's own limitations and refuse work you're not qualified enough for.
Like, any person (literally any person) can theoretically be put in a situation that he might do significant harm or something stupid, this just means we have to work in contexts and understand and do well within said context; we could only legitimately be called idiots while failing badly or unethically within a canonical chosen context.
I really just don't think it's generally a good idea to go around calling ourselves (or anyone else) idiots. Too broad, derogatory, and tries to put an irremovable label on a person, which as I've explained, almost never deserves such an absolute classification.
My point was not that doing something stupid means someone is stupid, but that the examples I've provided are showing that Adams was prone to think of himself as smart when he was not. So far, there is no much proof that Adams was particularly smart (unless you are arguing that everyone can be called smart)
> Not sure this really obvious analysis really helps
Doesn't help you, sure. I'm not a fan, as a matter of taste and am self-aware enough to recognize it. The near-reliable output of his creativity and the pervasive notions, distilled and distributed to the culture are proof enough for history.
I don't think white collar tech workers are uniquely predisposed to fascism. Blue collar tradesmen are more likely to be disposed to it and capable of getting their hands dirty.
> What are the proof of that. It looks like he was like those usual rationalists who come up with obvious theories that a lot of people have come up with and think they are super clever, when they are not.
Anyone who identifies as a rationalist is immediately suspect. The name itself is a bad joke. "Ah yes, let me name my philosophy 'obviously correctism'."
I don't really identify with any particular movement, but it's important to note that there are plenty of people who legitimately oppose the core concept of rationalism, the idea that reason should be held above other approaches to knowledge, this being put aside from other criticisms leveled at the group of people that call themselves rationalists. Apparently, rationalism isn't obviously correct. Unfortunately, I don't really have enough of a background in philosophy to really understand how this follows, but looking at how the world actually works, I don't struggle to believe that most people (certainly many decision makers) don't actually regard rationality as highly as other things, like tradition.
Rationalism in philosophy is generally contrasted with empiricism. I would say you're a little off in characterizing anti-rationalism as holding rationality per se in low regard. To put it very briefly: the Ancient Greeks set the agenda for Western philosophy, for the most part: what is truth? What is real? What is good and virtuous? Plato and his teacher/character Socrates are the archetype rationalists, who believed that these questions were best answered through careful reasoning. Think of Plato's allegory of the cave: the world of appearances and of common sense is illusory, degenerate, ephemeral. Pure reason, as done by philosophers, was a means of transcendent insight into these questions.
"Empiricism" is a term for philosophical movements (epitomized in early modern British Empiricists like Hume) that emphasized that truths are learned not by reasoning, but by learning from experience. So the matter is not "is rationality good?" but more: what is rationality or reason operating upon? Sense experiences? Or purely _a priori_, conceptual, or formal structures? The uncharitable gloss on rationalism is that rationalists hold that every substantive philosophical question can be answered while sitting in your armchair and thinking really hard.
It's pretty unfortunate that the Yudkowsky-and-LessWrong crowd picked a term that traditionally meant something so different. This has been confusing people since at least 2011.
Well empiricists think knowledge exists in the environment and is absorbed directly through the eyes and ears without interpretation, if we're being uncharitable.
Sure. The idea of raw, uninterpreted "sense data" that the empiricists worked with (well into the 20th century) is pretty clearly bunk. Much of philosophy took a turn towards anti-foundationalism, and rationalism and empiricism are, at least classically, notions of the "foundations" of knowledge. I mean, this is philosophy, it's all pretty ridiculous.
> Apparently, rationalism isn't obviously correct. Unfortunately, I don't really have enough of a background in philosophy to really understand how this follows, but looking at how the world actually works, I don't struggle to believe that most people (certainly many decision makers) don't actually regard rationality as highly as other things, like tradition.
Other areas of human experience reveal the limits of rationality. In romantic love, for example, reason and rationality are rarely pathways to what is "obviously correct".
Rationality is one mode of human experience among many and has value in some areas more than others.
one is, "is there a rational description of the universe, the world, humanity, etc.". Some people think there isn't, but I would like to think that the universe does conform to some rational system.
the other, and important one is, "do humans have the capability to acquire and fully model this rational system in their own minds" and I don't think that's a given. the human brain is just an artifact of an evolutionary system that only implies that its owners can survive and persist on the earth as it happens to exist in the current 50K year period it occurs in. It's not clear that humans have even slight ability to be perfectly rational analytic engines, as opposed to unique animals responding to desires and fears. this is why it's so silly when "rationalists" try to appear as so above all the other lowly humans, as though escaping human nature is even an option.
Uh-huh. Rationality is open-ended, we're apparently not very good at it and room for improvement is plentiful. However, I can still try to be rational, and approve of rationality.
My apologies. But are you really saying that we're not even able to try to be rational, or to improve? "Perfect rationality" sounds like "perfect knowledge", it's a mind-boggling concept belonging to a such a far distant future that we'll probably revise the concept away before we get anywhere near it. So why present it as a goal? Being slightly more rational is a practical goal, unless you're saying human nature won't allow even that much.
> My apologies. But are you really saying that we're not even able to try to be rational, or to improve?
not at all
> "Perfect rationality" sounds like "perfect knowledge", it's a mind-boggling concept belonging to a such a far distant future that we'll probably revise the concept away before we get anywhere near it.
my statement refers to a general vibe from people who call themselves "rationalists" are going on the assumption that they are rational, while everyone else is not. Which is ridiculous. everyone "tries" to be rational. of course everyone should "try" to be rational. That's what everyone is doing most of time regardless of how poorly we judge their success.
> Being slightly more rational is a practical goal, unless you're saying human nature won't allow even that much.
Everyone should be "slightly more rational". The rationalists state that they *are* more rational, and then they go on to have fixations on such "rational" things like proving that "race" is real and determines intelligence. Totally missing what their brains are actually doing since they are so "rational".
In theory, the name is supposed to imply that they're pursuing rational thinking and philosophies, not that their decisions are the rational choice.
That said, I was surrounded by rationalists in my younger years by pure coincidence and spent some time following the blog links they sent and later reading the occasional LessWrong thread or SSC comment section that they were discussing each day in chat.
It's pretty easy to see that the movement attracts a lot of people who have made up their minds but use rationalisim as a way to build a scaffold underneath their pre-determined beliefs in a way that sounds correct. The blogs and forums celebrate writing of a certain style that feels correct and truthy. Anyone who learns how to write in that style can get their ideas accepted as fact in rationalist communities by writing that way. You can find examples throughout history where even the heroes of the rationalist movement have written illogical things, but they've done it in the correct way that makes it appear to be "first principals" thinking with a "steelmanning" of the other side along with appropriate prose to sound correct to rationalists.
You should explicitly state who those people are, what illogical things they have written, and why they are illogical.
I think it's very likely that people who can plausibly be considered "heroes of the rationalist movement" have written illogical things. But I don't know which specific people and which specific things you mean by that, so I don't know if I think you in particular are correct in your judgement or not.
Using first principles thinking and steelmanning are just rhetorical techniques for persuasive thinking and writing. Even people who are unfamiliar with those particular pieces of terminology do them.
It's stupid, but it works. There are innumerable examples of it, The People's Democratic Republic of Korea, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, National Socialism, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Good guys, or at least people who are good in the context of your or my value systems, also do it. I've got zero beef with my local Humane Society, they're great, but clearly the name of the organization has been chosen for its strong emotional potency.
Well, I agree but think it is even worse than this. Anyone who hasn't got wind of the opposition between rationalism and empiricism is squarely placing themselves in a very ancient thought-space, more Plato than Kant, no Popper, no modernity.
They are basically outing themselves as either having little curiosity, or as having had very limited opportunity to learn... Still if they expound on it, the curiosity deficit is the most likely explanation.
J. W. Goethe was obsessed with "Farbenlehre" [0], which is so weird that it is "not even wrong". I don't think it detracts from his intelligence. It was just his blind corner, so to say.
Intelligent people are sometimes very, very weird. Grothendieck and Gödel come to mind as well. It is not smart to die of hunger because your wife is hospitalized, every lizard knows better than that; but that is precisely how Gödel met his end.
>J. W. Goethe was obsessed with "Farbenlehre" [0], which is so weird that it is "not even wrong".
I think that's a bit harsh? Goethe's color theory is taught in every art school to this day.
Goethe and science is an interesting one. In some sense he may have been a Newton of another, separate (and in some sense orthogonal) approach towards a science of nature [0]. One that takes primarily an intuitive/integrative/phenomenological approach to the world, rather than a mathematical/analytical. Somewhat analogous to continental vs analytical philosophy (or German vs British, if you want to be reductive).
The latter showed its strength once the industrial revolution rolled around and it gave the tools to understand and design ever more impressive technology, with the Goethean approach becoming ever more fringe. And after WW1+2 the cultural sphere that nurtured it was basically done.
The example I gave what about Adams being convinced to "know better" while it was clearly not true, which is to me a clue that when it comes to his view on society and business, which already looks pretty simplistic to me, the idea that he "knew better" is more probably the result of him thinking that and managing to convince others people who also like to see themselves as smarter than others.
I think the article explains that Adams "turned bad" because it is the sad consequence of him being smarter than the rest of the people. I'm pretty sure that someone who has time to lose can got through the article and pick up all of the quotes about how Adams was clever and the managers were so dum.
No, the article argues that Adams was good at one very specific thing (writing silly comics about the workplace) and bad at everything else. It's very clear on that point. It argues that later in life he lost his self-awareness of his own ineptitude and began to falsely believe he was smarter than everyone.
Keep reading. The central thesis of the article/eulogy is that Adams wanted to be successful at something more serious than Dilbert but was bad at everything else he tried.
It talks about his first new business attempt with the Dilberito, which was terrible. It quotes, it "could have been designed only by a food technologist or by someone who eats lunch without much thought to taste".
Then he tries to run a restaurant, which he is also bad at. Even Adams realizes he is bad at it. "After every workday, Adams and the waiters get together and laugh long into the night together about how bad a boss Adams is!"
Then he tries his hand at writing philosophy, which he is also terrible at. The article spends two long sections describing just how bad his books "God's Debris" and "The Religion War" are.
Then the article describes how Adams claimed himself to be a master hypnotist/manipulator in the most delusional and cringey way possible.
Then the article talks about Adams' many terrible political predictions. E.g. "His most famous howler was that if Biden won in 2020, Republicans “would be hunted” and his Republican readers would “most likely be dead within a year”."
Then there's how he responded to liberals beginning to see him as an enemy when he was predicting Trump would win the 2016 election: "As he had done so many other times during his life, he resolved the conflict in the dumbest, cringiest, and most public way possible: a June 2016 blog post announcing that he was endorsing Hillary Clinton, for his own safety, because he suspected he would be targeted for assassination if he didn’t"
Then in 2023, Adams stupidly gets himself cancelled.
> There are plenty of quotes like this one
No, there aren't. While the article/eulogy says a number of positive things about Adams, that very faint praise at the beginning is the only place the article describes him as being even only-slightly-above-average intelligence at anything other than Dilbert.
What it does mention several times is that Adams thought himself cleverer than everyone else. For example (describing Adams' thoughts):
> Thesis: I am cleverer than everyone else.
> Antithesis: I always lose to the Pointy-Haired Boss.
> Synthesis: I was trying to be rational. But most people are irrational sheep; they can be directed only by charismatic manipulators who play on their biases, not by rational persuasion. But now I’m back to being cleverer than everyone else, because I noticed this. Also, I should become a charismatic manipulator.
But the tone here is mocking Adams and not endorsing his view.
Thanks. I often think of it as a minor character flaw in myself that I spend the time replying to things that really aren't important. Your comment made me smile.
You don't look for smart people by looking for people who don't do stupid things, because you won't find any. You look for smart people by finding people who do smart things because stupid people don't do smart people things.
I'm not saying Adams is not smart because he has done stupid things, I'm saying that Adams has probably thought of himself as very smart while not smart at all in field X because it is pretty clear he has done that in fields Y and Z (which is the first clue).
The second clue is about the fact that the "smart thing" he came up with is quite simplistic.
Reminds me of my stoner friends in high school who would watch a few videos by Carl Sagan and then become convinced that they know everything about physics and come up with convoluted and ultimately silly “theories” for physics.
Makes me wonder if Adams was a frequent drug user.
"I find that most of the insights I achieve when high are into social issues, an area of creative scholarship very different from the one I am generally known for. I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves. It was a point obvious in a way, but rarely talked about. I drew the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down. One idea led to another, and at the end of about an hour of extremely hard work I found I had written eleven short essays on a wide range of social, political, philosophical, and human biological topics. Because of problems of space, I can’t go into the details of these essays, but from all external signs, such as public reactions and expert commentary, they seem to contain valid insights. I have used them in university commencement addresses, public lectures, and in my books."
Scott Adams was more clever than most because, as the article says more than once, he was named "Scott A." and so was the author, to whom an elementary school teacher said he was going to "cure cancer", whatever that means. Maybe the teacher was sincere -- or maybe he was trying to be nice and got misunderstood.
I thought the joke for Garfield is that some crazy annoying shit happens to him on Mondays, and as such he uses the same “I hate mondays” that a person might, just for different reasons.
> I had been vaguely aware that he had some community around him, but on the event of his death, I tried watching an episode or two of his show.
I do wonder if Scott Alexander means this in the sense that he watched a few shows because Adams had died, or if there were the first episodes of Adams' shows he had watched. Dying does reveal some interesting things about a person - in Adams' case he was doing his live podcasts right up to about the end. I tuned in to one out of ghoulish interest and he seemed to be the sickest person I'd ever seen. He was clearly doing that show because he loved it.
If he had his time over, he'd probably swallow his pride and accept that It Is Not OK To Be White because of the disastrous impact on the Dilbert empire, but I do think Alexander has fundamentally misread what Adams believed it meant to be successful. He wasn't that motivated by commercial success since at least the 2010s, although he had achieved it. He seemed a lot more interested in getting ideas out there and making a difference to people's lives.
> he'd probably swallow his pride and accept that It Is Not OK To Be White
Off-topic: English is not classical formal logic. NOT("It's okay to be white") does not have the same meaning as "It's not okay to be white": it merely means "I reject what is communicated by the phrase 'It's okay to be white'". This observation fits quite well into any analysis of slogans: if he hadn't committed to the uncharitable misinterpretation, I'd expect him to write about this (though I'm not so sure he'd have used this particular example).
There was presumably a lot of money and status on the line, so I'm sure had he realised what was coming he'd have been happy to learn enough logical notation to express !(It's OK To Be White) && !(It's !OK To Be White). If anyone figured out what positive statement he had to say he'd probably have said that too. The man was notable for his philosophical rejection of shame.
Part of me knew a comment like this would show up. The trend itself is greater than Dilbert and not new, but it has certainly become more pronounced. What is interesting that while 'Dilbert empire' fell in the process for not accepting white inferiority, full blown resistance marketing market is taking ( or maybe has taken already ) shape fueled largely by highly polarized populace.
I am not looking forward to it, because it requires keeping abreast of currents I do not care for or even understand.
> What is interesting that while 'Dilbert empire' fell in the process for not accepting white inferiority, full blown resistance marketing market is taking ( or maybe has taken already ) shape fueled largely by highly polarized populace.
I must be daft. There must be some cultural context I'm missing so that I don't even understand what you're saying. Accepting white inferiority? Full blown resistance marketing market? Huh?
Because if you reject white supremacy, obviously the implication is white inferiority…
White supremacists generally deny that they have societal advantages and frame any attempt to give minorities equal opportunities as a plot to subjugate whites.
> White supremacists generally deny that they have societal advantages and frame any attempt to give minorities equal opportunities as a plot to subjugate whites.
White people are not a demographic majority in many places (including where I personally live), and yes most ostensible attempts to give nonwhites equal opportunities to whites wind up as blatant anti-white discrimination. White people are morally justified in politically resisting this even if leftists call white people who do so white supremacists or neonazis.
I also read Dilbert books years before joining the workforce. Though the framing of the strip is the workplace, it averages out to all the people in one's life who are wrong but have authority. As a rebellious little shit, I could identify with how Dilbert's boss (PHB) was wrong in ways that I recognized in adults around me plus my inability to do anything about it.
This is why every level of worker can see themselves as Dilbert and their superiors as the management who "don't get it." I bet there are even C-suite execs who identify with Dilbert and see their CEO or board of directors as PHBs incarnate. This was part of the appeal of the strip before it went off the deep end; almost everyone taking orders believes they know better than at least one of the people telling them what to do.
Story of our times: Gen-X counterculture jerk grows up railing against The Man. Grows up, gets rich, famous, becomes The Man. His mind, however, is stuck in the past, still thinks he's a rebel, still thinks he's railing against The Man. In reality, he has become a sadistic asshole hurting others for his self-righteous pleasure. But no amount of pain inflicted on others will make him feel good, he dies a miserable crank.
Adams, Musk, Andreesen, Stephen Miller, Chappelle, Maher. They're everywhere.
While a little reductive and caricatured, as a Gen-X counterculture type myself I can confirm that there's quite a bit of accuracy in this comment. And a lot more examples in more boring parts of the world than these famous people you are mentioning.
With that said it's not exclusively a Gen-X thing to go from counterculture to establishment while preserving the same root personality driver of narcissism and selfishness. It's obviously recognizable as the trajectory of the Woodstock generation as well.
Yeah, probably unfair to name GenX exclusively - more of a late boomer/early gen-x phenomenon. Perhaps it's just the new mid-life crisis, "corvette in your 40s" is beyond silly these days, but rich, powerful 50-60 year olds thinking they're badass rebels is super common.
> His next venture (c. 1999) was the Dilberito, an attempt to revolutionize food via a Dilbert-themed burrito with the full Recommended Daily Allowance of twenty-three vitamins. I swear I am not making this up. A contemporaneous NYT review said it “could have been designed only by a food technologist or by someone who eats lunch without much thought to taste”
The funniest thing I’ve read all week. Was anyone here lucky enough to eat one?
> Scott Adams based Dilbert on his career at Pacific Bell in the 80s. Can you imagine quitting Pacific Bell in the 80s to, uh, found your own Pacific Bell?
Idk man, imagine quitting HP in the 70s to make your own HP or IBM. Inconceivable
Quitting Fairchild to make your own semiconductor manufacturer (twice), quitting Intel to make your own CPU manufacturer, etc. The point isn’t that people didn’t do it if brave/desperate enough, the point is that it wasn’t a Thing You Can Do in the collective consciousness. Also, relatedly, that the societal infrastructure to support(/profit from) this category of people wasn’t yet in place, so you needed to be wealthy or connected (even more so than now).
Great eulogy and art, What saddens me is the lack of a friends around him, seems like he got isolated in the politics of 2015 and then got radicalized.
I think the lack of friends (heightened by his Titanic wealth) contributed to his isolation. Like how we all kinda got out of practice talking with people during COVID isolation. That then kinda spiraled him into algorithmicly fed nonsense as he didn't have anyone he could trust to tell him he was wrong. Just sycophants and fans and golddiggers.
Cicero is still right, a friend is the best thing to have, no question.
Eulogies are such good reading for those of us left here. They really drive the points home. Life isn't the grind, it's a journey. We're all just here for each other
No idea what you are talking about. He became hugely popular and had lots of adoring fans and friends. His twitter had 1.3M followers and he did a daily show.
> But t-shirts saying “Working Hard . . . Or Hardly Working?” no longer hit as hard as they once did. Contra the usual story, Millennials are too earnest to tolerate the pleasant contradiction of saying they hate their job and then going in every day with a smile. They either have to genuinely hate their job - become some kind of dirtbag communist labor activist - or at least pretend to love it.
At least in the technology sector, work has changed a lot in some regards since the days when Scott Adams was in the workforce.
No suits and ties needed, show up in a tee-shirt and denim jeans. Flexible work hours, and work-from-home. Top 2% salary. Free food. Clean, well-maintained, offices. No request for annual leave ever denied. Pick the work you like from the top of the backlog. No bosses sending interns to get them coffee or any nonsense like that. Go ahead, play some foosball or table tennis on the clock. Is two screens enough, you can have a third if it'd boost your productivity?
And senior leaders try to project the image of "Stanford CS PhD dropout" rather than "Wall Street Harvard MBA" - they're "just like us", look at that hoodie he's wearing.
The world of Dilbert, meanwhile, is trapped in amber. And the wry insights that fax machines are hard to use don't really land like they did in 1995.
Beautifully stated. A lot of the comics still apply, but certainly not directly to my job. I imagine government workers find it very relatable, however.
I’ve spent most of my career in the cushy Silicon Valley startup style work cultures you’ve described. Obviously I greatly prefer them… but the stodgy business casual+ 9-5 cube farms still exist, and in great numbers. I’ve worked in them out of necessity here and there, and they’re more common than one might believe reading HN. If the desperate recruiters in my metro are anything to judge by, it seems just about everything manufacturing and financial services firm is run by a Pointy Haired Boss or two.
There is still plenty of need for Dilbert strips in the workforce.
Software and computers is not all there is to technology. There are plenty of other STEM fields that didn't enjoy a decades long surge in demand. Dilbert still very much applies there.
Aside from that, all the things you list are perks and benefits. The same old problems with BS budgets, hallucinated requirements, convoluted bureaucracy (seen at the tech giants), and mismanagement are evergreen problems even in the software industry.
Ok but what is this question trying to say? I never quite understood the argument that God should be "perfect"; it's entirely possible the universe we're in is a toy made for the amusement of an evil god-child, like we have ant farms, and they enjoy having meteorites and black holes and whatnot. It's not especially likely -- but it's not less likely than any of the other mainstream religious myths.
"I never quite understood the argument that God should be "perfect""
My understanding from reading the bible while I was still christian is pretty much, that in the older parts, god was indeed not almighty. He was just the god of a desert tribe. And of course a stronger god than the other gods of the inferior tribes ... slowly evolving to obviously the strongest god up to the point that there was only one god. And there can be only one god if he is almighty. Or, so powerful that the difference does not matter anymore.
Anyway, the logical fallacy of the "almighty" thing was the main thing for me to give up on the concept. I cannot accept a concept, that puts me in hell (or heaven), eternal damnation (or salvation) for being who I was made to be, influenced by an environment also totally controlled by the creator.
The christian understanding of the concept of God, is that it is transcendental, i.e. beyond the universe. This means that from the view from inside the universe he must be almighty. A non-almighty "God" is just not a God, according to the Christian definition, it is just yet another thing in the universe.
> a concept, that puts me in hell (or heaven) ... for being who I was made to be ... by the creator.
Why do you think it needs to be an explicit action from the creator as opposed to being just the result of your own actions? When someone loves you, but you really don't love him/her back, that's quite the hell for you. Compared to the state of this being heaven to you, i.e. you do love back, there is no difference in intention or action from the other persons side.
"Why do you think it needs to be an explicit action from the creator as opposed to being just the result of your own actions? "
There is no such thing as "my own actions" if I was created by an allmighty god. And the environment likewise. Then every action would be determined by the allmighty.
It all would be just gods playground to test and reward and punish his creations for being how he (or she or it) created them.
Christianity also assumes free will and non-determinism, yeah otherwise it would be quite pointless. It also includes the possibility of willfully turning away from God, which is not intended by him. If you think of a place where (most) things behave exactly as God created them, that's the story before that apple[0], but guess what, it ended.
"Christianity also assumes free will and non-determinism"
I know, but those concepts are at odds to me with the core concept of allmighty all knowing creator - but sure, anything almighty can also solve any paradoxon - it still does not make sense to me, nor do I see reason to follow that logic.
For me it is rather determinism which invokes a paradoxon and is at odds with the Christian God. This is because of the following:
When the universe is deterministic, anything you think, is not because you recognized something to be truthful, or even reflects the truth at all, it all happens simply because that is what the deterministic rules make you think. So what you think does not imply anything about the universe at all.
That means that you can't think the universe to be deterministic and be actually right about it. Because if it would be, you couldn't be right about anything. Also along the way you throw away the post-enlightenment concept of science, because it assumes the existence of Laplace's Demon and the scientist having a share in it. Thus, when you believe in determinism, you actually place science at the same level as wizardry.
"because it assumes the existence of Laplace's Demon and the scientist having a share in it."
I really don't follow here. That demon was a simple thought experiment. Nobody ever assumed it is real. If it would be real, a all knowing entitiy, it would be godlike. But why should any scientist assume such a thing can exist for real?
I also don't think it is real, it is just that science kinda acts like it could be real. Any science experiment relies on the observers actually being observes, that the observer isn't the one that is experimented with, that e.g. your eyes do tell you something about the state of the universe, and that your thought process models the logic of the universe.
If there is total determinism, there is no guarantee, that measurement tape next to an object for one person shows 10cm, for a second 9.3cm and a third sees a unicorn.
Post-enlightenment science operates on classical determinism subject to a tolerance of error subject to knowledge of initial conditions and properties of the system under observation.
Thanks to Stephen Smale's Horseshoe map, Lorenz's Butterfly, the limits of instrumentation and Heisenberg's uncertainty the notion of perfect knowledge and strict determinism are out the window even for simple fully isolated systems that show chaotic behaviour with a few weights on coupled axles.
Even with all the datacentres on earth and in space there'll never be a precise and accurate forecast of a vortex in a stream.
> Post-enlightenment science operates on classical determinism subject to a tolerance of error subject to knowledge of initial conditions and properties of the system under observation.
Yes, but the also assume that the observer isn't part of that system, which only holds true if there is free will.
Some seem to intuit that divine freedom is in competition with creaturely freedom. The assumption is that when God is acting, that necessarily drives out the action and initiative of creatures, and vice versa. The ancient Christian conception is that human freedom cooperates (synergizes) with God. Jesus illustrates this concept most clearly, being both divine and human and fully free in both respects. This union is an essential part of the whole plan in this view, that God would be present in His own creation and not infinitely apart from it. In this model the free action and cooperation of created things is essential to accomplishing the divine purpose.
On the other hand, if God really does just determine everything, you basically get pantheism where everything is an immediate and direct expression of “God.” That sounds like atheism with steps.
"On the other hand, if God really does just determine everything, you basically get pantheism where everything is an immediate and direct expression of “God.” "
Yes, or mysticism. We all exist within the mind of god. I do like those concepts more to be honest, but is indeed a quite different concept from the creator up in the clouds ruling the universe.
Hm, as far as I know, it is sort of debated what the "classical christian view" is. But I certainly have seen lots of pictures from god in churches portrayed as the bearded guy up in the sky. It is definitely the common concept. Father, son and holy spirit. Plays a strong role with catholics
“Do not imagine God according to the lust of your eyes. If you do, you will create for yourself a huge form or an incalculable magnitude which (like the light which you see with your bodily eyes) extends in every direction. Your imagination lets it fill realm after realm of space, all the vastness you can conceive of. Or maybe you picture for yourself a venerable-looking old man. Do not imagine any of these things. If you would see God, here is what you should imagine: God is love“
Maybe you can educate as what other "classical christian view" you know of. The pictures show a symbol for a property of God, they are not supposed to be taken literally, or do you also think, that Mary used to stand on a sickle on top of a miniature earth holding baby Jesus, which in turn holds a golden apple with a cross and in the other hand a lance that he pokes at snakes? Or that the Holy Spirit is a literal pigeon? That's not what is depicted in those images, but that would be the literal description.
This is actually the crux of the argument for iconoclasm. This is why faiths like Judaism and some sects of Islam strictly forbid any representation of creation or humanity, especially to "represent" the divine or spiritual realities.
If you begin personifying everything, if you represent spiritual/invisible concepts in concrete, human terms, if you reduce transcendent concepts to the pragmatic and the visible product of a sculptor's hands, people can get really confused. I promise.
People can lose sight of that transcendence and eternal meaning behind the symbols. They can get really wrapped up in the physical manifestations. This is also the central problem with the autism spectrum and such.
Aniconism attempts to free the mind from these limiting images. If you're Muslim and you contemplate a building with nothing but artistic words and text scrawled all over it, you obtain a far different result than contemplating a richly symbolic statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Many people have the intellect and the insight to go beyond that concrete imagery, but not all.
True. The reason why Christianity broke that is that Jesus was a human physically existing on earth. I think seeing Jesus as a white european, a black african, and a chinese person or in Renaissance clothes should bring the point across that it is not about what is literally depicted, but yeah some people might not get it. The question is would they get it without the imagery or do the simply lack the will or ability to perceive God as transcendent?
I'm remembering it not because it makes a good point, trying to reason about God is futile and pointless, but because it's funny both alone and because of its central role in the novel as saving humanity from a global holy war. Like that's just hilarious.
There's no reason a god has to be perfect. But certain major religions do make that claim. It's an argument about a specific concept of god that has a lot of traction.
I believe in the general principle that it is dangerous to deny reality. Note that this is different than saying that you have to accept reality as it is. But not only does denying reality damage your psyche, it also prevents you from choosing the best ways to actually change reality for the better.
it is an admittedly long read but i could sense it. i have a few fallen heroes myself and id be able to write diatribes of why i loved them and simultaneously hold their nuts to the fire in modern times.
I can relate to the author. Really loved the strip when I was younger and before I actually worked anywhere. The TV show on UPN was pretty decent too, it's a shame it didn't catch on more. Adams seemed to have a smart everyman quality to him and was doling out nuggets of wisdom like candy. His later years really troubled me because it difficult to relate the earlier idea I had of Adams to the later. It's a lesson in mortality and how much a person can change (not that I knew Adams or anything, maybe he was always like that). There are many other examples out there.
One thing I think people make the mistake of is taking a look at a person as they are now and then retroactively applying that to their past persona. I think there is something more to learn from the idea that we all can change substantially over time, even without major life incidents. The mind is very complex and sometimes it can go down some dark paths.
In the world of rationalist blogs, writing anything too negative about someone is dismissed as a "hit piece" which is license to ignore it. The only way to write negatively about a person is to write a both-sides style evaluation where you sandwich the criticism in between praise for the person. It's a way of signaling that you're a nice person who isn't just being mean, before you get to the meat of the issue.
This blog fits that format: It starts with praise for the person, some signaling about being their biggest fan, and then gets into the topic he actually wanted to write about.
When articles started coming out about the author of this blog and some of his problematic past with reactionaries and race science, the common tactic to dismiss any criticisms was to claim they were "hit pieces" and therefore could be ignored. In this community, you have to write in both-sides style and use "steelmanning" to pretend to support something before you're allowed to criticize it.
An author who "actually wanted to write about" how Adams was a terrible person, but feels obligated to include some praise to pacify the Politeness Police, probably would not write these words:
"I loved Scott Adams. Partly this is because we’re too similar for me to hate him without hating myself."
You seem to think the only thing that matters is Adams' engagement with right-wing politics and race; all else is fluff that OP only writes under duress, to not get canceled by the rationalist community's weird norms.
That is a complex hypothesis; here's a simpler one: OP is writing his honest thoughts. He sees Adams as a complicated, flawed person who should not be wholly defined by their worst comments or bad decisions. Adams isn't an evil villain worthy of dismissal and contempt. He's more of a tragic anti-hero who made bad choices -- but very understandable ones if you know his character sheet, backstory, the times he lived in, and the immediate pressures. Or at least that's the way OP views him.
It's a careful, nuanced article. It's fine with me if you don't agree with the author's viewpoint! But I do object to your accusations of disingenuousness for what appears to me to be a sincere, heartfelt eulogy.
Were you perhaps hoping for an article along the lines of, "He said that about black people, he is the enemy, when we think about him we should have nothing but fury and contempt in our hearts, and the righteous should rejoice in his death"? Are you thinking "Of course every community has cancel-cudgel-wielding norm enforcers that everybody carefully censors their words to avoid, this community must just have different censorship rules than the ones I'm used to, because the possibility of a community that doesn't immediately ostracize people for wrongthink is absurd"?
If so, I...was going to make a snarky comment about how this blog and the rationalist community are not places for you, but actually, I just feel bad for you; the politics of the 2010s and 2020s has traumatized [1] you and a lot of other people. You need to spend more time in places like this, not less -- communities where people try to keep their discourse on higher rungs [2] [3].
I agree with the thrust of your comment, but I think the comment to which you're replying was referring to Scott Alexander's "problematic past with reactionaries and race science", not Adams'.
(To be honest I would love for someone to write an essay engaging with Alexander in something of the spirit he engages with Adams here; he writes both good things, including IMHO this eulogy, but also a certain amount of garbage, and I do not claim to be wise enough to always distinguish on my own.)
I imagine them coming together at some Bay Area house party on copious amounts of LSD or MDMA. One, the world’s greatest comic writer, who more than anything else wanted to succeed in business. The other, the world’s greatest businessman, who more than anything else wanted people to think that he’s funny.
> As another self-hating nerd writer put it, “through all these years I make experiment if my sins or Your mercy greater be.”
Out of curiosity I searched this quote in Google, DDG and Claude and none of them found any source. Anyone know who the other self-hating nerd writer is? Sounds a bit like John Donne.
I was also curious about this quote, and it sounded to me too like Donne (or Pascal or Robert Boyle, a bit).
But Gemini 3.0 knew what it was, and it is from Omar Khayyám like the sibling commenter said, but from the little-known E. H. Whinfield translation (1883) rather than the more famous Fitzgerald one:
(Edited on reading more closely) Or possibly some fan work, since this "Extended Rubaiyat" isn't entirely from Omar Khayyam. So this doesn't pin down the provenance of the phrase.
I think this article really nails it. Adams' ego and self-satisfaction contributed to his susceptibility to the forces of the internet. It could happen to anyone.
What I remember that is notable about Scott Adams is way back he had The Dilbert Blog and it was pioneering in it's early adoption of the internet. Adams wrote his takes and theories back then, too. But he once wrote that he was going to scale those back, because they were not productive: he would lose followers for being controversial. But later something happened with the feedback loop of social media, because he eventually started to court controversy. I do think that the internet sucked him in.
Think he was always unusually susceptible to the feedback loop of social media.
Long before he was trying to be a political figure, criticism of his book resulted in this glorious piece of peak internet forum nonsense in which he responded to criticism by registering an anonymous account to say things like "I hate Adams for his success too" and "he's a certified genius which is hard to hide" until the mods decided to call him out...
Mostly seems like yet another case of snorting one's own tailpipe to the very end. It's a shame, the comics were great. But so many who experience success like that begin to consider themselves chosen ones and it only goes downhill from there unless you're a clown genius (tm).
I was a long time Scott Adams fan with the Dilbert Principle being one of my favorite books.
What I found most interesting about him was around the time Trump was running for president the first time, Adams was one of the first people to point out that Trump was, to use Adams' terms, a "master persuader". No one else at the time seemed to be talking about this and it was fascinating to see a humorist have this take/insight.
Interestingly, Adams also pointed out the persuasion flaws in Hillary's campaign. Evidently, the Hillary team noticed this and changed their messaging, which Adams then commented on.
I think many who dislike Trump (myself included) don't really want to think of him as having skills of any sort.
But I think it's more so that he does absolutely have certain skills such as persuasion or, some argue, charisma. He just doesn't have any of that pesky morality or sense of responsibility to the greater good, the entire citizenship, etc. that often gets in the way of such ambitions.
So we're left with a master manipulator who will hurt a great number of people, maybe benefit a few if necessary, but ultimately a subset of people think he's genius and a net positive. And I can't help but think that the only ones who think he's a "net positive" are either personally benefiting, or have been persuaded to believe it, despite reality painting a different picture.
I dunno if the "just paraphrasing [...] Fox" works as an explanation for success. It sounds like you believe he just keeps unaccountably stumbling into piles of cash and power?
An ageing Biden and Dubya have also occupied that office and they don't exactly strike me as "master persuader" types either.
Nobody is accusing Trump of lacking ambition or charisma, and there's also no doubt the party machine that backed him is pretty sophisticated in the arts of political campaigning. But there's a difference between being a "master persuader" able to convince almost anyone of almost anything and being a shameless braggart in front of an electorate that's unusually impressed by a celebrity's overconfidence and wealth, and also being a lot less shameless about appealing to their chauvinistic attitudes than predecessors.
Biden was a great campaigner and speech maker. Similar to Trump in that he wasn't afraid to piss people off. Don't let the dementia addled version that you saw in his 80s fool you into thinking he wasn't a man of extreme outlier political talent to get where he was. So was W Bush. You think going up on stage and acting like the smartest guy in the room (as many who worked with Bush say he actually was) is going to win you any votes? But acting like Bush will. That's not something just anyone can do. And you think calling 3 men out of 300 million "master persuaders" cheapens it? Any player in the NBA is a master basketball player and there are hundreds of them at any given time.
Trump was born rich to a father who taught him cruelty and insulated him from consequences. It was a golden ticket.
He still managed to go bankrupt 6 times, and couldn't get financing. He had to resort to selling his name or getting money from one of the most corrupt banks in the world.
He's rumored to have been despised in the NY social scene since his youth and up to the present.
He's been accused of rape by his own ex-wife and SA by more than 20 others. He bought pageants so beautiful women would have to interact with him. His longest relationship is with an illegal migrant (possibly trafficked) escort whose visa he had to pay for.
He gained no following during his time at the head of the Reform party.
Since 2015 his political base, like Nixon's, is largely built on white grievance and fear. It's incapable of building much once in power.
Now the Trump family accumulates money by selling power, hot air, and fleecing fools.
I'm having trouble finding any evidence for that. E.g., https://web.archive.org/web/20030808111721/https://edition.c... -- here's a thing from February of that year that (if I'm understanding right) reports Ventura leaving the Reform Party because he didn't like its endorsement of Pat Buchanan for president; it mentions Trump, but only as one person Ventura might have supported as a presidential nominee, and it actually quotes Trump saying to Ventura "you're the leader". Trump was never the Reform Party's nominee nor anyone else's. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidential... says that "he never expanded the campaign beyond the exploratory phase".)
It's not entirely clear to me that there was actually such a thing as the leader of the Reform Party, especially in early 2000 when there was a lot of infighting, but if there was one it seems to me that it might have been Ventura but certainly wasn't Trump.
I stand corrected. According to Wikipedia, Trump sought the nomination for the Reform party candidate for a few months and ultimately backed out.
Regardless, that fact only supports my point. The man is a loser whose modern following is based on largely external factors like white grievance and fear.
At the end of the day Dilbert was entertainment...
And SA was weird as f who made money bye filling a niche.
His political views and other snippets made that quite clear.
And let's be honest just creating cartoons about our corporate capitalistic shit hole was easy enough hit a nerve but more than a chuckle was Dilbert never.
It became cultural because it was printed everywhere and it was fun enough for it's format
I don't know if anyone else felt this[0], but my god did reading this part hit like an absolute truck
Every child is hypomanic, convinced of their own specialness. Even most teenagers still suspect that, if everything went right, they could change the world.
It’s not just nerds. Everyone has to crash into reality. The guitar player who starts a garage band in order to become a rockstar. The varsity athlete who wants to make the big leagues. They all eventually realize, no, I’m mediocre. Even the ones who aren’t mediocre, the ones with some special talent, only have one special talent (let’s say cartooning) and no more.
I don’t know how the musicians and athletes cope. I hear stories about washed-up alcoholic former high school quarterbacks forever telling their girlfriends about how if Coach had only put them in for the last quarter during the big game, things would have gone differently. But since most writers are nerds, it’s the nerds who dominate the discussion, so much so that the whole affair gets dubbed “Former Gifted Kid Syndrome”.
Every nerd who was the smartest kid in their high school goes to an appropriately-ranked college and realizes they’re nothing special. But also, once they go into some specific field they find that intellect, as versatile as it is, can only take them so far. And for someone who was told their whole childhood that they were going to cure cancer (alas, a real quote from my elementary school teacher), it’s a tough pill to swallow.
I'd not at all considered that "Former Gifted Kid Syndrome" generalises to pretty much everyone, from being told that you're special to realising that you're not all the way to being incredibly skilled or talented in an area, but that talent only going so far and then having to get over their not being special and that it applies to physical and mental capabilities
This sort of false expectation setting and feeling of exceptionalism eventually hits the cold hard reality of the limits of your capability somewhere and that can really break you
Reminds me especially of some people I saw in university who were absolutely brilliant, but so deeply affected by that one mistake they made or limit they had found where they had not expected one
Heck I felt the same, coming to terms with ones limits is a deeply challenging experience even if it is a very humanising one, I wasn't expecting to have that fall into my lap today
There's a few things I enjoy about reading Scott Alexander, he's got some really good takes now and again that in my eyes make reading his essays worth it
Yeah I think the funniest meme about impostor syndrome is "Am I even good enough to have impostor syndrome?". This is why I don't really subscribe to the Former Gifted Kid Syndrome myself despite having the symptoms (I think). It feels too narcissistic to describe myself as that. And turns out, it may not ever be special after all!
Once the article made the claim that the was the greatest comic author of all time, it became clear that the article is overanalyzing the man. one aspect proving the overanalysis is the wild length of the article beyond that point.
Just like how Jim Davis stumbled upon a reasonably funny, widely relatable gag that can be repeated for decades with minimal consequences, the success in Dilbert was being the first newspaper comic to live in the topic of corporate bureaucracy.
In case we all forget how newspaper comics work in a digital world of curated content, they are all successful based on broad appeal. Each newspaper has approximately two pages of funny content and each strip has to appeal to a large subset of readers if not all of them.
Family Circus is a perfect example. Dog funny. Reader like dog. Dog funny. Kids say funny thing with dog. Reader has kids and dog.
The topic of “my boss is incompetent” is just as widely appealing as “my cat is lazy and selfish.”
With all that context established we have to acknowledge that Scott Adams was a pretty normal guy with no particularly strong skills.
So as the article points out, when he pivoted his life to other endeavors, his limitations are strikingly apparent.
This is where I start not liking the guy. He had a smarter than thou attitude especially later in life when in reality, he was not himself particularly smart. I would stop short of calling him a narcissist but some vibes are there. He got lucky to be the guy who got a syndication deal at the right time making a specific type of comic. If he was born 20 years later he’d be a nobody, as the comic industry has completely changed.
His craft was largely surpassed by web comic authors with more specific audiences and more intelligent writing.
(1) It doesn't give Adams enough credit for his work on WhenHub. I was reading Scott Adams's posts about WhenHub contemporaneously as he worked through the startup's various pivots. He had a really good idea that people would want to see a map with a little live-location icon of where their friends & acquaintances were on the map and he pushed really hard on different ways of getting this idea towards reality. We have this now (in various other social map apps) and he showed good product sense.
(2) It gives Adams too little credit for the sincerity of his views.
> There’s a passage in the intro to one of Adams books where he says that, given how he’s going to blow your mind and totally puncture everything you previously believed, perhaps the work is unsuitable for people above fifty-five, whose brains are comparatively sclerotic and might shatter at the strain. This is how I feel about post-2016 politics. Young people were mostly able to weather the damage. As for older people, I have seen public intellectual after public intellectual who I previously respected have their brains turn to puddles of partisan-flavored mush. Jordan Peterson, Ken White, Curtis Yarvin, Paul Krugman, Elon Musk, the Weinsteins, [various people close enough to me that it would be impolite to name them here]. Once, these people were lions of insightful debate. Where now are the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?
This is not fair. Adams knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what he was getting into for all of 2015-2026. He was an extremely smart guy. We should treat him seriously, not infantilize him. He was not a Nobel Prize winning chemist or Fields Medal winning mathematician coming up with wacky perpeutal-motion machines or cranky Riemann Hypothesis solutions that everyone politely agrees to ignore. His hypnosis stuff and all the rest were genuinely what he really believed -- it's not like Sir Michael Atiyah's Todd function.
Adams was in the prime of his life, he was doing what mattered most to him, and we should take him at his word that he genuinely believed what he said and we should judge what he said on its merits.
(3) I don't really have a disagreement but I am fascinated by the implication in the last 1/3 of the eulogy slatestarcodex view that Scott Adams was trying to establish a guru cult community - in convergent evolution with the sort of thing that the squishy half of TPOT tends to sprout in the East Bay. It's an interesting observation which tells me something about what is going on with Bay Area rationalism, though I don't know quite what.
I thought that many of the things that happened to Adams -- especially his family troubles with his stepson, but also his illness -- were really sad. I'm sorry things didn't turn out differently and grateful for the cartoons.
TPOT is "this part of Twitter", a loose community of (roughly) post-rat affiliated people; the "squishy half" is presumably referring to the fact that a substantial number of such people end up quite big into woo of various sorts.
There is a no-joke they’re serious effort to link gym and fitness with conservative values.
People on the left point to statistics and a study or two showing decent correlation. People on the right readily agree regardless of their fitness saying it’s because of discipline and personal responsibility.
I think it’s funny to see people on the left lean into it.
>Can we talk about how he in the end buried himself in vile racist politics?
Can you point to anything other than the single post that he made saying “white should get/stay away from black people”?
I’ve seen how he lost his way, or fell, or whatever. But all I’ve seen anyone post is one tweet one time. And every single time it leaves out the context that he was replying to a poll of black people saying the same about white people.
There was also one comic strip that was actually a correct and decently good take on the failure/intersection of postmodernism and DEI. I don’t count that as it wasn’t a bad faith take it was on point.
> The amount of comments about white superiority/inferiority with no awareness of how absurd it is...
I haven't seen any. Could you give me an example?
> Is this site now a nazi bar? Damn.
Please don't turn Hacker News into a site for endlessly regurgitating lame social media "gotchas" or tropes. There are already many, many websites for that.
When I made that comment. This article had only 5 comment threads. And three of them talked about how "it's okay to be white " and superiority. All dead now just like my comment .
If you make a claim based on the supposed existence of something, be prepared to back the existence of said thing up. It's not "sealioning"[1][2] to want evidence for an extraordinary claim.
[1] Sealioning is an example of an blanket phrase that can rarely be applied correctly but more often that not is used by anti-intellectuals who have no other method to refute a statement or inquiry to their line of thought. Other examples being "whataboutism" (for the act of pointing out hypocrisy) and "slippery slope fallacy" (which is used to ridicule logical cause and effect statements)
[2] I find it humorous that the example given is of somebody prejudiced against an entire species for no logical reason (and who wants said species eradicated), who then refuses to justify it to the creature they are prejudiced against.
It almost feels as if the comic was originally written to justify racism and the author then realised how unpopular that would be. (The author attempts to refute this in an addendum but ends up using many words to say nothing, instead refuting a criticism of the character's visual design.)
It’s not hard, the dilbert guy was a psycho, sucks if you liked him, he was emphatically a psychopath. Maybe it’s time to reconsider some of your atrocious views, and learn some empathy
<And the most successful parasites are always those which can alter their host environment to be more amenable to themselves, and if you’re a parasite taking the form of a bad idea, that means hijacking your host’s rationality.>
After reading this, I thought, damn he just described the current administration. Then I kept reading and saw:
<It all led, inexorably, to Trump.>
Yeah(!), I think I'm gonna bookmark that site and reread it a few more times.
That isn't how I understood Dilbert. Dilbert is a normal guy and PHB is actually mentally retarded.
It's essentially gallows humor for a world where, for no apparent reason, blithering idiots often seem to be the only people who wield any decision making power.
Scott Adams had a take on that. The "Dilbert Principle" (his version of the Peter Principle) is that useless engineers that are promoted away from doing real work to keep them from messing it up.
I have a much darker hypothesis about it - when people are left to compete, they often resort to badmouthing those who they think could outcompete them.
Thus, the reputation of the most competent gets destroyed, while the village idiot remains as the only one left unscathed.
The weird thing about Adams was that he believed Trump was Dogbert, not the pointy-haired boss.
If he'd stayed apolitical people would have kept clipping his strips and putting them up on cubical walls. Dogbert was not an appealing character. His sharper edge kept the sharp edges of Dilbert and the other engineers more out of one's attention. Then Adams revealed that he believed Dogbert was the one to emulate and tried to prove his theories (and he said black people were scary -- there was that) and he polarized himself. Much of his audience recoiled. He gained new, more ICE-esque followers, and then still more of his audience recoiled.
To his credit he pioneered the PR death spiral later made famous by Kanye and Rowlings. This was not the career capper he was looking for.
In another way Trump is actually rather like Adams himself: his one great talent is as an entertainer and self-publicist, but he feels that he deserves success in business and leadership, so that he can be hailed as a great builder and decision-maker. Trump does have the personal charisma and feel for manipulation which Adams longed for, though. (Though it does help Trump that he started with the charisma boosts of inherited megawealth and the associated upbringing.)
This article is great but it is insanely long and suffers from having no scroll bar on mobile. I read for over an hour, falling asleep at least three times, and wondering the entire time how far I was from finishing. Eventually I flicked the page upward to find out and could not believe how far I scrolled. I gave up at that point.
I don't understand this white washing (no pun intended) of "Its okay to be white" a well known white supremacist troll slogan (see wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_okay_to_be_white). How does one write an article this obnoxiously long and negelect key context of that whole ordeal?
> This was the world of Dilbert’s rise. You’d put a Dilbert comic on your cubicle wall, and feel like you’d gotten away with something
My former manager used to have Dilbert comic strips on his wall. It always puzzled me - was it self deprecating humor? At a certain point though it became clear that in his mind the PHB was one layer ABOVE him in the management chain and not anyone at his level. I suspect it may be a recursive pattern.
From a recent NYTimes article about his passing:
> “Dilbert” was a war cry against the management class — the system of deluded jerks you work for who think they know better. Workers posted it on their cubicles like resistance fighters chalking V’s on walls in occupied Paris. But their bosses posted “Dilbert” in their offices too, since they also had a boss who was an idiot.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/16/opinion/dilbert-scott-ada...
I used to say seeing Dilbert strips in the office is a warning sign. People shouldn’t identify with Dilbert.
When in the 1990s-00s people posted Dilbert strips, it wasn't, IME, because they identified with the character Dilbert.
They did it because they saw in their work environment echoes of the environment portrayed in the comic, of which Dilbert was as much a part as the PHB.
All of us did in the day, and most of the strips were common from multiple people for a given office, for the obvious reason.
This seemed so blatantly obvious (and the answer if asked "why did you put this one up?") that I'm agog at anyone thinking otherwise.
For what it's worth, the only company where I posted Dilbert art (two animation cels that my wife bought for me from eBay) was nothing like the Dilbert world. It's just that I loved Dilbert and I thought it was a funny decoration.
But if there are no Dilbert cartoons on the wall, it might be because the PHB has banned them.
A CEO once told me with a straight face that a specific Dilbert cartoon on a cubicle wall was bad for the morale.
He was right about the bad for the morale part.
This is also a warning sign.
this feels like the setup to a Dilbert strip
It's why I don't watch The Office or Office Space. Just too much like the real office.
Someone told me early in my career that the longer you work in an office, the more Office Space transforms from a comedy to a documentary. They weren't wrong...
The day before the night I first saw Office Space, way after becoming an underground hit, I had my first encounter with the TPS communication barrage. It made the movie funnier and my work life sadder.
Similar thing happened with Idiocracy recently...
Parks & Recreation for anyone who's worked in a Government department.
Also Silicon Valley, albeit for a narrower audience. It’s so real it’s triggering.
Very true, Wally is my spirit animal.
Yeah that. Some ethics and management training programmes leveraged it because they thought it was popular. I still have a dilbert ethics training certificate somewhere as a reminder of how fucked up corp culture is.
American corp in Europe for ref. Defence. Absolute top tier stereotype asshats.
There is a Dilbert takeaway i use at work today: the only thing an employee really wants is more money for the same work/pain, or less work/pain for the same money. I dont do trinkets and titles. My people get as much time off as i can provide, and i will sign most anything that means they get paid a little more.
Titles are useful, because they are essentially free to the company, and (some) employees value them. And valuing titles can be rational, even if worker herself doesn't care, because they can look good on the CV and to friends and families.
Some 'trinkets' are worth more to the employees than they cost the company to provide. So it's rational to provide them. Think of Wally's beloved coffee for an example. Or look at Googlers' lunch.
I believe a lot of workers want a fulfilling career, a sense of purpose and the knowledge their work matters. After they have their material needs covered, other aspects start becoming dominant.
I feel your pain. I’ve been to some highly dilbertised companies myself.
Then you've totally missed the entire point.
It shows the work environment shares negatives aspects depicted in the comic strips. This is reason for alarm.
https://archive.is/9JVkU
And while we don't have cubicles and TPS reports anymore, people have different grievances and ways of expressing their cynicism.
History does not repeat but it rhymes indeed
We don’t even have cubicles anymore, it’s all everyone shoved onto the same table now.
Indeed it’s telling how bad things haven gotten that many would yearn for the cubicle now
Cubicle, you say? LUXURY! We had to code 12 of us to a desk inside a cardboard box in the middle of the road. At the end of every day, Pointed-Haired Boss would replace us with A.I. and fire us, only to re-hire us the next day at half the salary.
(With apologies to:)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Yorkshiremen
There are still many companies with cubicles, although they do seem to be getting rarer.
Well, and pre-cubicles, it was just a bunch of tables in a big room surrounded by managers in offices.
The open workroom was a relatively short fad pioneered by Frank Lloyd Wright. If you look at office buildings before that, they're much more similar to houses and apartments. Lots of rooms connected by hallways, staircases, and atriums. You can imagine the difficulty and expense of lighting a large open space without electricity.
In Europe I see a lot of companies with open space workrooms with some cubicles, maybe 30-40% of workers at those companies seem to work in them.
No, it wasn't. Most companies had separate offices, individual or with 2-4 desks in them.
With clean desk policies in some organizations, you would be lucky to have a seat. Initial 5-10 minutes are spent on finding a place to sit.
even worse lol
it's like "I hear you hate cubicles, so we can solve the cubicle problem and save money at the same time"
Next, they’ll get rid of the table…
like cage free eggs
My former manager organized an offsite where we all watched Office Space together.
Did she just not get it? Or did she get it, and it was some weird flex making us watch it with her? I still don’t know.
Your manager had a boss, too. She had to deal with the oddities and frustrations of corporate life and expectations, too.
Even your CEO has a board to deal with.
I always think it's strange when people draw a mental dividing line between ICs and managers and think people on the other side are living in totally different experiences of the world.
I actually think managers struggle much more than ICs, because they have to deal with quirks of their multiple reports + their boss’s.
A decent manager, especially a low level manager of ICs, will work hard to shield her charges from the full impact of the company's bureaucracy. And even a mediocre manager can't help but do some of that: they usually still have to approve time off requests and deal with the paperwork for performance evaluations etc.
Yeah, I sometimes miss the more simple IC life. Office politics is a more of a problem in management, but also dealing with humans all the time is just more messy.
I get that we’re all part of the same system, but I consider Office Space a nihilistic rejection of the entirety of that system. It’s not just “my boss is dumb,” it’s “this whole system is anti-human and dumb, and we’d all be happier working outside with our muscles.”
And it’s totally appropriate for that message to resonate with my boss, but it’s weird for my boss to make that message the focus of what is ostensibly a corporate team-building event.
Edit: just realized I used a “it’s not just this, it’s that” construction. I swear I’m not an LLM, but maybe their prose is infecting my brain.
> but it’s weird for my boss to make that message the focus of what is ostensibly a corporate team-building event.
Having been a manager: I bet your boss didn't want to be there any more than you did. They were forced to do corporate team-building and they recognized the absurdity of it all.
So they tried to come up with something entertaining that they could claim was passably work-related. They were trying to do their best by you within the constraints of what was mandated by their job.
This looks like a nice gesture. You are too occupied viewing your manager as "the other" to recognize when they were trying to bond and do something nice for the team within the constraints of their job.
You're lucky. At corporate team-building retreats I never got to watch any fun movies. One had us listen to lectures by a manager whose primary experience was as a little league coach and who thought leading his team was the same thing. The other involved the manager giving us a psychology test of his own creation and trying to lecture us about what he thought our learning styles and weaknesses were based on all the different self-help books he read.
Totally valid that my boss probably didn’t want to be there either, but for context this was circa 2008 Google where “offsite” meant “go spend company money to do something fun.”
Alternatives were literally things like going to Napa or an amusement park or go-karting. Or if you really wanted to watch a movie, the options were all other movies. Why pick the one that digs at the tenets of your shared reality?
I dunno watching office space with my team doesn't seem like the worst way to spend some time together. Maybe just reading too much into it?
Office Space has become a part of the corporate culture's shared language. You are out of the loop if you haven't seen it, and it wouldn't surprise me that a lot of people are introduced to it in a work-related environment (as I was).
Because your manager might have been dealing with something privately, and didn't feel like doing something fun, but had to because the Gods Of Corporate decreed it so.
And so, an act of rebellion against a shared reality that forces you to have fun on schedule when it's time for the quarterly offsite.
Don't worry, your use of its not X, it's Y did not trigger the LLM pattern match for me. I think the main reason is that your two clauses are of very disparate lengths. LLMs use its X not Y as a rhetorical device that relies on brevity and punchiness, while your longer quote has the authentic ring of clumsy, human phrasing.
>And it’s totally appropriate for that message to resonate with my boss, but it’s weird for my boss to make that message the focus of what is ostensibly a corporate team-building event.
That just means they valued their actual sentiments more than keeping appearances. Doesn't sound weird: it sounds humane.
>Alternatives were literally things like going to Napa or an amusement park or go-karting. Or if you really wanted to watch a movie, the options were all other movies. Why pick the one that digs at the tenets of your shared reality?
To point at the elephant in the room, as opposed to just go on with the program and have another forced fun session.
I mean, your questions amount to "why couldn't she just be a good cog and pretend like the rest of us?"
It's like being surprised a coworker is a human on the inside.
To add some meta to your edit: I would swear you are not an LLM... or maybe an LLM trained on a lot of comments on HN.
You have seen a human side of that manager. She acted like a human.
> Edit: just realized I used a “it’s not just this, it’s that” construction. I swear I’m not an LLM, but maybe their prose is infecting my brain.
LLMs didn't come up with their quirks in a vacuum. Humans always influenced each other in their language use.
It used to be over sound waves mostly but they don't travel far, then came the printing press, later radio and TV. LLMs are just another language blender.
> I swear I’m not an LLM, but maybe
...they learned it by watching us?
It seems to me that line managers straddle the line somewhat and above that is where it is a really different world. I have started a company and now back to being an IC so been on both sides of it. It's not totally different, but it is a lot.
I've been back and forth between manager and IC, too.
It is different. I won't deny that.
However, politics and corporate absurdist formalities aren't exclusive to management. A lot of the corporate politics and face-palm worthy office games I've dealt with came from ICs, either as my peers, reports, or as some other manager's reports.
We just tend to give a pass to ICs when they do it because they're not viewed as having as much power in the office.
Middle management rarely has enough power to make any changes. They have to dish out whatever bullshit is handed down to them from above.
Can confirm, as an EM this is very true. The best you can hope for is that we're transparent with you about the BS and don't BS you. That's what I try to do.
> my former manager organized an offsite where we all watched Office Space together.
Working in management is infinitely more soul crushing than being Peter Gibbons.
I literally brought up The Peter Principle when I quit a job like that.
Office Space is a parable about a software developer who doesn’t want to be promoted beyond his core competency. Peter Gibbons is fighting the Peter Principle.
> Office Space is a parable about a software developer who doesn’t want to be promoted beyond his core competency.
I always thought Lumberg gets a somewhat un-derserved bad rap in that flick. He is characterized as the villain and of course is—from Peter’s perspective which is where the story is told. But within that universe and at a 10,000 foot POV was he? He seems to be the only one within the corporation that is actually functional, capable, motivated and excelling in his role. No doubt he is a dick, but that’s just part of his role and he’s good at it. He’s a cog, knows he’s a cog, but realizes the machine still needs to run. He recognizes that Peter has hit that competence/incompetence point. He also realizes the Bob’s are incompetent, but powerful. He really is the only one that seems to realize everything that is going on.
His communication deficit was too big to actually be a good manager, no?
(Well, maybe not. Maybe being soul-crushingly efficient is optimal if you know most people will fluctuate out soon anyway, so your lack of ability to actually build a rapport with them is not a material impediment to deliver results sustainably.)
Did you not realize we’ve built a system where everyone is both oppressor and oppressed. Did you not think she too had an idiot boss?
Shit rolls downhill...and most people just try to keep an eye on where the next turd comes from without bothering to watch where it goes after it's past them.
That's... So wise... Where is that from
from how to be a plumber --
You forgot the most important rule of plumbing: Don’t bite your fingernails.
Not enough people realize this, unfortunately. If they did our system would be flatter than it currently is. You wouldn't have "peaks", so to speak.
Well, driving an Uber is pretty flat.
I watched Office Space with a bunch of coworkers at a previous job. It's a funny movie that most people in startups view as a parody of big company office life. Our company didn't function like the movie.
You sound as though you worked for one of my managers, though he just gave everyone a copy of the DVD for Christmas one year. The thing is, he definitely got it, knew he was part of the system, and did his best to take care of the people working for him.
I don't have stats to back it up, but many people claim that Office Space made a lot of people resign their cubicle jobs and this was a sharp effect on its release.
Office Space was released in 1999, at the peak of the dot-com bubble. So, of course office jobs (particularly software jobs) would decrease when that bubble popped.
But it's not as a result of that movie.
I specifically avoided making the claim because you really cannot prove either way
I remember when it was released, I graduated that year, and I remember the reactions at the time
it would still be anecdotal and it's hard to know how many people did in fact resign as a result of the impact from this film, and if it's something that would make any difference in the grand scheme of things
The specific claim made was a spike in voluntary resignations, which should be distinguishable from any bubble popping effect.
Perhaps she just had a good sense of humor? It's a great movie after all..
People can play a role and clearly see the role they play as well.
Plenty of managers see the absurdity in a lot of what they have to do, but it's mandated by the people above them.
[flagged]
Any truly popular art relies on finding an emotional hook that’s specific enough to identify with strongly but broad enough that most people can see themselves in it. Everyone’s felt their boss is an asshole and their underlings are idiots, so they identify with that emotion rather than the specifics of Dilbert being an engineer. Most of Dilbert’s complaints map pretty well to the conflict between any other kind of individual contributor role dealing with management.
Well, PHB is not about simply being a manager, but about being a certain type of manager, so he might very well be justified in his wall decoration.
I think everybody, with few exceptions, is in the system involuntarily. And also you can't say that that you don't want to be in the system. You have to fake it very hard if you want to "win". You have to demonstrate "passion" and such.
My boss refused to allow people to call him boss, for example. He really hated the system.
"I'm a regular boss, I'm a cool boss. You can just call me Stan"
Probably not how you meant it but I chuckled.
Did you ever encounter a well managed (or well functioning) team(s)? If so, why do you think they performed so well?
Great question. The best team I can name had these things going for them:
- Constrained scope (they were the UI team on an internal product; by the time they got their marching orders the whole thing was a very well understood problem domain)
- Excellent manager (he has infinite calm, deep empathy for the fact that real people are messy and complicated, and an incredible nose for time estimates). There was basically no amount of pressure up-chain could put on him that would shake his cool; he seems to be completely confident internally that the worst-case scenario is he goes and lands on his feet somewhere else.
As a result, his team was basically always happy and high-performing and he consistently missed up-chain expectations set by project managers above him who had to consistently report that UI wasn't going to be delivered on the timeline they set because they had taken his estimates and shaved three weeks off of them, only to discover that the estimates were dead-on and they were the liars. He was insulated from this by (a) keeping consistently good notes on his initial estimates, everything that bumped them, and the final deliverable dates and (b) having skip-level meetings where he could present all of this to his boss's boss clearly.
I had a period where I was on a team like that. We didn't have a manager.
Though some of my worst work periods was when I didn't have a manager either lol.
I'm reminded of the story of Graphing Calculator:
"His contract in another division at Apple had just ended, so he told his manager that he would start reporting to me. She didn't ask who I was and let him keep his office and badge. In turn, I told people that I was reporting to him. Since that left no managers in the loop, we had no meetings and could be extremely productive."
- https://www.pacifict.com/story/
It’s almost as if the roles/titles aren’t the determining factor.
The manager has decision making power, a well paid senior team, and a clear goal. I have seen it work like a dream.
It speaks to a general lack of self awareness people have about class/power structures.
It's PHBs all the way up.
PHB?
Pointy Haired Boss :)
For those looking for a "successor theory" to the Dilbert Principle, I highly suggest Venkatesh Rao's Gervais Principle [0].
To use Dilbert terms: Adams would say that PHB is dumb and he is promoted into management as that's where he can do the least damage.
Rao would say that PHB is actually put there by upper management to be a combination of:
- fall guy/lightning rod to take blame for failed projects
- dumb subordinates are less likely to try to take your job (dumb doesn't mean unintelligent. Rather, Rao uses the term "clueless" to highlight smart people who are not political)
0 - https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/
There's also the Commander In-Chief of the German reichswehr quote about officers:
"I distinguish four types. There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord
Scott Alexander reviewed it:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-gervais-pri...
It's nice to see someone else (unsurprisingly) reached identical conclusions as me! I would like to try adding a 3rd reason: dumb subordinates don't upset the apple cart because they don't really have the capacity to do so, and people in power hate upsetting the apple cart as they love the status quo that puts them in power.
Smart, moral people have practically a compulsion to improve things, or at least call out idiocy.
I would also add the need for an actual reason to promote the PHB, and I would argue that one quantifiable way upper management can try to argue for a promotion of the PHB is how "hard they work" (regardless if they achieve results or not). Putting in many, many hours also help promote PHBs who will defer to authority.
It also helps explain the phenomenon where the manager class becomes soulless. Institutions that focus on preserving their own power rather than creating value will promote people (at least to middle management) who are willing to put their nose to the grindstone, sacrifice their health and relationship, producing nothing of value, all to walk on some concept of a career treadmill faster.
Ive seen it in action. When you get lazy, you start to notice that the single most important aspect is posturing.
So to be lazy you start posturing, selling people how great you and your project is. The more projects you have under you, the higher the chance of something very successful too.
It works, suddenly they can work even less and get promoted.
Ofc this is horrible for the company, having the worst people doing the most “internal sales for positioning”. This also creates a giant middle management layer.
I wouldn’t say they are dumb, they just noticed that great work has no correlation with performance. What does have a correlation is how you act and speak. The All-In Chamaths of the world (not saying he is dumb, he isnt, but damn if boosting isn’t everything for him).
This is why Manifesting, was so popular for the management layer, suddenly it wasnt “being untruthful” it was “manifesting into existence”.
The Gervais Principle is fascinating and a bit too inflexibly nihilistic in my mind.
A transcendent theory past both is Komoroske's "Coordination Headwinds"
https://komoroske.com/slime-mold/
"Organization headwinds" diagrams are helpful, thanks for the interesting read.
The Gervais Principle is much more accurate in my experience. One of the important reasons middle management has to be "clueless" to drink the kool-aid and take on more responsibility for minimal extra compensation. The checked out employees of the world know their work is meaningless, but the clueless ascribe to it some greater meaning which makes them trustworthy.
The PHB is not middle management. Middle management is at least one level above the PHB.
Based on who's definition? Plenty of people use "middle management" to describe anyone under executives, but who doesn't spend time closely aligned with front-line work. In some structures, lowest level management is closely integrated with front-line, but I'd argue PHB has next to zero exposure to the actual work or goings-on.
PHB is Dilbert’s boss, yes? That’s front line manager, first level manager, whatever. By definition a middle manager has managers above and below them.
That depends on the company size, surely?
No. A first level manager cannot be middle management. A small company might not have middle management but the first level manager is bottom management.
> bottom management
“line management” is the term I am familiar with
To use Dilbert terms: Adams would say that PHB is dumb and he is promoted into management as that's where he can do the least damage.
Why not just fire the incompetent employee? Isn't this obvious?
When I ponder this, the "Isn't it obvious?" frame ends up cutting both ways: ex. isn't it obvious this isn't actually an active thought when people make these decisions? (to wit, the theory cited is based on The Office TV series, which also never depicts this)
It's very difficult to fire people in many places. They would prefer you leave on your own.
facebook seemed to have no trouble firing lots of people in 2022-2023
Mass layoffs are different legally. Hard to do those in other countries though.
I mean it sounds like they're firing tons of people, competent and incompetent. If it's the only way to do it, no wonder the incompetent doesn't get fired.
The first blog post or two is great, but it eventually goes down a really annoying grindset pop psychology route.
I found https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/ has a good comparison
>The Peter Principle holds that people are promoted until they prove incompetent in their role, and then they remain there; competence is rewarded with promotion and incompetence is rewarded with the status quo.
>The Dilbert Principle, with more of a knowledge-worker focus, rings true to those of us who have seen terrible programmers promoted to project managers. It states that bad employees are promoted into management to prevent them from doing damage with their incompetence.
>The Gervais Principle gives a lot more credit to those at the very top (which, in my opinion, makes it far more accurate in its reasoning about corporate leadership); it says that the sociopaths that run the organization knowingly over-promote dedicated but relatively inept people into middle management [and this is done so execs can use them as canon fodder, buffer in interaction, and and avoid having their own jobs threatened]
Look at the contrast.
We are teaching the sand to think and working on 3d printing organs and peering at the beginning of time with super-telescopes and landing rockets.
Then look at our leadership class. Look at the leaders of the most powerful countries. Look at the most powerful leaders in finance and business.
Look at that contrast. It’s very clear where the actually smart people are.
But those actually smart people keep putting leaders like that in power. It’s not a conspiracy. We do it. We need them for some reason.
I have two hypotheses.
One is familiar: they are sacrificial lightning rods. Sacrifice the king when things don’t go well.
The other is what I call the dopamine donor hypothesis. Compared to the speed and complexity of the modern world, most human beings are essentially catatonic. Our dopamine systems are not calibrated for this. So we sit there and do nothing by default, or we play and invent but lack the intrinsic motivation to do the hardest parts.
So we find these freaks: narcissists, delusional manic prophets, psychopaths. They’re deeply dysfunctional people but we use them. We use the fact that they have tireless non stop motivation. Dopamine always on. Go go go.
We place them in positions of authority and let them drive us, even to the point of abuse, as a hack to get around the fact that our central nervous systems don’t natively do this.
Then of course if things go wrong, it’s back to their other purpose: sacrificial scapegoats.
So in a sense we are both victims of these people and exploiters of them. It’s a dysfunctional relationship.
If we could find ways to tweak our systems like amphetamine but without the side effects, we could perhaps replace this system with a pill.
It would be more compassionate for the freaks too. They’re not happy people. If we stopped using them this way they might get help and be happier.
The order is wrong here:
Governance creates markets -> markets create innovation. These things have feedback loops into governance, but the tail ultimately does not wag the dog.
Engineers-- especially in the Bay where discussion of such is written off as mental illness-- often dismiss politics and governance as nonsense subjects that lack rules and are run by the mob/emotions. The reality however, is that these societal constructs have their own "physics" and operate like a (very complex and challenging to study) system just like everything else in the natural world.
The attitude itself is of course something has been designed and implemented into engineering culture by precisely the leaders you contend are scape goats to society. POSIWID.
> The attitude itself is of course something has been designed and implemented into engineering culture by precisely the leaders you contend are scape goats to society. POSIWID.
I don’t know if this particular statement is true or not, but the number of smart people I know who thinks they’re not affected by propaganda is wild. We’re all affected by propaganda.
If for no other reason, that's true because we live in a democratic republic. If you're affected by propaganda, then I am, too.
"Governance creates markets"
I am not sure this is necessarily the case, at least historically. We have good evidence of long distance trade from the Stone Age, and even some Neanderthal sites contain stones whose origin can be traced to distant regions (over 100 km, IIRC, which is far away in a primordial roadless countryside).
I would agree that markets cannot grow beyond a certain size without a government, though.
Presence of trade is not necessarily a market in the modern sense.
It might be better to say that governance regulates and stabilizes markets. Keeping us from regression to the natural market of the jungle.
[dead]
Those games operate far more probablistically and high dimensionally than programming and I suspect engineers would rather dismiss them as “dumb” than accept they are simply inferior players in those games.
Primary multi agent multi dimension probabilistic resolution problems model human and crowd interaction better than “code do this every time”.
I’ve spent a long time in the valley and I’ve come to the personal conclusion that engineers are often the dumbest (and most narrowly useful) in the room not the smartest. And the rest of them let them think they are very smart (tm) so they do what we say.
How very Dilbertian. If one were to compress the above post into a comic, it would star Dilbert wondering why people with towering intellects like Dilbert weren't running the world in the first panel and then humorously demonstrating in subsequent panels Dilbert's disastrous and irreparable lack of understanding of messy human interrelationships and motivations that have to be navigated to not implode as a leader.
Well observed. And seen in tragic relief as the piles of dead in Russia and China during their most technocratic periods run by engineers.
Which wasn’t just about refusal to interact with humanity but to acknowledge that complex multi factor problems can’t be solved as top down heuristics.
The piles of bodies in China came from Mao and his cultural revolution, and he can hardly be called an engineer. The recent success of China has come when it was run by engineers. And when was Russia ever run by engineers? So I think you have it backwards here.
"Russia was never run by engineers?" That's a massive oversight of 20th-century history. The Soviet Union was the world’s first and most committed technocracy. The GOSPLAN (State Planning Committee) was a literal attempt to run a continent-sized economy as a deterministic engineering problem. By the 70s, the Soviet leadership was more densely packed with engineers than any administration in US history.
They failed because they tried to 'refactor' nature. Stalin’s 'Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature' and Mao’s 'Great Leap Forward' (which applied industrial throughput logic to biology/close-planting) are the ultimate warnings of what happens when you treat complex, probabilistic systems (ecology and humanity) like a closed-loop machine.
Mao wasn’t an engineer by degree, but he was a High Modernist by practice. He believed society could be 'debugged' and 'optimized' through central planning. The result wasn't a more efficient system; it was a total system crash that cost tens of millions of lives.
Current China is a perfect example of 'Success by Engineering'—high-speed rail and ghost cities built on a demographic 'memory leak' (the One Child Policy) that is now crashing the entire stack. This is exactly my point: Engineers optimize for the metric they can see, while ignoring the high-dimensional chaos that actually sustains life.
i dont think this matches what you said earlier, that when there was the most engineers is when there was the most death.
instead, the most engineers corresponds with some time after the mass death. an alternative explanation would be that they started with non-engineers wanting to enforce high modernism and it didnt work, and then they switched to engineers and it did
Sure. Whatever. But changing the goalpost to whatever personal nonsense definition for engineering is literally proves my point.
> We are teaching the sand to think and working on 3d printing organs and peering at the beginning of time with super-telescopes and landing rockets.
There are a lot of smart and skilled people involved in making a cutting edge chip fab. It's not one ubermensch in a basement inventing a new TSMC process by thinking really hard. There's technicians, scientists, researchers in multiple disciplines. All of those people have to be organized.
I don't know where you think the "smart" people are, but maybe meditate on the fact that "smartness" is not a single variable that dictates a person's value or success. Someone who is an expert at researching extreme UV patterning isn't going to necessarily run a great chip manufacturer.
It's pretty simple: those people are the absolute experts in their field, similar to those top chemists or whatever. That field is societal power systems.
Of course someone who dedicated his time to climbing and understanding power systems will have more power than someone who doesn't.
Sure, but then my question is why we need them. What service do they provide? That’s what I was speculating about. I don’t buy the conspiracy theory that they’re pure parasites, since hosts without parasites would then be stronger and would ultimately outcompete.
We have all the skills to do all the things without these power systems so what are they for?
I don’t mean policing and courts. Those are administrative and managerial functions. I mean power of the sort that makes large numbers of people do stuff. I mean gurus and aggrandizers, basically. The people who con and goad us into doing hard things.
My hypothesis is that we can’t self generate that due to neurological limitations rooted in our evolutionary history in a much slower world that rarely changed.
Amphetamine could work too but it has ugly side effects. Social pressure is less hazardous and scales better.
Managers are here to accommodate the need for cooperation, while compensating for lack of telepathy.
Put two people with a lot of expertise in different domain. Require them to come up with a solution to a problem you have.
That's three people. You'll get at the very least four opinions about each and every step.
Scale the complexity of the problems and the number of people.
You end up with full time jobs consisting purely in routing information from brain A to brain Z.
Unfortunately, the skills to do this job are never properly taught, but learnt in the job. (MBA don't teach management - they either teach the mechanism of some administration, or ways to get rich consulting.)
Problems occur because we conflate management, supervision, decision making, strategy setting, etc...
P.H.B. is an antipattern, a caricature, a stereotype like all other : it's funny cause there is truth to it. But we are by no mean condemned to fulfill our stereotypes (should I remind all engineers here about the stigmas attached to nerd in the real world ?)
The WIDGET model of "working geniuses" is one possible answer, it does explain a lot of team dynamics in my experience.
Since no one has all six working geniuses, and you're only a genius at two, it takes a collection of people, proportional to the work that needs to be done, of each type.
The opposite note widget is the “film director”.
Eg they are not the best screenwriter, producer or cinematographer but they are the best at getting all of those people to work together.
> I don’t mean policing and courts. Those are administrative and managerial functions.
Middle management is also an admininstrative and managerial function. Even in a best-case scenario, coördinating work among a huge amount of people within enterprises that are mostly run via command-and-control mechanisms and inside politics (as opposed to any self-regulating "market") obviously takes a whole lot of effort. That's really the natural job description for PHB's.
People are not inspired by institutions and committees, you need a personality that can articulate a vision.
You got it backwards. We (which we?) don't need them, they need us. They can't play the games they like without massive resource extraction. If someone continually catches the flu, it doesn't mean they need the flu.
We don’t just use these people we create them. Since ancient Egypt the priest class of every society is employed to apply ritual trauma to psychologically prepare princes for their vocation of restless leadership.
I disliked Adams, but this is a good eulogy.
>For Adams, God took a more creative and – dare I say, crueler – route. He created him only-slightly-above-average at everything except for a world-historical, Mozart-tier, absolutely Leonardo-level skill at making silly comics about hating work.
A+, no notes
I was caught off guard by how brutal this article was at points. I don't really follow Scott Alexander much, so I was pleasantly surprised by it. While I don't have the same relationship with Scott Adams... I can see parts of this in my relationship with Kanye.
Pretty easy to take pot shots at a dead guy who lacks the ability to punch back. Especially when the dead guy hosted a daily show and would have been thrilled to have him come on and debate! Why didnt Mr Codex get around to stating his opinion re: Adams for the past 10 years?
Seems like he's just quoting Adams himself. Adams was popular for his self-deprecating humor.
Adams used to tell people the secret to success was being in the top 25% at multiple things - he could draw and he could make corporate jokes, but he was not exceptional in either of those things. It's not really a pot shot, more of a tribute. He's still saying Adams was just below Leonardo da Vinci.
Less about the degree to which Adams was talented (which, as you note, Adams might agree), more about how much his books sucked and the ideas within them were ridiculous, arguing that Adams' claims regarding hypnosis were entirely bogus, and that gaining popularity as Scott Adams the blogger-slash-podcast host (as opposed to "Dilbert guy") "destroyed him."
For what it’s worth, I think a lot of people were pretty happy to shit on Scott Adams for the last decade.
I don’t know anything about Scott Alexander, but even well before Adams had cancer, there was a thread on Something Awful making fun of all the stupid weird shit Adams would say.
That's fine - the man was certainly not above being criticized, and he had plenty of flaws. Point is, do it while he's alive, don't wait until he's dead (especially when his death was not a surprise)
> do it while he's alive,
Why? Must every obituary be a hagiography?
Adams got plenty of criticism while alive and had plenty of chance to defend himself. He doesn't get a heckler's veto on the living. We are entitled to tell the truth about the dead to ensure the accuracy of their memory.
But this wasn't an obituary. It wasnt a recalling of facts about his life. It wasnt written for a news outlet which publishes obits about most notable figures. It was an opinion piece and a discussion of how Adams affected the writer.
Of course Alexander, or anyone, has the right to be critical. It's just cowardly to wait till he's dead when he isn't able to refute any of the points (or even to absorb them and say, yea, he's right about this, I'm going to try doing better).
"cowardly to wait till he's dead when he isn't able to refute any of the points"
It's only here in the past few days that I have ever heard this particular view: that it's somehow "cowardly" or uncouth or otherwise inappropriate to speak critically of someone who has died because being dead, they are unable to respond.
I am genuinely curious where this idea came from. I've heard "don't speak ill of the dead" all my (by now, getting to be pretty long) life but I never heard this rationale for it except here in threads related to this guy.
I agree that it would be inappropriate to, say, attend someone's funeral and walk around saying you know, in a lot of ways, this guy was a real asshole.
But to claim it as some kind of general principle, with that rationale? That is... deeply weird, or at least it strikes me that way. How on earth could anyone ever discuss any historical figure while abiding by this rule?
Or on a much smaller scale, imagine a family with an abusive member who dies. Are the remaining members never to speak of the ways they were affected by that person? That's crazy.
People are who they are, live the lives they live, and do the things they do. Most people are better than the worst thing they ever did and worse than the best thing they ever did. There's nothing wrong with assessing that fully after they die.
But it's the "because they can't respond" rationale that surprises me. I had no idea that rationale even existed, let alone seems (at least here, with respect to this guy) to be somewhat widespread.
If you're just now hearing about something which is "somewhat widespread" (your words) maybe that's a "you problem"
Were you caught off-guard when Scott Alexander wrote, of his own essay, I previously felt bad for writing this essay after Adams’ death; it seems kind of unsporting to disagree with someone who can’t respond.?
I think it boils down to the idea of "if you have something to say, say it to my face"
Abuse is an outlier, especially within a family, it is accompanied by complex, ongoing issues with trauma and possible retribution and isolation. It is perfectly normal that people would choose not to speak out while their abuser is alive. It's the reason why sexual abuse and DV victims are often granted anonymity as witnesses or accusers in criminal cases, which isn't allowed in normal situations.
"If you're just now hearing about something which is 'somewhat widespread' (your words) maybe that's a 'you problem'"
That could be but seems a little unlikely. For now, I'm sticking with what I know, which is that I have heard this idea expressed in exactly one context: people who seem to be fans of the Dilbert guy on Hacker News.
Maybe this is really a widespread, commonly-held view in the broader American culture that I somehow never heard of my entire life. Like I say, could be, but seems unlikely.
What seems more likely is that it's a somewhat common view in some subculture that I'm not familiar with but that is over-represented on HN for some reason.
Maybe I'll encounter it in other contexts also as time goes by, I don't know.
Your comment seems almost completely divorced from the tone of someone who actually read the article in good faith. It's almost like you got to the first critical thing that was said, stopped, and came back to the comments section to pout.
In no way was Scott Alexander dancing on the man's grave, in fact he spends a considerable portion of the article going over the positive influence Scott had on his life, despite not endorsing his politics and being dubious of his self-help methods.
> first critical thing
I disagree, for me, the most objectionable parts were subjective evaluations of Adams' last chapter of life, which come rather late in the article:
The man who had dreamed all his life of being respected for something other than cartooning had finally made it.
Obviously, it destroyed him.
and later, Adams was willing to sacrifice everything for the right to say “It’s Okay To Be White”
Who is Alexander to say he was destroyed, or sacrificed anything? Yes, it is factual that Dilbert was removed from newspapers and Adams' income probably dropped 99%. But Adams was already a senior citizen who had millions of dollars and no children. I doubt he cared about the money any more. Adams probably also lost a huge number of fans. But who cares? Those fans were at arms length at best. He found (or created) a community of people he could interact with daily who deeply, deeply admired him. He "found his tribe." I can't speak for you, or for most celebrities, as I've never been one, but I'd probably feel more satisfied having a few dozen super-close friends who I admire back and with whom I'm engaged in a two-way discourse than millions of anonymous admirers that I've never met and don't know anything about.
Adams was not entirely stupid. He knew that his comic strip would be in jeopardy if he made comments about black people, and he did it anyway. He made a calculation and proceeded. It probably isn't the same decision that most people, including Alexander, would have made, but that doesn't mean it "destroyed him" or even that it was a sacrifice. He shed all the "admirers" and distant "fans" and found out who his true allies were. Far fewer, yes, but now he knew those who stood by him were aligned. Especially later in life when you have less time and patience for fighting, for nonsense, for explaining things over and over, it seems like a win.
The funny part is that Alexander comes to the exact same conclusion:
Adams is easy and fun to mock - as is everyone who lives their life uniquely and unapologetically. I’ve had a good time psychoanalyzing him, but everyone does whatever they do for psychological reasons, and some people end up doing good.
Though I can’t endorse either Adams’ politics or his persuasive methods, everything is a combination of itself and an attempt to build a community. And whatever the value of his ideas, the community seems real and loving.
My point is that I don’t think anyone “waited” like you seem to be suggesting. People were happy to insult him and make fun of him well before he died.
Scott Alexander waited. He could have written this post much earlier, when Adams was alive and could respond (if he felt it was worthy of such). Or, he could have said nothing at all about Adams when he died. Even Alexander admits "it seems kind of unsporting to disagree with someone who can’t respond" (but ignores his own gut feeling.)
> But this wasn't an obituary. It wasnt a recalling of facts about his life. It wasnt written for a news outlet which publishes obits about most notable figures. It was an opinion piece and a discussion of how Adams affected the writer.
Of course it was an obituary. It did recall facts of his life. There is no rule requiring obituaries to be positive or published in mainstream, dead-tree newspapers. There is a long historical tradition of heavily opinionated obituaries. Here's a great example about Margaret Thatcher [1].
If we can set aside your nit-picking about the word "obituary," I still don't understand your position that it's somehow "cowardly" to criticize dead people. As I've already pointed out, Adams got lots of criticism while alive and the timing of Alexander's article certainly isn't motivated by cowardice. To say only kind things of the dead is to be dishonest. We owe it to ourselves to not sugarcoat the past. Or do you think that a history book that accurately recounts Joseph Stalin's rule of the Soviet Union is "cowardly"?
[1] https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/margaret-thatcher-a-bruta...
Its cowardly because he had plenty of opportunities to write this piece or to criticize Adams in other ways while he was alive and could respond. The bulk of the essay is about books over a decade old, which Alexander had read long ago. The comments make it clear Adams respected Alexander and linked to his work - surely he would have invited him on to his podcast to debate. As Alexander notes, they had plenty in common and were peers in a way.
It's cowardly to go to a restaurant, smile, eat your meal, say nothing, and then decide not to leave a tip because you thought the service sucked - without ever speaking up or allowing the restaurant to fix the problem. Its just as lame to leave a 1-star review because you perecived the food to be awful without mentioning it and giving the kitchen a chance to prepare the food in a manner you'd like.
And to respond to your initial confusion, an obituary is about the dead person. This essay is about Alexander, his interpretation of Adams' work and how Adams' work affected his life.
Is this an obituary? I think we'd both agree it is not. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1157241415688...
I don’t really get your logic. Is it always “cowardly” to criticize dead people?
I don’t like Hitler, I think he was a bad person, but he’s also dead. Is it cowardly to insult him? You might argue that he died before I was born so it’s different but these kinds of dividers are getting kind of arbitrary at that point.
Just because someone dies should not make them immune to being insulted. Scott Adams is someone I have a complicated relationship with myself, but ultimately he said a lot of stupid, problematic shit. I was happy to insult him and make fun of him while he was still alive. I will also make fun of him and insult him while he’s dead.
I don’t know anything about Alexander but I don’t think it’s cowardly at all.
"It's cowardly to go to a restaurant, smile, eat your meal, say nothing, and then decide not to leave a tip because you thought the service sucked - without ever speaking up or allowing the restaurant to fix the problem."
You seem to frame many more things in terms of "coward[ice]" than I would. I'd describe the scenario above as rude but not "cowardly" and it wouldn't occur to me to frame it that way or think of it in those terms.
In the real world, in that scenario, I would leave a tip because I know how servers get paid. If this is a restaurant I've never been to before, I'm not going to speak up about it because I just don't really care very much. Not my problem.
It's also sort of hard for me to imagine hypothetically a restaurant where the "service sucked": it's not an experience I've ever had and I don't have much in the way of expectations about restaurant service. Just get me seated reasonably quickly (or tell me that you won't be able to), give me a menu, take my order, bring the food, bring the check. It's not a high bar.
"Its just as lame to leave a 1-star review because you perecived the food to be awful without mentioning it and giving the kitchen a chance to prepare the food in a manner you'd like."
Again, I can't really imagine this scenario. It's one thing, I guess, if there's something objectively wrong with the food. I remember, for example, once being served a steak marinated in whiskey that I had definitely not ordered, and I sent that back. To me, it was pretty much inedible, although I guess if someone didn't like it, it wouldn't be on the menu.
But if the food is just not very good? Ehh, I don't have time to fuss over that. I'm not gonna leave a one-star review because I don't leave reviews. I'm probably just not coming back.
All this strikes me as pretty normal, and definitely not something that can be usefully framed in terms of "cowardice." I mean, if it's "cowardly" to not complain about poor service right then and there, is it "brave" to do so? That characterization seems sort of absurd.
> Pretty easy to take pot shots at a dead guy who lacks the ability to punch back
if you read the piece he touches on this
As a reader, can you summarize what Alexander is referencing in the two quoted paragraphs that overcomes his initial doubt and decides "after his death is the best time to disagree"?
The only thing I can possibly see is Adams writing "the reader is supposed to be looking for flaws" but it's also clear that Adams is very interested in hearing people's reactions and responses to his work, which he (obviously) can't do any more.
Other has mentioned it, but I think it's worth quoting it directly for easier reference
> I previously felt bad for writing this essay after Adams’ death; it seems kind of unsporting to disagree with someone who can’t respond. These paragraphs cured me of my misgivings: after his death is by far the best time to disagree with Scott Adams.
Also I don't think this is a slander article only published after death so no one can answer. If anything I see this as a beautiful article from someone who (used to?) love him and it raises his image in my (not really cared about it before) mind.
a) my initial comment was a response to someone who called the essay "brutal." Indeed, there are some tender passages, but it feels like on balance, Alexander was more interested in getting his attacks in than the nicer stuff. In my opinion.
b) yes he tries to make an excuse for "curing his misgivings" and ignoring his initial doubt but it's an awful one. Can you succinctly describe what it is about the quoted paragraphs that would indicate "after his death is the best time to disagree"?
His response wouldn't have been anything beyond angry passive aggressive tweets.
Source: have been on the receiving end of a Scott Adams rage
Adams says that his comic skills are nothing more than a talent stack of multiple only-slightly-above-average skills.
I really enjoyed How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
I think you also have to mention along his talent stack, all his failed business ideas. He really seemed to give his ideas a shot even if they didn't make much sense. I don't think most people would even pursue the Dilbert idea.
[flagged]
Yes, that guy.
"Consider the source".
I actually watched the podcast in question. As I saw it he made a very reasonable and 100% non-racist comment (in the context of the discussion the soundbytes were later taken out of), which related more to the inflammatory, caustic nature of the media narrative on black-white relationships, and whether as a white person it is even fruitful to be engaging in that narrative, if the end outcome is that your engagement will be used out of context to cause even more strife and division by the people pushing this narrative. I.e. you will make more of a difference as a white person by trying to improve the "systems" around you, in a manner that benefits everyone, rather than by engaging in pointless arguments and debates with people who are blinded by a very deliberately promoted agenda.
I very much agree with that point, and have experienced it myself. Ironically, if nothing else, this whole affair and the rush to cancel him and call him racist and disgraced, ultimately proved his very point. Just look at how the links you shared choose to word their posthumous articles.
If you really want an accurate source, just go watch the (entire) podcast. No better source than this. Best case scenario you'll disagree with my take, but now your take is informed rather than misinformed.
And to set the record straight, Adams was the very opposite of racist in my view. He had very nuanced and pragmatic views, including how the best thing the country could do to help black communities should be investing in education across the board, instead of funding and pandering to apologists who inflame the masses but then drain the money from the education system, perpetuating ghetto-like communities.
I take the opposite view - Adams was an awful troll for years, and he deserved cancellation long before he got it.
Long before the racism thing, I remember how grossed out I was by him complaining that he only got to have sex when his girlfriend wanted it, therefore his girlfriend, and women in general, were the "gatekeepers" of sex.
Completing failing to recognize that consent is a two person affair.
Sure sounds like Adams was consenting to sex and the person gatekeeping the sex and making the consent not a two person affair was his girlfriend, which is why Adams was complaining to begin with.
You're entitled to feel grossed out by this I suppose but your feelings have nothing to do with whether Adams was correct or reasonable or not.
The weird part is, calling women gatekeepers of sex. When it is also men who gatekeeps.
The gross part is, that this reminds of older times, when men had the legal right to have sex with their wife whenever they wanted (it is a quite new thing, that there can be rape in marriage, the current chancellor of germany famously opposed this legal change). In short, patriarcharical BS that women are objects owned by men and that this is the natural order.
> "Why are we only allowed to have sex when you want it?"
> "Um, no honey, we both have to want to have sex in order for us to have sex."
> "Exactly, so men are only allowed to have sex when women want it. Access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman."
Two fundamentally different ways of looking at the same thing. Why did he feel like it ought to be any other way?
I would guess that Adams probably wanted to have sex more than his girlfriend did, which meant that he had lots of personal experiences of his girlfriend not wanting to have sex when he did; and few if any personal experiences of not wanting to have sex when his girlfriend did. From his perspective, this looks like women (his girlfriend in particular) being the gatekeeper of sex. And this is what he was complaining about.
On a society-wide level, men are systematically more interested in having sex more often and in more contexts than women are. So lots of people in heterosexual relationships have experiences similar to Adams' (sex not happening in cases where the man wants it and the woman doesn't), which is why the rhetorical trope that women are the gatekeepers of sex exists.
Adams took an almost deliberately obtuse interpretation of a single poll and used it to state, explicitly and not ironically, that white people should completely avoid all black people.
That’s racist.
Like the author I was fortunate enough to be exposed to Dilbert as a teenager, before I got caught up in the rush of the university-professional-yuppie-industrial-complex.
I found the Dilbert principle book in my parents downstairs cloakroom (wedged between magazines and other generic bathroom reading material).
At a superficial level I just read the comic strips in the book and laughed, I thought to myself - haha look at those poor corporate workers, that won't happen to me.
In a way it didn't happen to me vis-a-vis cubicles, suits and water cooler gossip, TPS reports etc.
However, in other ways it did happen to me, the frustrations of working with incompetent people, working in teams who brainwash themselves that they are making something useful or being productive, hilarious executive decisions made without any scientific or rational thought. (startup - https://youtu.be/iwan0xJ_irU)
I still like to add Dilbert comic strips to closing slides in presentations, my go to one is this, when we are discussing new technologies to use.
https://tenor.com/nJfQSXLP8am.gif
We are in the Dilbert universe, it just keeps changing
p.s. if anyone is looking for Saturday TV binge material, all of the Dilbert TV show is on Youtube here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH7dgUq5Qe4
For someone who has only been exposed to open office landscapes those cubicles seem like a dream.
I haven't seen full height cubicles since my 2006-2011 job.
Still even half-height cubicle desks tended to give you a good sense of "your space" relative to the open concept rows of tables/flat desks.
Currently I go to the office once a week, where I sit at a tiny mobile desk pressed against the side of someone else's cubicle. I'm almost "in" a walkway. Can't imagine how that interferes with focus!
Personally I hated them they felt dehumanizing, and loved my first open floor company
I also don’t like WFH, I wonder if people who like open plans also like RTO
Power to you but I absolutely hate open offices. They’re often loud and it’s easy to get distracted by random conversations.
I know people fantasize about these “random conversations” leading to innovations from overhearing, but that hasn’t been my experience at all; instead because it’s so distracting a lot of people would just wear headphones all day.
I would so prefer an office. Ideally something that allows me to play music at a reasonable volume without headphones, use my mechanical keyboard, and have my own desk that I am not neighboring up against someone.
As it stands I work from home so I actually have that, which is why I am dreading the eventual RTO. If I could get my own dedicated office at a company, I think I would have way less desire to WFH.
I certainly have been around for conversations leading to this or that change in direction. It happens.
But the bigger reason it's useful is to get facetime with the decision makers and the folks adjacent to the decision makers who might think of you when opportunities arise.
You love noise, interruptions, and a lack of privacy?
I don't find open spaces noisier than cubicles but I am able to easily block out distracting sounds.
I am interrupted, and when I am is generally somebody giving me a useful quick update or an informal greeting from an office buddy when they notice I make welcoming eye contact.
I don't think I ever felt a lack of privacy in the office or expected it in any way? I wonder what kind of privacy I would need that the restroom doesn't cover, I'm sure there are some instances since it's been called out.
(you replied to wrong comment, parent instead of grandparent)
It suits people that coffee badge and serves as a way to scan who actually came in on a "required" office day.
Both are signs of dysfunction.
TIL I learned about coffee-badging[1].
Sounds like, oddly enough, eighteenth century London when coffee houses provided venues for business transactions. People (ok men of the right class) toddled around visiting various offices and patronising coffee houses. Everyone knew the players. [2][3]
I think this might be a good development. Meet to drink beverage and achieve 'common understanding' in the sense of the Royal Navy. Then disperse to various private locations to actually carry out the tasks. Would suit a '15 minute' city layout very well.
[1] https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1864443/buzz-phra...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_coffeehouses_in_the_17...
[3] https://www.layersoflondon.org/map/records/virginia-and-balt...
I actually think cubicles’ faux privacy might encourage more noise. When I was in cubicles years ago, there were people who would take calls on speakerphone. I’ve never experienced that in an open office space, but it’s hard to know if that’s just because I’ve had more conscientious colleagues in open spaces.
Never...how?
You're not working with enough people or they're handling sensitive matters elsewhere per policy.
Short walls: dehumanizing
Full walls, with a door: high status
I like being able to work at the office because then I don't have to pay for electricity and internet, although commuting is bad for my ecological footprint.
I will never support forcing RTO on people who prefer WFH, nor the opposite (unless dire circumstances mandate it, like a pandemic or other natural disaster).
I can tolerate open offices, but prefer plans with private spaces which make it easier to go into and maintain full focus mode.
I've never done pair programming, but I imagine I would like it, if me and my colleague use my computer (set up how I like it, Dvorak layout and everything) for my part of the programming and we switch to my colleague's computer when it's their turn.
Cubicles are terrible. Especially the full height ones. They have all the same noisy neighbor problems as open spaces but you’re stuck in a tiny box all day. You get a tiny modicum of privacy but not enough to make up for feeling like you’re stuck in a gray box all day.
I used to have that strip on a t-shirt as a teen.
> Scott Adams felt the contradictions of nerd-dom more acutely than most. As compensation, he was gifted with two great defense mechanisms. The first was humor (which Freud grouped among the mature, adaptive defenses), aided by its handmaiden self-awareness. The second (from Freud’s “neurotic” category) was his own particular variety of reaction formation, “I’m better than those other nerds because, while they foolishly worship rationality and the intellect, I’ve gotten past it to the real deal, marketing / manipulation / persuasion / hypnosis.”
Scott Adams was basically a classic Sophist, believing that rhetoric was the only thing worth cultivating. Nobody special; snake oil salesmen are up there with prostitutes and mercenaries in oldness of profession.
For those who haven't read it, Scott Alexander's "Unsong" (https://unsongbook.com/) is a very fun piece of historical fiction / religious fantasy. Basic premise is that the world is incredibly shocked when the Apollo 10 mission crashes into the Dome of the Sky and (a) proves that the Biblical cosmology was the true cosmology this whole time and (b) damages reality. It includes the idea that there is a whole cottage industry of people trying to apply technology to deciphering the True Name of God by essentially Mechanical Turking it ("If we divide up all possible syllable combinations into tranches and pay folks minimum wage to sit around reciting every syllable combination possible, we're bound to hit it sometime!").
The book is okay (I think I gave it three stars on Goodreads?) but in my opinion it suffers from Neal Stephenson syndrome: the book kinda just ends without a whole lot of anticlimax or resolution. The pacing is all over the place and the supporting cast are more like character sketches than characters.
I think Foucault’s Pendulum is a significantly better novel that uses the basic themes in more compelling ways.
It was an online serial. Any new plotline or character is a live experiment that might publicly fail to work out. That kind of thing does indeed need a lot of work to become a conventionally structured novel. That said I actually thought the ending was pretty alright. Well, most of it.
I read it in real time. I read a lot of serialized fiction. It is possible to write a serial with decent pacing.
I read the whole thing and enjoyed both the premise and the writing, but yeah, it would have benefited considerably from the attention of a professional editor and a couple of rounds of rewrites.
I found Dilbert in 2013, when I was working in a dead end dev job in a small software company. Felt nice to see others seem to have the same issues.
I quit that job and started freelancing. Not only because of those comics, but at least they didn't give me any doubts about that endeavour.
What I learned: engineering skills give you power, but it's not the only thing you can be nerdy at.
You can be nerdy about anything.
It just happens to be that software engineering is something that people with much money are willing to pay for.
Just imagine you're history nerd. Not much options to profit quickly from that.
Same goes the other direction. If you happen to really like financial markets and math, you might find ways to make even more money with less work than an engineer.
Are you still in freelancing? Did you ever discover any companies or teams that worked well together?
I’m not the person you’re asking the question from but I’m a consultant that has been to well over a hundred organisations big and small.
Employee happiness and team success is essentially random. More accurately: you can go to two “identical” companies directly competing in the same industry at the same scale and they can still be wildly different internally. One can be a depressing march to retirement and death, the other a place where people literally(!) sing with joy in the corridors.
Everything is likely to also be totally different: procedures (or lack thereof), policy, tools, training, etc…
Despite this, all organisations above a certain size are filled with people that are certain that their way is the only way things are done. They’ll argue until they’re blue in the face that nothing else could possibly work… with someone who was at their totally different competitor last week and saw that in fact a different approach is massively superior.
This variability is greatest for small scale workplace practices as typically decided by a “pointy haired boss” (PHB).
They also tend to be most convinced of their own methods, and the most resistant to change.
This article keeps saying that Adams was more clever than the others. What are the proof of that. It looks like he was like those usual rationalists who come up with obvious theories that a lot of people have come up with and think they are super clever, when they are not.
As clues it is the case: 1) Adams came up with very stupid easily proven wrong physics theories and still was convinced it was correct, which is not what a clever will do, 2) as said in other comment here, some people who identifies themselves as "clever like Adams" were also incapable to get their head around the fact that their own boss was displaying dilbert comics, as if they were not clever enough to understand that the manager see themselves as "dilbert" the same way they do.
Yes, he was an idiot, but that doesn't contradict that he was smart. In his own words, from The Dilbert Principle book:
"People are idiots.
Including me. Everyone is an idiot, not just the people with low SAT scores. The only differences among us is that we're idiots about different things at different times. No matter how smart you are, you spend much of your day being an idiot. That's the central premise of this scholarly work. I proudly include myself in the idiot category. Idiocy in the modern age isn't an all-encompassing, twenty-four-hour situation for most people. It's a condition that everybody slips into many times a day. Life is just too complicated to be smart all the time."
Not sure this really obvious analysis really helps. I've seen a lot of people thinking they are really smart for saying that everyone including them are idiots. Adams made a lot of declarations or actions that shows that he really thought of himself as "able to see what the idiot sheeple were not able to see", and this quote is not out of character at all: "you idiots don't even realise that everyone is an idiot including me".
I think The Relativity of Wrong (Asimov, https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html) is a nice counterpoint to this. Sure, we may say everyone is an idiot in some area. But there are relative levels of idiocy, and there are basic tasks you can sort of master. At the very least you can minimize your own idiocy if never eliminate it. I think mastering most essential areas in life can make you unworthy of the title of 'idiot', at least not overwhelmingly so.
There are infinitely many things to know, but not all of them are important. Knowing finitely many things (which is all we can do) can still keep us alive and well, at least for a while. And we can know some of those finitely many things increasingly well, if never perfectly.
Just as an example, if you manage say your personal finances pretty well, your health pretty well, perform any civic duties you might have, maybe do some social good or social work or charity etc., if your relationships are reasonably agreeable, respectful and pleasant, etc. and if you have a good amount of joy or peace or satisfaction, etc. in your life, then I wouldn't call you an idiot. This is not an impossible ask to know infinitely many things or infinitely precisely.
And we can learn it over 30 or 40 years, or more, prioritizing the most essential first.
Moreover, I'd say whether you can be called an idiot is context-dependent. If you get a typical (non-idiot) person, and put him in a highly specific job (which he isn't qualified for), say manager of inspectors of nuclear power plants, then he might behave like an idiot; in this case the best ability is probably the meta-ability to recognize one's own limitations and refuse work you're not qualified enough for.
Like, any person (literally any person) can theoretically be put in a situation that he might do significant harm or something stupid, this just means we have to work in contexts and understand and do well within said context; we could only legitimately be called idiots while failing badly or unethically within a canonical chosen context.
I really just don't think it's generally a good idea to go around calling ourselves (or anyone else) idiots. Too broad, derogatory, and tries to put an irremovable label on a person, which as I've explained, almost never deserves such an absolute classification.
My point was not that doing something stupid means someone is stupid, but that the examples I've provided are showing that Adams was prone to think of himself as smart when he was not. So far, there is no much proof that Adams was particularly smart (unless you are arguing that everyone can be called smart)
> Not sure this really obvious analysis really helps
Doesn't help you, sure. I'm not a fan, as a matter of taste and am self-aware enough to recognize it. The near-reliable output of his creativity and the pervasive notions, distilled and distributed to the culture are proof enough for history.
I meant: does not help drive the point. This quote is a good example of what I would expect from the behavior I was describing
[flagged]
Who were the primary class of people drawn to the SS and the SA? At least in the SA's case it was working class to lower middle class people.
Also, so many reds (as in communists) became fascists it was a meme in Nazi Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_Nazi
I don't think white collar tech workers are uniquely predisposed to fascism. Blue collar tradesmen are more likely to be disposed to it and capable of getting their hands dirty.
> What are the proof of that. It looks like he was like those usual rationalists who come up with obvious theories that a lot of people have come up with and think they are super clever, when they are not.
Anyone who identifies as a rationalist is immediately suspect. The name itself is a bad joke. "Ah yes, let me name my philosophy 'obviously correctism'."
I don't really identify with any particular movement, but it's important to note that there are plenty of people who legitimately oppose the core concept of rationalism, the idea that reason should be held above other approaches to knowledge, this being put aside from other criticisms leveled at the group of people that call themselves rationalists. Apparently, rationalism isn't obviously correct. Unfortunately, I don't really have enough of a background in philosophy to really understand how this follows, but looking at how the world actually works, I don't struggle to believe that most people (certainly many decision makers) don't actually regard rationality as highly as other things, like tradition.
Rationalism in philosophy is generally contrasted with empiricism. I would say you're a little off in characterizing anti-rationalism as holding rationality per se in low regard. To put it very briefly: the Ancient Greeks set the agenda for Western philosophy, for the most part: what is truth? What is real? What is good and virtuous? Plato and his teacher/character Socrates are the archetype rationalists, who believed that these questions were best answered through careful reasoning. Think of Plato's allegory of the cave: the world of appearances and of common sense is illusory, degenerate, ephemeral. Pure reason, as done by philosophers, was a means of transcendent insight into these questions.
"Empiricism" is a term for philosophical movements (epitomized in early modern British Empiricists like Hume) that emphasized that truths are learned not by reasoning, but by learning from experience. So the matter is not "is rationality good?" but more: what is rationality or reason operating upon? Sense experiences? Or purely _a priori_, conceptual, or formal structures? The uncharitable gloss on rationalism is that rationalists hold that every substantive philosophical question can be answered while sitting in your armchair and thinking really hard.
You're (understandably) confusing rationalism the philosophy from the Enlightenment with the unrelated modern rationalist community.
For what it's worth, the modern rationalists are pro-empiricism with Yudkowsky including it as one of the 12 core virtues of rationality.
Oh! :) I saw "philosophy" and "rationalism" in the same paragraph and went into auto-pilot I suppose.
It's pretty unfortunate that the Yudkowsky-and-LessWrong crowd picked a term that traditionally meant something so different. This has been confusing people since at least 2011.
Well empiricists think knowledge exists in the environment and is absorbed directly through the eyes and ears without interpretation, if we're being uncharitable.
Sure. The idea of raw, uninterpreted "sense data" that the empiricists worked with (well into the 20th century) is pretty clearly bunk. Much of philosophy took a turn towards anti-foundationalism, and rationalism and empiricism are, at least classically, notions of the "foundations" of knowledge. I mean, this is philosophy, it's all pretty ridiculous.
> Apparently, rationalism isn't obviously correct. Unfortunately, I don't really have enough of a background in philosophy to really understand how this follows, but looking at how the world actually works, I don't struggle to believe that most people (certainly many decision makers) don't actually regard rationality as highly as other things, like tradition.
Other areas of human experience reveal the limits of rationality. In romantic love, for example, reason and rationality are rarely pathways to what is "obviously correct".
Rationality is one mode of human experience among many and has value in some areas more than others.
Seeing the outcomes of romantic love makes me think it should never be used as an example of correctness in any way.
there are two facets to "is rationalism good".
one is, "is there a rational description of the universe, the world, humanity, etc.". Some people think there isn't, but I would like to think that the universe does conform to some rational system.
the other, and important one is, "do humans have the capability to acquire and fully model this rational system in their own minds" and I don't think that's a given. the human brain is just an artifact of an evolutionary system that only implies that its owners can survive and persist on the earth as it happens to exist in the current 50K year period it occurs in. It's not clear that humans have even slight ability to be perfectly rational analytic engines, as opposed to unique animals responding to desires and fears. this is why it's so silly when "rationalists" try to appear as so above all the other lowly humans, as though escaping human nature is even an option.
Uh-huh. Rationality is open-ended, we're apparently not very good at it and room for improvement is plentiful. However, I can still try to be rational, and approve of rationality.
see that? you didnt even read what I wrote and responded to something else. then I'm not able to not be snarky about it.
My apologies. But are you really saying that we're not even able to try to be rational, or to improve? "Perfect rationality" sounds like "perfect knowledge", it's a mind-boggling concept belonging to a such a far distant future that we'll probably revise the concept away before we get anywhere near it. So why present it as a goal? Being slightly more rational is a practical goal, unless you're saying human nature won't allow even that much.
> My apologies. But are you really saying that we're not even able to try to be rational, or to improve?
not at all
> "Perfect rationality" sounds like "perfect knowledge", it's a mind-boggling concept belonging to a such a far distant future that we'll probably revise the concept away before we get anywhere near it.
my statement refers to a general vibe from people who call themselves "rationalists" are going on the assumption that they are rational, while everyone else is not. Which is ridiculous. everyone "tries" to be rational. of course everyone should "try" to be rational. That's what everyone is doing most of time regardless of how poorly we judge their success.
> Being slightly more rational is a practical goal, unless you're saying human nature won't allow even that much.
Everyone should be "slightly more rational". The rationalists state that they *are* more rational, and then they go on to have fixations on such "rational" things like proving that "race" is real and determines intelligence. Totally missing what their brains are actually doing since they are so "rational".
In theory, the name is supposed to imply that they're pursuing rational thinking and philosophies, not that their decisions are the rational choice.
That said, I was surrounded by rationalists in my younger years by pure coincidence and spent some time following the blog links they sent and later reading the occasional LessWrong thread or SSC comment section that they were discussing each day in chat.
It's pretty easy to see that the movement attracts a lot of people who have made up their minds but use rationalisim as a way to build a scaffold underneath their pre-determined beliefs in a way that sounds correct. The blogs and forums celebrate writing of a certain style that feels correct and truthy. Anyone who learns how to write in that style can get their ideas accepted as fact in rationalist communities by writing that way. You can find examples throughout history where even the heroes of the rationalist movement have written illogical things, but they've done it in the correct way that makes it appear to be "first principals" thinking with a "steelmanning" of the other side along with appropriate prose to sound correct to rationalists.
You should explicitly state who those people are, what illogical things they have written, and why they are illogical.
I think it's very likely that people who can plausibly be considered "heroes of the rationalist movement" have written illogical things. But I don't know which specific people and which specific things you mean by that, so I don't know if I think you in particular are correct in your judgement or not.
Using first principles thinking and steelmanning are just rhetorical techniques for persuasive thinking and writing. Even people who are unfamiliar with those particular pieces of terminology do them.
Right up there with calling your group "The Good Guys"
It's stupid, but it works. There are innumerable examples of it, The People's Democratic Republic of Korea, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, National Socialism, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Good guys, or at least people who are good in the context of your or my value systems, also do it. I've got zero beef with my local Humane Society, they're great, but clearly the name of the organization has been chosen for its strong emotional potency.
“I’ve got zero beef with my local Humane Society”: this is wonderful! It’s got irony but the irony of the irony is that it’s literally correct.
Or "Clean Code™"
Drivers who use their indicators, getting a little tired of all their incessant signaling.
Or naming your cult “The Reasonabilists”
https://parksandrecreation.fandom.com/wiki/The_Reasonabilist...
Well, I agree but think it is even worse than this. Anyone who hasn't got wind of the opposition between rationalism and empiricism is squarely placing themselves in a very ancient thought-space, more Plato than Kant, no Popper, no modernity.
They are basically outing themselves as either having little curiosity, or as having had very limited opportunity to learn... Still if they expound on it, the curiosity deficit is the most likely explanation.
J. W. Goethe was obsessed with "Farbenlehre" [0], which is so weird that it is "not even wrong". I don't think it detracts from his intelligence. It was just his blind corner, so to say.
Intelligent people are sometimes very, very weird. Grothendieck and Gödel come to mind as well. It is not smart to die of hunger because your wife is hospitalized, every lizard knows better than that; but that is precisely how Gödel met his end.
[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farbenlehre_(Goethe)
>J. W. Goethe was obsessed with "Farbenlehre" [0], which is so weird that it is "not even wrong".
I think that's a bit harsh? Goethe's color theory is taught in every art school to this day.
Goethe and science is an interesting one. In some sense he may have been a Newton of another, separate (and in some sense orthogonal) approach towards a science of nature [0]. One that takes primarily an intuitive/integrative/phenomenological approach to the world, rather than a mathematical/analytical. Somewhat analogous to continental vs analytical philosophy (or German vs British, if you want to be reductive).
The latter showed its strength once the industrial revolution rolled around and it gave the tools to understand and design ever more impressive technology, with the Goethean approach becoming ever more fringe. And after WW1+2 the cultural sphere that nurtured it was basically done.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethean_science
The example I gave what about Adams being convinced to "know better" while it was clearly not true, which is to me a clue that when it comes to his view on society and business, which already looks pretty simplistic to me, the idea that he "knew better" is more probably the result of him thinking that and managing to convince others people who also like to see themselves as smarter than others.
I suggest you read the article, it states the exact opposite and agrees with you
I think the article explains that Adams "turned bad" because it is the sad consequence of him being smarter than the rest of the people. I'm pretty sure that someone who has time to lose can got through the article and pick up all of the quotes about how Adams was clever and the managers were so dum.
No, the article argues that Adams was good at one very specific thing (writing silly comics about the workplace) and bad at everything else. It's very clear on that point. It argues that later in life he lost his self-awareness of his own ineptitude and began to falsely believe he was smarter than everyone.
There are plenty of quotes like this one
> For Adams, God took a more creative and – dare I say, crueler – route. He created him only-slightly-above-average at everything
This does not mean "bad at everything else", this is explicitly "not bad at everything else, even slightly better than usual".
Keep reading. The central thesis of the article/eulogy is that Adams wanted to be successful at something more serious than Dilbert but was bad at everything else he tried.
It talks about his first new business attempt with the Dilberito, which was terrible. It quotes, it "could have been designed only by a food technologist or by someone who eats lunch without much thought to taste".
Then he tries to run a restaurant, which he is also bad at. Even Adams realizes he is bad at it. "After every workday, Adams and the waiters get together and laugh long into the night together about how bad a boss Adams is!"
Then he tries his hand at writing philosophy, which he is also terrible at. The article spends two long sections describing just how bad his books "God's Debris" and "The Religion War" are.
Then the article describes how Adams claimed himself to be a master hypnotist/manipulator in the most delusional and cringey way possible.
Then the article talks about Adams' many terrible political predictions. E.g. "His most famous howler was that if Biden won in 2020, Republicans “would be hunted” and his Republican readers would “most likely be dead within a year”."
Then there's how he responded to liberals beginning to see him as an enemy when he was predicting Trump would win the 2016 election: "As he had done so many other times during his life, he resolved the conflict in the dumbest, cringiest, and most public way possible: a June 2016 blog post announcing that he was endorsing Hillary Clinton, for his own safety, because he suspected he would be targeted for assassination if he didn’t"
Then in 2023, Adams stupidly gets himself cancelled.
> There are plenty of quotes like this one
No, there aren't. While the article/eulogy says a number of positive things about Adams, that very faint praise at the beginning is the only place the article describes him as being even only-slightly-above-average intelligence at anything other than Dilbert.
What it does mention several times is that Adams thought himself cleverer than everyone else. For example (describing Adams' thoughts):
> Thesis: I am cleverer than everyone else.
> Antithesis: I always lose to the Pointy-Haired Boss.
> Synthesis: I was trying to be rational. But most people are irrational sheep; they can be directed only by charismatic manipulators who play on their biases, not by rational persuasion. But now I’m back to being cleverer than everyone else, because I noticed this. Also, I should become a charismatic manipulator.
But the tone here is mocking Adams and not endorsing his view.
I admire your patience when faced with someone who clearly has not read the article but still wants to be right no matter what...
Thanks. I often think of it as a minor character flaw in myself that I spend the time replying to things that really aren't important. Your comment made me smile.
You don't look for smart people by looking for people who don't do stupid things, because you won't find any. You look for smart people by finding people who do smart things because stupid people don't do smart people things.
I'm not saying Adams is not smart because he has done stupid things, I'm saying that Adams has probably thought of himself as very smart while not smart at all in field X because it is pretty clear he has done that in fields Y and Z (which is the first clue).
The second clue is about the fact that the "smart thing" he came up with is quite simplistic.
Reminds me of my stoner friends in high school who would watch a few videos by Carl Sagan and then become convinced that they know everything about physics and come up with convoluted and ultimately silly “theories” for physics.
Makes me wonder if Adams was a frequent drug user.
Ironically enough, Carl Sagan on marijuana:
"I find that most of the insights I achieve when high are into social issues, an area of creative scholarship very different from the one I am generally known for. I can remember one occasion, taking a shower with my wife while high, in which I had an idea on the origins and invalidities of racism in terms of gaussian distribution curves. It was a point obvious in a way, but rarely talked about. I drew the curves in soap on the shower wall, and went to write the idea down. One idea led to another, and at the end of about an hour of extremely hard work I found I had written eleven short essays on a wide range of social, political, philosophical, and human biological topics. Because of problems of space, I can’t go into the details of these essays, but from all external signs, such as public reactions and expert commentary, they seem to contain valid insights. I have used them in university commencement addresses, public lectures, and in my books."
https://www.organism.earth/library/document/mr-x
Scott Adams was more clever than most because, as the article says more than once, he was named "Scott A." and so was the author, to whom an elementary school teacher said he was going to "cure cancer", whatever that means. Maybe the teacher was sincere -- or maybe he was trying to be nice and got misunderstood.
> why should Garfield hate Mondays? He’s a cat! He doesn’t have to work!
There’s a fan theory that Garfield hates Mondays because he just spent two days with Jon and now Jon is leaving him alone again.
He seems to hate Jon, though. He seems to hate everything except food.
I got the impression he actually really likes Jon, he’s just kind of a jerk who can’t express himself.
[dead]
I thought the joke for Garfield is that some crazy annoying shit happens to him on Mondays, and as such he uses the same “I hate mondays” that a person might, just for different reasons.
I think that may have only been in the animated TV show?
https://kagi.com/proxy/latest?c=LsHiRSPxhD29sXqLhdI0j1EsQ98n...
It was the comic too.
Interesting! Do you have a link to the full comic by any chance?
> I had been vaguely aware that he had some community around him, but on the event of his death, I tried watching an episode or two of his show.
I do wonder if Scott Alexander means this in the sense that he watched a few shows because Adams had died, or if there were the first episodes of Adams' shows he had watched. Dying does reveal some interesting things about a person - in Adams' case he was doing his live podcasts right up to about the end. I tuned in to one out of ghoulish interest and he seemed to be the sickest person I'd ever seen. He was clearly doing that show because he loved it.
If he had his time over, he'd probably swallow his pride and accept that It Is Not OK To Be White because of the disastrous impact on the Dilbert empire, but I do think Alexander has fundamentally misread what Adams believed it meant to be successful. He wasn't that motivated by commercial success since at least the 2010s, although he had achieved it. He seemed a lot more interested in getting ideas out there and making a difference to people's lives.
> he'd probably swallow his pride and accept that It Is Not OK To Be White
Off-topic: English is not classical formal logic. NOT("It's okay to be white") does not have the same meaning as "It's not okay to be white": it merely means "I reject what is communicated by the phrase 'It's okay to be white'". This observation fits quite well into any analysis of slogans: if he hadn't committed to the uncharitable misinterpretation, I'd expect him to write about this (though I'm not so sure he'd have used this particular example).
There was presumably a lot of money and status on the line, so I'm sure had he realised what was coming he'd have been happy to learn enough logical notation to express !(It's OK To Be White) && !(It's !OK To Be White). If anyone figured out what positive statement he had to say he'd probably have said that too. The man was notable for his philosophical rejection of shame.
> He wasn't that motivated by commercial success since at least the 2010s, although he had achieved it.
Alternatively, he achieved enough commercial success and then was satisfied.
Regular listeners know he knew exactly what he was doing i.e. the cancellation was priced in.
^^;
Part of me knew a comment like this would show up. The trend itself is greater than Dilbert and not new, but it has certainly become more pronounced. What is interesting that while 'Dilbert empire' fell in the process for not accepting white inferiority, full blown resistance marketing market is taking ( or maybe has taken already ) shape fueled largely by highly polarized populace.
I am not looking forward to it, because it requires keeping abreast of currents I do not care for or even understand.
> What is interesting that while 'Dilbert empire' fell in the process for not accepting white inferiority, full blown resistance marketing market is taking ( or maybe has taken already ) shape fueled largely by highly polarized populace.
I must be daft. There must be some cultural context I'm missing so that I don't even understand what you're saying. Accepting white inferiority? Full blown resistance marketing market? Huh?
> Accepting white inferiority?
Because if you reject white supremacy, obviously the implication is white inferiority…
White supremacists generally deny that they have societal advantages and frame any attempt to give minorities equal opportunities as a plot to subjugate whites.
> Full blown resistance marketing market?
MAGA and the rise of neonazis.
> White supremacists generally deny that they have societal advantages and frame any attempt to give minorities equal opportunities as a plot to subjugate whites.
White people are not a demographic majority in many places (including where I personally live), and yes most ostensible attempts to give nonwhites equal opportunities to whites wind up as blatant anti-white discrimination. White people are morally justified in politically resisting this even if leftists call white people who do so white supremacists or neonazis.
I also read Dilbert books years before joining the workforce. Though the framing of the strip is the workplace, it averages out to all the people in one's life who are wrong but have authority. As a rebellious little shit, I could identify with how Dilbert's boss (PHB) was wrong in ways that I recognized in adults around me plus my inability to do anything about it.
This is why every level of worker can see themselves as Dilbert and their superiors as the management who "don't get it." I bet there are even C-suite execs who identify with Dilbert and see their CEO or board of directors as PHBs incarnate. This was part of the appeal of the strip before it went off the deep end; almost everyone taking orders believes they know better than at least one of the people telling them what to do.
I'm surprised I don't see this acknowledged more.
Pretty much everyone believes they can do the boss' job better than the boss. Until they get promoted and become like every other boss.
When you start your own business, though, you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Story of our times: Gen-X counterculture jerk grows up railing against The Man. Grows up, gets rich, famous, becomes The Man. His mind, however, is stuck in the past, still thinks he's a rebel, still thinks he's railing against The Man. In reality, he has become a sadistic asshole hurting others for his self-righteous pleasure. But no amount of pain inflicted on others will make him feel good, he dies a miserable crank.
Adams, Musk, Andreesen, Stephen Miller, Chappelle, Maher. They're everywhere.
"Once you wanted revolution
Now you're the institution
How's it feel to be the man?
It's no fun to be the man."
- Ben Folds, "The Ascent of Stan" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caCuRqedslY
While a little reductive and caricatured, as a Gen-X counterculture type myself I can confirm that there's quite a bit of accuracy in this comment. And a lot more examples in more boring parts of the world than these famous people you are mentioning.
With that said it's not exclusively a Gen-X thing to go from counterculture to establishment while preserving the same root personality driver of narcissism and selfishness. It's obviously recognizable as the trajectory of the Woodstock generation as well.
Yeah, probably unfair to name GenX exclusively - more of a late boomer/early gen-x phenomenon. Perhaps it's just the new mid-life crisis, "corvette in your 40s" is beyond silly these days, but rich, powerful 50-60 year olds thinking they're badass rebels is super common.
Yeah, if the same thing doesn’t happen with millennials it’s only because there is no true counterculture anymore.
[dead]
You also have RATM telling people to follow the government instructions re: COVID
And Eminem tone policing what people say because it might be hurtful.
Yes, exactly. Their minds grew with them, they didn't become ossified in their 20s
So true! And Maher is probably the worst of the lot.
That's a pretty wild take. Maher's views have been basically consistent, the others have not. Musk has also veered hard-right
[dead]
For the record, Scott Adams was unambiguously born in the Baby Boomer years. (So was Bill Maher.)
[dead]
I thought there were people whose lives followed that trajectory in many generations, but it's just the one. What a relief! /s
> His next venture (c. 1999) was the Dilberito, an attempt to revolutionize food via a Dilbert-themed burrito with the full Recommended Daily Allowance of twenty-three vitamins. I swear I am not making this up. A contemporaneous NYT review said it “could have been designed only by a food technologist or by someone who eats lunch without much thought to taste”
The funniest thing I’ve read all week. Was anyone here lucky enough to eat one?
I had one in college back then. It was not very good.
> Scott Adams based Dilbert on his career at Pacific Bell in the 80s. Can you imagine quitting Pacific Bell in the 80s to, uh, found your own Pacific Bell?
Idk man, imagine quitting HP in the 70s to make your own HP or IBM. Inconceivable
Quitting Fairchild to make your own semiconductor manufacturer (twice), quitting Intel to make your own CPU manufacturer, etc. The point isn’t that people didn’t do it if brave/desperate enough, the point is that it wasn’t a Thing You Can Do in the collective consciousness. Also, relatedly, that the societal infrastructure to support(/profit from) this category of people wasn’t yet in place, so you needed to be wealthy or connected (even more so than now).
Great eulogy and art, What saddens me is the lack of a friends around him, seems like he got isolated in the politics of 2015 and then got radicalized.
I could only hope for a eulogy like that.
I think the lack of friends (heightened by his Titanic wealth) contributed to his isolation. Like how we all kinda got out of practice talking with people during COVID isolation. That then kinda spiraled him into algorithmicly fed nonsense as he didn't have anyone he could trust to tell him he was wrong. Just sycophants and fans and golddiggers.
Cicero is still right, a friend is the best thing to have, no question.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/cicero-on-friendship-de-a...
Eulogies are such good reading for those of us left here. They really drive the points home. Life isn't the grind, it's a journey. We're all just here for each other
No idea what you are talking about. He became hugely popular and had lots of adoring fans and friends. His twitter had 1.3M followers and he did a daily show.
> But t-shirts saying “Working Hard . . . Or Hardly Working?” no longer hit as hard as they once did. Contra the usual story, Millennials are too earnest to tolerate the pleasant contradiction of saying they hate their job and then going in every day with a smile. They either have to genuinely hate their job - become some kind of dirtbag communist labor activist - or at least pretend to love it.
At least in the technology sector, work has changed a lot in some regards since the days when Scott Adams was in the workforce.
No suits and ties needed, show up in a tee-shirt and denim jeans. Flexible work hours, and work-from-home. Top 2% salary. Free food. Clean, well-maintained, offices. No request for annual leave ever denied. Pick the work you like from the top of the backlog. No bosses sending interns to get them coffee or any nonsense like that. Go ahead, play some foosball or table tennis on the clock. Is two screens enough, you can have a third if it'd boost your productivity?
And senior leaders try to project the image of "Stanford CS PhD dropout" rather than "Wall Street Harvard MBA" - they're "just like us", look at that hoodie he's wearing.
The world of Dilbert, meanwhile, is trapped in amber. And the wry insights that fax machines are hard to use don't really land like they did in 1995.
Beautifully stated. A lot of the comics still apply, but certainly not directly to my job. I imagine government workers find it very relatable, however.
You are describing a top 2pct experience.
I’ve spent most of my career in the cushy Silicon Valley startup style work cultures you’ve described. Obviously I greatly prefer them… but the stodgy business casual+ 9-5 cube farms still exist, and in great numbers. I’ve worked in them out of necessity here and there, and they’re more common than one might believe reading HN. If the desperate recruiters in my metro are anything to judge by, it seems just about everything manufacturing and financial services firm is run by a Pointy Haired Boss or two.
There is still plenty of need for Dilbert strips in the workforce.
Software and computers is not all there is to technology. There are plenty of other STEM fields that didn't enjoy a decades long surge in demand. Dilbert still very much applies there.
Aside from that, all the things you list are perks and benefits. The same old problems with BS budgets, hallucinated requirements, convoluted bureaucracy (seen at the tech giants), and mismanagement are evergreen problems even in the software industry.
[flagged]
Which race and gender do you need?
[flagged]
While this was a well written essay I enjoyed reading, likely the only thing I'll remember from it in a year is "If God is so smart, why do you fart?"
Ok but what is this question trying to say? I never quite understood the argument that God should be "perfect"; it's entirely possible the universe we're in is a toy made for the amusement of an evil god-child, like we have ant farms, and they enjoy having meteorites and black holes and whatnot. It's not especially likely -- but it's not less likely than any of the other mainstream religious myths.
"I never quite understood the argument that God should be "perfect""
My understanding from reading the bible while I was still christian is pretty much, that in the older parts, god was indeed not almighty. He was just the god of a desert tribe. And of course a stronger god than the other gods of the inferior tribes ... slowly evolving to obviously the strongest god up to the point that there was only one god. And there can be only one god if he is almighty. Or, so powerful that the difference does not matter anymore.
Anyway, the logical fallacy of the "almighty" thing was the main thing for me to give up on the concept. I cannot accept a concept, that puts me in hell (or heaven), eternal damnation (or salvation) for being who I was made to be, influenced by an environment also totally controlled by the creator.
The christian understanding of the concept of God, is that it is transcendental, i.e. beyond the universe. This means that from the view from inside the universe he must be almighty. A non-almighty "God" is just not a God, according to the Christian definition, it is just yet another thing in the universe.
> a concept, that puts me in hell (or heaven) ... for being who I was made to be ... by the creator.
Why do you think it needs to be an explicit action from the creator as opposed to being just the result of your own actions? When someone loves you, but you really don't love him/her back, that's quite the hell for you. Compared to the state of this being heaven to you, i.e. you do love back, there is no difference in intention or action from the other persons side.
"Why do you think it needs to be an explicit action from the creator as opposed to being just the result of your own actions? "
There is no such thing as "my own actions" if I was created by an allmighty god. And the environment likewise. Then every action would be determined by the allmighty.
It all would be just gods playground to test and reward and punish his creations for being how he (or she or it) created them.
Christianity also assumes free will and non-determinism, yeah otherwise it would be quite pointless. It also includes the possibility of willfully turning away from God, which is not intended by him. If you think of a place where (most) things behave exactly as God created them, that's the story before that apple[0], but guess what, it ended.
[0] ... I know that that is an translation error.
"Christianity also assumes free will and non-determinism"
I know, but those concepts are at odds to me with the core concept of allmighty all knowing creator - but sure, anything almighty can also solve any paradoxon - it still does not make sense to me, nor do I see reason to follow that logic.
For me it is rather determinism which invokes a paradoxon and is at odds with the Christian God. This is because of the following:
When the universe is deterministic, anything you think, is not because you recognized something to be truthful, or even reflects the truth at all, it all happens simply because that is what the deterministic rules make you think. So what you think does not imply anything about the universe at all.
That means that you can't think the universe to be deterministic and be actually right about it. Because if it would be, you couldn't be right about anything. Also along the way you throw away the post-enlightenment concept of science, because it assumes the existence of Laplace's Demon and the scientist having a share in it. Thus, when you believe in determinism, you actually place science at the same level as wizardry.
"because it assumes the existence of Laplace's Demon and the scientist having a share in it."
I really don't follow here. That demon was a simple thought experiment. Nobody ever assumed it is real. If it would be real, a all knowing entitiy, it would be godlike. But why should any scientist assume such a thing can exist for real?
I also don't think it is real, it is just that science kinda acts like it could be real. Any science experiment relies on the observers actually being observes, that the observer isn't the one that is experimented with, that e.g. your eyes do tell you something about the state of the universe, and that your thought process models the logic of the universe.
If there is total determinism, there is no guarantee, that measurement tape next to an object for one person shows 10cm, for a second 9.3cm and a third sees a unicorn.
Post-enlightenment science operates on classical determinism subject to a tolerance of error subject to knowledge of initial conditions and properties of the system under observation.
Thanks to Stephen Smale's Horseshoe map, Lorenz's Butterfly, the limits of instrumentation and Heisenberg's uncertainty the notion of perfect knowledge and strict determinism are out the window even for simple fully isolated systems that show chaotic behaviour with a few weights on coupled axles.
Even with all the datacentres on earth and in space there'll never be a precise and accurate forecast of a vortex in a stream.
> Post-enlightenment science operates on classical determinism subject to a tolerance of error subject to knowledge of initial conditions and properties of the system under observation.
Yes, but the also assume that the observer isn't part of that system, which only holds true if there is free will.
The problem that negates any determism exists with or without any observer interacting with physical systems.
Some seem to intuit that divine freedom is in competition with creaturely freedom. The assumption is that when God is acting, that necessarily drives out the action and initiative of creatures, and vice versa. The ancient Christian conception is that human freedom cooperates (synergizes) with God. Jesus illustrates this concept most clearly, being both divine and human and fully free in both respects. This union is an essential part of the whole plan in this view, that God would be present in His own creation and not infinitely apart from it. In this model the free action and cooperation of created things is essential to accomplishing the divine purpose.
On the other hand, if God really does just determine everything, you basically get pantheism where everything is an immediate and direct expression of “God.” That sounds like atheism with steps.
"On the other hand, if God really does just determine everything, you basically get pantheism where everything is an immediate and direct expression of “God.” "
Yes, or mysticism. We all exist within the mind of god. I do like those concepts more to be honest, but is indeed a quite different concept from the creator up in the clouds ruling the universe.
As the other reply said neither the classical Jewish or Christian view is that God is some guy literally up in the heavens sitting around all day.
Hm, as far as I know, it is sort of debated what the "classical christian view" is. But I certainly have seen lots of pictures from god in churches portrayed as the bearded guy up in the sky. It is definitely the common concept. Father, son and holy spirit. Plays a strong role with catholics
St. Augustine on “seeing” God:
“Do not imagine God according to the lust of your eyes. If you do, you will create for yourself a huge form or an incalculable magnitude which (like the light which you see with your bodily eyes) extends in every direction. Your imagination lets it fill realm after realm of space, all the vastness you can conceive of. Or maybe you picture for yourself a venerable-looking old man. Do not imagine any of these things. If you would see God, here is what you should imagine: God is love“
Maybe you can educate as what other "classical christian view" you know of. The pictures show a symbol for a property of God, they are not supposed to be taken literally, or do you also think, that Mary used to stand on a sickle on top of a miniature earth holding baby Jesus, which in turn holds a golden apple with a cross and in the other hand a lance that he pokes at snakes? Or that the Holy Spirit is a literal pigeon? That's not what is depicted in those images, but that would be the literal description.
This is actually the crux of the argument for iconoclasm. This is why faiths like Judaism and some sects of Islam strictly forbid any representation of creation or humanity, especially to "represent" the divine or spiritual realities.
If you begin personifying everything, if you represent spiritual/invisible concepts in concrete, human terms, if you reduce transcendent concepts to the pragmatic and the visible product of a sculptor's hands, people can get really confused. I promise.
People can lose sight of that transcendence and eternal meaning behind the symbols. They can get really wrapped up in the physical manifestations. This is also the central problem with the autism spectrum and such.
Aniconism attempts to free the mind from these limiting images. If you're Muslim and you contemplate a building with nothing but artistic words and text scrawled all over it, you obtain a far different result than contemplating a richly symbolic statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Many people have the intellect and the insight to go beyond that concrete imagery, but not all.
True. The reason why Christianity broke that is that Jesus was a human physically existing on earth. I think seeing Jesus as a white european, a black african, and a chinese person or in Renaissance clothes should bring the point across that it is not about what is literally depicted, but yeah some people might not get it. The question is would they get it without the imagery or do the simply lack the will or ability to perceive God as transcendent?
Well, I don't believe any of it.
But other people certainly do. And it is not just pictures, the lords prayer literally starts with "Our Father in heaven.."
> the lords prayer literally starts with "Our Father in heaven.."
Yep. It however does not say "Our Father in sky". In English you literally have that distinction.
I do not think I share your view of what mysticism is, but this:
> the creator up in the clouds ruling the universe
is what e.g. the olympic gods were, i.e. something that Christianity decries as idols, doesn't accept to be the truth and intends to overcome.
But the olympian gods surely were not portrayed as perfect or almighty, but full of flaws.
Not as perfect, although their origins were, but almighty as in unaccountable, unquestionable, and above any natural limits, yes.
I'm remembering it not because it makes a good point, trying to reason about God is futile and pointless, but because it's funny both alone and because of its central role in the novel as saving humanity from a global holy war. Like that's just hilarious.
There's no reason a god has to be perfect. But certain major religions do make that claim. It's an argument about a specific concept of god that has a lot of traction.
Weirdly lending credence to Adams' idea that the phrase is somehow special.
Because some people ate Dilberitos.
Best read I had in months. That,or maybe cognitive dissonance because I spent 1h of my life on it (there is a Dilbert joke just on that, mind you).
Thank you Scott A.
I believe in the general principle that it is dangerous to deny reality. Note that this is different than saying that you have to accept reality as it is. But not only does denying reality damage your psyche, it also prevents you from choosing the best ways to actually change reality for the better.
> In case it’s not obvious, I loved Scott Adams.
Based on this article, somehow I really doubt that.
it is an admittedly long read but i could sense it. i have a few fallen heroes myself and id be able to write diatribes of why i loved them and simultaneously hold their nuts to the fire in modern times.
I don't think you write a eulogy this long about someone unless you have something more than a simple dislike or even hatred for them.
I can relate to the author. Really loved the strip when I was younger and before I actually worked anywhere. The TV show on UPN was pretty decent too, it's a shame it didn't catch on more. Adams seemed to have a smart everyman quality to him and was doling out nuggets of wisdom like candy. His later years really troubled me because it difficult to relate the earlier idea I had of Adams to the later. It's a lesson in mortality and how much a person can change (not that I knew Adams or anything, maybe he was always like that). There are many other examples out there.
One thing I think people make the mistake of is taking a look at a person as they are now and then retroactively applying that to their past persona. I think there is something more to learn from the idea that we all can change substantially over time, even without major life incidents. The mind is very complex and sometimes it can go down some dark paths.
You can absolutely criticize your hero’s and know they’re flawed humans like everyone else. I thought the author was pretty generous to be honest.
In the world of rationalist blogs, writing anything too negative about someone is dismissed as a "hit piece" which is license to ignore it. The only way to write negatively about a person is to write a both-sides style evaluation where you sandwich the criticism in between praise for the person. It's a way of signaling that you're a nice person who isn't just being mean, before you get to the meat of the issue.
This blog fits that format: It starts with praise for the person, some signaling about being their biggest fan, and then gets into the topic he actually wanted to write about.
When articles started coming out about the author of this blog and some of his problematic past with reactionaries and race science, the common tactic to dismiss any criticisms was to claim they were "hit pieces" and therefore could be ignored. In this community, you have to write in both-sides style and use "steelmanning" to pretend to support something before you're allowed to criticize it.
An author who "actually wanted to write about" how Adams was a terrible person, but feels obligated to include some praise to pacify the Politeness Police, probably would not write these words:
"I loved Scott Adams. Partly this is because we’re too similar for me to hate him without hating myself."
You seem to think the only thing that matters is Adams' engagement with right-wing politics and race; all else is fluff that OP only writes under duress, to not get canceled by the rationalist community's weird norms.
That is a complex hypothesis; here's a simpler one: OP is writing his honest thoughts. He sees Adams as a complicated, flawed person who should not be wholly defined by their worst comments or bad decisions. Adams isn't an evil villain worthy of dismissal and contempt. He's more of a tragic anti-hero who made bad choices -- but very understandable ones if you know his character sheet, backstory, the times he lived in, and the immediate pressures. Or at least that's the way OP views him.
It's a careful, nuanced article. It's fine with me if you don't agree with the author's viewpoint! But I do object to your accusations of disingenuousness for what appears to me to be a sincere, heartfelt eulogy.
Were you perhaps hoping for an article along the lines of, "He said that about black people, he is the enemy, when we think about him we should have nothing but fury and contempt in our hearts, and the righteous should rejoice in his death"? Are you thinking "Of course every community has cancel-cudgel-wielding norm enforcers that everybody carefully censors their words to avoid, this community must just have different censorship rules than the ones I'm used to, because the possibility of a community that doesn't immediately ostracize people for wrongthink is absurd"?
If so, I...was going to make a snarky comment about how this blog and the rationalist community are not places for you, but actually, I just feel bad for you; the politics of the 2010s and 2020s has traumatized [1] you and a lot of other people. You need to spend more time in places like this, not less -- communities where people try to keep their discourse on higher rungs [2] [3].
[1] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-psychopolitics-of-traum...
[2] https://waitbutwhy.com/whatsourproblem
[3] https://fourminutebooks.com/whats-our-problem-summary/
I agree with the thrust of your comment, but I think the comment to which you're replying was referring to Scott Alexander's "problematic past with reactionaries and race science", not Adams'.
https://gist.github.com/segyges/f540a3dadeb42f49c0b0ab4244e4...
(To be honest I would love for someone to write an essay engaging with Alexander in something of the spirit he engages with Adams here; he writes both good things, including IMHO this eulogy, but also a certain amount of garbage, and I do not claim to be wise enough to always distinguish on my own.)
It’s been a consistent part of Scott Alexander’s character for over a decade now. I doubt Adams’ cancellation or death changed it.
I imagine them coming together at some Bay Area house party on copious amounts of LSD or MDMA. One, the world’s greatest comic writer, who more than anything else wanted to succeed in business. The other, the world’s greatest businessman, who more than anything else wanted people to think that he’s funny.
> As another self-hating nerd writer put it, “through all these years I make experiment if my sins or Your mercy greater be.”
Out of curiosity I searched this quote in Google, DDG and Claude and none of them found any source. Anyone know who the other self-hating nerd writer is? Sounds a bit like John Donne.
I was also curious about this quote, and it sounded to me too like Donne (or Pascal or Robert Boyle, a bit).
But Gemini 3.0 knew what it was, and it is from Omar Khayyám like the sibling commenter said, but from the little-known E. H. Whinfield translation (1883) rather than the more famous Fitzgerald one:
—-
221. (395.)
Such as I am, Thy power created me,
Thy care hath kept me for a century!
Through all these years I make experiment,
If my sins or Thy mercy greater be.
——-
Link to the actual page in Google books:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NN_TAAAAMAAJ&q=Experimen...
Don't know it, but this website attributes it to the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: https://theomarkhayyamclubofamerica.wordpress.com/extended-r...
(Edited on reading more closely) Or possibly some fan work, since this "Extended Rubaiyat" isn't entirely from Omar Khayyam. So this doesn't pin down the provenance of the phrase.
I think this article really nails it. Adams' ego and self-satisfaction contributed to his susceptibility to the forces of the internet. It could happen to anyone.
What I remember that is notable about Scott Adams is way back he had The Dilbert Blog and it was pioneering in it's early adoption of the internet. Adams wrote his takes and theories back then, too. But he once wrote that he was going to scale those back, because they were not productive: he would lose followers for being controversial. But later something happened with the feedback loop of social media, because he eventually started to court controversy. I do think that the internet sucked him in.
Think he was always unusually susceptible to the feedback loop of social media.
Long before he was trying to be a political figure, criticism of his book resulted in this glorious piece of peak internet forum nonsense in which he responded to criticism by registering an anonymous account to say things like "I hate Adams for his success too" and "he's a certified genius which is hard to hide" until the mods decided to call him out...
https://www.metafilter.com/102472/How-to-Get-a-Real-Educatio...
Mostly seems like yet another case of snorting one's own tailpipe to the very end. It's a shame, the comics were great. But so many who experience success like that begin to consider themselves chosen ones and it only goes downhill from there unless you're a clown genius (tm).
I was hoping this was a series of Dilbert comics to be released after Scott Adams death about Dilbert in the afterlife and was a bit disappointed.
I was a long time Scott Adams fan with the Dilbert Principle being one of my favorite books.
What I found most interesting about him was around the time Trump was running for president the first time, Adams was one of the first people to point out that Trump was, to use Adams' terms, a "master persuader". No one else at the time seemed to be talking about this and it was fascinating to see a humorist have this take/insight.
Interestingly, Adams also pointed out the persuasion flaws in Hillary's campaign. Evidently, the Hillary team noticed this and changed their messaging, which Adams then commented on.
[flagged]
I think many who dislike Trump (myself included) don't really want to think of him as having skills of any sort.
But I think it's more so that he does absolutely have certain skills such as persuasion or, some argue, charisma. He just doesn't have any of that pesky morality or sense of responsibility to the greater good, the entire citizenship, etc. that often gets in the way of such ambitions.
So we're left with a master manipulator who will hurt a great number of people, maybe benefit a few if necessary, but ultimately a subset of people think he's genius and a net positive. And I can't help but think that the only ones who think he's a "net positive" are either personally benefiting, or have been persuaded to believe it, despite reality painting a different picture.
I dunno if the "just paraphrasing [...] Fox" works as an explanation for success. It sounds like you believe he just keeps unaccountably stumbling into piles of cash and power?
Have we given up on him being a master persuader already?
He was literally born into wealth before he could even stumble.
As were many hundreds of thousands of other men, and yet Trump is in the Oval office and they are not.
An ageing Biden and Dubya have also occupied that office and they don't exactly strike me as "master persuader" types either.
Nobody is accusing Trump of lacking ambition or charisma, and there's also no doubt the party machine that backed him is pretty sophisticated in the arts of political campaigning. But there's a difference between being a "master persuader" able to convince almost anyone of almost anything and being a shameless braggart in front of an electorate that's unusually impressed by a celebrity's overconfidence and wealth, and also being a lot less shameless about appealing to their chauvinistic attitudes than predecessors.
So Joe Biden and George W Bush are also master persuaders?
I feel we've cheapened the title "master persuader" if every elected politician in semi-democratic nations, even the nepo babies, gets that accolade.
I'm really looking for masterful persuasion, preferably of people who haven't already poisoned themselves with a diet of misinformation.
Biden was a great campaigner and speech maker. Similar to Trump in that he wasn't afraid to piss people off. Don't let the dementia addled version that you saw in his 80s fool you into thinking he wasn't a man of extreme outlier political talent to get where he was. So was W Bush. You think going up on stage and acting like the smartest guy in the room (as many who worked with Bush say he actually was) is going to win you any votes? But acting like Bush will. That's not something just anyone can do. And you think calling 3 men out of 300 million "master persuaders" cheapens it? Any player in the NBA is a master basketball player and there are hundreds of them at any given time.
And Scott Adams is on the record that these people and Al Gore and Romney and the Clintons all meet his criteria for master persuader?
Because he clearly seemed to be building Trump up as something unique.
Trump was born rich to a father who taught him cruelty and insulated him from consequences. It was a golden ticket.
He still managed to go bankrupt 6 times, and couldn't get financing. He had to resort to selling his name or getting money from one of the most corrupt banks in the world.
He's rumored to have been despised in the NY social scene since his youth and up to the present.
He's been accused of rape by his own ex-wife and SA by more than 20 others. He bought pageants so beautiful women would have to interact with him. His longest relationship is with an illegal migrant (possibly trafficked) escort whose visa he had to pay for.
He gained no following during his time at the head of the Reform party.
Since 2015 his political base, like Nixon's, is largely built on white grievance and fear. It's incapable of building much once in power.
Now the Trump family accumulates money by selling power, hot air, and fleecing fools.
When was he at the head of the Reform party?
In 2000, with the help of Jesse Ventura.
I'm having trouble finding any evidence for that. E.g., https://web.archive.org/web/20030808111721/https://edition.c... -- here's a thing from February of that year that (if I'm understanding right) reports Ventura leaving the Reform Party because he didn't like its endorsement of Pat Buchanan for president; it mentions Trump, but only as one person Ventura might have supported as a presidential nominee, and it actually quotes Trump saying to Ventura "you're the leader". Trump was never the Reform Party's nominee nor anyone else's. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidential... says that "he never expanded the campaign beyond the exploratory phase".)
It's not entirely clear to me that there was actually such a thing as the leader of the Reform Party, especially in early 2000 when there was a lot of infighting, but if there was one it seems to me that it might have been Ventura but certainly wasn't Trump.
What am I missing?
I stand corrected. According to Wikipedia, Trump sought the nomination for the Reform party candidate for a few months and ultimately backed out.
Regardless, that fact only supports my point. The man is a loser whose modern following is based on largely external factors like white grievance and fear.
An internet eulogizes a cartoonist. Some Hackernews discuss middle management; others decry the woke mob. No technology is discussed.
At the end of the day Dilbert was entertainment...
And SA was weird as f who made money bye filling a niche.
His political views and other snippets made that quite clear.
And let's be honest just creating cartoons about our corporate capitalistic shit hole was easy enough hit a nerve but more than a chuckle was Dilbert never.
It became cultural because it was printed everywhere and it was fun enough for it's format
I don't know if anyone else felt this[0], but my god did reading this part hit like an absolute truck
I'd not at all considered that "Former Gifted Kid Syndrome" generalises to pretty much everyone, from being told that you're special to realising that you're not all the way to being incredibly skilled or talented in an area, but that talent only going so far and then having to get over their not being special and that it applies to physical and mental capabilitiesThis sort of false expectation setting and feeling of exceptionalism eventually hits the cold hard reality of the limits of your capability somewhere and that can really break you
Reminds me especially of some people I saw in university who were absolutely brilliant, but so deeply affected by that one mistake they made or limit they had found where they had not expected one
Heck I felt the same, coming to terms with ones limits is a deeply challenging experience even if it is a very humanising one, I wasn't expecting to have that fall into my lap today
There's a few things I enjoy about reading Scott Alexander, he's got some really good takes now and again that in my eyes make reading his essays worth it
-[0]: https://www.astralcodexten.com/i/184503512/its-not-funny-if-...
Yeah I think the funniest meme about impostor syndrome is "Am I even good enough to have impostor syndrome?". This is why I don't really subscribe to the Former Gifted Kid Syndrome myself despite having the symptoms (I think). It feels too narcissistic to describe myself as that. And turns out, it may not ever be special after all!
Once the article made the claim that the was the greatest comic author of all time, it became clear that the article is overanalyzing the man. one aspect proving the overanalysis is the wild length of the article beyond that point.
Just like how Jim Davis stumbled upon a reasonably funny, widely relatable gag that can be repeated for decades with minimal consequences, the success in Dilbert was being the first newspaper comic to live in the topic of corporate bureaucracy.
In case we all forget how newspaper comics work in a digital world of curated content, they are all successful based on broad appeal. Each newspaper has approximately two pages of funny content and each strip has to appeal to a large subset of readers if not all of them.
Family Circus is a perfect example. Dog funny. Reader like dog. Dog funny. Kids say funny thing with dog. Reader has kids and dog.
The topic of “my boss is incompetent” is just as widely appealing as “my cat is lazy and selfish.”
With all that context established we have to acknowledge that Scott Adams was a pretty normal guy with no particularly strong skills.
So as the article points out, when he pivoted his life to other endeavors, his limitations are strikingly apparent.
This is where I start not liking the guy. He had a smarter than thou attitude especially later in life when in reality, he was not himself particularly smart. I would stop short of calling him a narcissist but some vibes are there. He got lucky to be the guy who got a syndication deal at the right time making a specific type of comic. If he was born 20 years later he’d be a nobody, as the comic industry has completely changed.
His craft was largely surpassed by web comic authors with more specific audiences and more intelligent writing.
> one aspect proving the overanalysis is the wild length of the article beyond that point
I agree. I found the style tedious and the length exhausting. I'd occasionally read pieces from the author, and now I expected better. :/
I thought this piece was nice but:
(1) It doesn't give Adams enough credit for his work on WhenHub. I was reading Scott Adams's posts about WhenHub contemporaneously as he worked through the startup's various pivots. He had a really good idea that people would want to see a map with a little live-location icon of where their friends & acquaintances were on the map and he pushed really hard on different ways of getting this idea towards reality. We have this now (in various other social map apps) and he showed good product sense.
(2) It gives Adams too little credit for the sincerity of his views.
> There’s a passage in the intro to one of Adams books where he says that, given how he’s going to blow your mind and totally puncture everything you previously believed, perhaps the work is unsuitable for people above fifty-five, whose brains are comparatively sclerotic and might shatter at the strain. This is how I feel about post-2016 politics. Young people were mostly able to weather the damage. As for older people, I have seen public intellectual after public intellectual who I previously respected have their brains turn to puddles of partisan-flavored mush. Jordan Peterson, Ken White, Curtis Yarvin, Paul Krugman, Elon Musk, the Weinsteins, [various people close enough to me that it would be impolite to name them here]. Once, these people were lions of insightful debate. Where now are the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?
This is not fair. Adams knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what he was getting into for all of 2015-2026. He was an extremely smart guy. We should treat him seriously, not infantilize him. He was not a Nobel Prize winning chemist or Fields Medal winning mathematician coming up with wacky perpeutal-motion machines or cranky Riemann Hypothesis solutions that everyone politely agrees to ignore. His hypnosis stuff and all the rest were genuinely what he really believed -- it's not like Sir Michael Atiyah's Todd function.
Adams was in the prime of his life, he was doing what mattered most to him, and we should take him at his word that he genuinely believed what he said and we should judge what he said on its merits.
(3) I don't really have a disagreement but I am fascinated by the implication in the last 1/3 of the eulogy slatestarcodex view that Scott Adams was trying to establish a guru cult community - in convergent evolution with the sort of thing that the squishy half of TPOT tends to sprout in the East Bay. It's an interesting observation which tells me something about what is going on with Bay Area rationalism, though I don't know quite what.
I thought that many of the things that happened to Adams -- especially his family troubles with his stepson, but also his illness -- were really sad. I'm sorry things didn't turn out differently and grateful for the cartoons.
I'm probably missing something obvious but I can't parse what you mean by the squishy half of TPOT, or even TPOT on its own.
TPOT is "this part of Twitter", a loose community of (roughly) post-rat affiliated people; the "squishy half" is presumably referring to the fact that a substantial number of such people end up quite big into woo of various sorts.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
What's wrong with going to the gym?
Also, I don't think you know what the word fascist means.
There is a no-joke they’re serious effort to link gym and fitness with conservative values.
People on the left point to statistics and a study or two showing decent correlation. People on the right readily agree regardless of their fitness saying it’s because of discipline and personal responsibility.
I think it’s funny to see people on the left lean into it.
>Can we talk about how he in the end buried himself in vile racist politics?
Can you point to anything other than the single post that he made saying “white should get/stay away from black people”?
I’ve seen how he lost his way, or fell, or whatever. But all I’ve seen anyone post is one tweet one time. And every single time it leaves out the context that he was replying to a poll of black people saying the same about white people.
There was also one comic strip that was actually a correct and decently good take on the failure/intersection of postmodernism and DEI. I don’t count that as it wasn’t a bad faith take it was on point.
If there is more to I’d like to know.
Shocking that no answer ever came.
[flagged]
Paramount Skydance, the one owned by the right-wing Ellison family, is going to put out woke Dilbert?
What "Star Trek Academy" that Paramount just put out did to the Star Trek franchise is what I'm expecting them to do to Dilbert.
And that is what exactly?
Performative ignorance. Look it up.
If there's any truth to Dilbert, this is exactly what will happen.
[flagged]
[flagged]
TRVKE.
Scott Adams hates this one weird trick.
[flagged]
[flagged]
> The amount of comments about white superiority/inferiority with no awareness of how absurd it is...
I haven't seen any. Could you give me an example?
> Is this site now a nazi bar? Damn.
Please don't turn Hacker News into a site for endlessly regurgitating lame social media "gotchas" or tropes. There are already many, many websites for that.
When I made that comment. This article had only 5 comment threads. And three of them talked about how "it's okay to be white " and superiority. All dead now just like my comment .
[flagged]
If you make a claim based on the supposed existence of something, be prepared to back the existence of said thing up. It's not "sealioning"[1][2] to want evidence for an extraordinary claim.
[1] Sealioning is an example of an blanket phrase that can rarely be applied correctly but more often that not is used by anti-intellectuals who have no other method to refute a statement or inquiry to their line of thought. Other examples being "whataboutism" (for the act of pointing out hypocrisy) and "slippery slope fallacy" (which is used to ridicule logical cause and effect statements)
[2] I find it humorous that the example given is of somebody prejudiced against an entire species for no logical reason (and who wants said species eradicated), who then refuses to justify it to the creature they are prejudiced against.
It almost feels as if the comic was originally written to justify racism and the author then realised how unpopular that would be. (The author attempts to refute this in an addendum but ends up using many words to say nothing, instead refuting a criticism of the character's visual design.)
(Ohio meme)
[flagged]
[flagged]
"Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee."
John Donne
[flagged]
[flagged]
What do you expect from 3-panel funnies exactly? Biting deep social commentary? All of these were formulaic, they were pumped out every week.
It’s not hard, the dilbert guy was a psycho, sucks if you liked him, he was emphatically a psychopath. Maybe it’s time to reconsider some of your atrocious views, and learn some empathy
In other news, fuck dilbert jfc
<And the most successful parasites are always those which can alter their host environment to be more amenable to themselves, and if you’re a parasite taking the form of a bad idea, that means hijacking your host’s rationality.>
After reading this, I thought, damn he just described the current administration. Then I kept reading and saw:
<It all led, inexorably, to Trump.>
Yeah(!), I think I'm gonna bookmark that site and reread it a few more times.
That isn't how I understood Dilbert. Dilbert is a normal guy and PHB is actually mentally retarded.
It's essentially gallows humor for a world where, for no apparent reason, blithering idiots often seem to be the only people who wield any decision making power.
Scott Adams had a take on that. The "Dilbert Principle" (his version of the Peter Principle) is that useless engineers that are promoted away from doing real work to keep them from messing it up.
I have a much darker hypothesis about it - when people are left to compete, they often resort to badmouthing those who they think could outcompete them.
Thus, the reputation of the most competent gets destroyed, while the village idiot remains as the only one left unscathed.
The weird thing about Adams was that he believed Trump was Dogbert, not the pointy-haired boss.
If he'd stayed apolitical people would have kept clipping his strips and putting them up on cubical walls. Dogbert was not an appealing character. His sharper edge kept the sharp edges of Dilbert and the other engineers more out of one's attention. Then Adams revealed that he believed Dogbert was the one to emulate and tried to prove his theories (and he said black people were scary -- there was that) and he polarized himself. Much of his audience recoiled. He gained new, more ICE-esque followers, and then still more of his audience recoiled.
To his credit he pioneered the PR death spiral later made famous by Kanye and Rowlings. This was not the career capper he was looking for.
Trump's trademark skill is conning and taking advantage of people, just like Dogbert.
He even fooled Scott. Impressive!
In another way Trump is actually rather like Adams himself: his one great talent is as an entertainer and self-publicist, but he feels that he deserves success in business and leadership, so that he can be hailed as a great builder and decision-maker. Trump does have the personal charisma and feel for manipulation which Adams longed for, though. (Though it does help Trump that he started with the charisma boosts of inherited megawealth and the associated upbringing.)
I stopped paying any attention to him a while ago. He didn't seem to be something that was worth the time.
This article is great but it is insanely long and suffers from having no scroll bar on mobile. I read for over an hour, falling asleep at least three times, and wondering the entire time how far I was from finishing. Eventually I flicked the page upward to find out and could not believe how far I scrolled. I gave up at that point.
Don’t read long form content on mobile then? IDK what else to say.
There’s a reason war and peace wasn’t written on a single page.
I don't understand this white washing (no pun intended) of "Its okay to be white" a well known white supremacist troll slogan (see wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_okay_to_be_white). How does one write an article this obnoxiously long and negelect key context of that whole ordeal?