5 ms·

I think it's worth reading Adams' response to all this - http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/im_a_what/ http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/im_a_what/ That includes the or

by autarch 16y ago

I think it's worth reading Adams' response to all this - http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/im_a_what/ http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/im_a_what/ That includes the original piece which stirred up all the noise.

hartror 16y ago
Even after reading the whole original piece I still don't get the impression the whole thing is a joke. I don't find the ". . . flow and timing." he is talking about. If it is a joke then it is of questionable quality and people certainly can't be blamed for taking it at face value.
- masterzora 16y ago
  Joke only half-describes how I read it. I used to be a regular reader of the Dilbert blog and the post in question actually fit his MO perfectly. Scott Adams is (or tries to be, or claims to be) writing posts with opinions he knows to be wrong, which may or may not be humorous, with the intention of making people think about why they're wrong. My initial impression upon reading the original post is that this was just another case. While, on the one hand, I can agree that people can't be blamed for taking it at face value when it's quoted elsewhere, I think it's irresponsible of people to take it at face value in the context of his blog without even stopping to check anything else he says on there. The nature of the things he says becomes quite clear pretty quickly.
  - ugh 16y ago
    Scott Adams is basically a troll in his writing. You have to like that. (I don’t.) (Not that there is anything wrong with his writing. You probably just shouldn’t take him serious or try to respond to his arguments.) (His comics are really funny and I’m not aware of anything he could write to change that.)
- dman 16y ago
  Youre not pushing the boundary unless you are failing often.
trustfundbaby 16y ago
Thanks for linking to that ... I read his stuff from time to time so I understand some of the stuff he writes can be 'out there', but reading the article linked here, I got the feeling that something wasn't quite right with the way his views were being presented. After reading his posts, turns out the whole thing is a tempest in a teacup ... shocking.
kenjackson 16y ago
Wow, for a writer, that is a pretty horrible response. It seems to be a combination of all the worst things to do in a response. The fake non-apology apology. The "you're too emotional" to really understand. The "it wasn't meant for you". The "I meant to do it all along" (removing the post). But what might be most disappointing was this line: largely because I don't believe humans can be influenced by exposure to better arguments, even if I had some. But I do think people benefit by exposure to ideas that are different from whatever they are hearing, even when the ideas are worse. That's absurdly cynical and basically argues that, at least where humans are concerned, there is no right or wrong -- since humans can't discern good arguments from bad arguments. An argument that is all lies and fallacies is not effectively any worse than one built on facts and sound reasoning, except to the extent that either is different from your prevailing beliefs. I guess I'm a lot less cynical and believe that most humans actually are better for exposure to good arguments. And even if other things block them from fully accepting a good argument (emotion, faith, loyalty, etc...) they still know deep inside the better argument and it does change them. But maybe I'm just naively optimistic.
- masterzora 16y ago
  Part of the philosophy he's professed in the past is that exposure to bad arguments is good, not because there's no right and wrong, but because recognising bad arguments and why they are bad is good for you.
- glenra 16y ago
  "absurdly cynical" is his stock in trade. Have you never read Dilbert? It seems to me the response said exactly what he wanted and needed it to. What more does he have to apologize for, exactly? Committing a thoughtcrime?
- Anechoic 16y ago
  > The "you're too emotional" to really understand. I understand that people are claiming this is his argument, but I don't see it. He makes the argument that "men's rights" (and implicitly "women's rights") discussions are emotional, and he's right. So are discussions about race, healthcare, Android vs iPhone, etc. He certainly doesn't say anything about any group being "too emotional." > That's absurdly cynical and basically argues that, at least where humans are concerned, there is no right or wrong Again, I don't see this interpretation. As I read it, he says that he believes people can't be convinced by evidence to change a position... and it turns out he's right: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/...
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

by autarch 16y ago

hartror 16y ago

Even after reading the whole original piece I still don't get the impression the whole thing is a joke. I don't find the ". . . flow and timing." he is talking about. If it is a joke then it is of questionable quality and people certainly can't be blamed for taking it at face value.

masterzora 16y ago
Joke only half-describes how I read it. I used to be a regular reader of the Dilbert blog and the post in question actually fit his MO perfectly. Scott Adams is (or tries to be, or claims to be) writing posts with opinions he knows to be wrong, which may or may not be humorous, with the intention of making people think about why they're wrong. My initial impression upon reading the original post is that this was just another case. While, on the one hand, I can agree that people can't be blamed for taking it at face value when it's quoted elsewhere, I think it's irresponsible of people to take it at face value in the context of his blog without even stopping to check anything else he says on there. The nature of the things he says becomes quite clear pretty quickly.
- ugh 16y ago
  Scott Adams is basically a troll in his writing. You have to like that. (I don’t.) (Not that there is anything wrong with his writing. You probably just shouldn’t take him serious or try to respond to his arguments.) (His comics are really funny and I’m not aware of anything he could write to change that.)
dman 16y ago
Youre not pushing the boundary unless you are failing often.

trustfundbaby 16y ago

Thanks for linking to that ... I read his stuff from time to time so I understand some of the stuff he writes can be 'out there', but reading the article linked here, I got the feeling that something wasn't quite right with the way his views were being presented. After reading his posts, turns out the whole thing is a tempest in a teacup ... shocking.

kenjackson 16y ago

Wow, for a writer, that is a pretty horrible response. It seems to be a combination of all the worst things to do in a response. The fake non-apology apology. The "you're too emotional" to really understand. The "it wasn't meant for you". The "I meant to do it all along" (removing the post). But what might be most disappointing was this line: largely because I don't believe humans can be influenced by exposure to better arguments, even if I had some. But I do think people benefit by exposure to ideas that are different from whatever they are hearing, even when the ideas are worse. That's absurdly cynical and basically argues that, at least where humans are concerned, there is no right or wrong -- since humans can't discern good arguments from bad arguments. An argument that is all lies and fallacies is not effectively any worse than one built on facts and sound reasoning, except to the extent that either is different from your prevailing beliefs. I guess I'm a lot less cynical and believe that most humans actually are better for exposure to good arguments. And even if other things block them from fully accepting a good argument (emotion, faith, loyalty, etc...) they still know deep inside the better argument and it does change them. But maybe I'm just naively optimistic.

masterzora 16y ago
Part of the philosophy he's professed in the past is that exposure to bad arguments is good, not because there's no right and wrong, but because recognising bad arguments and why they are bad is good for you.
glenra 16y ago
"absurdly cynical" is his stock in trade. Have you never read Dilbert? It seems to me the response said exactly what he wanted and needed it to. What more does he have to apologize for, exactly? Committing a thoughtcrime?
Anechoic 16y ago
> The "you're too emotional" to really understand. I understand that people are claiming this is his argument, but I don't see it. He makes the argument that "men's rights" (and implicitly "women's rights") discussions are emotional, and he's right. So are discussions about race, healthcare, Android vs iPhone, etc. He certainly doesn't say anything about any group being "too emotional." > That's absurdly cynical and basically argues that, at least where humans are concerned, there is no right or wrong Again, I don't see this interpretation. As I read it, he says that he believes people can't be convinced by evidence to change a position... and it turns out he's right: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/ http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/...

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]