Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Career Advice from Scott Adams (2007)

dilbertblog.typepad.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: Career Advice from Scott Adams (2007)

#51

Post by lliamander »

aptwebapps wrote: post #45
kelukelugames wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay I'm home now. Let's dissect the most famous example. 1) Adams compares women to children and people with mental disabilities. 2) Claims he didn't and that everyone who thinks that has bad reading comprehension. Also plays the victim card anytime someone accuses him of misogyny. 3) Writes article about hypnosis. Adams says he can convince people that two things are related without doing it directly. Gives example…

I'm not up to date with the Trump stuff but what I thought was particularly disingenuous about the first example was that he said in advance that he was going to write something ambiguous that people would 'misinterpret' and then he made fun of them when it happened. As far as I'm concerned, if you write something with the goal of communicating a particular idea to a particular audience then that's what you said. It…

> If I say something to a few people and I know that one of them will misunderstand it (the reason doesn't really matter) in a way that makes the statement untrue then I've just lied to that person.

If you can avoid the misunderstanding, then sure. But even then you don't always have the time to explain yourself fully. Sometimes, the very ideas you are expressing are liable to trigger strong emotions in other people. It can't be helped.

But that's why I like his disclaimers. I know ahead of time that the point he is trying to make isn't likely the one that is salient to me on my first pass.

Re: Career Advice from Scott Adams (2007)

#52

Post by lliamander »

kelukelugames wrote: post #37
kelukelugames wrote: post #5

Scott Adams used to give great career advice and cartooning tips. I think he got bored a few years ago and decided to become a professional troll. I will write some examples after work.

Okay I'm home now. Let's dissect the most famous example. 1) Adams compares women to children and people with mental disabilities. 2) Claims he didn't and that everyone who thinks that has bad reading comprehension. Also plays the victim card anytime someone accuses him of misogyny. 3) Writes article about hypnosis. Adams says he can convince people that two things are related without doing it directly. Gives example…

> Adams compares women to children and people with mental disabilities.

What was the point he was trying to make with the comparison? If he said "Like women, children and the mentally disabled have been oppressed by the patriarchy" it would mean something very different from what he did say, but your statement would still apply.

What I'm trying to say is that your first point, on its own, isn't sufficient to condemn him.

This is the issue I have with broad statements like "so-and-so compared X to Y" without specifying what the point of the comparison was. That's the point of a metaphor: to compare two otherwise unlike things in order to show how one has the trait the other also has. If I say a boxer has a glass jaw, I'm not saying his jaw is translucent, just that he is vulnerable to blows in a similar way that it would be if his jaw were made of glass.

This is important because I think people misinterpret metaphors on a regular basis.

Re: Career Advice from Scott Adams (2007)

#53

Post by jarcane »

kelukelugames wrote: post #37
kelukelugames wrote: post #5

Scott Adams used to give great career advice and cartooning tips. I think he got bored a few years ago and decided to become a professional troll. I will write some examples after work.

Okay I'm home now. Let's dissect the most famous example. 1) Adams compares women to children and people with mental disabilities. 2) Claims he didn't and that everyone who thinks that has bad reading comprehension. Also plays the victim card anytime someone accuses him of misogyny. 3) Writes article about hypnosis. Adams says he can convince people that two things are related without doing it directly. Gives example…

Don't forget this gem from November: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/11/21/scott-adams-we-...

Or his insane defense of rapists and harassers: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/06/16/scott-adams-mal...

Re: Career Advice from Scott Adams (2007)

#54

Post by param »

jarcane wrote: post #53
kelukelugames wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay I'm home now. Let's dissect the most famous example. 1) Adams compares women to children and people with mental disabilities. 2) Claims he didn't and that everyone who thinks that has bad reading comprehension. Also plays the victim card anytime someone accuses him of misogyny. 3) Writes article about hypnosis. Adams says he can convince people that two things are related without doing it directly. Gives example…

Don't forget this gem from November: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/11/21/scott-adams-we-... Or his insane defense of rapists and harassers: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/06/16/scott-adams-mal...

Disclaimer: I like SA

With that bias out of the way, I would recommend you go back to the source and then judge him.

I can't find the source post for the first one, but the second one is here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102881545031/pegs-and-holes

If you read it carefully, you will realize that he is not defending rapists, he is saying you can look at the situation as a mental health problem - similar to the EU view of drug abusers - they are not criminals, they are patients.

He has, multiple times on his blog, put forth his theory that humans are 'moist robots' - he does not believe in the concept of free will; so this post is entirely consistent with that.

Re: Career Advice from Scott Adams (2007)

#55

Post by jarcane »

param wrote: post #54
jarcane wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget this gem from November: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/11/21/scott-adams-we-... Or his insane defense of rapists and harassers: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/06/16/scott-adams-mal...

Disclaimer: I like SA With that bias out of the way, I would recommend you go back to the source and then judge him. I can't find the source post for the first one, but the second one is here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102881545031/pegs-and-holes If you read it carefully, you will realize that he is not defending rapists, he is saying you can look at the situation as a mental health problem - similar to the EU vie…

he does not believe in the concept of free will

That really doesn't do anything to assuage my distaste for the point. It is in fact the very point that is the problem.

Re: Career Advice from Scott Adams (2007)

#56

Post by golergka »

kelukelugames wrote: post #37
kelukelugames wrote: post #5

Scott Adams used to give great career advice and cartooning tips. I think he got bored a few years ago and decided to become a professional troll. I will write some examples after work.

Okay I'm home now. Let's dissect the most famous example. 1) Adams compares women to children and people with mental disabilities. 2) Claims he didn't and that everyone who thinks that has bad reading comprehension. Also plays the victim card anytime someone accuses him of misogyny. 3) Writes article about hypnosis. Adams says he can convince people that two things are related without doing it directly. Gives example…

> Adams compares women to children and people with mental disabilities.

So, I googled the issue you apparently were talking about, and I have a general question.

http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/ (That's it, right?)

So, when americans say that someone "compared" A and B — do you guys, like normal people, mean that (1) said someone (in this example, Scott Adams) performed an operation of comparison, which may or may not have resulted in presenting some similarities between A and B?

Or do you mean that (2) said someone said that A and B are the same in some ways?

Because if you're using definition number 1, I don't see any problems with comparing anything to anything. But if you're using definition number 2 — well. To be frank, I can only call this definition stupid and idiotic, and if that's how you understand it, then yes, you do have really bad reading comprehension. And it's clear from quoted Adams text that he "compared" these groups of people as in 1. Not as in 2.

Re: Career Advice from Scott Adams (2007)

#57

Post by lmm »

putlake wrote: post #9

Scott Adams is very entertaining. He predicted Trump's staying power way back in the summer when everyone (including me) thought his candidacy was just a joke. In fact, he has predicted a landslide for Trump in the general election. He says it's based on his training as a hypnotist, which gives him an insight into the art of persuasion. Over the years I've learned many things from following Adams' blog. He recommende…

It's weird. He talks a load of nonsense, and makes basic logical errors all the time, going as far as to recommend nonsense pseudoscience. At times I wonder if maybe he isn't actually that smart, and just got lucky somehow.

But he makes accurate predictions. Consistently. You can't ignore that.

Re: Career Advice from Scott Adams (2007)

#58

Post by golergka »

param wrote: post #54
jarcane wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget this gem from November: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/11/21/scott-adams-we-... Or his insane defense of rapists and harassers: http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/06/16/scott-adams-mal...

Disclaimer: I like SA With that bias out of the way, I would recommend you go back to the source and then judge him. I can't find the source post for the first one, but the second one is here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102881545031/pegs-and-holes If you read it carefully, you will realize that he is not defending rapists, he is saying you can look at the situation as a mental health problem - similar to the EU vie…

Well, the whole concept of "morals" depends on free will, so if you don't really believe in free will, you shouldn't be saying that something should or should not be viewed as moral or not. In your worldview, being "moral" or "immoral" should just be words without a correct definition behind them.

Re: Career Advice from Scott Adams (2007)

#59

Post by zo1 »

kelukelugames wrote: post #46
aptwebapps wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not up to date with the Trump stuff but what I thought was particularly disingenuous about the first example was that he said in advance that he was going to write something ambiguous that people would 'misinterpret' and then he made fun of them when it happened. As far as I'm concerned, if you write something with the goal of communicating a particular idea to a particular audience then that's what you said. It…

On one hand I think he knows exactly what he is doing. He mentions phrasing and word choice in some of his posts. On the other hand, he might just be completely clueless about race and gender issues. He says things like "If women want to avoid catcalling then why don't they just move? I moved to improve my life." Maybe a little of column A, and a little of column B.

>"If women want to avoid catcalling then why don't they just move? I moved to improve my life."

Perhaps pointing out the hypocrisy of those actually using that rhetorical construct? Being someone that advocates a society without a state, and often criticizes it, I get that comment thrown at me many times. And people find it a perfectly acceptable and valid retort to what I'm advocating. Maybe putting it in the context of "women" (with gender issues currently being a prominent theme/topic in society), perhaps he can make the users of that construct look at it critically as a bad argument against anything.

Note, haven't actually read Adam's articles about women being mentioned here.

Re: Career Advice from Scott Adams (2007)

#60

Post by lmm »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #12

tl;dr Don't try to be the best at something, it's too hard. Be good at a couple of things and make a living in the Venn diagram intersection. It's a nice idea, but I struggle when I get to "software and ..." Cartoons? Cycling? DIY?

> Cartoons? Cycling? DIY?

Any of those works. You don't need to be that good at programming if you can figure out a piece of software that one or other of those really needs, and the size of the thing you have to make can be surprisingly small - I mean patio11 got rich off a bingo card creator, just by figuring out a small thing that a certain class of people really needed, making it, and marketing it well.

Post reply on HN