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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
Where's the proof? And if it is emotional and bad nor good arguments are influencing he's simply Glen Beck pandering to a group that simply agrees with him already and inflaming those that don't? If that's the case then bravo for him (and Glen Beck). But then what did he expect then?
You can't argue that this is an emotional issue, emotional issues create a certain response, and good arguments aren't influential -- and then feign surprise when exactly what you state happens. IMO that's a sign of either genius PR at work (ala Beck) or one with poor character (ala Beck).
That means there is no right and wrong, as far as humans are concerned. But furthermore the study actually shows why Adams' position is INCORRECT! The study shows that people who are presented with misinformation have potential to cling to this, even in the face of correction. This strongly argues that we should avoid misinformation in the first place NOT to distribute it equally (or worse even more abudantly, since one can generate more distinct false statements than true statements).
And of course read the actual paper where they say,
It’s important to note that the account provided above does not imply that individuals simply believe what they want to believe under all circumstances and never accept counter-attitudinal information. Per Ditto and Lopez (1992: 570), preference-inconsistent information is likely to be subjected to greater skepticism than preference-consistent
information, but individuals who are “confronted with information of
sufficient quantity or clarity… should eventually acquiesce to a preference-inconsistent
conclusion.” The effectiveness of corrective information is therefore likely to vary
depending on the extent to which the individual has been exposed to similar messages
elsewhere. For instance, as a certain belief becomes widely viewed as discredited among
the public and the press, individuals who might be ideologically sympathetic to that belief
will be more likely to abandon it when exposed to corrective information.
Again, this shows Adams' position as wrong. And also shows why the dissemination of misinformation is bad in that it makes it more difficult for misinformation to be abandoned.
Additionally from the study: Currently, all of our backfire results come from conservatives – a finding that may provide support for the hypothesis that conservatives are especially dogmatic -- although they concede that more work is needed here as they don't have sufficient evidence. But given that Adams's position is historical conservative, I do wonder if evidence against it will simply inspire the backfire effect.
But with all that said, I'm sure I'm wasting my time writing this since any argument, even from your own sources, surely won't change your mind in the slightest. It will in fact likely just strengthen your current position -- especially on something so emotional.
Frankly, Adams' post seems like ... not that big of a deal. In the Internet age, any post on this topic could incite similar rage. Thanks, Scott Adams for providing an awesome, entertaining distraction! I'm not offended and still think Dilbert is really funny.
Adams writes _not_ about how women behave, but about how _men_ behave. He addresses those men who complain about their perceived lower social standing than women ("stop being pussies").
He is making three points:
1. society dictates that you help the weak (children, handicapped)
2. men perceive themselves superior to women (i.e. his reference to male teamwork, physical strength or determination)
3. hence, men must help women and not complain about them
One point I would have like him to make though is the essence of helping each other: only by doing that, we as a society can evolve and prosper past the outdated gender wars ;-)
18 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 71.9 ms ] threadThat includes the original piece which stirred up all the noise.
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.
(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.)
After reading his posts, turns out the whole thing is a tempest in a teacup ... shocking.
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.
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?
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/...
Where's the proof? And if it is emotional and bad nor good arguments are influencing he's simply Glen Beck pandering to a group that simply agrees with him already and inflaming those that don't? If that's the case then bravo for him (and Glen Beck). But then what did he expect then?
You can't argue that this is an emotional issue, emotional issues create a certain response, and good arguments aren't influential -- and then feign surprise when exactly what you state happens. IMO that's a sign of either genius PR at work (ala Beck) or one with poor character (ala Beck).
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/....
That means there is no right and wrong, as far as humans are concerned. But furthermore the study actually shows why Adams' position is INCORRECT! The study shows that people who are presented with misinformation have potential to cling to this, even in the face of correction. This strongly argues that we should avoid misinformation in the first place NOT to distribute it equally (or worse even more abudantly, since one can generate more distinct false statements than true statements).
And of course read the actual paper where they say,
It’s important to note that the account provided above does not imply that individuals simply believe what they want to believe under all circumstances and never accept counter-attitudinal information. Per Ditto and Lopez (1992: 570), preference-inconsistent information is likely to be subjected to greater skepticism than preference-consistent information, but individuals who are “confronted with information of sufficient quantity or clarity… should eventually acquiesce to a preference-inconsistent conclusion.” The effectiveness of corrective information is therefore likely to vary depending on the extent to which the individual has been exposed to similar messages elsewhere. For instance, as a certain belief becomes widely viewed as discredited among the public and the press, individuals who might be ideologically sympathetic to that belief will be more likely to abandon it when exposed to corrective information.
Again, this shows Adams' position as wrong. And also shows why the dissemination of misinformation is bad in that it makes it more difficult for misinformation to be abandoned.
Additionally from the study: Currently, all of our backfire results come from conservatives – a finding that may provide support for the hypothesis that conservatives are especially dogmatic -- although they concede that more work is needed here as they don't have sufficient evidence. But given that Adams's position is historical conservative, I do wonder if evidence against it will simply inspire the backfire effect.
But with all that said, I'm sure I'm wasting my time writing this since any argument, even from your own sources, surely won't change your mind in the slightest. It will in fact likely just strengthen your current position -- especially on something so emotional.
Queue the white knights in 3, 2, 1, Go.
He is making three points:
1. society dictates that you help the weak (children, handicapped) 2. men perceive themselves superior to women (i.e. his reference to male teamwork, physical strength or determination) 3. hence, men must help women and not complain about them
One point I would have like him to make though is the essence of helping each other: only by doing that, we as a society can evolve and prosper past the outdated gender wars ;-)