The Dilbert Blog

Likelihood of Revolution

Lately, with the popularity of President Bush in the low twenties, and the Supreme court tilting toward the right, and no one trusting voting results, I wonder what it would take to spark a revolution, or a coup.

The thing with history is that nothing seems likely until after it happens. So if your first reaction is to dismiss this possibility because it’s unlikely, you haven’t studied history. Everything that happens is unlikely.

So what series of events could cause an uprising? While I am not predicting it will happen, I think it’s more possible than you think. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the following series of events unfold:

1. McCain, behind in the polls, somehow wins the nomination and the general election.

2. McCain’s win causes mistrust in voting machines, for reasons either real or imagined.

3. McCain intensifies the war in Iraq because he thinks it’s the right thing for the country.

4. Protesters take to the streets in sixties fashion. There are clashes with police. The media makes this THE story.

5. McCain, one of our oldest candidates, dies in office from natural causes. His vice president assumes the job. The vice president, chosen to appease the conservative base, is the most right wing politician ever, and makes Dick Cheney look like Bambii.

6. The new Vice President cracks down hard on protesters. He starts suspending even more civil liberties. Martial law is discussed as if it is imminent.

7. An opening on the Supreme Court allows the new president to push a conservative into the slot. This moves the court completely to the right. All abortions are banned in the United States.

8. The war in Iraq spreads to Iran, where once again, no signs of nuclear weapons production are found. This added war is so unpopular with the rest of the world that allies start withdrawing from NATO to form their own defense club.

9. Strained by the war in Iraq, and now Iran, and potentially Syria, the American economy crumbles.

Now would there be a revolution? And which part of this scenario couldn’t happen?

Pascal’s Wager

In yesterday's post I described an argument that reminded people of something called Pascal's Wager.

In a nutshell, Pascal was a dude who argued you should consider Christianity because if it's true, the downside of not believing is eternal Hell. But if you become a Christian and there's no God, all you've lost is your Sunday mornings. (Here I am simplifying.)

Many of my blog readers left comments alluding to the well-known "flaws" in Pascal's argument. Here’s a handy list of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Rebuttals

Chief among the alleged flaws in Pascal’s argument is that you still have to pick the correct religion among many, or else you go to Hell anyway.

Sure. But picking any religion that promises salvation slightly improves your odds over picking an option that doesn’t. You're still probably doomed, given your bad religion-picking skills, but a one-in-a-million chance of reducing the risk of eternal Hell is a move worth taking, mathmatically speaking.

Another noted "flaw" in Pascal's wager is that you can't rule out the possibility that only skeptics are spared from Hell. Perhaps, it is argued, God loves the spunky fact-loving personality of skeptics and saves them alone, or saves them in the greatest percentage.

That argument passes the math test, but does it pass the sniff test? It’s a viewpoint that exists only as a debate tool. While we can't rule it out, surely it is the worst bet if you must pick a theory of God. No rational person on earth, including skeptics, has concluded that God prefers skeptics over believers.

Personally, if I were more rational, and less focused on immediate gratification, I would become a moderate, peace-loving Muslim. My reasoning is that Islam has the best chance of becoming the dominant world religion in the future, and therefore probably has God’s backing, if he exists. The Muslim belief that death is sometimes a good thing is a huge advantage in a future where weapons are improving, and the only thing keeping people from using them is fear of death.

If you believe God exists, the smart money says he’s backing the team with the best strategy and long term viability. Based on what I see today, I’m betting on Islam being the only religion in a thousand years. Once you can build your own nuke from stuff you buy online, don’t be betting on the Buddhists.

I realize it's unscientific to try and compare one absurdity to another. But if you assume our perceptions are often flawed, you have to allow the possibility that some apparent absurdities are due to our limited powers of perception. So, for example, while the notion of a loving God who allows eternal damnation seems absurd, it is less absurd than assuming the world is run by invisible unicorns, or that God discriminates against those who believe in him.

The God theory has built into it the assumption we are not bright enough to understand the mind of an omnipotent being. That sounds reasonable. Hey, if God exists, and he does things different that I would, just maybe the problem is on my end. If you believe in God, the apparent absurdities have a reasonable explanation, even if wrong.

But what’s the reasonable explanation for God preferring skeptics? If God appreciates reasoning skills, he can’t be too impressed by the fact he created the entire Universe and skeptics still can’t find any good clues he exists. God would only be impressed by skeptics if God did NOT exist. You can’t top that for absurdity.

Back to Islam. It also has the most satisfying answer to the multiple prophet issue. If we assume God speaks through prophets, as all God-oriented religions do, then how can you be sure the last prophet finished the job? Islam gives us Mohammed, the "seal of the prophets," and promises that God intends him to be the last one. That’s a tidy package.

All the other religions seem to leave open the possibility that God has a few more prophets up his sleeve. If you bet on one of those other religions, you can't know for sure if you're living by God's first draft or his finished manuscript.

Picking the "right" religion is a long shot no matter how hard you try. But if rational thought has any value at all, it's in narrowing down options and improving our odds of making good choices. Rational thought hasn't led anyone to conclude that there's a God who only saves people who don't believe he exists. We can't rule it out, but can't we rate its likelihood compared to a God who prefers that his lumps of clay hold him in higher esteem than their own eye crud?

I’d prefer to make all of my decisions on the basis of peer reviewed science. But I don’t have that option when considering the great beyond. So I settle for looking at the competing absurdities and picking the one that seems relatively least absurd.

There are other arguments against Pascal’s wager, but none of them looked any stronger than the ones I mentioned here.

Pascal's wager was designed to make people consider the importance of grappling with the question of a Christian God. That's not my argument. I simply borrowed the math part of his argument and followed it to its logical conclusion: The most rational worldview is moderate Islam.

And since I am not a Muslim, I must conclude that I am not rational. I sure hope God likes moist robots.

I wrote this at 3 AM. I won’t even pretend it makes sense.

[Update: Early commenters are noting that someone who only pretends to believe, to get into heaven, won't fool God. But the science strongly supports the notion that going through the motions of believing will, in most normal people, turn them into believers in fact. It's the same principle as why people who join a political party start to believe most of the positions of the party. -- Scott]

The Atheist Who Thought He Was God

Can we ever be sure about anything in life?

Is a feeling of 99% certainty enough to say you “know” something? Or do you need to feel 99.9999999999% certain before you’re willing to commit?

If you say you need to be 100% certain, you don’t understand how human brains work. It’s common for the human brain to be certain about things that later turn out to be completely false. It happens all the time, to everyone. If it has ever happened to you, then you know you can’t trust your own powers of certainty.

This brings me to atheists. In order to be certain that God doesn’t exist, you have to possess a godlike mental capacity – the ability to be 100% certain. A human can’t be 100% certain about anything. Our brains aren’t that reliable. Therefore, to be a true atheist, you have to believe you are the very thing that you argue doesn’t exist: God.

Perhaps you will argue that being 99.999999% certain God doesn’t exist is just as good as being 100% sure. That strikes me as bad math. As other philosotainers have famously noted, a small chance of spending eternity in Hell has to be taken seriously. Eternity is a long time.

Let me put this in perspective. You might be willing to accept a 10% risk of going skiing and getting hurt, but you wouldn’t accept a 10% risk of a nuclear war. The larger the potential problem, the less risk you are willing to tolerate.

An eternity in Hell is the largest penalty there could ever be. So while you might not worry about a .00000000001% chance of ending up in Hell, you can’t deny the math. .00000000001% of eternity is a lot longer than your entire mortal life. Infinitely longer.

I sometimes call myself an atheist because it’s too hard to explain Spinoza’s version of god. And it’s too hard to explain that agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position.

Are there any atheists out there?

[Update Bonus Question: What's the difference between a "weak atheist" and an agnostic? Don't both subscribe to uncertainty?]

The Secret

You’ve probably heard about, and perhaps read, a book phenomenon called The Secret. I haven’t read the book, but I’ve seen lots of negative reviews about its new age mumbo jumbo.

As I understand it, the central concept is something the book calls the Law of Attraction. Essentially, you focus on positive things and the universe will attract those things to you.

One skeptical reviewer picked the most outrageous sounding example in the book to point out how ridiculous it is. Apparently the book claims, without science to support it, that if you want to be thin, you should avoid overweight people, even to the extent of avoiding looking at them.

Clearly, that’s mumbo jumbo.

Today I read in the news that researchers have discovered weight to be “socially contagious.” Your chances of becoming obese are 57% higher if you have ONE friend who is obese.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/25/health/webmd/main3097001.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3097001

It’s probably premature to declare this a fact. The media isn’t good at getting this sort of thing right. But I’d be surprised if it’s wrong. After all, humans conform to their friends’ habits in every other realm, from clothing, to music, to choice of words. It can’t be too surprising to learn that they start eating the same.

Friends influence friends. That’s obvious. But can you also become overweight just by looking at overweight people? My guess is that you can. Humans are natural copiers. Your choice of clothing, for example, is influenced just as much by what you see on strangers as on friends. And your notion of what is acceptable and normal is probably more determined by strangers than by your one or two close friends.

How about success? Can the universe provide success just by focusing on it and avoiding thinking about failure? I’ve seen no research on that topic, but wouldn’t you be surprised if success isn’t socially contagious too?

Stanford University creates an enormous number of entrepreneurs and other successful people. I’ve often hypothesized that half of Stanford’s success is because the students are brilliant, well taught, and screened for high potential, and half is because the environment breeds success contagion. I imagine it would be difficult to graduate from Stanford and settle for an ordinary life. The impulse to copy the other go-getters would be mighty strong.

I’ve often written about my own experiences with affirmations, the practice of writing your goals 15 times a day. It seems to work much of the time, at least in my experience, but presumably not because of any magic. At least one probable explanation for its perceived effectiveness is that focusing on goals changes the person who is doing the focusing.

In a book called The Luck Factor, the author and researcher, Richard Wiseman (Google it), discovered that people who expect luck will notice opportunities in their environment more readily than those who don’t. And he learned that you can train people to expect luck, and cause an improvement in their ability to spot opportunities, that look like luck, when they pop up. I can imagine affirmations tuning a person in the same way, until it seems that extra luck is being provided by the universe, but all that’s happening is that it’s more easily recognized.

Affirmations probably also increases a person’s natural level of optimism, especially if you believe it works. I can imagine optimism working to harden people against the inevitable setbacks and obstacles along the way to success. To the extent that affirmations might increase a person’s stick-to-itiveness, his perception might be that the universe is removing barriers.

To be fair, there’s also some selective memory at play. I’m sure people who use affirmations, or The Secret, tend to remember the successes and forget the failures. I recall about six ridiculously unlikely successes of my own with affirmations, and one quasi-failure that I still think will pan out. (There’s the optimism thing.) Realistically, I might be forgetting some failures. And I have no way of knowing whether I would have had the successes without affirmation.

As I said, I haven’t read The Secret. I don’t endorse it. But if you think the concept has no value because it’s not backed by science, don’t be surprised if that changes.

Another Already Invented Invention

I hate waiting for my computer to do something, or a web page to open. Why can’t someone invent a replacement for the little hourglass, or the browser progress bar, that is more interesting to look at?

For example, I think it would be hilarious to see a little graphic of two dogs humping. The hourglass only shows for a few seconds, usually, and every time the humping dog replacement popped up, it would make me smile.

Or how about flashing a compliment to the user, such as, “You are smart and sexy.” I could read that a billion times and never get tired of it. I’d like to customize my own messages too.

This product would be too trivial to sell directly, so you’d have to monetize it a different way. For example, it could be a giveaway for people who buy some other type of software on the Internet. The retailer would pay you for the right to use it as a gift item.

Now tell me who already invented this.

Inventing the Already Invented

People always ask me where my ideas come from. It feels as if my ideas originate in my mind, in a something-from-nothing way. But sometimes I think my brain is some sort of zeitgeist vacuum, sucking in scraps of ideas already floating around the universe until there’s enough of one kind of scrap that I notice.

For example, in a recent post I described what I thought was an original idea for using cell phones to arrange ride sharing, thus saving the world by reducing fuel use. Meanwhile, as several readers pointed out, something similar was already being created for Facebook users:

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid={492C5820-C43D-4B95-98ED-5466C7A92D26}

This happens with most of my ideas. No matter what I write, I get at least one e-mail with a link to someone who said it first, or invented it first. So I wonder if I am actually a creative person or simply jacked into the matrix.

Let’s test the theory. I’ll describe my new idea, and you find the link to someone who is already doing it.

I’ll call my idea weirdfeet.com because all the better URLs are taken. It’s a website where people simply keep a record of what athletic footwear fits their particular feet. For example, I have a somewhat flat foot, and I’ve found only two models of tennis shoes that work for me. I’d register on the system and enter my two types of tennis shoes.

Once enough people have registered, I can find people who are happy with the exact size and brand of footwear as me. Then, when my brands are discontinued, or I want to branch out, I check the website to find out what other tennis shoes are being worn by people who were happy with my same brands and sizes. Their feet are probably a lot like mine. Perhaps not 100% of the time, but it’s better than starting blind.

Weirdfeet.com could make money on ads, and perhaps make referral money for links to online sellers. In terms of ad revenue, the key to a successful site is having a user base that is in the market for something specific. Everyone on this site would be a buyer of athletic footwear. And if they registered a tennis shoe, they are also purchasers of tennis rackets. Advertisers love that.

Does this site exist? Or did I just give away the best idea I ever had?

Politeness

Recently I saw a sign outside a store that said, “Please enjoy our food and drinks outside.” It seemed so much nicer than the more direct “No food and drinks.” And it reminded me of my friend Jason’s favorite joke. It goes like this:

Two Southern ladies, Maribelle and AnneMarie, were sitting on the porch drinking mint juleps. They have the following conversation, best imagined with an upscale Southern drawl:

Maribelle: AnneMarie, do you see this huge diamond ring?

AnneMarie: Yes.

Maribelle: My husband bought this for me.

AnneMarie: Isn’t that special.

Maribelle: Do you see that Jaguar in the parking lot?

AnneMarie: Yes.

Maribelle: My husband bought that for me.

AnneMarie: Isn’t that special.

Maribelle: And you know that mansion I live in?

AnneMarie: Yes.

Maribelle: My husband bought that for me.

AnneMarie: Isn’t that special.

Maribelle: What did your husband buy for you, AnneMarie?

AnneMarie: My husband sent me to finishing school. That’s where I learned to say, “Isn’t that special” instead of “fuck you.”

What’s your favorite joke?

Things I Used to Know

When I was a kid, it was common knowledge that you would get cramps and drown if you went swimming within an hour of eating. It never occurred to me that if eating and swimming was a deadly combination, the bottom of every pool would be covered with corpses. I never heard of anyone perishing from a sandwich-related drowning. It turns out there was a good reason: Eating before swimming doesn’t cause cramps after all.

Now it’s common knowledge that your cell phone can bring down an airliner. But if that were true, the airlines would confiscate your phones, not just ask you to turn them off. And given the fact that at least one moron leaves his phone on during every flight, you’d expect at least one cell phone-related crash. I’m still waiting.

Everyone knows you can get AIDS from oral sex. Any doctor will confirm that. It’s common knowledge. Yet there are plenty of teens engaging in oral sex and no other kind of sex. Is there one confirmed case of a virgin getting AIDS from a blow job? I don’t know the answer to that question, but it’s odd that the sidewalks in front of high schools aren’t covered with corpses.

We Americans know that Al Qaeda has cells in America planning to attack. And we know that there are more terrorists than ever, thanks to the Iraq war. It’s easy to get people and explosives into the country on private boats or across our porous borders. The woods must be full of terrorists by now. Apparently all the slow ones came to America. I mean, Iraq has almost as many car bombs as cars. Those guys are industrious. But the American terrorists couldn’t put together one car bomb in six years. I know, I know – every one of those American terror cells is waiting for a nuke so they can do something more fabulous than last time. Apparently no one told Al Qaeda in Iraq what an excellent strategy it is to do nothing for six years.

Everyone knows most vegetarians don’t get enough protein. You probably know a few vegetarians yourself. Have you ever heard of an adult vegetarian being hospitalized because of protein deficiency? You’d expect to go to the hospital for a bunion operation and be turned away because all the beds are full of vegetarians with lackofproteinitis.

I have been thinking along these lines lately because of all the comments on this blog about my high intake of Diet Coke. Many people believe the aspartame is dangerous, and indeed you can find mention on the Internet of studies that support that notion, along with ones that don’t. And more recently, a study showed a link between obesity and heart risk for soda drinkers, both diet and regular. These types of risks are more subtle than an airline crash or a car bomb, so I wouldn’t necessarily expect to see fresh corpses clutching soda cans. But I wonder if it’s my cynicism of common wisdom or just cognitive dissonance that causes me to choose the deliciousness and easy caffeine of my Diet Coke over the alleged risks. All I know for sure is that thinking about it just made me thirsty.

(Warning: Do not get your health and safety tips from cartoonists. I’m just making observations, not recommendations. I’m sure the comment section will provide plenty of counter points.)

Immigration

It’s hard to talk about immigration without sounding like a racist. So let me just say this and get it out of the way: I think Mexicans are superior to me.

By “me,” I am referring to people who are part English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Dutch, German, and Native American. There are three of us that I know of. I think my brother and sister would agree that we kind of suck compared to Mexicans.

Compare me to Mexicans on any dimension and I lose. For example, I like to think I’m smart, but realistically, if you pick any topic, there is at least one Mexican who knows more than me. Or is it “more than I”? I don’t know, but I guarantee there’s a Mexican somewhere who does.

And don’t get me started about common sense and street smarts. If my car breaks down someplace where my Blackberry doesn’t have signal, there’s a good chance I’ll die before I figure out how to get help. Compare that to the guy I can see from my office window, working construction down the street. He walked here from Mexico and learned how to be a carpenter just by looking at a hammer. I speak exactly one language. He’s been here a month and knows 1.1 languages. Advantage: Mexican guy.

Mexicans have great looking skin that resists sunburn. I have skin that looks like tapioca spilled on canvas, and I have to wear sunscreen to sit in front of my computer monitor.

How about durability? I can hurt my back just eating a bowl of strawberries. I wouldn’t last long picking them.

How about character? In the suburbs where I live, most people with above average incomes hire housecleaners to come once a week. It’s almost always a crew of three Mexicans. Each crew has a wad of house keys. In the 29 years I have lived in California, the total number of thefts I have heard attributed to Mexican housekeepers is zero. Now, in the interest of not incriminating yourself, compare that to your best male friend who is not a Mexican and ask yourself how many of these crimes he has committed:

- Sex with an underage girl when he was 18
- Marijuana
- Speeding
- Fudging on taxes
- Underage drinking
- Illegal copying of songs
- Driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit
- Stealing office supplies

There’s a good chance your best male friend is a frickin’criminal.

You might argue that any Mexican in this country illegally has broken a law, and that is obviously true. He is guilty of working hard so he can send money home and lift his family from wretchedness. I automatically like that kind of guy, whereas your best friend sounds like a jerk.

I can see the arguments on both sides of the immigration issue. And I’m sure I’d have a different view if I lived in some gang-infested part of Southern California. But the dirty little secret that most Californians know is that Mexican immigrants, legal or otherwise, are bringing up the national average on the “good people” meter. If that were not so obviously the case, the borders would have been shut a long time ago. I’d be down there myself with some boards and a hammer and the hope that some guy on the other side would show me how to use them.

[Update: Unlike many of the readers directed to this blog from racist web sites, Mexicans understand satire. If you do not understand satire, I recommend less challenging forms of entertainment.]

Presidential Polyps

President Bush recently had some polyps removed from his colon. Sometimes polyps can turn cancerous, but I doubt his are. After all, President Bush hasn’t had much luck finding weapons of ass destruction.

I’m posting this now before someone else thinks of it. I might already be too late.

And allow me to be the first to wonder aloud how the surgeons could see past Condi’s head to see those polyps.

This is one of those once-in-a-lifetime humor situations. You can play along at home. Leave a comment with your own best joke about the president’s semi-colon.

Go.