The Dilbert Blog

Proof of God

When you publish your e-mail address, you hear from a lot of interesting people. Some time ago I got a message from a guy who said something about having a four-sentence proof of God. I must have replied that I’d like to see it. Anyway, he sent it. I deleted the message months ago, but I keep getting reminded of the proof. It went something like this:

Proof of God

1. It is impossible for one person to see reality through the eyes of another.

2. By definition, a reality you can’t enter via any form of transportation is another dimension.

3. You comprise 100% of your dimension, because no one else can share exactly your perception.

4. If you are the entire universe within your dimension, you are God by definition, since you are everything within your own dimension.

Then he said that other people are really your perception of other dimensions, or Gods. You can see a representation of the other Gods, looking like people, but you can never experience their reality.

He went on to explain that if I send a message from my universe to yours, it always gets scrambled along the way. Sometimes it is mildly distorted, and sometimes entirely altered, as you’ve seen in my recent posts, but it is never exact.

How could you test this theory to see if it’s true? For one thing, you could verify that most messages you send out are misunderstood by the recipient. (Check) And there’s no doubt that no one sees reality the way you personally experience it, and never can. (Check)

Another thing you might look for is the number of non-interfering experiences. By that I mean, how many times is your perception of something completely different from everyone else’s perception, and the contradiction is never noticed? For example, if you and I see a dog in the park, and I come away remembering it as brown, and you remember it as white, it makes no difference if we never discuss that dog for the rest of our lives.

99.999% of what you experience is never verified with anyone else’s experience.  And that’s not even counting the times you are asleep. Only occasionally do our perceptions collide. Have you ever heard a friend (another God) tell a story in which you participated, only to think “It didn’t happen that way”? That’s because all memories are personal, and to a large extent manufactured. Your reality is truly your own.

So according to “some guy on the Internet,” you are a god.

Cognitive Dissonance (or not) Update

After my recent post on Bill Maher’s show Real Time, and his interview with the author of the book “Cool It,” Bjorn Lomborg, I got a lot of interesting reactions. But first, some corrections.

I referred to Lomborg as an economist because that’s how he was introduced on Real Time. Apparently he’s famous for organizing economists to get their views, he’s got a background in statistics, and he was Director of Denmark’s Environmental Assessment Institute. But he’s not an economist. He’s more like a guy who organizes experts, gathers their views, and develops a point of view from that. If an informed opinion requires input from multiple fields, say science, economics, statistics, and alternative energy, no one can be a complete expert without mastering all of those fields. I don’t know if such a person exists.

Also, many of you pointed out that my example of cognitive dissonance wasn’t so much cognitive dissonance as one of many other possible labels. Some of you are probably right. But I don’t know which ones, and cognitive dissonance seems to me like a close enough diagnosis, so I’ll keep using it.

But here’s the most interesting part. My blog on how Bill Maher and his panelists misunderstood Lomborg has caused a new round of cognitive dissonance. I have now been labeled a supporter of Lomborg’s arguments simply because I said I understood what he said on a TV show. Check this out. It’s somewhat jaw-dropping:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/28/21480/1840

I always wondered why Al Gore never defended himself from the attack “He said he invented the Internet.” What he did is get funding for the Internet before most people had even heard of it. I thought he could have easily turned the attacks into a positive with something like, “I never used the word ‘invent,’ but I did play a big role in funding the creation of the Internet before anyone else in Congress saw its potential. That’s the sort of vision you need in a president.”

But he didn’t take that path. He rolled over and took a beating. Now I understand why. Once a misunderstanding gets out of the bottle, there is no fixing it. He didn’t have a chance. I think he knew it.

Almost as Funny as a Turd

Yesterday I asked you to suggest a punch line for a Dilbert comic that was better than “Sometimes the best you can do is move the turd to another pocket.” I promised I’d tell you what I had come up with on my own, so you can compare your entries to mine.

Here’s mine: “Sometimes the best you can do is move the hairball to another pocket.”

It’s not nearly as funny as turd. But it can get published. Did anyone top it?

Turd is the Word

Being a syndicated cartoonist isn’t as glamorous as people imagine. For example, the other day I spent about an hour trying to come up with a word as funny as turd. Ultimately, I failed.

It all started with a comic I drew with this third panel. (Click to enlarge.)

This comic has at least two problems. One is that it uses a word I can’t get published. The other is that the boss’s line is so perfect I can’t convince myself it is original. Did I read or hear that line someplace in the past? It sure sounds like something someone would have already said. Google came up empty, but it might be something that a colorful person from my past used to say.

Intuitively, I knew there was no other word in the universe that would be as funny as turd. Even other words that mean the same as turd would fall short, and be equally impossible to publish.

Eventually I came up with a replacement word, and that’s what will run in a month or so. It’s not nearly as funny as turd, but it was the best I could do. I wonder if you can top it. Let’s see.

I’ll give you a little wiggle room. There are two rules for your submission:

1. Keep the boss’s first words, “Sometimes the best you can do…”
2. Complete the sentence with a funny expression of utter futility.

If I like your suggestion better than my own, and it’s not filthy, I might use it. I’ll tell you mine tomorrow, so it doesn’t get in your head and make this harder today.

I know some of you are already thinking about “arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” That won’t be a winner.

On the Other Hand

Anything you learn changes your brain. That’s the point of learning. And different types of learning strengthen different parts of your brain. For example, learning math changes your brain in a different way from learning art, or learning to juggle.

I studied economics in college. One thing I’ve noticed is that other people who have studied economics tend to think a similar way. Some of the similarity is probably because it takes a certain kind of person to be interested in economics in the first place. But I’m convinced that the study of economics changes brains in a way I can identify after about five minutes of conversation. In particular, I think the study of economics makes you relatively immune to cognitive dissonance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

The primary skill of an economist is identifying all of the explanations for various phenomena. Cognitive dissonance is, at its core, the inability to recognize and accept other explanations. I’m oversimplifying, but you get the point. The more your brain is trained for economics, the less it is susceptible to cognitive dissonance, or so it seems.

The joke about economists is that they are always using the phrase “On the other hand.” Economists are trained to recognize all sides of an argument. That seems like an easy and obvious skill, but in my experience, the general population lacks that skill. Once people take a side, they interpret any argument on the other side as absurd. In other words, they are relatively susceptible to cognitive dissonance.

Recently I saw the best case of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. It was on Bill Maher's show, Real Time, which I love. Bill was interviewing Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, who has a book about global warming, called "Cool It." The economist made the following points clearly and succinctly:

1. Global warming is real, and people are a major cause.

2. When considering the problems that global warming will cause, we shouldn't ignore the benefits of global warming, such as fewer deaths from cold. 

3. The oceans rose a foot in the last hundred years, and the world adapted, so the additional rise from global warming might not be as big a problem as people assume.

4. Developing economical fossil fuel alternatives is the only rational solution to global warming because countries such as China and India will use the cheapest fuel, period. If only the developed countries who can afford alternatives change their ways, it’s not enough to make a dent in the problem.

The Danish economist’s argument doesn't fall into the established views about global warming. He wasn't denying it is happening, or denying humans are a major cause. But he also wasn’t saying we should drive hybrid cars, since he thinks it won’t be enough to help. He thinks we need to make solar (or other alternatives) more economical. That’s the magic bullet. His views don’t map to either popular camp on this issue, and it created a fascinating cognitive dissonance in Bill Maher (a fan of hybrid cars) and his panelists. Here are their reactions after the interview:

Rob Thomas said the interview "...confused the shit out of me." (Yet the economist was completely clear and communicated well.)

Salman Rushdie said, jokingly, that what he heard was "There's no connection between smoking and lung cancer." By that he meant the author was denying that fossil fuels contribute to global warming. (The economist said exactly the opposite, and clearly.)

Bill Maher said, "...20 years later, this guy is going to say, 'You know what? Yeah, there is global warming." (The economist already said exactly that during the interview. In fact, his entire book is based on global warming being true and hastened by fossil fuels.)

You can see the full transcript for yourself here. The interview is about 60% into the show.

http://billmaher.com/?page_id=209

Bill Maher is a brilliant guy, whether you agree with his views or not. Salman Rushdie is brilliant too. I don’t know about Rob Thomas, but he looks bright enough. Why couldn’t these three people hear anything the economist was saying? It looks to me like a classic case of cognitive dissonance . They literally couldn’t recognize that the economist was on their side because he suggested considering both the positive and negative effects of global warming.

I know I harp on this topic too much. But I do think that understanding cognitive dissonance, especially when it happens to you, is the only way to understand the world.

You can see this phenomenon on this blog on a regular basis. If I say Iran has a legitimate economic reason for building nuclear reactors, because experts agree Iran is running out of oil, it will be interpreted as anti-semetic. If I say the evidence for evolution that is available to me personally, as a non-expert, looks sketchy, it is interpreted as an argument for creationism.

In summary, if you ever plan to use the phrase “on the other hand,” be sure to wear your Kevlar underpants.

Homo Erectus

I was reading an article about the little hobbit-like creatures discovered in Indonesia. I couldn’t help notice that the article uses the abbreviation “H. Erectus” instead of the full name Homo Erectus. This is presumably to prevent jokes about why we don’t see any of them around these days.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1230409.htm

I’m crossing my fingers that someday scientists will discover one of these hobbit carcasses encased in amber or whatever-the-hell would allow us to snatch some DNA and clone them. Since they aren’t human, I think cloning would be legal. And although they have heads the size of grapefruits, scientists believe they were smart enough to use tools and hunt tiny elephants. That spells one thing: Hobbit butlers.

I want to be able to order a hobbit butler from a magazine and have it delivered in a box with air holes. My hobbit butler would always wear a tiny tuxedo, mostly for the cuteness. I’d call him Max, because of the irony factor, since he would be so tiny.

Max wouldn’t be bright enough to install a new computer network, or big enough to drive a car, so his utility would be limited. But he’d be perfect for playing ring toss. I’d have him stand at attention on the other side of the room and train him to yell funny things when I got a ring over him, such as “You are the best ring tosser of all times, you magnificent and gigantic bastard!” Best of all, he could pick up the rings and bring them back. If you think I would ever get tired of that, you don’t know me.

For Halloween, I’d get Max a winged monkey costume and dress up as the Wicked Witch. You can’t tell me that wouldn’t win some sort of prize. And I’d make him knock on doors and get candy. He’d clean up.

I might also get a dog so Max could ride it like a horse. When I wanted a Diet Coke from the fridge, Max would ride the dog to the kitchen and get it. Would I ever get tired of that? Not likely.

I’d never have to find the remote control again, because I would use Velcro to attach it to Max’s head. When I wanted to watch TV, I would just whistle and he’d run over and face the TV.

I’m sure there are more uses for a hobbit butler, but none come to mind. What would YOU do with a three-foot tall Homo?

Penis Jokes

Yesterday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad went to Columbia University and asked Israel to bomb his country. At least that’s how it sounded to me. Meanwhile, the President of Columbia hurled personal insults at the leader of a soon-to-be-nuclear power and strengthened their reasons for wanting us dead. I wonder if those guys had tense conversations with their wives later that night.

Wife: “Mahmoud, you flaming elf turd, did you just give our enemies political cover to annihilate our country?”

Amadinejad: “Okay, so sometimes I say the wrong thing at the wrong time. Big deal. How about coming over here and giving me some scarf.”

And who was the smartest person involved in yesterday’s events? George Bush. Criticize him all you want, but sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut. He shrugged off the whole controversy about Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia and let the Iranian President shoot himself in the foot. Well played.

The most entertaining part of Ahmadinejad’s speech is trying to figure out what the Hell is happening in his tiny bearded skull. The things he says that sound crazy, stupid, or ignorant can also be interpreted as routine political talk. In this country, we expect our politicians to say whatever plays well with voters, no matter how preposterous. You can never be sure what professional liars are thinking. So here are my best guesses about Ahmadinejad.

1. Ahmadinejad said Iran doesn’t have gay people. There is zero chance he believes that. He just wanted to change the subject. I interpret that as acknowledgment that Iran is executing homosexuals. (I don’t approve of that, in case you wondered.)

2. Ahmadinejad acknowledged that the holocaust happened, but thinks it is unfair that the holocaust skeptics in Europe are prosecuted whereas skeptics on other issues are not. I believe that’s his true opinion now, whether or not he was a holocaust denier in the past. If he didn’t believe the holocaust happened, he’d have no reason to stop denying it now while he’s openly skeptical about the cause of 9-11.

3. I think Ahmadinejad is genuinely skeptical that Bin Laden accomplished 9-11 all by himself. I don’t think it’s crazy to ask whether some dark forces in the U.S. and Israel had the means and the warped motive to help with the logistics, even if only in some small support way. Ahmadinejad lives in a country whose government was once overthrown by the U.S., so I can understand him being genuinely skeptical. And it plays well back home.

4. Ahmadinejad didn’t respond directly to questions about wanting Israel wiped off the map. But he said Iran isn’t building nuclear weapons and has no need for them. In other words, he ruled out nuking Israel. I believe the leadership in Iran isn’t collectively crazy enough to nuke Israel. And I don’t think Ahmadinejad knows of any other realistic way to wipe Israel off the map. It sounds like politics and wishful thinking to me.

5. I think Ahmadinejad is lying when he says Iran isn’t building nuclear weapons. They have the means and the motive (defense). It’s in their best interest to have nukes, and they always have the option to give them up, and allow inspectors, if America masses troops on the border.

While I think it’s highly unlikely that Iran would ever nuke Israel, either directly or by proxy, the odds are not zero. In my opinion, Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia, plus Iran’s support for Hezbollah give Israel a legitimate reason to attack Iran in self defense. I think Ahmadinejad knows that, and is taking a calculated risk that any attack on Iran would be limited in nature and cause Israel to lose international support.

Likewise, Ahmadinejad didn't deny Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans. That's a legitimate reason for the United States to support an attack on Iran. It's a separate question as to whether an attack on Iran is in America's best interest.

I wasn’t planning to blog on this topic, but my hit count went through the roof yesterday thanks to the various groups mustering their forces of darkness to misinterpret what I wrote and screech at me. (Thank you!)

DMD

What Qualifies as a Mental Problem?

This post will come off sounding argumentative, but I don’t intend it that way. It’s based on a genuine curiosity. After reading the comments to my posts for the past few days, it’s clear that people fall into some interesting categories. This made me wonder who gets to decide when a certain way of thinking qualifies as a genuine mental problem.

For example, as many of you noted about your fellow posters, a common way of thinking goes like this:

“If you think Jack the Ripper was a doctor in his day job, and you think doctors are positive role models, you must support Jack Ripper and celebrate the killing of women. Die, you woman-hater!”

Is that a form of mental problem, or does the fact that it describes how the majority of the population forms political opinions make it good mental health by definition? That’s a serious question.

Suppose we give this way of thinking a name. Let’s call it ripperitis. Sometimes labeling things is enough to change how we deal with them. Perhaps having a name for the condition will allow scientists to get funding to find a cure. I hope so, because it would give me something new to say to end political debates.

“Well, Bob, based on your rant, I’d say you have a bad case of ripperitis. I hear they’re working on a pill that lets people like you appreciate the complexity of arguments.”

And then Bob would say, “If you think drugs are such a great idea, why don’t you go marry a cocaine dealer in a civil union?”

Sorry I Confused You

In reading the comments to my post yesterday, I see that many of you were confused about my positions. Evidently all of you are brilliant, so I assume the problem is on my end. With your indulgence, allow me to clarify.

1. I am not happy that Hitler killed your relatives.
2. I do not support the killing of Americans
3. I do not support nuclear annihilation of Israel
4. I do not support the stoning of virgins in Iran
5. I believe the holocaust happened

I also don’t argue there’s a moral equivalence between Iran and the United States, or Israel and the Palestinians, or anyone and anyone else. Groups pursue their own perceived self interest. Arguing relative morality is an idiot’s game. Pointing out similarities in policies, and shaking the box, is good clean fun.

Next, I believe that if Iran is in fact helping Iraqi insurgents harm Americans, it’s an act of war, and a legitimate reason for attacking Iran in some fashion. That doesn’t mean it’s in the best interests of the United States to do so, but I would view it as legitimate.

Likewise, if the Iranians really are developing a nuclear weapon with the intent of using it on Israel, and there was some way to confirm that other than suspicious translations of speeches, then attacking Iran makes perfect sense, and I would support it completely. My problem is that I keep seeing patterns:

1. Iraq is helping Al-Qaeda
2. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
3. Al-Qaeda is operationally non-functional
4. The surge is working
5. Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans

I believe there’s a good chance Iran is helping Iraqi insurgents kill Americans, simply because it might be in their perceived best interest to do that. But I’d be an idiot to believe it simply because the government told the media it was true and the media told me. You can only fool me five or six dozen times before I start getting suspicious.

I think Iran would be foolish to let matters in Iraq unfold without trying to influence it. It’s in their best interest to meddle. That doesn’t mean I support it. I prefer they didn’t. But it’s not a realistic option. I presume the dark forces on our side are making sure any Iranian offenses are being met with consequences, and I’m all for that.

I also support Israel’s actions in pursuit of its self-interest. I’d be a hypocrite to do otherwise, since I also support the United States, despite what it did to the Native Americans a few hundred years ago. At some point you have to release on the past and accept the present realities. Israel won. It isn’t going anywhere.

If Israel had an enemy that it could make peace with, then I might feel different. But it doesn’t, so Israel’s best interests dictate keeping the neighbors too economically weak to purchase expensive weapons, and to control as much territory as possible. I don’t begrudge any country that makes rational decisions in support of its own safety. I don’t even begrudge Israel’s influence on American foreign policy. I respect them for how well they do it.

Still, the bulk of my sympathies are with whatever group suffers the most, regardless of how much of the problem is their own damned fault. To feel otherwise would be inhuman. Sometimes it feels as if the Palestinians are only one Gandhi away from fixing their problems. But he’d need to be bulletproof.

Here’s your hypothetical question of the day: If it ever happened that America attacked Iran because of alleged nukes, and later confirmed it had no nuclear weapons program, and we discovered that the administration knew it all along, would it be in the best interest of the citizens of the United States to overthrow their government?

A Feeling I'm Being Had

I was happy to hear that NYC didn't allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad
to place a wreath at the WTC site. And I was happy that Columbia
University is rescinding the offer to let him speak. If you let a guy like
that express his views, before long the entire world will want freedom
of speech.

I hate Ahmadinejad for all the same reasons you do. For one thing, he
said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Scholars tell us the correct
translation is more along the lines of wanting a change in Israel's
government toward something more democratic, with less gerrymandering.
What an ass-muncher!

Ahmadinejad also called the holocaust a "myth." Fuck him! A myth is
something a society uses to frame their understanding of their world, and
act accordingly. It's not as if the world created a whole new country
because of holocaust guilt and gives it a free pass no matter what it
does. That's Iranian crazy talk. Ahmadinejad can blow me. 

Most insulting is the fact that "myth" implies the holocaust didn't
happen. Fuck him for saying that! He also says he won't dispute the
historical claims of European scientists. That is obviously the opposite of
saying the holocaust didn't happen, which I assume is his way of
confusing me. God-damned fucker. 

Furthermore, why does an Iranian guy give a speech in his own language
except for using the English word "myth"? Aren't there any Iranian
words for saying a set of historical facts has achieved an unhealthy level
of influence on a specific set of decisions in the present? He's just
being an asshole.

Ahmadinejad believes his role is to pave the way for the coming of the
Twelfth Imam. That's a primitive apocalyptic belief! I thank Jesus I do
not live in a country led by a man who believes in that sort of
bullshit. Imagine how dangerous that would be, especially if that man had the
launch codes for nuclear weapons. 

The worst of the worst is that Ahmadinejad's country is helping the
Iraqis kill American soldiers. If Iran ever invades Canada, I think we'd
agree the best course of action for the United States is to be
constructive and let things sort themselves out. Otherwise we'd be just as evil
as the Iranians. Those fuckers.

Those Iranians need to learn from the American example. In this
country, if the clear majority of the public opposes the continuation of a war, our
leaders will tell us we're terrorist-humping idiots and do whatever they
damn well please. They might even increase our taxes to do it. That's
called leadership.

If Ahmadinejad thinks he can be our friend by honoring our heroes and
opening a dialog, he underestimates our ability to misinterpret him.
Fucking idiot. I hate him.