The Dilbert Blog

Management by Flailing Around

Until recently, I was a semi-silent investor in two local restaurants: Stacey’s Café and Stacey’s at Waterford. My long-time business partner, Stacey, co-owned and managed them. My duties involved smiling and nodding while pretending to understand what was going on. Eventually Stacey would make a recommendation with implications that I was not equipped to evaluate. So I would enthusiastically agree while hoping I had not given my approval to have the dishwasher killed for tardiness.

This model worked well for everyone, except perhaps for the dishwasher who I haven’t seen lately. And I was good at my end of it. I spent 16 years in corporate America, so I am not just bragging when I say my “pretending to add value” skills are second to none.

This summer, Stacey thought it would be amusing (for her) to see what happened if I actively managed one of the two restaurants. This seemed like a great idea to me. After all, I am highly experienced at making funny comics about managers. How hard could it be to transition from mocking idiots to being one?

So I jumped right in and declared myself the top executive of Stacey’s at Waterford, in Dublin CA. (www.eatatstaceys.com). I figured “executive” would be the position least likely to involve moving food from one place to another. I would be bad at food transportation because every time I eat, I end up with carbohydrates on my forehead. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the question “Would you like an extra napkin for your back?” So I stay away from anything that looks like useful work. I am an idea man.

By “idea man,” I mean I take ideas from other people, age them until their origin is disputable, and introduce them as if they came to me in the shower. The staff’s job is to concentrate on a spot on the wall behind me, thus reducing the likelihood of involuntary eye rolling. They are all good at it except for Emma, who claims she has a lazy eye problem.

Our biggest challenge comes from the chain restaurants that are flooding into the area. They are sucking customers out of the independent restaurants like a vacuum cleaner on a row of ants who are coincidentally also going out to eat. To compete, I decided we needed to ramp up our banquet and event activities, a competitive advantage the chains couldn’t match. But first, we had to make sure our food and service were the best in the area.

In my first two months, we hired a great new Chef, changed the menus, introduced a new menu for kids with lower prices, hired a Director of Events, redesigned the web site, and upgraded the table service. Customers tell us they are delighted. And banquet/party events are booking fast.

As executive manager and non-transporter of food, I take all the credit, primarily because Keith, Emma, Nathan, Cody, Cindy, Kristina and the rest of the staff don’t have their own blogs. That’s the way I like it.

A few months ago, I asked readers of this blog to suggest events for the restaurant. The restaurant staff evaluated the list and we started rolling them out. So it’s your fault if something doesn’t work. Upcoming, we have:

- Murder Mystery night
- Halloween dance
- Singles nights
- Half-priced wine night every Monday
- Happy Hour
- New Year’s Eve bash
- My book signing
- About a dozen more events in development

See the redesigned web site for dates and times under the “events” button. www.eatatstaceys.com.

The most frequent suggestion I get is to use the Dilbert angle to bring people into the restaurant. Okay. Here’s my offer. You probably don’t live in my area, but you might know someone who knows someone who does. If you can convince that person to book a banquet/party with 20 or more people, I will send you a signed Dilbert squeeze doll and a signed book. The person who books it will get the same.

You can actually reserve the entire restaurant for major parties or wedding receptions. Or maybe you know someone who works at one of the companies in my area and has a meeting coming up: Safeway, Sybase, Oracle, Carl Zeiss, AT&T, Top Con, Robert Half, Comcast, Blackhawk Networks, Kraft, Morgan Stanley, Clorox, Chevron, MicroDental, etc.

If this doesn’t work, I believe it is Keith’s turn to get blamed, assuming he hasn’t started his own blog by then.

Cue the Simian Symphony

There’s a fascinating article in the New York Times about something social scientists call a cascade. It’s a process by which one expert’s wrong opinion spreads to other experts until they all believe it must be true because all the experts say so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html

It makes you wonder if there are cascades in action right now that are fooling entire fields of experts. (My regular readers know where this is heading.)

As I understand a cascade, bad information originates from one source, spreads until it becomes common knowledge, and any dissenting data is ignored. That’s very different from, for example, the theory of evolution, where many experts are creating mountains of confirming evidence. There’s a big difference between one guy being wrong and thousands of experts being wrong about a thousand different things. So the theory of evolution doesn’t fit the cascade hypothesis, right?

But consider this. The INTERPRETATION for all the evidence of evolution goes back to one guy: Darwin. If he got that wrong, and no one at the time had a better explanation, you have all the conditions for a cascade.

Here’s a little thought experiment. Suppose Darwin’s original theory had been that evolution was directed by aliens who had visited Earth in its early days. He’d have plenty of circumstantial evidence for that theory because you can find all sorts of ancient wonders that seem too advanced for the societies of the time. And the evidence of alien involvement wouldn’t be much worse than his original scant evidence for evolution itself, which involved staring at bird beaks and the like. All the strongest evidence for evolution came after Darwin.

Imagine Darwin hypothesizing that the pyramids were too difficult for humans to build, so aliens must have helped. By the time scientists figured out how humans could have built pyramids with clever engineering, experts in the field of “alien evolution” would have a thousand more examples of alien influence that had not yet been debunked. The alien influence part of the explanation could easily cascade.

With the hypothetical alien theory of evolution, even the gaps in the fossil record would seem like confirmation. Of course there would be gaps, because the aliens manipulated our DNA and caused the changes to happen in spurts. And the aliens only visited every million years or so.

Now imagine what happens to the lone scientist who proposes that something called natural selection is the mechanism for evolution. The common wisdom in my imaginary scenario is that aliens did it. The poor bastard with his idea of natural selection would be ostracized from the field.

I’m not saying aliens caused evolution. And I’m not saying the current theory of evolution is wrong because of a cascade. But it’s a safe bet that SOMETHING you consider just as true as evolution is the result of a cascade and we’ll find out later.

Funny Band Names

Some years ago I drew a Dilbert comic in which Dilbert invented what he called tubular luggage. Several garage bands e-mailed to ask if they could use the name Tubular Luggage. Apparently “Tubular Luggage” just jumps out as an obvious name for a musical group.

I had the same experience yesterday while approving comments to this blog. I came across the phrase “fueled by hot dogs.” I can imagine that as a band name too.

The way our brains are wired, any two thoughts that don’t normally travel together seem funny when paired. It’s why Sponge Bob’s square pants are so funny. There’s a certain art to it. Let me try a few:

Dancing Wool

Vanilla Chipmunk

Spastic Tweezers

I also like to imagine band names that play on popular culture. For example:

Lance’s Left One

Monica’s Breath Mint

Britney’s Daycare Center

Okay, it’s your turn.

Some People

There’s a guy I know, but not well. He’s polite and friendly. He’s average looking. He means well. As far as I can tell, he’s a good citizen. And yet, every time I see him, I want to beat him to death with a shovel and bury him in a shallow grave.

I don’t know why I have this feeling about him. It’s just chemistry. He doesn’t do a single thing wrong. He just gives off a strong “kill me” vibe. Out of curiosity, I checked with a friend, and I’m not the only one who feels this way about him. Ten seconds after he opens his mouth, you want him dead.

You would think evolution would have weeded out the “kill me” gene a long time ago. If evolution can’t handle an easy job like that, it’s got a lot of explaining to do, unless this guy can run unusually fast, or his skull is extra thick.

I know enough about this fellow’s life to know things aren’t working out for him professionally or personally. This is not a huge surprise. I feel sorry for him, although the pity is somewhat muted by the feeling of wanting to pound a railroad spike through his head.

Luckily, I have enough self-control to not attack him. But I do worry about running into him when I’m shopping at Shovels-r-Us. I’d hate to be testing out a new shovel for weight and balance when he walks around the corner. BUH-TANG!!!! And then he’d just stand there with his thick ol’ skull and his stupid smile, saying something like “You should be careful with that thing. That’s the third time today someone hit me with a shovel.”

Do you know someone like that?

How Do You Know You’re Right?

Whenever I write about foreign policy, religion, or science, the criticisms I get most often are along the lines of “Leave it to the experts. You don’t know anything about foreign policy/religion/science.” I always chuckle inside when I read that sort of comment.

First, it must be noted that I have no way of knowing when I’m right or wrong. Experience tells me that I feel the same level of confidence either way. If I started making a list of all the times I was sure I was right, only to later find out I was wrong, we would both die of old age waiting for me to finish the list. At least I think we would. I could be wrong about that too.

But what makes YOU so sure I’m wrong on any given topic? It seems that for you to be sure I’m wrong, about anything, eight tests would have to be passed:

1. You have never been sure you were right and later found out you were wrong.
2. You have deep expertise in all fields relevant to the topic.
3. There are no experts disagreeing with you.
4. You can distinguish, via ESP, my actual opinions from my monkey dancing inducements.
5. Unlike all other humans, you are immune from cognitive dissonance or bias.
6. You know what you know, and also everything you DON’T know.
7. You have sufficient reading comprehension to understand my point.
8. Your powers of perception and logic are infallible.

I certainly understand when people disagree with my alleged opinions. We all have different knowledge and biases, so it follows that opinions would vary even if our brains were equally rational, which they aren’t. And I understand being confident in one’s own opinion. But it does not follow that that I am wrong, as far as you can tell.

Do any of you think I’m an idiot about foreign policy or science or religion, and you can pass the eight tests?

DMD

Curious Robot Maneuver

I noticed a long time ago that I get in a funky mood when I don't have time to exercise for a few days in a row. For me, there seemed to be a direct correlation between exercise and mood. Now the science supports that: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/depression-and-exercise/MH00043

Over the years, I have also noticed my mood turns down in the autumn and winter when there’s less sun. Now there’s evidence to support the link between sunlight (and its impact on your vitamin D production) and mood: http://www.webmd.com/depression/news/20040803/vitamin-d-ease-depression

Lately I’ve been experimenting with carbs and their impact on my mood. Try eating a bowl of white rice in the middle of the afternoon and see what it does to you. You’ll want a nap. It drains the energy right out of you. Protein doesn’t have that effect. So now I stay away from the carbs that sap my energy. That helps my mood too.

I have found that many bad moods are caused by a feeling of not having control. People can put up with extreme hardship, climbing a mountain for example, if they have the illusion of choosing to do it. But even a little aggravation can make you nuts if you feel you can’t avoid it.

I have a fix for that loss of control problem. I call it the “curious robot maneuver.” When things are not going your way, sit back and change your frame of mind to one of curiosity. Imagine you have no free will, and you are just a moist robot. Everything you have done and will do is programmed. So there’s no reason to stress over your lack of control in certain situations because you have the same degree of control in ALL situations: none. What you do have is the capacity to watch the show, and marvel as it unfolds. You have front row seats, right behind your own eyeballs, and the theater is surround-sense. You can actually FEEL the action!

You can take almost any upcoming event in your life, from a vacation to the next day at work, to a relationship, and ask yourself “What happens next?” It’s like watching a fascinating TV show that happens to involve your own life. Curiosity is a huge motivator. It's what makes you turn the page in a good book, and sit through a three-hour movie. You can use it to your advantage in your real life.

I’d be surprised if this method works for most people, but it might work for some. It’s a good way to take you out of your feeling of a loss of control and just imagine reality as something different until you can get some protein and sun and exercise.

I know my readers, and a number of you are already planning to leave a comment saying it is absurd to try and do this curious robot maneuver if you have no free will, because you have no choice whether you do it or not. But now that I created this post, and you just read it, your programming will be influenced. For some of you, that might be enough. Aren't you a little curious whether you will try this technique in the future?

The Single Most Important Issue

If you could vote for a president of the United States who would be excellent in solving one issue, yet only average in every other area, what one issue would you want him/her to solve?

Assume the president isn’t magic, so the solution has to be something entirely feasible even if difficult. The only answer not allowed is “the economy” because it’s too broad. But you can pick tax policy if you wish.

Here’s a starter list, but you don’t have to pick from it if you have a better idea:

Healthcare
Crime
Homeland security
Energy policy
Taxes
Education
Balancing the budget
Environment

After you pick your answer, scroll down for mine.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I’d have to go with energy policy. My reasoning is that coming up with green and economical alternative sources of energy would virtually solve all the other problems, either directly or by boosting the economy.

Imagine a president who brought experts together and mapped out a plan to make the country energy independent by a year certain. It would require a combination of a dozen or more industries and thousands of technologies that all do their little part. I can imagine massive investment in developing improved biofuels, building Sterling generators in the desert, nuclear plants, windmills, clean coal, harnessing the ocean waves, maybe using Tesla’s wireless power grid http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=703, and so on. I’m thinking of a war-time-like effort that brings the entire country together on this mission.

The direct benefits of a great energy policy would be a long-term solution to global warming (as developing nations copied our breakthroughs), and freedom from Middle East oil, and wars. That would be reason enough to make it a top priority. But the indirect benefits, through the impact on the economy, could be just as important.

Imagine mobilizing the entire country toward energy independence. The effort would increase jobs, including everything from harvesting sugar cane to assembling windmills. And it would stimulate technical advances that would have ripple effects for generations. Best yet, when energy becomes less expensive, it boosts profits of every company, increases personal wealth, and makes it easier to fund healthcare, education and anything else. And America would become the leader in alternative energy, exporting our products and services to developing countries.

Hypothetically, if voters were rational, a candidate for president could run on that single issue and get elected, so long as he or she was presumed to be average on the other issues.

Realistically, our candidates for president will jabber about the miracle of corn, pose for pictures in front of solar panels, and call it good.

Our Alleged Freedom

In the United States, we have freedom of speech, in the sense that the government won’t arrest you for speaking your mind. Yay for freedom!

But your fellow citizens will happily ruin your economic life if you say something unpopular in public. Some might say that has nothing to do with the right of free speech. It’s an example of free people acting in a free way. But to me, it looks like cutting out the middle man. There’s no point in electing a government to punish unpopular speakers when the citizens can do it themselves, and cheaper. It might look we have freedom of speech to you, but to me it looks like we just found the most efficient system for limiting it.

[Interesting side note: For this post I made a list of opinions you are not allowed to express in this country, and realized I can’t even publish the list without a social and economic penalty that wouldn’t be worth the benefit.]

We also have freedom of religion in the United States, unless your religion conflicts with the religious majority in any non-symbolic way. In other words, you can wear a funny hat, but you can’t ask your neighbor to fellate you in return for setting up her wireless network.

Polygamy gets a bad rap because cult leaders keep forcing 14-year old girls to marry 60-year old men. Clearly there’s a victim in those cases. But why can’t Warren Buffet have multiple wives of legal age if they all agree to the arrangement?

Thanks to religious restrictions on freedom in the United States, we have a long list of things you can’t do (at least whenever you want): prostitution, marijuana, euthanasia, gambling, polygamy, and on and on. You might argue that the law is just trying to protect people from harm. But if that were the case, bicycles would be illegal.

I keep wondering why I don’t get mad about the government chipping away at my freedoms in the alleged interest of fighting terrorism. I used to think it was because I thought the tradeoff was worth it. But I suspect the real reason is that losing a few more freedoms would just get lost in the rounding.

So You Think You Have a Policy

If you love your country, and you wish someone would kill me, vote for Scott Adams as a write-in for president of the United States. If elected, it’s a virtual certainty I’ll get assassinated, but not before I solve every problem in the United States. And by our excellent example, the problems in other countries will also be solved.

(Incidentally, if you don’t live in the United States, you can still vote in our elections, thanks to our electronic voting machines. You might need to guess a password. Try “123” or “Reagan.”)

As president, I would solve all the world’s problems by creating a reality TV show where think tanks compete for the best solutions to everything from health care to energy policy to immigration. The judges would be experts who help viewers sort the squirrel shit from the caviar, but the final decisions would be made by viewers, just like on American Idol.

I think you can see many problems with this plan. But you have to compare it to the current political process where idiots elect liars to transfer wealth to crooks. How's that working out for you?

You might think one problem with my plan is that few people would watch a show about political policies. But before the TV show Survivor came on, who predicted that millions of people would watch a bunch of assholes fighting over a coconut? Before American Idol, who predicted that a show featuring bad singers (mostly) would be a worldwide sensation? A good producer can make anything seem fascinating.

Let’s take one example: energy policy. At the risk of oversimplifying, our current energy policy in The United States involves shooting bearded people. It’s not hard to imagine better ideas coming out of a reality TV show. I’m not a think tank and I can give you a few great ideas right off the top of my head:

1. Pass a law in the United States requiring power companies to put a patriotism rating on customer bills. Depending on how much you reduce your consumption over the prior year, you earn a rating of up to four American flags. If you use more energy than last year, your bill comes printed with only one flag. And it’s the flag of Saudi Arabia, you frickin’ traitor. Energy consumption would drop like a rock.

2. Pass a law requiring all cars to have a large gas mileage label on the driver's side door, with an arrow pointing to the driver’s big ol’ head. Everyone already knows, in a general sense, which vehicles use the most gas. But if you have to drive around town with a “9 miles per gallon” label pointed at your mullet, it might make you think twice the next time you consider putting monster tires on your pickup truck.

Seriously, I’d love to watch a reality show where two think tanks argue over whether we should go balls-to-the-wall growing sugar cane and turning it into fuel. Is corn for losers? Does Brazil have it right? It’s all slightly too boring for me to research on my own, and it wouldn't help because I don’t believe anything I read. But I’d watch a reality show about it if the losers were insulted by someone witty. That’s the kind of leader I am.

The Day I Will Be Slightly Amusing

On Saturday, 10/6/07, my Dilbert comic will only be slightly amusing. It would have been highly amusing but I had to change two words for my editors. I can’t show you the entire comic because it hasn’t run in papers yet, but I’ll show you the one panel that caused a problem. The context is Dilbert’s coworker asking for an opinion on his Powerpoint presentation. This is Dilbert’s response in the middle panel. (click to enlarge)

I thought I could get away with “turtle head” because the naughty meaning isn’t universally known and an actual turtle’s head would fit Dilbert’s analogy just as well. So there was a degree of deniability built in. And turtles are cute, damn it!

There is nothing more frustrating than writing a perfect sentence and not being able to publish it. That’s why I love having this blog. Otherwise, it’s just me and the cat having a laugh at how witty I could have been. And it’s creepy when the cat laughs because I can never be sure we’re laughing at the same thing.

So I changed “turtle head” to “wino’s spittle” and you’ll see that on Saturday. Sigh. It could have been something special.