Dilbert - C or D?

he did okay when his predictions were purposely vague and outlandish like "evolution will be disproven in the next century"

problem is now he's actually predicting specific things which are easily disprovable - in fact he's getting things so blatantly, hilariously wrong that I can't imagine he'll have any reputation left when it's all over.

did he really predict evolution will be disproven? is he a christian nut too??

no, he just stated it "doesn't pass the sniff test" or whatever

it's a dumb prediction, he's just casting it out there so he can look like a genius in case any big discoveries are made

Thanks, women!

"ladies" rather

I think I've said it before but "evolution will be disproven" is such a vague assertion depending on how you define evolution that there are a half dozen studies you could point to right now and say, "hah! see, evolution is wrong!"

but nothing that disproves the fundamental idea that species have changed over time

well yeah but the idea has never been to contribute to critical thought, it's been to come off like a genius who has a better intuition about the nature of life and the universe than everyone else

uh yeah but that wasn't what he really meant by evolution xp

what did he mean? if you say you're going to disprove evolution it's not sufficient to disprove some minor feature.

I think you're not familiar with people who make arguments like this. You make some assertion, and whether it's really vague or not, you later claim something proves you right. If someone says "yeah, but you said evolution, not macroevolution of humans" and then they just act like you're an idiot for thinking they meant all evolution.

yeah, you're probably right. my entire exposure to evolution denial is fundamentalist religious denial which is full scale denial (since humans were created from dust in the garden of eden - they didn't come from monkeys).

How did Adams get to be the kind of person people talk about, exactly? I mean, beyond the fact that it's fun talking about idiots.

he was able to glom himself onto the loose twitter/internet coalition of aggrieved fake-deep men in an election season

he was one of the first people to offer an explanation of why so many people were voting Trump that wasn't "racism" and I think a lot of media outlets liked that

of course his explanation was "hypnotism"

a person who recognizes idiocy, and having monetized it, is now committed to its perfection and continuation.

@ScottAdamsSays
Is Twitter shadowbanning me? If so, I see it as treason: bit.ly/2eiLsfF #Trump #Clinton

didn't click through but i'm sure it's v. convincing

can y'all PLEASE tell this guy you aren't seeing his tweets so we can watch him attempt to take down Twitter

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvEgavlXYAA9zsN.jpg:small

trolling at this point

lol

http://cdn0.dailydot.com/cache/31/ed/31ed2d07932675f493426090bc3d6918.jpg

going hard in the airplane lane

in five seconds an alpha is about to speak

Echidne thinks he might be depressed:

http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2016/10/where-echidne-dons-her-pseudo.html

I think the consensus here is that's a bit generous

possibly nsfw: https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/788806380840886272

oh cool scott adams is weighing in on climate change! http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154679929646/watching-the-climate-science-bubbles-from-the

Given the wildly different assessments of climate change risks within the non-scientist community, perhaps we need some sort of insurance/betting market. That would allow the climate science alarmists to buy “insurance” from the climate science skeptics. That way if the climate goes bad at least the alarmists will have extra cash to build their underground homes. And that cash will come out of the pockets of the science-deniers. Sweet!

i would suggest consulting someone other than the non-scientist community but scott adams already hypnotized me into thinking that the ideal solution to rising sea levels would be an underground home. that's what i get for being a climate science alarmist i guess.

My bottom-line belief about climate science is that non-scientists such as myself have no reliable way to evaluate any of this stuff. Our brains and experience are not up to the task. When I apply my tiny brain to sniffing out the truth about climate science I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate.

Trained scientists might be able to sort out the truth from the B.S. in climate change science, although I’m skeptical about that too. But non-scientists have no chance whatsoever to discern which side is right. I consider myself to be bright and well-educated, and from my perspective both sides of the debate are 100% persuasive if you look at them in isolation. And apparently that’s what most citizens do.

So, he doesn't believe in deference to scientific authority? I wonder what other scientific results he's agnostic about because he isn't an expert in those fields.

Light bulbs: evidence of "electricity," or the final proof of our invisible pixie friends and their commitment to well-lit human interiors? I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate.

And I think I spotted a new cognitive phenomenon that might not have a name.* I’ll call it cognitive blindness, defined as the inability to see the strong form of the other side of a debate.

I think this gets to the bottom of it - dude thinks he's the be-all-end-all of intellectual discussion, and simply doesn't read anything

in case you didn't think his take on climate change could get any dumber

Remind your scientist that as far as you know there has never been a multi-year, multi-variable, complicated model of any type that predicted anything with useful accuracy. Case in point: The experts and their models said Trump had no realistic chance of winning.

Your scientist will fight like a cornered animal to conflate the credibility of the measurements and the basic science of CO2 with the credibility of the projection models. Don’t let that happen. Make your scientist tell you that complicated multi-variable projections models that span years are credible. Or not.

one of the dumbest motherfuckers around

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156591306416/the-persuasion-filter-looks-at-torture-does-it

lol @ this guy defining both "the persuasion filter" and "the Hitler filter" THEY'RE THE SAME THING YOU IDIOT (okay that's from a different post but still)

But if President Trump – The Master Persuader – tells you someone else’s facts are bullshit, you can usually take that to the bank. The man knows bullshit when he sees it. And with his skillset he can also smell it coming from miles away.

*head explodes into a thousand pieces*

also lol at the idea that people literally prepared to blow themselves up for a holy war would crack after 5 seconds of torture

he is a bullshitter that means you can trust him

I kind of love that the guy who does dilbert is obsessed with corny bunk like NLP and spends his days wanking over a copy of the game and writing smug crackpot blog posts about hypnosis. Because how could he not be?

really makes u think (that u are a chicken)

this is astonishing

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158812654486/trump-and-healthcare

With the failure of the Ryan healthcare bill, the illusion of Trump-is-Hitler has been fully replaced with Trump-is-incompetent meme. Look for the new meme to dominate the news, probably through the summer. By year end, you will see a second turn, from incompetent to “Competent, but we don’t like it.”

I have been predicting this story arc for some time now. So far, we’re ahead of schedule.

In the 2D world, where everything is just the way it looks, and people are rational, Trump and Ryan failed to improve healthcare. But in the 3D world of persuasion, Trump just had one of the best days any president ever had: He got promoted from Hitler to incompetent.

let me remind you that this line of argument comes from one of Trump's most diehard supporters

Adams has the constant air of a chump trying desperately to convince you that everything that has happened is exactly as they expected it would be.

does the theory explain why Trump didn't just make people just think he was competent in the first place, rather than getting there via Hitler and incompetent?

true hypnotists have long known that Hitler and Incompetent are the essential first two steps to total control. amateurs often miss that which is why they are not president. scott adams could be president too, if he wanted to.

oh man how did no one link the article about him where a vague comment referenced his ex-wife still being employed as his assistant? maybe i'll find it later

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-22/how-dilbert-s-scott-adams-got-hypnotized-by-trump

I read it and thought it presented him in a pretty good light. Adams himself of course proceeded to whine endlessly about it, even though he said he knew from the beginning that it would be a "hit piece".

He made the case that even the most erratic Trump moments were tactically brilliant—and that this was an insight that he alone could see. “My predictions are based on my unique view into Trump’s toolbox of persuasion,” Adams wrote at the outset, reminding readers that he was a certified hypnotist. “I believe those tools are invisible to almost everyone but trained hypnotists and people that study the science of persuasion.”

ok so, about this. have any other 'certified hypnotists' or 'people that study the science of persuasion' came out of the woodwork to say the same? seems like it's a totally unique view because it's total bullshit.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/aliens/images/0/0b/Hypnotoad.gif/revision/latest?cb=20081007151100

How is this dude not already a key player in the administration?

When Trump insulted Carly Fiorina—saying “Look at that face!”—Adams declared it a “linguistic kill shot” that would end her bid. “She does have what I call the angry wife face when she talks politics,” he wrote. “Guys, you know that face.” When Trump referred to Mexican immigrants as “rapists,” Adams said he obviously hadn’t meant all Mexican immigrants, only some—and that “intentional exaggeration is a … standard method of persuasion.” When Trump called for a ban on Muslim immigrants, Adams wrote: “In the 3D world of emotion, where Trump exclusively plays, he has set the world up for the most clever persuasion you will ever see.” He dubbed Trump’s technique “pacing and leading”: He was getting the attention of anti-immigration crusaders, before scaling back to a more moderate stance. When Trump asserted that things were worse for African-Americans in 2016 than at any time in history—prompting many to remind Trump about slavery—Adams wrote, “Facts don’t matter. Every trained persuader knows that.”

Only trained hypnotists are smart enough to recognize these brilliant methods of persuasion: hate speech and lies.

Adams’s house is a shrine to the cartoon character that made him rich. One section, visible from the pool area outside, clearly resembles Dilbert’s head, with two oval windows for eyes, connected by a thin line that suggests spectacles. “They look out from the cat’s bathroom upstairs,” Adams told me. The structure is full of indulgent quirks. In the kitchen, Adams installed three microwaves so he “can make a lot of popcorn at once.” Nearby, he transformed a bar area (Adams doesn’t drink) into a display case for Dilbert books and paraphernalia. Other features include a 10-seat movie theater, a gym, and a room filled with beauty salon equipment, where his ex-wife (now Adams’s personal assistant) used to host spa days for friends. Off to the back is an indoor tennis court.

used to or... still does

Adams has the constant air of a chump trying desperately to convince you that everything that has happened is exactly as they expected it would be.

This is the entire lynch pin of dude's worldview; he's basically a real-life version of Pangloss from Candide.

Pangloss is my favorite beta male.