Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How To Listen To Scott Adams, If You Must
I have been mulling over this post for some time. I did not think that when I finally got around to it, it would only be after Adams got “cancelled”, but here it is.
Scott Adams is a provocateur. Not a shock jock, but clearly someone whose intention is to make you confront your own perceptions of reality. That has been his mission all along. This doesn’t make him either a good or a bad human being.
For the record, Mrs Rodin regards him as a rank misogynist. And, not all that bright. Listening to and watching Adams together always results in my not catching every word he says, drowned out as he is by Mrs Rodin’s commentary. She treats his broadcasts as a melodrama with full audience participation. Except, of course, it’s an audience of two and Adams proceeds along unaffected by her catcalls.
So, do we have a “mixed marriage” when it comes to Adams? No. I listen or watch with detachment, looking for humor when it exists, thinking about the points he is making, trying to remember whether his argument is consistent with prior things he has said (not always). You have to be careful with Adams — he has admitted to saying things that he does not believe to be true to provoke reactions, to actively manipulate his audience.
His fame and wealth were derived from the Dilbert comics. Anyone who has worked in a large corporation has enjoyed his comic commentary, since they see a lot of truth in it. I don’t know how his humor translates to those who have not worked in a bureaucracy, but there are enough who do that he has made a bundle with the franchise.
Adams is a self-admitted narcissist. He, not particularly self-knowingly, parses narcissists into “good” and “bad” ones and judges himself “good.” He fancies he is doing a public service with his YouTube and Locals channels, as well as his tweets. By “public service” he means that his efforts are not highly compensated. And I think it is fair to say that if he simply stuck to cartooning, his wealth and status would be assured.
But he did not. Part of the reason for that, I suspect, is he wanted to be seen as more than simply a cartoonist. He touts his “persuasion skills” knowledge. He even somewhat recently said if he ran for the US Senate, he would win election. I think that ship has now sailed, if it were ever realistic.
Does Adams know anything about persuasion, or is he simply “bloviating”? I think he does. He has written a couple of books that I think hold up — Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter (2017) and Loserthink: How Untrained Brains Are Ruining America (2019). In addition, he has written a self-help book — How To Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big (2013). Nothing in these books is particularly controversial and they help one examine the world and oneself.
I read some recent Twitter criticism of Adams and his persuasion knowledge. Adams says the first rule of persuasion is to get attention, while his critic somewhat self importantly said —
For those wondering if what racist cartoonist @ScottAdamsSays about rhetoric is correct, this longtime college rhetoric professor is here to tell you it’s not.
The first rule of persuasion — which Adams skipped — is to develop an ethos that informs an integrated rhetorical strategy.
Well, okay then. And what was the “ethos that informs an integrated rhetorical strategy” that this professor had to persuade me of his position? That Adams is a racist?
My not deeply studied position is that Adams and the professor are (virtually) talking past each other. The professor seems to be describing the “Queensbury rules” of debate, while Adams is describing the street-level rules of brawling.
Adams approach to persuasion is like his approach to everything: he looks for heuristics that work most of the time. His focus is on the 100 IQ score and how to manage one’s life with as few self-inflicted harms as possible.
Adams, for the most part, takes a disciplined approach to not learning things in depth. He claims not to believe that that is really possible; that those who do develop expertise can do so in such a small area that it is easy for them to get something wrong just off their point of extreme focus. Therefore he sounds incoherent when he variously touts or discounts expert opinions on topics. In an ironic twist, someone without a lot of personal humility is promoting humility in our approach to solving problems.
Is Adams an ass? Yes. Is he a racist? No, or at least not any more so than anyone else– and less so than some of his critics. Is he a misogynist? I’ll save my marriage and take a page from Adams’ own “book” and say (just as he says about abortion) — only women have a vote on who the misogynists are.
Does he deserve to be canceled? No, just like no one deserves to be canceled. That does not mean people should follow him, read his cartoons, read his books, etc. But they should feel free to do so, or not, without it being some broader cultural or political cause.
Probably his best take is on how and why he would be canceled. He called it.
Published in General
Yes, he’s a self-important ass. Doesn’t mean he doesn’t have interesting and useful things to say.
As to his comic strip, is it funny? If so, it’s good. His character has nothing to do with it. Lots of well-loved writers, composers and artists were jerks.
I scan Dilbert from time to time but I prefer On the Fastrack, an office oriented strip with characters that have depth of personality, who change, grow, get married, have kids that grow up. My personal taste. That’s nothing against gag-a-day strips, but for me it’s the difference between an occasional glance and a daily habit.
In the interest of full disclosure this describes how I see Tucker Carlson at times. I agree with him on some issues and disagree with him on other issues.
I don’t follow Scott Adams’ commentary, and just occasionally his comic strip. Those times I’ve read it: it’s usually deeply cynical but also often on target.
Yes. Tucker engages in unfair arguments at times even while claiming the high ground. But his commentary is always a tour de force. That’s why he gets eyeballs.
Take this as concurring @rodin.
Although I don’t listen to Adams, EODDad has over the years and I’ve heard about some of his conversations second hand. I think he’s like a lot of us – he has one set of skills, that he’s deployed professionally, for him very successfully. He’s also an otherwise average kinda guy with personal opinions and experience. He’s had good insight to situations I think, but is not an “intellectual” and doesn’t know much actual stuff – so I’ve disagreed with some of his opinions about “stuff” -like Covid. He’s not naive and surely knew the likely reactions to his last conversation.
I think he wanted to make the news because he thinks what he said needed saying now: there’s a lot of hostility toward whites among many blacks and whites should remove themselves from the equation. Someone quoted Frederick Douglass in connection when he said – “do nothing (with emancipated slaves); mind your business and let them mind theirs.” I think that’s a pretty fair suggestion. What’s been tried since LBJ worked his wonders with the Civil Rights Act hasn’t worked.
I think enjoying Dilbert has a lot do with knowing of and about PGE – the CA utility.
Well, there’s an example of the female idea of “fairness.” Men don’t even get to have an opinion. That’s just ridiculous, of course. We don’t even let obnoxious, spoiled children get away with that kind of thinking, not unless we want them to become even more obnoxious and spoiled.
I do understand your motivation here, Rodin. Women can take absurd positions, and make our lives miserable unless we agree with them. My impression is that back in the day, when men were men, we didn’t let them get away with it.
It may have become inevitable that they would get away with it, once they got the vote.
I guess that I should add the obvious. Not all women have such ideas, or display such behavior. Enough of them do so that it becomes a practical impossibility to oppose them.
“Thank you for that, caller. And now, on line…”
When I have the time, I listen to Scott Adams like I listen to any Leftist. He is one of those that are on the Left but have been woken a bit by how it has become. His values are fairly typical of a rich Leftist that thinks that they are smarter than the rest and have enough money not to be worried about stuff too much. The Right only became interested in him because he thought Trump might have won against HRC because of his self claimed theory that he understands “persuasion skills”.
it has seemed to me for a while that he is done with Dilbert but can’t close it down or sell it for some reason.
I find Adams and Dilbert occasionally interesting, but not enough to consistently follow either one.
Yeah. See JK Rowlings.
I know a former employee of a major IT company. He told once about how his employer was implementing ISO 9000 certification and how a lot of things being done were phony or illogical. His co-workers were vastly amused that Dilbert encountered a lot of the same non-nonsensical situations. Eventually my friend learned that Scott Adams, who openly solicits suggestions from his fans, was being fed information by my friends co-worker.
I haven’t paid much attention to Adams, but I will always remember the interview with Terri Gross I heard at least 20 years ago. She seemed appalled at the commercialization of his creations and mentioned another cartoonist who refused to license his characters. Adams replied that Dilbert and Dogbert(sp?) were just insignificant cartoon characters whose only reason for existence is to make him as much money as possible. When Gross asked whether he worried about overexposure, Adams replied, “No, because if you look on the map, the road to overexposure runs right through the middle of filthy rich.”
I resemble that remark!
Tucker seems more interesting to me. But then, I’ve read his books. (Also, he has a house in, and love for, Maine. So I—irrational female that I am— approve of him.)
Properly, PG&E. Pacific Gas & Electric. PGE is Portland General Electric, in Oregon.
If that’s the reason, it seems pretty simple, as others have touched on: if he shuts it down, he might be violating syndication contracts that would cost him money. If they “cancel” him, he doesn’t have to pay, and indeed they may have to pay HIM.
I would also say it’s worth everyone seeing the animated Dilbert series at least once.
I’m lost as to his business or recent tenor of Dilbert. Don’t know.
I listened to him based on favorable recommendations (and an epigenetic love of Dilbert), but what I heard was him approving of men swimming on women’s teams, asking where the harm was.
I was done listening then, but I have frequently heard him recommended by good solid people.
And judging by the headlines on the recent thing, I’m inclined to gently agree once again, although I have serious reservations — perhaps caveats.
I’m looking to buy a house or condo. Guess what one of the things I look at is?
It’s not any individual’s fault, certainly not those in a prospective neighborhood, and of course “not every X,” but humans generalize for a reason. Those who did not are no longer around.
So it would be hypocritical (or tactical) of me to dismiss what Adams is saying, at least what I gather from the headlines.
Dilbert captures the cubicle world perfectly. I read one of his books and saw a couple of podcasts and didn’t find them all that interesting, but his comic was always funny . . . and a little sad because you know how much truth is in it.
Everyone seems to be dancing around what he actually said. I think there is a lot of interesting stuff in it. He pointed out that according to a particular survey approximately 49% of African-Americans who participated in the survey expressed views which were racist in that they expressed negative feelings towards caucasian Americans, white people. His conclusion was that white people should move away from black people and avoid them like the plague.
I worked with blacks for more than 40 years. Many of those I worked with were wonderful people who I really liked, and whose company I enjoyed, and with whom I never felt uncomfortable. There were also an awful lot who were either overtly or mildly hostile and very quick to assume in any situation in which a black child was in conflict with a white teacher that the teacher was to blame.
During the Trayvon Martin crisis views condemning George Zimmerman were freely spoken, posters saying that Martin was “murdered” over Skiddles were posted in the hallway of the school, and anyone who expressed any thought that did not conform with that view was immediately labeled a racist, no matter what his or her previous status might have been.
Back in the late 1960s when I was teaching in Ocean Hill-Brownsville before, during, and after the teachers’ strike that was caused by the firing of all of the white teachers in an adjacent school to mine, I was subjected to almost continual barrages of anti-white sentiments. That was sort of the norm. All of the years since that I have worked in the public schools to one degree or another I was well aware of the fact that as a white man I wasn’t particularly respected or valued. The endless workshops in which black moderators berated my white colleagues and I with charges of overt and covert racism based solely on our skin color amounted to a hostile work environment.
I have been retired now for about 10 years. I would be lying if I didn’t say that they have been the best years of my life. I do not have to think about the things I say before I say them to insure that I am not going to be misinterpreted or somehow have my livelihood of taken away because I disgreed with a certain political viewpoint. There are a few black families in the area I live in, but for the most part it is a typical sub-urban environment. It is sort of what Scott Adams suggested we should move to. I would be a hypocrit if I weren’t to say that it is a much more comfortable way to live than where I was prior to retirement. Working in a racially diverse situation where it is not uncommon to be exposed to acrimony because of your race is simply not a positive. Interpret that as you will.
I have listened enough of Adams to see that as a possible option.
And most work situations involve varying degrees of self-selection whether someone is aware of it or not. Especially in high-skill areas such as various types of engineering etc where blacks are going to be a small portion for assorted reasons including level of interest.
To put it bluntly, assuming that all/most black people are like the black people one happens to work with, or maybe even just attend church with, is probably a mistake. Possibly a big mistake.
Yeah, Adams is all in on the tranny stuff. I felt like he was a little TOO emotionally invested.
I certainly don’t think sports are very important in the overall scheme of things, for civilization etc, especially considering how few people actually participate in them that way. So a few (and compared to the total population it really is a few) girls/women don’t get “free rides” (or whatever) to college because they were out-swam by men, so what?
But I think if you’re going to have sports separated between men and women, then they really need to be separated between men and women.
It’s still far from the top of my list of concerns, though, and maybe it doesn’t appear on Adams’ list at all.
And I should probably put this on this post too:
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire
Scott Adams is a humorist who likes to keep the conversation lively. His podcast is an acquired taste that does not appeal to everyone. I like lively conversation even if it is just between him and my brain which sometimes screams for relief. I am waiting for the fourth act and I have no doubt it will come. I may hate the fourth act. The first, second and third have been overwrought and somewhat tiresome. But I am still looking forward to the fourth act.
I think this is a partial explanation for why so many “Republican leaders” are MIA when chips are down.
I have often wondered how a normal person endures working in a public school environment. You must be tough. What normal person would enter that field nowadays?
There has been a dramatic drop in the quantity and quality of candidates for teaching licenses in recent years.
I actually enjoyed working with the kids. It was the administrative BS that wore me down. I stopped going to faculty meetings after several years, and the principal was good enough to ignore that fact. I had told him that I had to deal with emotionally disturbed and behaviorally disabled kids all day and simply didn’t need to deal with adults who fit the same category.
In terms of present day teachers: they are being ground out of schools of education where leftist indoctrination has replaced actual teaching of basic skills and subject matter. I had two masters degrees, one in Classical Theater, the other in Marine Science. I took the necessary education classes after finishing my other two degrees. Even back in the 1960s and 70s they were a joke, but necessary to get my license fully endorsed.
The teachers I had in private school never took education classes. They were experts in the fields they taught and, for the most part, natural disciplinarians. They knew the parents of the kids they taught wanted their kids prepared. They did the job. I tried to model myself after them.
Commendable. And, I’m sure, mostly unappreciated.