Loser Behavior

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Loser Behavior

  1. Disillusioned says:

    Not surprised.

    I tried him out, very temporarily. I tired of his coffee talks very quickly; what a bore! I stopped listening to anything he had to say after he dismissed the Sun as the number one driver of climate.

    • Anon says:

      /dismissed the Sun as the number one driver of climate/

      Did he really say that?

      I tuned him out about the same time he started giving Tony a hard time, so I missed that apparently.

    • Crispin in Waterloo says:

      An analogy would be to dismiss the origin of money as work and choosing instead to attribute it to ink.

      Oh, wait…

      Tony: Was it something you said?

  2. Anon says:

    /dismissed the Sun as the number one driver of climate/

    Did he really say that?

    I tuned him out about the same time he started giving Tony a hard time, so I missed that apparently.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Paraphrasing from memory, going back, what, a couple years now – yes, it was something to that effect. And he was very confident about it when he said it. He also added a slur about those who believed the Sun is the driver of climate.

      Who is it who said something to the effect that arrogance and ignorance are a dangerous combination? From what I have observed, he qualifies. He is both ignorant and full of himself.

  3. Walter says:

    Not sure why this guy has a big following, never been heard him say anything worth listening to and he flip flops constantly.

    • Rah says:

      Because he’s a self promoter on Twitter who goes with the flow. Ratingly needs to dump his Twitter link from their side bar.

    • Emslander says:

      Yes, Scott Adams was going to decide who was right on the climate debate until he began to see that it was Tony. Extremely dishonest on most issues.

  4. ROBERT A GRISE says:

    I guess I’m not up on Scott Adams views on man-made climate change. I think he’s a very funny clever fellow I love his comic strip and he predicted that Trump would win he understood Trump’s appeal so come on guys. Not all bad I’d say he’s mostly a big plus

  5. Peter Carroll says:

    Tried watching him for five minutes, that was enough. It’s all about me and nothing else, really. He should stick to drawing Dilbert cartoons, at least they relate to the real world.

    • Gator says:

      He should stick to drawing Dilbert cartoons

      I never knew Adams he was an arrogant arsehole, until he stepped out from behind Dilbert.

  6. D. Boss says:

    I suspect he found his meal ticket(s) was/were seriously threatened if he continued to argue against climate alarmism.

    His rationale never did amount to anything more than a warped comic strip. You simply cannot effectively argue that you can discern the verity or truth of a subject without some modicum of actual understanding of the underlying principle.

    To take that position, means you are or can be the blind led by the blind, or the blind led by sheer evil.

    His position that you can find out what is right and true by listing to experts is proved false by an example virtually every person can relate to: When we were small, our parents or guardians warned us not to touch the hot stove as it will burn us. Most listened, but at some point either curiosity or carelessness did get us burned by touching something hot.

    Which way truly learns the lesson, and which way produces the best wisdom? Blindly following the teaching of experts never gives you the correct wisdom and insight that actual experience of hot things does. That there are varying degrees of something being “hot” – that sometimes you can touch things hot enough to burn if you do it fast, or that your hands have IR sensing and you can sense whether something is hot enough to burn…. etc, etc.

    Scott Adams’ method never really learns the lesson, and misses all the nuances and evidence of “reality” and is subject to serious issues if an evil actor gets some expert status and promotes false and dangerous beliefs and you blindly follow or accept.

    • Gator says:

      I suspect he found his meal ticket(s) was/were seriously threatened if he continued to argue against climate alarmism.

      From the review section of his book, on Amazon. This was the “top review”…

      Anyway, I tried as best I was able to approach this book with a neutral attitude. The first several pages went quite well, and I thought perhaps Adams had pushed his own bias and attitude successfully to one side. But only several pages in, Adams took an impassioned position against global warming, applying his alleged thinking skills to the issue. But his conclusion is flawed because his reasoning is absurd: Adams reckons that because so few people have ever measured the actual data and overworked scientists don’t thoroughly peer review each other’s papers, combined with the fact that you can’t predict the stock market 10 years out, global warming is not real. I could make the exact same argument to “prove” that Antarctica does not exist. I mean, seriously, how many people have ever been there? And you believe them? What if they were mistaken? What if they were in Alaska or somewhere else? Have you ever personally been there? “Climate forecast models fit a common scam model. … If you have studied psychology and economics, you would understand that the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists could easily be more wrong than right.” He goes on to state that we should put off dealing with any climate-related issue because the technology is getting better all the time, ergo cheaper.

      Given Adams’s poor approach to thinking through the climate change issue, I can see no reason to assume any of his points are valid. Indeed, it does appear very much that he made up his own ways of thinking, erroneously surmising that would save him (and the reader) from “loserthink”.

      https://www.amazon.com/Loserthink-Untrained-Brains-Ruining-America/dp/0593083520#customerReviews

      We’re all victims of our own hubris at times.
      -Kevin Spacey

      • Anon says:

        “I could make the exact same argument to “prove” that Antarctica does not exist. “

        I think Spacey inadvertently pretty much summed up the climate skeptic’s position. If you have data that can prove Antarctica does not exist, then you have a real data problem. Where as, I would have a very difficult time obtaining data that indicated gravity does not exist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *