Scott Adams, the cartoonist and professional self-promoter, is undermining his brand and marketing himself poorly, again. He is complaining about the DNC in ways that demonstrate that he’s an insecure man and profoundly ignorant.
It’s all about the men, don’t you know.
But if you’re an undecided voter, and male, you’re seeing something different. You’re seeing a celebration that your role in society is permanently diminished. And it’s happening in an impressive venue that was, in all likelihood, designed and built mostly by men. Men get to watch it all at home, in homes designed and built mostly by men, thanks to the technology that was designed and built mostly by men. I mention that as context, not opinion.
Don’t thank technology, guy. Thank sociology for the fact that men build and design things, while women and minorities are relegated to serving the dominant white men, and thereby have their roles diminished. Being the beneficiary of a long history of discrimination does not make you a better person. If you actually worked with women, rather than sitting alone drawing cartoons designed to prove your point, you’d know that they are just as capable as men.
But it takes a special kind of wanker to see other people getting their due and think that acknowledging other people’s achievements somehow diminishes your own. Scott Adams must be fun at children’s birthday parties; he probably goes around reminding the kids that he has birthday parties, too, and he’s had more of them and they’re better than this stupid party.
I’m especially peeved at Adams’ continuing abuse of science, though. This is not science.
I watched singer Alicia Keys perform her song Superwoman at the convention and experienced a sinking feeling. I’m fairly certain my testosterone levels dropped as I watched, and that’s not even a little bit of an exaggeration. Science says men’s testosterone levels rise when they experience victory, and drop when they experience the opposite. I watched Keys tell the world that women are the answer to our problems. True or not, men were probably not feeling successful and victorious during her act.
Apparently, we men are terribly hormonal, and dependent on our testicles to appreciate happiness. Unfortunately, Adams has taken a tiny grain of scientific evidence and mangled it into something unrecognizable.
First, we have to appreciate the fact that testosterone levels fluctuate a lot. There is circadian and seasonal variation, and also individual variation in testosterone levels.
| Male | Female | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age: | T Level (ng/dL): | Age: | T Level (ng/dL): |
| 0-5 months | 75-400 | 0-5 months | 20-80 |
| 6 mos.-9 yrs. | <7-20 | 6 mos.-9 yrs. | <7-20 |
| 10-11 yrs. | <7-130 | 10-11 yrs. | <7-44 |
| 12-13 yrs. | <7-800 | 12-16 yrs. | <7-75 |
| 14 yrs. | <7-1,200 | 17-18 yrs. | 20-75 |
| 15-16 yrs. | 100-1,200 | 19+ yrs. | 8-60 |
| 17-18 yrs. | 300-1,200 | ||
| 19+ yrs. | 240-950 | ||
| Avg. Adult Male | 270-1,070 | Avg. Adult Female | 15-70 |
| 30+ yrs. | -1% per year |
I almost certainly have much lower levels of testosterone now than I did when I was 20, but I don’t know, because I’ve never had them measured. Scott Adams did not have his testosterone levels measured, either, but he felt free to claim a nonexistent measurement validated his perception of how science works. Also, despite likely declines in my testosterone over the years, I’m happier and more secure and confident now than I was in my 20s; it’s almost as if environmental circumstances have a greater effect on the cognitive perception of my life.
But also, Adams left out a significant point in those scientific studies, as explained in this paper: Effects of victory and defeat on testosterone and cortisol response to competition: evidence for same response patterns in men and women.
In this study, we report evidence from sport competition that is consistent with the biosocial model of status and dominance. Results show that testosterone levels rise and drop following victory and defeat in badminton players of both sexes, although at lower circulating levels in women. After losing the match, peak cortisol levels are observed in both sexes and correlational analyses indicate that defeat leads to rises in cortisol as well as to drops in testosterone, the percent change in hormone levels being almost identical in both sexes. In conclusion, results show the same pattern of hormonal responses to victory and defeat in men and women.
So, if he were correct (he’s not), then all across America men were experiencing a decline in testosterone, while women’s testosterone levels were rising. Since women outnumber men, that translates into a net gain in American T levels!
Please also note that these hormonal effects are not about “happiness”, but about dominance. I know that to the normal clueless guy dominance is equated with happiness, but it’s simply not true — mammalian hierarchical behavior also increases stress, so it’s not as simple as testosterone being the happy chemical. Testosterone also drives feelings we don’t regard as “happy”.
Throughout vertebrate phylogeny, testosterone has motivated animals to obtain and maintain social dominance-a fact suggesting that unconscious primordial brain mechanisms are involved in social dominance. In humans, however, the prevailing view is that the neocortex is in control of primordial drives, and testosterone is thought to promote social dominance via conscious feelings of superiority, indefatigability, strength, and anger. Here we show that testosterone administration in humans prolongs dominant staring into the eyes of threatening faces that are viewed outside of awareness, without affecting consciously experienced feelings. These findings reveal that testosterone motivates social dominance in humans in much the same ways that it does in other vertebrates: involuntarily, automatically, and unconsciously.
So maybe watching Alicia Keys also made American men less angry and less arrogant…if the song had the purported effect on testosterone levels, which, I emphasize again, was not measured. Personally, I did not feel threatened or diminished by a woman singing a song, so I don’t have any reason to think my testosterone levels were affected at all…but then, I should not deny Scott Adams his perception of the experience. Maybe he felt totally crushed and defeated by a woman musician and his balls actually shriveled.
The song might have had other positive effects.
Elevated levels of testosterone have repeatedly been associated with antisocial behavior, but the psychobiological mechanisms underlying this effect are unknown. However, testosterone is evidently capable of altering the processing of facial threat, and facial signals of fear and anger serve sociality through their higher-level empathy-provoking and socially corrective properties. We investigated the hypothesis that testosterone predisposes people to antisocial behavior by reducing conscious recognition of facial threat. In a within-subjects design, testosterone (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered to 16 female volunteers. Afterward, a task with morphed stimuli indexed their sensitivity for consciously recognizing the facial expressions of threat (disgust, fear, and anger) and nonthreat (surprise, sadness, and happiness). Testosterone induced a significant reduction in the conscious recognition of facial threat overall. Separate analyses for the three categories of threat faces indicated that this effect was reliable for angry facial expressions exclusively. This testosterone-induced impairment in the conscious detection of the socially corrective facial signal of anger may predispose individuals to antisocial behavior.
So maybe the hypothetical reduction in men’s testosterone levels made them less angry, more sensitive to the social cues of their loved ones, and less antisocial? These sound like good results that are not at all in conflict with happiness!
If the Scott Adams Castration Effect* were real, that would argue that maybe we ought to be broadcasting Alicia Keys everywhere. Maybe more Beyoncé is the path to World Peace.
*The Scott Adams Castration Effect is what I’m calling the fearful sensation of diminishment that some men experience when faced with strong women. The poor man. He’s got it bad.
And a brilliant name for a band!
The Scott Adams Castration Effect, aka Dilbert Effect. [*snort*]
Misogynist grasping at straws to deny that he is a misogynist. Common them this election cycle in reaction to a woman being nominated for presidency. Using every scrap of ‘whatever’ to hold against her.
I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love…Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I-I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake…but I do deny them my essence.
You’re seeing a celebration that your role in society is permanently finally
diminishedmade somewhat more equalFIFY, Scott.
Strikethrough on permanently. I should know better than to html before coffee.
Of course, their only song is a cover of Under My Thumb.
In falsetto.
re 4&5:
well said. took words rite outa my keybored. [typos]
I too wonder why someone elevating themselves to equality is always referred to as diminishing the people already elevated.
Okay: person A is on the mountain peak. When person B achieves the peak also, it did not occur by B pushing A off the peak. B is just standing at the same elevation as A. Why say, “B threw A off the peak”?
seems many are deluded into thinking everything is a zero-sum-game. when one gains the other loses.
Disregarding the fact that zero-sum is not how everything works. Gains <b<can be mutually beneficial.
@7
I think an argument could be made that white men’s position in society is being diminished with women, POC etc gain equality. White cishet men aren’t just at a nice position everyone should be at – they have power and privilege over everyone not of that group.
For example, if women no longer have to endure men forcing them out of education and into marriage, men lose their unquestionable domain over the household.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a good thing that white cishet men are losing power. It’s not just that women/POC/etc are under-privileged, but also that white cishet men are under-privileged.
Bringing the groups into equilibrium would necessitate reducing the latter group’s societal power, because their power is founded on the oppression of the former groups.
white cishet men are over-privileged*
Here’s a reason to be optimistic. In a recent survey in the UK (http://survation.com/uk-attitudes-to-gender-in-2016-survation-for-fawcett-society/) , men were asked “Which of the following statements best describes your view?” out of
1. I would be disadvantaged if we had a society where men and women are more equal
2. It would have no effect on me if we had a society where men and women are more equal
3. I would benefit if we had a society where men and women are more equal
Only 7% chose 1. 54% chose 2, 39% chose 3.
As I experienced a sense of victory at Clinton’s nomination, I suppose my testosterone levels went up. I’m sure I’m not alone. Therefore, the net level of testosterone is probably perfectly safe, even if its down in some disgruntled, dysfunctional men.
It said they gave women 0.5 mg of testosterone.. That is 500,000 ng of testosterone. As people have roughly 50 deciliters of blood, that makes 10,000 ng/dl. This is much higher than the concentrations you list.
colinday@12: Indeed. Physiological levels of T are not associated with aggression.
Also, if you see Clinton as “on your team,” then her victory is your victory and your T should rise accordingly regardless of sex. The only people whose T drops when watching women be awesome are people who can’t imagine being on the same team as women. Huh. Looks like the MRA adversarial mindset is actually “emasculating” them.
The SAC-effect. It has a nice ring to it!
Three cheers for that. Dudes, you’ve been hogging the mic for long enough. Top white dudes, that is. You only made average white dudes buy into your toxic masculinity shit for a long time.
Most men will be better off once we’ve finished all that sexism and racism and classism etc. business, but yes, there will be fewer top spots left for cishet white dudes.
And it was done by men who were mostly gestated by women, birthed by women, fed by women, clothed by women, cared for by women, supported by women, provided with clean clothing and food by women, had their children raised and educated by women and were cared for in old age by, you guess it, mostly women.
Don’t give me that “but we built the house” shit.
Also, I’ve been working with the drill hammer for the last two weeks renovating our house. When did you lift anything heavier than a stylo the last time?
Somehow he has convinced himself that he’s Dogbert, when he’s really the PHB.
Also, notice how his complaint about Alicia Keys isn’t about her talent or her performance. It is about the fact that she’s a black woman on a national stage an not a white man.
Funny how those super-rational dudes who love to claim that it should only be about hard work and individual achievement and not about those silly identity politics are the first ones to cry when somebody who isn’t a white dude achieves something.
maybe that should be the “Sad SAC-effect”
I weep for all of the diminished white men
uncle frogy
I look at his moaning like this, “Has my “voice” been lowered by three other voices? My wife and two daughters? If so, totally cool!”.
If it’s lowered by enfranchising more, the more the merrier!
While many things in life, I do approach with a military mindset (the punchline there is, “run it over with a tank”, of which I’ve only stood near tanks a few times in my near three decade career), the reality isn’t a joke involving the military. The more minds approaching a problem facing society, the more ideas approaching the problem and one or more may very well arrive at a premature success. That “premature” success very well may avoid greater problems or problems from incorrect methods addressing a problem later on.
I’ve always been one of the crowd that wants to depart this world a better place than I arrived on it in. I’ll admit, my efforts while wearing tree appearing clothing wasn’t, erm, quite optimal. Which is a massive understatement.
As for men being hormonal, well, I’m about as hormonal as one can get. Hyperthyroidism, someone mysteriously ordered a quartering of my anti-hyperthyroidism drug, resulting in a moderate relapse. Neither my wife or I am pleased, as adrenaline flashes became more common, something neither of us enjoyed.
Thankfully, as usual, nobody was harmed or even shouted at, well, other than our cat, who becomes over-affectionate while I am trying to eat. That said, I’ve not bit him yet. ;)
Add in a feeling of helplessness now, as my wife’s medical condition has proved to be a bit more toward the dire side and I’ve injured myself a week and spare change ago catching her, when she returned home from day surgery and nearly fell. I caught her, injuring my back apparently, quite badly. Badly enough for doctor to both be alarmed and prescribe narcotic pain medications and a “muscle relaxer” (as a muscle relaxer is a CNS depressive drug and a narcotic does the same damned thing, I’ve stuck with a lower dosage than prescribed, but closeish, level of the hydrocodone. That prevents the massive spasms that made walking nearly impossible and honestly, losing the feeling that my lower legs, right above the ankle, were twisting clean off is totally cool).
Once the initial trauma has healed or regressed enough, diagnostic imagery will tell if a 30+ year bulging disc has failed or not or worse, another followed suit.
When that’ll be addressed, if present, is extremely up in the air.
We’ve also recently discovered biliary cirrhosis, the obstructed gallbladder being removed and part of the cause of my injury. I’ll also be blunt, after reviewing her MRI and worse, after the radiologist reviewed it, we lack a finding of a single cervical disc that isn’t pressing onto her spinal cord and her L5-S1 is doing its level best to crush the cauda equina (the lumbar spine isn’t described as spinal cord, but a “horse’s tail” of nerves).
So, as for feeling powerless, how’s one’s wife and life partner facing paralysis and oneself also facing that potential outcome, save if herculean efforts are successful?
Still, unlike the fuck smear, I don’t view a voice having partners being a dilution, but a reinforcement and a checksum, where my errors would be diluted and my good ideas reinforced.
I enjoy that idea, indeed, I worship that. It’s *why* I’ve asked my wife’s opinion on every non-military event in my life (the military side, I was prohibited to discuss, with very real and severe legal repercussions should I ignore that fact – potentially, for both of us).
Please do excuse the coarse language, but I’m really not feeling well, but do wish to try to convey my heartfelt opinion.
I also blew out my shoulder, one separated in 2010, but went untreated due to life necessity scheduling lack, which is utterly refractory to 10 mg hydrocodone, scheduled Q6h, but ends up Q8-10h, as the physician’s dosage would leave me quite ill.
We’ve also adopted a call back policy for thyroid medication dosage. While I do remain utter rubbish in remembering names, confirming via callback and writing it down has always been effective.
That said, I do remember faces, when seen and as a musician, I also recognize timbre and tone and am damned sure which member of my endocrinologist’s practice screwed up. I suspect it was a doubled communication, erroneously driven and now being covered over, lest someone find herself in hazard of employment.
As no harm was actually done (such as enlargement of an aortic dilation into aneurysm, I’m quite happy to leave it to simple, honest human error, but guard against a repetition. It’s only 2.2 cm dilated, 3 cm would be unforgivable, as it’d be nearing life threatening proportions).
Welcome to a corner of the complications of my life.
And a corner of my mind. Such as it is, having survived raising two children. Even money, the desired third child would’ve eliminated that mind at adolescence. ;)
Yeah, a supertanker of dark humor, that is the very essence of me. But, that dark humor helps me along, as I actually do really, really, really care.
Resulting in, Elect Donald Trump for dogcatcher!
He’d want to build a wall, not get it and do little to cause harm, as he’d temper tantrum himself into doing nothing at all.
Still, with that joke out of the way, do remember, with “Citizen’s United” decision, Scalia himself promised judicial review if abuses were observed. That does leave us all an out.
If properly and tactically prudent, one seeks redress. :)
Hence, trying to leave the place a bit better before I check out.
Yes, there’s noise, but the signal is present and the noise defeats bot searches to a degree. :)
#12: Exactly. The fluctuations within the normal range of testosterone levels don’t make a big difference in your normal behavior — like the one paper suggests, even high levels make subtle differences in your perception.
I prefer the Bro Anti-Liberal Scott Adams Castration Effect, but then I also still giggle at farts.
wzrd1
I’m sorry you’re in a tough spot medically. Wishing you and your wife a speedy recovery.
+++
Because relevant.
I rather got the impression Mr Sad Sac models humans as squishy reservoirs, “ideal” females filled with cooties (mostly), and “ideal” males with testosterone (mostly). If the cootie-level in a female drops, that must mean she sneakily swapped them for some testosterone from a male. Whose cootie-level then rose as the testosterones were sneaked away.
Apparently watching an electronic projection / transmission / recording of a singer is sufficient (they have amazing USB peripherals these days!).
And, of course, a rising level of cooties plus the corresponding decreasing level of testosterone in males (and visa-versa in females) is bad. Because, um, reasons… Males with moar cooties and less testosterone! Bad!! Females with less cooties (probably good, makes ’em less dangerous) but also with moar testosterone!!!! Bad!!!!!
…
What an imbecile. So he’s a discriminatory asshat who believes in his own exceptionalism for what amounts to essentially random nonsense reasons. And he believes in trickle down economics because how else do you explain the fantasy that paying someone else less gets you more money?
Something’s trickling down from the top alright but it aint money.
This is why I haven’t even looked at Dilbert in years. That, and the fact that it’s just not a very good strip.
I think I spotted the fallacy: he assumes the world is a zero-sum game, that if one group is benefiting, the other must necessarily take an equal and opposite loss.
This seems…hard to understand, how someone with enough insight about the world around him to make a darkly funny comic like Dilbert would be so un-self-aware. What happened to Scott Adams? He’s been spewing shit like this for almost a decade…
@26
Like I said earlier, I think there is some truth to it being a zero-sum game, in that a lot of the societal power white cishet men have is purely due to taking power and agency away from other groups.
That’s kind of how being an oppressive class works – if your power is determined by keeping control over others, then giving them power ultimately lowers your own.
Like, as an example, if women no longer have to bind themselves to a man for resources and protection, the men no longer have the power to demand women to do what they want. Thus, a gain in rights and equality for women represents a tacit loss in power for men. Abolishing slavery means that whites can no longer demand free labor from people of color (in that way), so giving legal protection to people of color did represent a substantial loss in power for whites.
Not that I think this is a bad thing, of course. I think that all power derived from oppression should ultimately be broken down. I just think it’s silly to act like the social positions of white cishet men aren’t partially derived from keeping other groups down.
It certainly has zero-sum aspects. The US can only have one President at a time, so anyone who wins the title necessarily prevents anyone else from doing so. Having said that, I have about as much sympathy for Adams’ whiny entitlement as I have for all the poor plantation owners who were diminished by the emancipation of their slaves.
It’s easy to tell Scott Adams and The Donald are ignoramuses.
Just the top four search results for “diversity and profits”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331091252.htm
http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/why-diversity-matters
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/23/the-growing-case-for-diversity-as-a-profit-creator.html
http://library.uww.edu/documents/diversity/does%20diversity%20pay.pdf
Scott Adams, you need to increase the diversity in your life, and your product. The Donald should just retire as a walnut brained dinosaur.
Scott Adams likes to brag a lot, especially about how he has gained amazing powers of mass hypnosis. It’s true, too. For instance, at the start of this election season, I used to read his comic daily, read his blog occasionally, and even buy one of his books once in a while. After reading his increasingly fawning pro-Trump screeds, I now actively avoid anything with his name associated with it. He probably felt he was getting too much attention, so he hypnotized people to leave him alone. Well played, Scott!
My proud, free flowing manhood laughs at Adams’ shrinky dink and its quick retractions!
The first line of Scott Adams’ July 27th post under discussion is:
One place we can assess Adams’ prediction’s accuracy is here. I agree with brucegee1962, Adams must have disliked the generally positive opinion so many people had of him and his work so many years ago. So he put his self-proclaimed certified genius persuasion skills to work so that now his only fans are fellow Trump supporters.
The main problem here, in my opinion, is that Adams thinks he’s making an argument for treating women as an underclass so every man can feel like a winner in comparison; what he’s actually arguing is that men are innately predisposed to be assholes.
Why do you hate men so much, Scott?