https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/car...
Scott Adams is definitely not famous because "he is an ok graphic artist and has an ok humor". He's famous because his satire was fairly unique and very sharp. I think he's very talented in the humor department; in addition to his creating invention and sharp wit, very often his strips have two punchlines - in the middle and the last panel - which take twice as much effort as a "standard" comic strip.
His drawing skill didn't/don't really matter, as a matter of fact, he wasn't particularly good at the beginning, and his style is generic and simple anyway.
It's very unlikely that somebody with "he is an ok graphic artist and has an ok humor" will get his success just because of such qualities.
¹=A very ridicolous example of whom was when he was proving that Trump will be successful because, based on his observations, leaders who were great in the long term, typically had a rough start. Can't find the post.
The guy has a ton of crank views
I seem to remember RationalWiki (or perhaps some other similar site?) as an occasionally snarky but generally high-quality wiki on rationality, fallacies, science vs. pseudoscience, the logical or other mistakes in arguments that have been given for quackery, etc.
Nowadays it seems like a lot of the content is just about bashing people who have expressed less-than-greatly argued opinions, with some kind of a special target drawn on conservatives.
I mean, you can also do that and not be wrong, but that's entirely different than (mostly) dispassionately documenting things, even if while doing the latter you'd be somewhat poignant.
Either the content seemed to have a different tone ~10 years ago, or I remember wrong.
Like everything in life, complex issues that have many facets are difficult to shoehorn into a right/left box. Sites like rational wiki excel at warping issues to make them simple binary choices. Life is hard, thinking is harder, you can’t outsource your judgments of the world and expect to have a clear picture of reality.
Weak sauce. That’s added nothing to the discussion of Scott Adam’s talents, hubris, ego, or cold logic skills.
Not so sure about the "rhetoric-pseudo-rational ramblings". He writes his opinions and gives arguments. Nothing "pseudo" about them, though they could still be (and often are) wrong, either factually or as a reasoning.
>It's very unlikely that somebody with "he is an ok graphic artist and has an ok humor" will get his success just because of such qualities.
Well, if they also knew about business workings, and did business-related comic strips at a time when nobody else (or very few) was doing them, then they might. Humor, like drawing, is honed over time anyway.
>A very ridicolous example of whom was when he was proving that Trump will be successful because, based on his observations, leaders who were great in the long term, typically had a rough start.
Well, his prediction did pan out, when all pundits said otherwise. Could be dumb luck, but he has been lucky often enough.
Theirs [the pundits'] arguments then, would be even worse "pseudo-rational arguments" that Scott's: because on top of claiming rationality, facts, legitimacy, and statistics on their side and being presented with fanfare on prime time (unlike a mere personal blog), they were also proven wrong.
See, I predicted Trump would win as well. It seemed incredibly obvious to me despite it being the worst possible outcome I could imagine. I based my "prediction" on my time spent in the US and a gut feeling. I guessing Adams did as well, and found ways to justify it (not exactly unique to him).
Adams tends to think in terms of "persuasion" as a skill. In that sense, he probably sees the world transactionally and cynically. I have heard him debate people with a good command of the facts and a similar combination of ego and articulation. He comes off as smug, too confident, and more like a small fish in a big pond than he does when he is just writing on his blog or "destroying" someone in social media.
It was terrible, couldn't get far into it.
If he drew like that but had no interesting content, no one would read the comics.
If he wrote jokes but couldn't illustrate them at even a basic level, they wouldn't reach many people.
And to be fair he could draw the absurd out of a semi-realistic situation, but he wasn't producing a treatise on modern management and how to run a business. You could find a lot of the same observations in water cooler chats at many workplaces.
He just made that really easy to consume and then got it in front of a lot of people. Which is probably a sign that he has a half decent understanding of distribution and promotion too. Once again he may not be a genius there but he knows enough to not screw up something good.
And as patio11 says, combining engineering with good writing skills makes it very easy to be one of the top with your combined skills
I’ve been trying to lean more into that advice the past couple months by publishing on my blog :)
Surprisingly enough, just this morning I woke up to realize someone had shared an article I wrote and it was on the HN front page!
Like, I haven't seen Raymond Chen's resume, but if he calls me up tomorrow looking for a job, I'll find something for him, even if we're not hiring.
Ditto for Steve Klabnik, Carol Nichols, and some other people in the Rust community.
You might be a top flight musical basket weaver but that won't pay too well.
I started brushing up on my writing skills since at the higher levels of engineering (and prob all other fields) communicating your ideas more effectively will open up way more opportunities down the line.
Some of those may have monetary rewards. But the reward can be something else as well
It's been recognized by my peers and managers. Not much has ever really come from it. I've been given opportunities to draft "bad news" copy to be sent to clients, and I'm the point person for editing design documentation. But none of these are really roles of prestige. If anything, I'm really seen as being the person responsible for the grunt work that people don't generally enjoy doing.
It might come easily to you, but me and other people I know often draft emails and such 3-4 times, asking for proofreading from trusted friends.
Yea, the proofreading for docs and writing client copies isn't fun, but the skills to do these well help all of your written communication immensely.
Your org could be very different, but I feel like I am recognized in large part because I care about communicating, and put a lot of effort into clear emails and docs. Part of your recognition could be because you have great writing skills.
The benefits don't accrue as much when you're writing material you've been told to write, especially when it's not something the recipient will be happy to receive. Those can be valuable learning experiences, but it's not harvest season yet.
The value comes when you CHOOSE to compose messages meant to persuade YOUR peers and internal stake holders. Your skill with the pen gives you a voice, like a bard who can urge a crowd to action.
What words do we associate with those kinds of people?
Influence
Leadership
Writing can help get you there
Here's the thing - the typical software engineer interview doesn't assess writing(or many other valuable traits that can become unusually valuable when combined with good coding ability). Almost every one I've done has been a rehash of data structu res and algorithms along with a few other technical topics. Someone who is an excellent writer and merely a good programmer is likely to be screened out. If you combine skills, you're treading a path that people don't really hire for, mainly because they can't conceive of it, and it doesn't fit into the silos.
That's fine. You need to accept that the google-style software engineering path probably isn't for you. But you do need to have more initiative. Companies that post jobs tend not to look for these combinations. However, if you have personal initiative, you can often build this role within a company (or on your own), and the career path it opens up can be very satisfying.