Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Image Dogtoring #2: Not My Best Work

Well, finally got around to parodying Scott Adams for his IDiocy. Sorry if it's oversized. You should be able to click to see it by itself.

I still find the comic funny, but, at the moment, primarily because Dilbert disproves one of Scott Adams's baseless assertions: He's more intelligent than the unintelligent agents that led to his creation.

If you're wondering about applications of genetic algorithms, here's a few.

EDITED TO ADD: Feel free to save a copy and pass it around.

38 comments:

austinatheist said...

LMFAO!

JimV said...

Wow! Bronze Dog, you are one magnificent bastard!

Mr Angry said...

That's pretty good and you're probably going to get a takedown notice from the publisher. They've been very aggressive in the past with going after parodies. Parodies that were nowhere nears as pointed as this.

Bronze Dog said...

Yeah, since a syndicated comic tends to get more... eh, can't think of a word.

Think I'm still protected by Fair Use, but that won't stop them from threatening. Of course, I'll publicize any legal threats.

HumourUnassigned said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Holy cow, if Scott Adams is nothing else, he's at least funny. I'm sure you've laughed at some things he has said.

If you're going to make a point using satire then perhaps you should take some lessons in comedy. I agree with you on this one but tell a joke, come on, try, just try. Don't just rip off someone elses hard work and put stupid comments in it. Put some effort in. Come on!

MichaelBains said...

D'oh!!! Awesome, Dog!

You've really caught the "essence", haven't ya. LOL!

{-;

Bronze Dog said...

HumorUnassigned, it's not always the comedian's fault if his audience doesn't get the joke.

Besides, what's stupid about calling someone's PHB-worthy circular arguments PHB-worthy circular arguments? That's one bit of humor that commonly makes it into the series, if you've ever bothered to read it: Calling out the logical fallacies involved in bad decisions.

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

Nice Bronze Dog.

I don't buy his "I'm just joking" defense at all by the way.

Bourgeois_Rage said...

Someone threw the Adams article in my face the other day/ After reading it I couldn't believe the blatant stupidity of the whole thing.

spencer said...

Holy cow, if Scott Adams is nothing else, he's at least funny.

Well, he was once upon a time - or rather, he was consistently funny once upon a time, and still is once in a while. But I've been getting the sense that he's mostly been mailing it in for years now.

Blake Stacey said...

The punchline grows on me each time I read it. Good job!

Maybe the next one should involve a legion of cheering fans who SPEAK OBSCENITIES IN ALL UPPERCASE, interspersed with AOL-blather acronyms.

Scott Adams said...

Some people thought I made an argument that says only intelligence can create intelligence. You won't find that assertion in anything I've said. It wouldn't make sense.

I wrote about how you define intelligence. There's no point in having a debate until you define what you're talking about.

I do plead guilty to being too subtle in my point. The smarter readers understood.

I often write about people who misunderstand arguments and then mount vigorous attacks on those misunderstandings and feel pretty good about themselves. This is a great example.

Bronze Dog said...

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate your views right here?

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

This should be interesting.

Torbjörn Larsson said...

No parody of Scott Adams failure to understand the concept of humor can be oversized. LOL, thank you!

Torbjörn Larsson said...

And since I forgot to update, I find Adams commenting here, again in all seriousness.

Hilarious! I'm curious to see if he will try to make a new point. (Perhaps; after all, his hair-do has two already.) Or why he thinks that would be meaningful - explaining a joke ruins it.

Tom Foss said...

The thing is, Mr. Adams, the thing which has been repeatedly stated in various threads, is that there is a definition for "intelligence." Indeed, I'm sure different disciplines define it somewhat differently, but I can assure you that not a one defines it in such a way that the Big Bang can rightly be described as intelligent.

Similarly, there is a very specific definition for "the Big Bang," and it does not include "all of the universe's processes." Before you harp on at people for not defining words, perhaps you should make sure that they aren't just defining them in ways contrary to what you wish. You are not Humpty Dumpty, Mr. Adams, and words do not mean only what you wish them to mean.

Rockstar Ryan said...

I do plead guilty to being too subtle in my point. The smarter readers understood.

Translation through the Rockstarinatortron 2000:

I said something silly/wrong and was taken to task for it. Here's a patronizing remark though to make myself feel better.

By the way - the "Dead Guy in the Cubicle" serial was the funniest thing I've read in a long time; you had Pearls Before Swine and Get Fuzzy beat there.

Kseniya said...

No offesnse, Mr. Adams, I've been a fan for years, but...

The smarter readers understood.

Wrong again.

Tristram Shandy said...

I do plead guilty to being too subtle in my point. The smarter readers understood.

Then why are all the people who defend your idiocies so dim?

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

I think I'm calling him ScotAdams from now on.

Berlzebub said...

Why do I get the feeling that Scott Adams is just a troll pretending to be Scott Adams? He didn't even link to his site. Still, having read his blog, I have to say he does have a sense of humor. Although, it doesn't seem to be intentional.

-Berlzebub

Nes said...

As that one judge on American Idol (not that I've seen many episodes to begin with, and those were from the 2nd season) whose name I can never remember (not Simon or Paula; Randy? Randal?) might say: That was pretty good, Dog.

Will Von Wizzlepig said...

Scott's not even remotely a creationist, and he's the last person who would promote ID.

I agree that his 'intelligence' post sucked, but SOME people are really making asshats out of themselves over this.

Krystalline Apostate said...

To the Man who would be Scott Adams:
I do plead guilty to being too subtle in my point. The smarter readers understood.
I think you give yourself & your readers far too much credit.

Kseniya said...

I said "No offense" to Scott Adams, but then I posted something that reads like a snide put-down, and that's not what I intended. Damn me for being in a hurry.

What I meant was this:

I disagree with the claim that "the smarter readers understood." I think that's a justification for either being unclear, or for writing something with which more than a few intelligent and educated people disagree.

It is tempting, but not necessarily correct, to assume that because YOU understand what you wrote, that anyone with a brain will also understand it. And are you really saying that the people who understand you are smarter than those who do not, or that the people who agree with you are smarter than those who do not? If I had a dime for every time I've run into that assumption ("You disagree with me because you don't understand") I'd... well, I'd have a whole bunch of dimes. It's an insulting assumption. I realize you're a bit defensive because you've been insulted here, more than you deserve - but not by me, and surely not by everyone who finds your "intelligence" piece difficult to get behind.

My opinion relies not the critiques posted here and on Pharyngula. I read the original piece several times, and I just don't get it. Am I too stupid to get it? I don't think so. Do you? I don't want to make this about me, but answer me this: if you consider that I graduated HS third in my class, was admitted early decision to a small but highly-regarded college in the northeast, where I've studied math and physics, psychology, philosophy, literature, music, multiple foreign languages, and done well while working part-time and pursuing extracurriculars like sports, music, politics, and an active social life, do you think I'm too dense to understand a few paragraphs about Martians, Melville, and the process of picking up pencils?

You're a smart and funny man, Mr. Adams, and seem like a nice guy too boot, and I am a fan - but I won't be a sychophant who praises your every word even when those words don't deserve praise. In this case, it seems the piece didn't convey what it was intended to convey.

Lifewish said...

Then why are all the people who defend your idiocies so dim?

Presumably any intelligent ones who got "it" weren't so quick on the draw with their keyboards and CAPS LOCKS...

It does seem that Scott is speaking in pantheism and everyone else is listening in deism.

HumourUnassigned said...

"HumorUnassigned, it's not always the comedian's fault if his audience doesn't get the joke." - Bronze Dog

Wow, you know you're right. Here I was thinking comedy was about making people laugh. Turns out it's just a big convention of humourless "scientists" who think that YY chromosomes are just the funniest thing since religion. You may well be smarter than me but that doesn't make you funnier than me!

Bronze Dog said...

Considering that my parody uses the same fundamental humor (someone being rewarded for doing essentially nothing) as the original strip, and that PZ's funnier than Adams, I think it's you who's humorless. Learn to laugh at yourself.

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

If you're going to make a point using satire then perhaps you should take some lessons in comedy. I agree with you on this one but tell a joke, come on, try, just try. Don't just rip off someone elses hard work and put stupid comments in it.
-----
You may well be smarter than me but that doesn't make you funnier than me!


Reader of claimed funnyman's blog here at skeptic's blog missing the point of a cartoon and then complaining the skeptics are humorless while claiming to be funnier than everyone here even though displaying zero ability to see humor.

I'm going to have to go shopping for a new I-meter.

Bronze Dog said...

I find it especially funny that PZ's funnier by slipping in a little humor among the education he does, and that it's essentially Scott's job to be funny.

Scott Adams still does a decent job by my ratings, but it's really bad when he can't laugh at himself when he performs a logical fallacy worthy of the True Tales of Induhviduals. A comedian has to be able to laugh at himself, like some of the people brave enough to email him their own moments Induhviduality.

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

Yeah I agree, ScotAdams is funny at times. I get the cartoon in my email every morning. But in this instance at least, he's missed the boat.

Rockstar Ryan said...

Here I was thinking comedy was about making people laugh.

Here's an idea then:

If you don't think it's funny, then don't read it! Then politely piss off.

HumourUnassigned said...

Reader of claimed funnyman's blog here at skeptic's blog missing the point of a cartoon and then complaining the skeptics are humorless while claiming to be funnier than everyone here even though displaying zero ability to see humor. - rev.bigdumbchimp

I never said I was funny, but then I'm not the one drawing cartoons. If you're going in for a penny, why not go in for a pound. If you're going to draw a cartoon to be funny, why not make it funny?




If you don't think it's funny, then don't read it! Then politely piss off. - rockstar ryan

If you don't like my comments then don't read them and don't reply. I had already read the comic when I decided it wasn't funny and having seen the comments it was responding to I thought it was a poor rebuttal and decided to voice my opinions. Rather like yourself really. Which voids my earlier statement about not reading my comments, were it not for the irony.

Bronze Dog said...

I never said I was funny, but then I'm not the one drawing cartoons. If you're going in for a penny, why not go in for a pound. If you're going to draw a cartoon to be funny, why not make it funny?

The general sentiment seems to be that this is at least mildly funny. Your sense of humor may be hampered at the moment.

I had already read the comic when I decided it wasn't funny and having seen the comments it was responding to I thought it was a poor rebuttal and decided to voice my opinions.

Well, you've voiced your opinion: You don't think it's funny. I can't see why you're unable to see teh funny, even after short explanations, but that's life.

Time to move on, rather than repeat yourself in what almost seems like an attempt to claim that the people who found it funny are lying.

Rockstar Ryan said...

If you don't like my comments then don't read them and don't reply. I had already read the comic when I decided it wasn't funny and having seen the comments it was responding to I thought it was a poor rebuttal and decided to voice my opinions.

Wrong asshole. You posted a comment on this blog that I still claim a 3% (<-----arbitrarily calculated number simply because I started it) ownership on. You came to our blog, you posted a comment because we allow you to. I do not let any jackass get the last word in, especially when it lacks any substance. You've made you sily point - you don't think it's funny.

You may be retarded, you may have no sense of humor, whatever. Now, your next comment will have some relevancy or you'll suffer the same fate as Cocksnack. (Do a google search.)

Rev. BigDumbChimp said...

I never said I was funny, but then I'm not the one drawing cartoons.

You may well be smarter than me but that doesn't make you funnier than me!

Humm.

HumourUnassigned said...

Lord above!

Look bronze dog you seem to have the most sense here but please be fair here, it seems to me the people reading this blog are people like yourself obviously. I am not a regular reader, I was linked here but honestly I didn't see a punchline in the comic, that's all. The general premise of the comic may have been slightly amusing but there was certainly nothing laugh out loud. The reason I posted was that I thought I could offer some advice wether I am qualified or not is a different issue, obviously you can only assume not and that may be the case but like I said, I'm not the one attacking "funny" people for their scientific claims while leaving myself open for them to return the favour by attacking my humour claims but respecting my science Sorry that's a bit unclear but hopefully the point gets through. Key word: Advice.

rockstar ryan, listen, you let people post here because you want to hear all the wonderful things people are saying about you right? Well I'm sure you're no idiot, you realise that you have to take the good with the bad. Hell my comments aren't even that bad, at least I'm not resorting to childish name calling asshole, jackass, retarded and at least I'm sticking to the topic. You've gotten pissed off because you whole heartedly disagree with me and that's just fine, but before you go telling ME to be relevant why don't you proof-read your own comments.

and last but certainly not least, rev. bigdumbchimp Read it again, i claimed that bronze dog may not be as funny as me. I didn't say I was funny or he wasn't funny. I said that I thought this comic was wide of the mark in the laughter department and that before he starts mouthing off about what's wrong with a comedian he should be careful about the way he says it.

Sorry, rev. bigdumbchimp just repeat me back the bit where I said I was funny?