Back to episode — Episode 1736 Scott Adams - All The Disinformation, Including The Disinformation Board
Context —
ovocation or something. So I'm not sure that there's anybody who pushed back on it. I haven't heard anybody. Yeah, let me say this definitively. Although a number of newspapers decided not to run that series — so they just put repeats in there or left a blank — nobody complained. Let me say that again. So I have many client newspapers who run Dilbert. Thousands of them. A few thousand. Not a sing…
← Previous segment →d Universal Press, part of the same company, for being very pro-speech, very pro-creator, very free speech, and have always been on the side of the creator. Completely unambiguously on the side of the creators. Now having said that, they're also a business. And so when my editor said, you know, this Sunday that you submitted, I feel like we need to wait at least a week because things are a little too hot. And really that's just managing the clients, which is not really censorship because it'll run. It'll just run a week later when some of the energy is siphoned off. So wait for that one. It's so hot that it couldn't be published immediately.
And now of course I do it partly for attention. That's how my business model works, right? If you're a creator you have to do some things sometimes that are just about attracting attention. It's part of the model. Everybody understands that, right?
The reason I put Ilhan Omar on my list of disinformation board is partly because I think she belongs there but partly because I knew it would make your hair catch on fire, right? So let me be fully transparent. I am in the kind of business where sometimes quite overtly — and I hope it's transparent — I do things just to get attention. You get that, right? I think everybody's okay with that, aren't you? As long as I'm doing it completely in front of you. Trump does the same thing. When Trump does something to get attention you understand it as technique and part of the process, right?
So I asked the question yesterday. I just asked the Twitter public if I were to sell Dilbert as an intellectual property without my involvement — so if I were to walk away and just say okay, you can have the artwork and the idea and you can create new content, you can make movies and TV, you can make calendars, you can put words in their mouth, you can redraw them, you can do anything you want. I just sell the IP. And I asked the public what did they think someone would pay for it.
Now the reason I did that is not because I don't know how to put a deal together. A lot of this is the amazing thing about Twitter. Just hold this in your head for a second that this happened yesterday. I just think I'm taking a walk and I think, oh, wouldn't it be interesting to know what the wisdom of the crowd was, sort of the average opinion. Because the average opinion of the crowd in a weird magical way will be very similar to what an expert would say it's worth. Do you know why? Because what something is worth is what somebody's willing to pay for it. That's it. If somebody pays it, I guess that's what it was worth to at least one person.
So if you ask a bunch of people who don't know anything about the topic and then you average their answers, you end up being just about where an expert is. And it's not a coincidence. It's because the expert is sort of imagining what anybody else would think in the same situation. You know, sort of a common way of thinking of a thing. And if the public thinks of a thing a certain way there's a really good chance that an expert will think of it that way too if it's the average of the public. So it's just one of these weird connections you don't think should make sense. You think the expert should be completely different from the average of people who don't know anything. But it's just a weird experiment. You find out that they're very similar. And the reason is because we all have a psychologically common base for understanding what things are worth essentially.
So I asked that question partly to put the idea in the public that it's for sale in case anybody thought of buying it. But the interesting part about it is that I get a response from an investment banker, successful investment banker Carol Roth, who offered to give me some deal composition concepts. Now where else in the world do you just ask a question while you're taking a walk and one of the most qualified people there could be — somebody who literally was an investment banker successfully and retired from that — and you get immediate useful advice? At the same time this was kind of blowing my mind a little bit.
One of the people who responded to my question was Thomas Massie. So he's an MIT graduate, congressperson. So I'm getting advice from a sitting member of Congress with an MIT education. If you don't know what that means, you don't get into MIT if you're an average student, if you know what I mean, right? They don't take average students. So how amazing is Twitter that not only is it going to be, I think, our biggest
Context —
bulwark against fake news eventually, but that you can just ask a question like that and get such qualified responses? It's just ridiculous. It's ridiculous. Likewise, have you noticed how many times Elon Musk has responded to average Twitter users in the last few weeks? It really is mind-blowing every time I see it because a lot of the people he's responding to are people I know from either Twit…
Next segment → →