Today I share a small time-saving tip that I borrowed and upgraded.

When you empty the trash cans in your home, you usually replace the plastic garbage bag at the same time. But where do you keep the extra bags? Do you have to remember to bring them to the trash can, or do you have to make a special trip to the closet to grab one?

I noticed that professional cleaners cleverly leave a few extra bags on the bottom of the can, below the bag in service. The extras can't be seen until you need them, and they take up no space.

I borrowed that idea and improved on it. Instead of a few extra bags at the bottom of the can, I put an entire roll of bags down there. It takes up some space, but not nearly enough to be an issue. It adds some weight to the trash can, but not enough to matter.

This is a minor time-saver at best, but life is full of little steps, and many of them can be more efficient. I like to chip away at the needless complexity of life with the hope of taming some of it in the long run.

Do you have any small time-saving ideas to share? If I like your suggestions I'll probably use them on a future post either here or on the CalendarTree blog.



Recently I answered the question of whether my dog (Snickers) or my cat (Zoey) is smarter.

My dog loves treats and is largely bored by the stuff I put in her food bowl. She eats it if she’s hungry enough, but she loves special treats. Now here’s the interesting part: If I take a pellet of food directly from her dish and present it as a special treat, she snarfs it down as if it were the best food in the world. And I can do this with her face literally one foot from a full bowl of food. In front of her eyes I pick up a boring pellet from the bowl and it magically becomes a special treat because it is now in my hand – the place from which all delicious treats originate. I can repeat this trick dozens of times and not once does Snickers think to bypass the hand and eat the big bowl of food that is directly in front of her snout.

Okay, so that’s how smart the dog is.

My cat, Zoey, developed an odd habit some years ago, or so I thought. When I walk anywhere near her food bowl, which generally has food in it, she meows to get my attention and demands to be petted. But when I go to pet her, she starts guiding me toward the bowl until I’m petting her at the same time she’s eating. Yes, she “George Costanzas” me.

George Costanza was a character on the old Seinfeld show. In one well-known episode George tried to combine the thrill of sex with the pleasure of eating a sandwich, doing both at the same time. Zoey has literally trained me to pet her while she eats, thus getting a double-tap of pleasure when most animals would have settled for either one.

Advantage: cat

Scott Adams


P.S. My startup, CalendarTree.com, got an unexpected 5 out of 5 Gearhead rating from Network World’s Mark Gibbs. The odd thing is that I didn't know this article was happening until it showed up on my Google Alert over the weekend.


As some of you know, one of my tricks for keeping my energy high is always having at least one project going that could change the world in some positive way, even if the odds are ridiculously low. Along those lines, I've been thinking about funding a survey that could be summarized with these two questions:

  1. How much do you know about nutrition and diet?
  2. How overweight are you?

Let's assume experts could come up with a quiz on diet and nutrition that would accurately rank people from less-informed to well-informed. My hypothesis is that the people with the most knowledge about proper diet and nutrition also have the healthiest levels of body fat. In other words, knowledge is a substitute for willpower when it comes to deciding what to eat. Or taking it one step further, knowledge creates health.

If my hypothesis is correct, an educational campaign about proper eating would have a gigantic impact on health. I could even imagine your healthcare insurance provider offering discounts to patients that pass a diet and nutrition test in a doctor's office.

The popular view is that overweight people have low willpower, or low metabolism, or they don't exercise enough. But my observation over a lifetime of eating with various groups of friends is that fit people simply know more about proper eating and exercise than their weight-challenged friends.

For example, I think you'd find that overweight people think they need to increase their exercise routine substantially to lose weight. And that's a scary proposition if you're not feeling particularly fit. Thin people, on average, probably understand that exercise is good for your health but it doesn't have a big impact on weight. In fact, to lose weight some people might be better off temporarily cutting back on exercise just to reduce the drag on your limited supply of willpower.

As another example, I think you'd find that overweight people more often think "a calorie is a calorie" no matter how you get it, whereas fit people think simple carbs are almost poisons.

In my case, when my knowledge of proper eating reached a good-enough level I dropped ten pounds without using any extra willpower whatsoever. Now I eat as much as I want, of anything I want, all day long, and I don't gain a pound. The secret was learning how to manage my cravings. I can eat anything I want because I no longer want unhealthy foods. Knowledge replaced my need for willpower. For example, I now understand that eating simple carbs for lunch kills my energy for the rest of the day. It doesn't take any willpower to resist doing something I know will make me feel like hell in an hour. But before I knew simple carbs were the culprit, I assumed eating in general was the problem, and I couldn't avoid eating during the day. Knowledge solved a problem that willpower could not.

I think it's clear that governments would be worthless in educating the public about diet and nutrition because the unhealthy food industry lobbyists are too powerful. So I think this sort of effort would need to be privately funded. But before doing that, it would help to have a better idea if this is a good strategy.

My question of the day for my smart blog readers is this: Do you think that overweight people could get to a healthier weight simply by learning what their fitter friends already know?


Scott Adams

Creator of Dilbert

Co-founder of CalendarTree.com

Author of How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big

Lately, the most stressful thing in my life is a thing called "quiet." This feels like a new problem, brought on, I believe, by my addiction to the Internet. When I'm under-stimulated, such as in a quiet environment with no access to electronics, I become instantly stressed. It feels like a painful sort of loneliness.

Luckily there isn't much quietness around. Life is mostly noisy. I'm in my office now, 5:39 a.m., and I can hear a low hum of freeway traffic in the distance, an occasional train, and some industrial moans from the rock quarry across the valley. It's just the right amount of noise to keep the quiet away without distracting me.

A study showed that people are more creative when there's human background noise, such as in a coffee shop. My experience agrees with the study. Back when I owned a restaurant, I brought my laptop to lunch one day to do some work in a booth while my order was being prepared. Ideas came to me so rapidly that I ended up writing an entire book while sitting in the restaurant during lunch rushes. The trick with background noise is that you don't want to hear individual conversations. You want a muffled hum of activity.

As I was writing this post, I stumbled upon the very product I was about to suggest: a background coffee shop sound loop. It's here at Coffitivity. http://coffitivity.com/ I'm playing it now. It's too early to say whether it helps my creativity, but I like the idea.

A lot of people play music while working or doing homework. The studies are mixed on that strategy. Apparently music doesn't hurt performance too much when you're doing math but it kills you when you're trying to do anything with language. I think people play music while working in part because they like music and in part because quiet is disturbing.

I know many of you will weigh in with a comment saying music helps your productivity. You're probably wrong about that, unless you're doing manual labor or math. If music made you more productive, companies would require employees to listen to music while working. I don't think the science supports music as a productivity booster in most situations. However, it might make you happy, and less stressed, and that can be reason enough.

I just turned off the Coffitivity.com background sound. I found it distracting. But that might be because I was too interested in whether it was working. I might give it another go later.

My question for the day: Does quietness stress you or relax you? And if it stresses you, were you always that way, or have you become addicted to continuous stimulation?


Scott Adams

Creator of Dilbert

Co-founder of CalendarTree.com

Author of How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big

Fifa World Cup ™ starts in June. If you’d like to add your favorite team’s schedule to your personal calendar with a few clicks, CalendarTree.com has the links. (I'm a co-founder.) It’s free, and you don’t need to sign up for anything. Here's how it can help you...

Get Invited to a Friend's World Cup (soccer/football/futbal) Party

It’s not too early to start hinting to your friends that have big screen TVs that they need to start planning some viewing parties. The trick is to start the hinting process early while being subtle about it. Just forward the CalendarTree link to all of your friends with big television sets and add a helpful reminder that the event is this summer.

In about a month you’ll want to follow up with a text to each of your big-TV friends saying, “Did you get the World Cup schedule I sent?” If that doesn’t shake loose an invitation you need to take it to the next level and start wondering aloud how you will enjoy watching the matches on your relatively tiny television while eating sub-par snacks.
If your plan works, one of your friends will float the idea of “maybe” inviting some people over to watch a few games. That’s when you pounce. Start praising the visionary brilliance of the idea as if you had just witnessed a breakthrough in anti-gravity technology. Act excited and astonished at the same time; really sell it.
You can nudge your friend from a “maybe” to a concrete party plan by volunteering to bring something. Obviously you want to pick an easy category such as soda or chips. And you want to volunteer early, before all the simple choices are gone and you end up making ratatouille.
If none of your scheming produces an invitation to a friend’s house to watch the World Cup, you have to consider the hypothesis that there’s something seriously wrong with you. And if you have read this far in my blog, I can confirm that hypothesis. I’m sorry you had to find out this way.
I hope the World Cup game schedules are useful to you :-).  Go USA!
I never felt too violated by the news that my government can snoop on every digital communication and financial transaction I make. Maybe I should have been more bothered, but the snooping wasn't affecting my daily life, and it seemed like it might be useful for fighting terrorism, so I worried about other things instead.

This week, as I was pulling together all of my records to do taxes, I didn't get too upset that the process of taxpaying is unnecessarily frustrating and burdensome. As a citizen, I do what I need to do. I'm a team player.

I have also come to peace with the fact that my government now takes about half of my income. I figure most of it goes to good causes. I'm here to help.

I take pride in the fact that I don't let the little things get to me.

But the other day, as I was crawling my way through mountains of statements and receipts, trying to organize my records for my accountant, with several more days of this drudgery ahead, I had a disturbing thought. I must warn you in advance that this disturbing thought can only be expressed in all capital letters and it must include profanity. It goes like this.

Message to my government:



Rank Up Rank Down +341 votes | 47 comments | add a comment
  • Print
  • Share
Sometimes I think the only dimension of performance that a manager should measure is how much each employee is learning. Most people are intrinsically motivated to do good work. The trick is in knowing how. So the more you know, the more likely you'll perform well. And people who are proactive learners probably have the most potential even if they aren't yet superstars.

How relevant to the job does the learning need to be? I would be generous about that. The nature of knowledge is that everything you learn stimulates and strengthens your mind. And what we experience as creativity is often little more than our brain's natural impulse to combine and compare knowledge from diverse fields. So the more you know, the more powerful your creative potential.

But beyond all of those benefits is my observation that employees who are still learning are almost always happier on the job. I haven't seen any studies on this point, but I'll bet you'd see low turnover among people who feel they are learning. Learning makes people feel connected and engaged. It feels like improvement and growth, and it's good for the ego.

As a manager, you'd still need to fire the total screw-ups and toxic employees. But among the good-enough performers, an appetite for learning probably separates the best from the average.

I've blogged before that I pick projects based on what I will learn. This year was especially educational for me. A few examples...

-          I wrote and acted in a promotional video for my book. I learned what works on camera and what doesn't. I learned how the audience reacts to different approaches. And I learned a lot about the actual technique of short video production. If you asked me to make another promotional video tomorrow, I'd be far better equipped.

-          I created a Slideshare presentation with Rexi Media and learned a great deal about the science of making things memorable and interesting. Every bit of that has crossover usefulness.

-          I went back on the speaking circuit, but this time with a useful message (success) as opposed to my old just-for-laughs speech. Delivering a motivational message is an entirely different skill. (See a video of it here.) My old speech was essentially stand-up comedy with comics.

-          I went on a book publicity tour and learned what types of publicity work best in 2014. For example, these days a book signing has little impact on book sales whereas doing a Reddit AMA is a big deal.

-          I'm starting a Dilbert.com redesign project and learning about the best ideas in website design for 2014.

-          My partners and I launched CalendarTree.com this year. I was hands-on for every phase, including concept, design, user interface, testing, redesign, setting up the corporation, funding, online marketing, A-B testing, and tons more. And I picked up a lot of technology knowledge by osmosis. (And because I know you are wondering, yes, the experience is a source of Dilbert fodder.)

-          I finished writing my latest book (How to Fail...). The "success" genre was new to me as a writer. And I had to learn a lot to tie it all together with research and references. I worked with a medical doctor who specializes in science research to get the science parts right.

-          I tried out a new comic strip on this blog (Robots Read News) and learned a lot by experiment. For example, I learned that readers didn't care that the art in each panel was identical.

-          I'm teaching myself to play drums. (Technically, a stranger on Youtube is teaching me). I have no end goal. I just enjoy hitting things with sticks, and I have discovered that it lights up a part of my brain that I don't normally stimulate. Five minutes of drumming feels like two cups of coffee.

-          I experimented with becoming a well-dressed person, just to see what that was all about. Historically, my normal look would have been described as sort of an athlete-turned-homeless vibe. But thanks to a clever Macy's salesperson I upped my game. Result: Yes, people treat me differently (and better) when I'm stylishly dressed.

-          This week I've been researching hardware to split a component video signal and convert one output into a wireless HDMI extender to another room. It doesn't matter why. All that matters is that I learned a lot in the process.

-          Blogging is an ongoing learning process. I learn (usually the hard way) which writing approaches work and which ones get me in trouble. And after almost every blog post readers send me links to related and fascinating topics. The entire process is hugely educational.

The list goes on, but you get the idea. For me, learning is living. It's how I feel connected to the world, and I think it's my best strategy for being a productive citizen. Best of all, as a cartoonist, each of these experiences fuels the creative fires.

I'm curious to see what you learned this year. Please list a few things if you have a minute.

I imagine that someday any citizen will be able to buy a small computer and connect it to the Internet just to rent CPU time to the public. It will be similar to the way power utilities allow customers to sell solar power back to the grid whenever homes produce more energy than they use.

I realize that something like this is already being done for music file sharing services. And the SETI project can access your unused CPU time to search for ET. I'm talking about an expansion of what already exists. The business model and the legal hurdles are probably bigger obstacles than the technology.

Imagine buying a computer and plugging it into your Internet connection at home. The first menu that comes up allows you to choose between private computing (just you) or public, meaning the world can use your computing power on demand. And you get a discount on your own "computing utility" bill when your CPU is used by others. Depending on pricing and demand, you might get a positive investment return on your capital expense for the computer.

In California, solar customers can reduce their energy bill by the amount of power they "sell" back to the grid. But consumers can't legally sell any excess energy they produce above their own billing level. I assume lobbyists are to blame for this ridiculous situation. For now, let's happily imagine that our hypothetical computing grid doesn't have that limitation.

Someday all of your important files will be stored in the cloud. For many of us, that's already the case. It's time to move our CPU needs to the cloud too. In the future, if you can't afford a computer, you can pay a low monthly fee to have access to spare computing power on the Internet. I'm guessing that might cost $5 per month for the basic package, with a premium subscription service that offers higher speeds. The service should be cheap because most computing power on the planet sits idle most of the day.

With this business model, everyone on earth would have access to the equivalent of a supercomputer in the cloud for a few bucks per month plus whatever they pay for basic Internet access. You'll never have to upgrade your computer, upgrade your software, install anti-virus software, or worry about any of the headaches of computer ownership.

Citizens would need little more than a smart screen with a browser that can connect to the computing grid. That's still a computer, but it can be fairly basic. It just needs a browser.

For this model to work on a large scale you'd need to have WiFi in airplanes and everywhere else citizens need to access the Internet, but we're well on the way to that world.

It's not clear to me that a large company or even a government needs to be involved in building the system I'm describing. You could probably get there with an open software project. In fact, it's probably the only way to get there because large companies have a stranglehold on the status quo.

Data privacy is a huge issue with this sort of business model, obviously. But I wonder if spreading your data and CPU usage across multiple processors and servers might actually give you better security than your current system in which all of your private stuff is conveniently organized on one computer so hackers can easily find it. Instead of having your credit card number stored in one location, the number might be broken up across several servers. If one server gets hacked, the thieves only get a partial number. And they wouldn't have any way to know which servers have the rest of your digits.

By analogy, no one would try to steal your car if they knew it was disassembled and the parts were hidden all over your home. The analogy breaks down because crooks could steal and sell car parts. But if a hacker had only two digits of your credit card number it wouldn't be worth much.

You may now commence shredding this idea.

Sometimes I think intelligence is nothing but pattern recognition. Someday in the near future a computer scientist will write code that rapidly compares and stores complex patterns. To populate the computer model with data, the programmer will let his software read the entire Internet, or as much as it can, and look for patterns. After a few days of chewing through content on the Internet, the software will appear to understand everything about humans, from our language to our history. The reality of this apparent "understanding" would be nothing more than pattern recognition.

Consider a simple example: A computer could learn by pattern recognition that humans raised in specific parts of the world usually say "bless you" to a person within earshot who has just sneezed. Then overlay the pattern that people usually whisper in a library and your artificial intelligence knows it should whisper "bless you" when someone in a library sneezes. In a more complicated scenario there might be hundreds of patterns intersecting, but a computer could easily contrast and compare them.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that artificial intelligence will grow out of one page of clever pattern recognition code combined with exposure to every pattern revealed on the Internet. It would take about a week to turn the pattern recognition code into what appears to us a sentient being with super intelligence. Futurists call that day the singularity.

As with most of my posts, some of you will tell me about all of the fiction books that say the same thing but said it first. I haven't read any of those books. Nor do I know anything about actual AI research, so perhaps it's obvious that pattern recognition is the key, and the real problem is that it's a hard nut to crack.

I came to my hypothesis that intelligence is just pattern recognition because people who are not terribly bright have trouble understanding analogies. And analogies are just patterns.

Logic isn't a big part of human intelligence. Put three humans in a room with a problem and each will have a different idea of the logical solution. Humans are rationalizers, not logical beings. Computers don't need logic to act human because humans don't have enough logic that anyone would notice some was missing.

Experience is little more than having more patterns to draw from. New situations are never identical to old ones, but they might follow a general pattern. For example, when I was in my twenties and someone said they would call me back I assumed it was true. Now I look at the entire situation, and all the patterns involved, and half the time I correctly tell myself I'll never hear from that person.

My two questions for the day:
  1. Is intelligence much more than pattern recognition?
  2. If intelligence is mostly pattern recognition, how likely is it that someone will write code that scours the Internet for patterns and uses that as a base to create super intelligence?

When I created a Slideshare preview of my book How to Fail... I worked with Dr. Carmen Simon at Rexi Media to get the slides just right, from a design and message standpoint, but also from a cognitive science perspective. I thought my blog readers would enjoy a peek under the hood to see what techniques we used. This is useful stuff.

Dr. Simon explained to me that it helps to think of your presentation in terms of these three elements.
  1. Attention
  2. Memory
  3. Decision
Drilling deeper, all three elements can be activated by emotions. And all three elements can be influenced by automatic or deliberate factors.

Automatic factors (examples)
  1. A shiny object grabs your attention reflexively 
  2. The sight of a red apple reminds you of a friend's cheeks
  3. After a sleep-deprived night, you decide to eat a donut even though you're on a diet
Deliberate factors (the stuff you care and think about)
  1. What you want out of life
  2. What you expect to see or hear
  3. What you already know
Now let's see how the science is applied to my slide show titled Passion is Overrated and Goals Are for Losers.


To get attention, your material must stand out in some way (e.g. through color, size, location, etc.)

The color palette for my slides (grayscale - including white - accentuated with red) puts emotionally powerful colors in stark contrast. Red has a deep psychological impact: It makes breathing harder, quickens the heart, and demands attention. The lack of competing color "noise" makes the color contrast more attention-grabbing.

The first slide in the deck is the most important for drawing-in viewers. We had a powerful color palette, but we also needed a title that grabs attention. Dr. Simon says the four title approaches that do this well are:
  1. Promise a story
  2. Promise a reward
  3. Provoke curiosity
  4. Evoke concern
My slideshow's title "Passion Is Overrated and Goals Are for Losers" provokes curiosity while evoking concern that one might have been doing things wrong until now.

We know from cognitive neuroscience that attention is rooted in emotion. So words that carry a strong emotional load (e.g. "overrated" and "losers") grab attention. Putting all of that together, on the very first slide we have powerful color contrast, curiosity, a reason for concern, and two emotion-charged words.

Balance Recognition and Surprise

Cognitive neuroscience nerds tell us that attention can be thought of as a clash between an object and its environment. One of Rexi Media's insights, based on research, is that any time you want an audience's attention, serve up something viewers expect AND something they did not expect. In other words, you want a balanced combination of recognition and surprise.  In my slide show, widely-recognized Warren Buffet has Einstein's hair, and Mark Zuckerberg has a Zorro mask.


The Benefits of Being Unclear

Conventional wisdom says that your slides need to be as clear as possible. This is not always the case. Research shows that when stimulation is degraded in some way, attention and recall are higher. For example, if I show you a word that is faded out, the cognitive strain in comprehending it leads to better attention and therefore better recall because "I made you look." Rexi Media applied this approach in several slides in my presentation. For instance, the phrase "terrible sound bite" is not written in a way that is easily digested. You have to strain a bit, and linger longer, giving it extra attention. This is not a practice you would repeat on all slides in a presentation. Use it only on a few phrases you consider important.


Violate a Pattern

One of the ways to get attention and re-energize the brain is to break a pattern that people have learned to expect. After the reader's brain gets habituated in my slides, the pattern is intentionally violated.

One of the reasons people don't pay attention to slides after a while is because they are too predictable. From an evolutionary standpoint, if we think we know what happens next, and everything is safe, we are better served by putting our attention elsewhere.

Rexi Media advises presentation designers to look at their slides in the view shown below (slide sorter view), because it tells you instantly two important things: Do you have a pattern and do you break it? The former is critical because sometimes slide designers fall into the other extreme where there is NO pattern. The brain needs sameness in order to detect the difference.

One way to break a pattern is by moving from slides that are visually intense to slides that are visually simple. Or you could move from a pattern of seriousness to something humorous. Or you could move from something appropriate for your audience to something inappropriate (e.g., the "bull$#!%" slide). All these switches guard against habituation and serve to refresh the viewer's attention.



Audience Engagement

Audience engagement is a great way to solidify memories. But how do you create audience engagement when you're not presenting the material in person? For my slideshow, we created engagement in two ways:

1. By not making everything so obvious (i.e. giving people the joy of "getting it")  

2. By inserting rhetorical questions. The latter works because every time you ask a question, even if it is rhetorical, the brain is mandated to answer. Do you think that's true? (See what I did there?) 

This slide combines the joy of "getting it" (when you realize which movie the graphics come from) and the power of a rhetorical question.


If we were to ask people which slide was more memorable from the deck, many would quote this slide because of its powerful combination of psychological elements.


If you want your audience to make some sort of decision, you need motivational drivers. In my slideshow, Rexi Media made sure I used two.

Principle of Reciprocity

Humans are social animals. When someone gives you a gift, it activates in you an automatic impulse to reciprocate. Salespeople have been using this concept forever. The approach works in presentations as well.

My slideshow has both entertainment and informational value. I put a lot of work into it and provided it to you for free.

Social Proof

We are more likely to act if we see that people who are like us have acted. That concept is embedded in the testimonials about the book in the end. (The 5-star reviews on Amazon.com have the same effect.)


I don't have a way of measuring how much the methods described here boosted views of my slides. There's no control on this experiment. But we can compare my slide show to a promotional video for the same book that I made at about the same time. The video was designed to be entertaining but it didn't employ this level of cognitive science. At this writing, the slide show has about 50% more views than the straightforward video.

Slide show: 33K views

Video: 22K views

To be fair, there are plenty of reasons that can account for the difference in number of views. The video was probably too long and that crimps the viral potential. It required sound, which is bad for office viewing.  And it was more commercially "needy" in its design. But it also came first, and one would expect some audience fatigue on the topic of my book by the time the slideshow came out. You can think of a dozen other factors in play as well.

That said, cognitive science would predict that the slide show would get more views than the straight-forward video approach. And it did, by far.

If you want to see more examples of Rexi Media's slide designs, here's a link to a video of me giving a speech at an IBM event recently, using different slides from the ones in the Slideshare deck. Backstage, the question I heard most often was "Who designed your slides? They're incredible." And that was from the people who do this work for a living. When I asked what they liked about the slides, no one could put a finger on it. Unlike you, they didn't get to look under the hood to see the design science.

I hope you found this interesting.

Here's a recap of the relevant links.

Scott Adams and Stephen Pastis Cartoonist battle Video (No cognitive science used)

Goals are for Losers Slideshare (with slides by Rexi Media)

Scott Adams' Speech to IBM, Jan 2014, 25 minutes (With slides by Rexi Media)

Rexi Media

Showing 121-130 of total 1122 entries
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog