Scott Adams: A Flawed, Fascinating, and Wildly Useful Voice

Let's take a peek at one of my somewhat guilty pleasures - I listen (daily, but reservedly) to what @ScottAdamsSays

As I sit down to reflect on Scott Adams, the news yesterday of his terminal diagnosis weighs heavily. The man behind Dilbert, the cartoonist-turned-commentator, has been a polarizing figure, a provocateur, and, above all, a wildly useful lens through which to view the world.

He’s also hilarious. His Dilbert cartoon has run non-stop since 1989 (even after his “cancellation” and is consistently funny. That’s a long time to maintain work product at such a high level, especially in a delicate high-wire act such is comedy. Kudos.

His journey — marked by sharp wit, relentless curiosity, and no small amount of controversy — has left an indelible mark on those of us who’ve followed along. I’m grateful for his contributions, flawed as they may be, and deeply saddened by his soon-to-be untimely passing.

He’s an fascinating man, and has been useful to me in many ways. I’ve loved his comic. I’ve found his books fascinating and helpful. And since mid-2019 or so, I’ve tuned in to his daily podcast to hear his take on the news.

So today, because I’m both grateful for the man and his work and also sad to hear that he won’t be with us long, let’s unpack the enigma that is Scott Adams, with all his brilliance, blind spots, and bewildering contradictions.

A work in progress — as we all should be

Adams’s evolution has been a winding road. Once a “normie” believer in the essential necessity and goodness of government, he’s drifted over the last few years (as many have) toward more libertarian instincts and a healthy skepticism of monopoly state power. He’s not a libertarian, by all means, but he’s moved a fair bit in that direction.

His current skepticism of institutional power — government, media, NGOs — resonates with those of us who question the establishment’s narratives. Yet, he’s no purist. His pragmatism, or perhaps his contrarian streak, keeps him from fully embracing any dogma.

This makes him slippery, frustrating, and endlessly fascinating. As he once said, “I don’t have a system to sell you. I have a system that works for me.” And work it does. His ability to reframe issues — whether it’s politics, persuasion, or human behavior — sparks insights that stick with you, even when you disagree.

Let’s be clear: Scott Adams says plenty of dumb things. His hot takes can be unproductive, sometimes veering into the absurd. His straw-man attacks on free will, for instance, feel like intellectual stunts, more about provocation than precision.

He’s also prone to conflating economics with finance, a blind spot that muddies his otherwise sharp analyses. And for the life of me, I can’t understand why he still crawls back to the idea that we “need” whatever the CIA and the FBI are doing to us, despite all we have learned of the evils of these agencies.

But here’s the thing: even when he’s wrong — and he’s wrong at least as often as he’s right — he’s wrong in useful ways. His arguments, whether brilliant or bonkers, force you to think. He’s a one-man idea generator, tossing out hypotheses like poker chips, daring you to call his bluff.

Some of his reframes, like his “talent stack” concept or his dissection of persuasion techniques, are pure gold. Others? Well, let’s just say they’re kindling for spirited debates.

What sets Adams apart is his mastery of persuasion. He’s not just commenting on the world; he’s actively shaping how people see it. This can be vexing for his viewers and those jousting with him on X. He switches modes — truth-teller one moment, provocateur the next — making it hard to pin down his sincerity. Is he sharing a genuine insight or planting a seed to shift the narrative?

His critics call it manipulation; his fans call it genius. I lean toward the latter, but with eyes wide open. Adams’s personality flaws — his ego, his penchant for stirring the pot — can impede his progress. Yet, who’s to say those flaws weren’t necessary to propel him to this point? The man’s a walking paradox, and maybe that’s the point.

Beyond his ideas, Adams has been a decent curator of interesting news that cuts through the noise. In an era of partisan echo chambers, he’s been a signal booster for underreported truths, even if he occasionally amplifies noise himself. His willingness to challenge sacred cows — often at great personal cost — earned him both admiration and vilification.

So, why care about Scott Adams? Because he reminds us that truth isn’t owned by any one voice, no matter how flawed or brilliant.

For me, he’s been a very useful perspective and “reframe” generator. His cartoonist/hypnotist/persuader toolkit has been very useful. His “Dilbert filter” on how big organizations work has been essential. He’s been a very useful and eclectic news aggregator.

For the broader world he’s been a guide, a gadfly, and a cautionary tale—a man who’s shown us how to question, argue, and reframe, even when he stumbles. His passing will leave a void, but his ideas will linger, sparking arguments and insights for years to come. Thank you, Scott, for the provocation and the wisdom. You’ve been wildly useful, flaws and all.

If we lose you this summer as you predict, I’ll be very sorry to see you go. I hope you wake up healthy and happy on the other side of the simulation you so fervently believe we are in.

Naturally,

Adam

PS: If I and my articles and my Haman Nature show are of interest to you, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Additional content awaits behind the paywall! Or if you fear such a commitment, you could always buy me a coffee or two. Thanks!