Interestingly, Scott Adams, who is Dilbert, defended Perkins in a rant posing as rational analysis back in January. The gist was Perkins has identified a distressing trend against the rich. It's worth a giggle reading it, in that it is the essence of irony: rhetoric barely approaching anything rational, but presented as such.
"Keep in mind that Perkins got rich by identifying trends before others recognized them. His firm invested in AOL, Amazon.com, Citrix, Compaq, Electronic Arts, Genentech, Geron, Google, Intuit, Netscape, Sun, Symantic and more. So if you disagree with Perkins' assessment of the risk, please compare your success rate to his."Wow, I think this is a complex logical fallacy: red herring, false equivalence, and post hoc ergo propter hoc. Probably more if I thought about it, which I won't.
Red Herring: He's has some success at gambling. So fucking what? Thousands of springbok antelopes in Africa have a better track record, and that's the ultimate gamble with life and death. Why even the most pusillanimous creature that crawls on the Earth, or slinks through slimy seas, has done better than Perkins trend-wise. So, should we listen to the antelope? ...and you don't suppose Perkins was ever privy to insider information, starting out there at HP, and therefore maybe had an edge in trend watching?
False equivalence: Success in one of area of life transfers automatically to all areas? Wisdom in one discipline transfers to all areas? If so, then book me Einstein for my gall bladder surgery, or Warren Buffet for my lawn care advice.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Come, come, Dilbert. Do I even really need to walk you through this one? False cause?
You know what, fuck Dilbert. He admits he is a dick, and if we add the qualifier ignorant in front, we are pretty much done with him.
But Perkins as miraculously inerrant self-made man who's every word should be unquestioningly lapped up, like some child's turd dropped in a doggy dish? He just appeared fully formed out of the shining void with all powers and talents intact? Credit where credit is due, I never deny intelligence and hard work for success, but LUCK, luck and circumstance, and social position, have to be accounted for as well.
I've been through this before, but, where did all the money come from? Hmm? The very taxpayers and progressive policies that created the basic science R&D, and all the engineers and technicians that made Perkins, and a lot of others in Silicon Valley, rich.
Because if you are going to talk about Perkins and Silicon Valley, then you have to talk about Hewlett-Packard, Stanford U, MIT, and massive government subsidies from the Defense Dep. And if you have to talk about Silicon Valley, then you got to talk about Fred Terman.
Do I need to talk about Fred Terman? I just gave you the link, but, come on, without Terman building up Stanford's School of Engineering, and without HP taking a rather progressive attitude (due in no small part by Terman's influence) of "