Home
The other day I asked aloud in this blog if there might be some sort of anti-success trend emerging in society. I think I found it.

Some folks emailed me directly (dilbertcartoonist@gmail.com) to say they believe it is a waste of time to pursue success because it is a zero-sum game. In other words, they believe they can only be successful by making someone else less successful, on the theory that there isn't enough success in the universe for everyone to get a meaningful slice. They tell me it would be "wrong" on some level to pick the pockets of strangers for self-enrichment.

And there it is.

I doubt that sort of thinking would have existed before the massive media campaign against the "top 1%." The power of the top 1% story is in the false impression that rich people stole the money from the poor and middle class, and therefore it would only be fair to give most of it back.

Clearly some of the financial titans are doing little more than picking pockets. But those are the exceptions. Most one-percenters are growing the economy and creating jobs. That's obvious to people who were born in the "rising tide lifts all boats" era. And it's obvious to anyone with a bit of economics education.

But if you are in your twenties, with no deep understanding of economics, wouldn't you believe success is evil? That's the dominant story of their generation.

Making matters worse, success, money, and abuse of power are all conflated in our minds because that's how the news lumps that stuff.

So while the benefits of success are entrenched in the minds of my generation, the young might be learning that it's something to be avoided.

I can't back this hypothesis with data. We're in anecdotal territory. But it's something to keep an eye on.

Update 1:

Another reason success might have lost its luster is that successful people are considered narcissists, and narcissism seems to be more condemned lately than at any time I can recall. (Or maybe that's just me.) But it turns out that, according to one study, a little bit of narcissism actually helps people succeed as leaders. That's a problem because what 20-something wants to be seen as a narcissist? Narcissism is the new racism.

Update 2:

Here's more evidence that success is being demonized by the young. The University of Georgia's Student Government Association is demanding fewer success stories because it makes those who are less successful look bad.





 
I'm going to let you inside my head more than usual today. I apologize in advance.

Many of you surmised that my prior post about the genie was really a cleverly disguised analogy to my new book, and that once I trapped you into saying you would take the genie's deal, the follow-up would be me saying, "Therefore buy my book!"

But that wasn't my scheme. There's a longer play.

I was trying to isolate (unscientifically) for how many people among us would turn down a deal that is unambiguously good. The real world is never unambiguously good, so it wouldn't make sense to generalize the genie analogy to the book.

I have been seeing a pattern in the past several years that makes me wonder if a sizeable portion of the public has become anti-success. The media has pitted the general public against the one-percenters for several years, so that might be a factor. And the bottom-feeders on the Internet (Gawker, Jezebel, etc.) have business models that involve taking celebrity quotes out of context to demonize them. So it would be no surprise if the public disliked successful people more than ever.

But I have also lately observed people who seem to reject their own best paths to success in favor of paths that are clearly bad. Let's call those choices "loser choices" because any rational and objective observer would see it that way. I wondered if I was seeing an emerging pattern or an illusion.

This line of thinking started because I was seeing the 5-star reviews pour in for my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything. It's getting the best reviews of anything I've written. And the feedback I'm getting by email is just as good. Yet the sales rank is relatively low compared to books in the genre that have worse reviews. So what's the explanation for the exceptional reviews and relatively low sales rank?

It could be any of these explanations.
  1. People aren't especially interested in pursuing "big" success.
  2. People don't believe books can improve the odds of success.
  3. People don't believe that I could write a useful book in this area.
  4. People think success requires more work than they choose to take on.
  5. People believe books can help success, but other uses of time are more effective for pursuing success than reading a book.
  6. People don't know the book exists.
  7. Something about the marketing/positioning of the book isn't working.
  8. People don't like me personally.
  9. People assume the book is more humor than helpful.
Feel free to add to the list.

My attempt in the prior post to isolate for a "loser preference" was interesting but ambiguous. I'll stick with my belief that if you offered a group of strangers a million dollars each with no strings attached, 10% would turn it down for reasons that would seem ridiculous to the other 90%. But I don't think the loser preference is enough to account for the high reviews and relatively low sales rank of my book.

Normally I would just shrug and move to the next project with a better-luck-next-time attitude. But this one is different. And here's where I'm going to let you inside my head more than normal. That's always dangerous.

As I've said in a few media interviews lately, I already have all the money I need personally for the rest of my life. Every dollar I make from now on will be spent by others. But success of the sort I have enjoyed brings with it an unexpected obligation. By virtue of my job, I have an oversized impact on what ideas the public is exposed to. And that means I have an unusually large ability to create positive change in the world. How do I ignore that and go fishing? It would feel immoral.

Now here comes the part I shouldn't say: There is a non-zero chance that my book, How to Fail, could be one of the most useful books ever written.

That claim sounds absurd and arrogant to anyone who hasn't read the book. If you have read it, you probably had the same reaction as the 5-star reviews. And by that I mean you said to yourself some version of "Every 25-year old should read this."

The value of any book would be some function of how useful the topic is and how many people read it. How to Fail addresses what might be the most useful topic of all time: personal success. If the book works as the 5-star reviews believe it does, and it has the potential to make anyone who reads it more likely to succeed, the ripple effect of that improvement could be civilization-altering. Putting that in simpler terms, what if everyone in the world were 5% more effective in pursuing success? Wouldn't that be an enormously positive development?

Realistically, I can't rule out the possibility that I wrote a book that readers believe is helpful but isn't. Such books clearly exist. But that feels unlikely to me, given the nature of the reviews and the type of content in the book. The folks who have read it understand what I mean.

There's no easy and objective way of knowing if the book is as useful as readers seem to think. So let's artificially say the odds of it being useful to a reader are only 20%. And the expense for buying that 20% chance is less than $20 and a few hours of time. Who turns down that deal?

I'm trying to isolate which factor is most important in keeping folks from buying what might be one of the most useful books in the history of civilization. If I figure out where the obstacle is, I'll lean on it a bit and see what happens.

I am well aware that many of you will read this post as nothing but arrogance and delusion. I totally get that. And keep in mind that I have no objective way to know your impression is wrong. Crazy people don't always know they are crazy. That's precisely my dilemma here: My opinion of the value of the book sounds crazy even to me.

But I've decided to open myself up for the inevitable barrage of insults that this post invites in the hope that one of you will say something revelatory on one of these two questions

1. If you read the book, am I wrong that it is useful?

2. What do you think is the biggest factor keeping OTHER people from reading it?  

 

 
Suppose a genie offered you the following deal.

In return for $20, the genie will grant you a 73% chance of improving your life in a meaningful but non-specified way. You don't know if the potential improvement will come in the form of your career, health, personal relationships, or happiness in general. The genie promises that the benefits to you - should there be any at all - will probably far exceed the value of your $20.

To sweeten the deal, the genie says it will take 2-3 hours to transfer the benefits to you. But to make that process as pleasant as possible, the genie says you have an 88% chance of liking or even loving the transfer process itself. You can do the transfer whenever you want, on your preferred schedule. If you are one of the 12% who doesn't enjoy the process, it will be no worse than, for example, watching a movie you don't enjoy. And you can stop the transfer at any point without penalty. But you don't get your $20 back.

You still look unconvinced, so the genie further sweetens the deal. He says that after the benefits have been transferred to you, you will have the power, for no extra cost, to extend the same unspecified basket of benefits (with a 73% chance of success) to a person of your choice.

Let's say for the sake of the hypothetical situation that you somehow know with certainty there is no trick involved.

Here's the summary of the deal:
  1. You pay the genie $20
  2. There is a 73% chance your life improves in a meaningful way.
  3. The transfer of benefits takes 2-3 hours.
  4. There is an 88% chance you will enjoy the transfer itself.
  5. You can quit the transfer any time you want.
  6. If you don't enjoy the transfer, the worst case is that you are bored for 3 hours.
  7. There is no trick or hidden downside, and somehow you know that for sure.
Would you take the deal? Remember, there is no hidden downside. It is simply $20 in exchange for a high likelihood of getting meaningful benefits to your life that are worth far more than what you paid.

My hypothesis is that some people - perhaps many - will decline the genie's offer even knowing there is no trick involved.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new book is called How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big. It has the highest percentage of 5-star reviews of any book I've written.

 
I'm not a member of a political party. That's intentional. Once you pick a side you lose the ability to reason and you start agreeing with whatever dumbass thing your team supports. Whenever I explain my reasons for not joining a political party, people scoff. So here's some recent science that supports my view. It turns out that people rationalize whatever their political party supports independent of the facts. And it's easy to test.

By the way, that's something I learned the first day of hypnosis school thirty years ago. If people were rational, hypnosis wouldn't work. Hypnosis depends on people being influenced by associations as opposed to reason.

Our two-party system of politics kills any hope for reasoned debate. So how could one fix that situation?

My idea is that as President of the United States I would support the majority opinion on every topic with my veto powers and my legislative initiatives while vigorously supporting the argument of the opposite side. Think of it like a defense attorney who doesn't believe his client is innocent but he makes the best defense case he can.

Under this plan, if my active support for the minority view can elevate it to a majority view, it means something was wrong with the majority view in the first place. If my efforts can't move the needle on a debate, that's probably for the best.

As President, I'd be doing less leading and more framing and informing. Once people get the idea that my personal opinions on issues are irrelevant, I'd gain credibility for objectivity and for always shining a fair light on opposition views. That seems healthy.

Obviously there would be some cases in which this plan doesn't work. If the public is 99% on one side of an issue and the only opponents are neo-Nazis, I'd probably take a pass on supporting the opposition. So let's call my plan more of a general approach than a hard rule. It needs some wiggle room to work in the real world.

As president, I wouldn't fudge any facts in the arguments I promoted. I'd be arguing with data only. And I'd acknowledge that the future is unpredictable, so no one really knows what plan will work best. My support of the minority view would often take the form of a conditional statement such as "If you think income equality is more important in the long run than short term economic growth, you should favor policy X."

So what do you think? Could you live with a president who always acted with the majority while arguing for the minority? And what would be the downside of the plan?

 
People always ask cartoonists these three questions:
  1. How long does it take to create a comic?
  2. How many do you create per day?
  3. How do you come up with ideas?
The answer to the first question is that a 3-panel daily comic takes me about two hours from idea to final art. But it can be as fast as 30 minutes if the idea comes quickly and the art doesn't need much detail. The Sunday comics take about five hours apiece. The quickest I could do a Sunday comic would be about three hours.

My schedule is that I write two daily comics every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. I do the writing and rough art in the early mornings, starting at 5 a.m., when my creative energy is highest. And I do one Sunday comic on Wednesdays. I do the finished art whenever I have time, usually evenings and weekend mornings. I aim for nine comics over seven days, to give some cushion for days I can't work for one reason or another.

The third question, about how I come up with ideas is more interesting. The simple answer is that I'm wired that way. It happens somewhat automatically. I couldn't shut it off if I tried.

But internally, the sensation is that I am trading memory for creativity. I'll explain.

My creative process feels to me like a stream of ideas rushing through my mind, pausing only long enough for a reflexive evaluation. 95% of the ideas get flushed immediately, thus making room for the next idea in the stream. For me, the active part of creativity is the flushing - also known as forgetting - of the bad ideas so the new ones have space to enter. The faster I forget, the more creative I am.

As luck would have it, I have a notoriously poor memory for most things. So my stream of ideas doesn't have much stickiness to it. The only ideas that make it out of the stream and into my more rational mind are the ones that move me physically. And by that I mean I have some sort of body reaction that can range from a giggle to goose bumps. If I don't "feel" the idea, I flush it.

If I feel the idea with my body, I let it stick around long enough to apply my rational filter. That kills most ideas.

But sometimes I have an idea that sticks in my mind so aggressively that the only way to dislodge it is to go public. So I blog about the idea, or put it in a comic, or otherwise give it some oxygen. That's the hard way to flush it. But once it's out, I can let go. I've done my job by giving the idea its moment in the sun. If it dies in public, it was meant to be. And I move on.

So the question I have for you today is about the relationship of memory and creativity in each of you. My hypothesis is that poor memory is necessary for high-production creativity.

In the comments, let me know your memory powers from 1-10 (ten is a photographic memory) and also your creative talent (ten would be commercially creative, like a daily cartoonist). This format would be useful:

Memory:
Creativity:

Is memory the enemy of creativity?

 
A growing number of futurists are speculating that someday human minds will be transferred to computers. Let's assume that will happen, whether in a hundred years or a thousand. Futurists say that all we'll need is fairly normal advances in technology to get there.

At the moment, the best minds in science believe that time travel is impossible, at least in the sense of sending a solid object back in time. But a number of scientists are noodling with the idea that binary information can be sent back in time using some sort of strange quantum trickery. Again for fun, assume someone in the future figures out how to send information back in time.

Combining my two assumptions, it means that someday future robots with human-originated minds will have the means to send their entire minds back in time, so long as there is some sort of detector in the present to pick up the signals.

The problem with building a detector in the present is that we can't know what method the future will invent for sending information back in time. But as the future gets nearer, we should be able to take ever-better guesses on what sort of detectors might work.

My idea is to start a long-term project of building various types of detectors and seeding the Internet with information about those detectors so our future robot humans can know what type of detectors to aim for. Every year, as we get better guesses about the type of detectors that might work, we build them and add them to the mix. In the short term, the detectors would be networked to normal data storage. Longer term, we'd build a robot with enough data storage for the incoming human mind.

Imagine some future human sitting in the detector lab next to the slumped robot that is waiting for an incoming mind from the future. The robot pops to life, looks around, and speaks its first words: "Wow! That actually worked!"

I like it as a movie plot.

 
Which of these proposed teasers (to the same content) would make you want to click it?

1. Passion is bullshit

2. Goals are for losers

3. Lies that Billionaires tell

4. How Billionaires avoid looking like jerks

5. It comes out of a bull’s anus and billionaires can’t get enough of it!

6. How the rich keep you poor

7. Bad advice from rich idiots

8. The biggest lie that rich people tell

9. Can luck be manipulated?

I already have the opinion of an expert in this field. But I want a second choice to do some A-B testing on.

All of the teasers are honest representations of the material, at least so far as Internet teases go. And by that I mean that when you read the content you'd agree the headline made some sense with the material. It's a low standard. The headline is just to inspire curiosity.

Which one makes you most curious?

 

 
It has been brought to my attention that I am sometimes too full of myself. I will stipulate that this is true. And it made me curious: Is the opposite approach to life - cultivating low self-esteem - working out well for its many practitioners?

A lot of people tell me I need to lower my self-esteem in the service of modesty, credibility, and protecting the sensibilities of those around me. I would like to heed that advice and be a team player, but I'm also plagued with bouts of rationality that are keeping me from making this improvement to my character.

Before I do anything drastic in life, such as evolving into a person who thinks less of himself for the well-being of others, I like to do a pros and cons list. I'll start with the advantages of thinking too much of myself.
  1. It feels great! All the time!
  2. It boosts my testosterone.
  3. It improves my performance at most things. Science agrees.
  4. Higher testosterone makes muscle growth easier.
  5. I take more risks. (This is admittedly a mixed bag.)
  6. I rarely feel embarrassment even when I should. (Such as now, for example.)
  7. I am emotionally immune from criticism.
  8. Cockiness has an aphrodisiac effect on some. (You know who you are.)
Now for the downside of thinking too much of myself...
  1. I take more risks than I probably should.
  2. People call me a dick in every online comments board on the Internet.
  3. Higher testosterone increases cancer risks.
 Advantage: cockiness (until I get cancer anyway)

I see my inflated sense of self-worth as more of a strategy for happiness than a flaw. And by that I mean I know how to dial-back my self-esteem but I choose not to. Just moments ago I was reading the five-star reviews for my new book (How to Fail...) for no other reason than boosting my morning energy. I manipulate my self-esteem the same way I manage my intake of coffee. When I need a jolt of feel-good, I spend some time dwelling on whatever has gone well recently. And when my mind wanders to the graveyard of my many failures, I change the mental channel as quickly as I can.

There's no such thing as the right level of self-esteem. Everyone who interacts with you will have a different idea of how much is too much for you. So I intentionally err on the side of too much. The benefits simply outweigh the costs.

Keep in mind that I have succeeded in several fields in which I had no identifiable talent before starting, including cartooning, the speaking circuit, and writing books. Had I cultivated a more socially acceptable level of self-esteem I wouldn't have tried any of those challenges.

I have failed in my personal life and in my career about ten times more often than I have succeeded, but my artificially high sense of self-esteem allows me to quickly bounce back and keep punching until something lucky happens.

Some of you will be quick to point out the difference between quiet inner-confidence and being an arrogant dick all over the Internet. But if you think high self-esteem can be masked, you probably don't understand what it is. The moment you feel high self-esteem, you lose the filter. In other words, if you feel you need to hide your high self-esteem, you don't have high self-esteem. That's how self-esteem works.

So I ask the following question in all seriousness: If you think I'm too full of myself (which I am), how is the alternative strategy working out for you? Are there some additional benefits of low-to-moderate self-esteem that are not obvious to me?

------------------------------------------------------------
How to Fail at almost Everything and Still Win Big

 
You should not take investment advice from cartoonists. Ever.

I'm only posting what follows as a control on my own selective memory. I'm going to publicly describe what I believe is a terrific investment idea. By going public I can't easily forget my prediction or later deny it happened.

You should NOT follow this advice. Seriously. Also, I own stock in the company I am about to mention. And I just doubled down. So I am not objective. Keep that in mind.

The stock is Turkcell (TKC), the leading Turkish phone company. The stock is getting hammered this week because of government turmoil, currency value, and whatnot.

The stock could stay depressed for years as things get sorted out. But in the long run, will fewer Turks need phone service? Not likely. And the economics of the phone business are well-understood.

I know little about Turkey except that the government seems intent on being a serious, modern country. It seems that every time I hear a story about Turkey it involves them trying to do something that sounds entirely practical. They have a secular government, capitalism, and NATO support. Now they're rooting out corruption in the government, or trying to. It seems as if they have a natural leaning toward pragmatism.

There's risk with any investment. Turkey could be destroyed by an asteroid tomorrow. Or cell phones could become obsolete. Or Turkcell's accounting could be rigged. A million things could go wrong. But that's true with every investment. If none of the worst case scenarios play out, people will continue to want cellphones and Turkcell is the leading operator in the country. I like those odds.

This investment idea is only the third I have ever had in the "can't lose" category. The first can't-lose idea I ever heard came from Sir John Templeton, a legend of investing, back in the eighties. When asked for his best stock pick in the entire world, he said to buy stock in the Mexican phone company. It was a monopoly and there was nothing that would keep Mexicans from buying evermore phone services. And they did. I bought some shares and sold after a tiny gain. Had I kept the shares, I would have made enormous gains over decades.

The second can't-lose idea came more recently, during the last big market crash, when it looked as if the United States might be heading toward a total financial meltdown. My idea at the time was to put 100% of my investment funds into Wells Fargo stock. The idea was that if the entire financial system collapses, it doesn't matter where your money is because it will be worthless. But if the economy survived, I thought, the strongest bank of the bunch would come back fast and strong. On a risk-reward basis, this was as close as you can get to free money. I didn't act on that idea, but it would have been a huge gain.

That brings us to Turkcell. In today's connected world I have a hard time imagining a leading phone company in any country failing to grow no matter what else is going on around it.

Please don't take my advice.

-------------------------------------------------------
My new book is getting great reviews:

How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life.





 
The main theme of my book How to Fail...  is that goals are for losers. What you need instead is a system. For example, losing ten pounds is a goal, whereas learning about nutrition and diet so you can gradually replace willpower with knowledge is a system. (That makes more sense with a full explanation.)

Upworthy.com, which has experienced explosive traffic growth, has a great example of a system for making content go viral. Business Insider has a fascinating presentation on it. Upworthy concocts 25 headlines for each bit of content, just to increase the odds of stumbling on a few good ones. Then they do A-B testing on the favorites. Their experience is that no one knows in advance what will go viral, so the best you can do is a system that improves your odds. These guys are experts in creating viral links and yet only 6% of their links generate 100K views.

Upworthy creates only the intriguing link descriptions and not the content itself. When looking for good content that has viral potential, they say they look for these qualities.

Hero or villain

Emotion (raw, human, honest)

High production values

Surprising information

Say what others are thinking

Frame it right to be clickable (on Facebook usually)

Inspire curiosity

Mom-friendly (to get maximum Facebook shares)

Compare Upworthy's viral checklist to Jonah Berger's checklist in his book Contagious: Why Things Catch On. Berger says that the stuff that catches on has the following qualities.

Social Currency: How does it make us look to others?

Triggers: Does the environment remind people?

Emotion: Do we care?

Public: Can people see others using/sharing the product?

Practical Value: Is it useful?

Stories:  Does it fit stories that are already in the air?

Combining Upworthy's checklist with Berger's list, and getting rid of duplicates, we have this hybrid checklist.

Hero or villain
Emotion (raw, human, honest)
High production values
Surprising information
Say what others are thinking
Frame it right to be clickable (on Facebook usually)
Inspire curiosity
Mom-friendly
Social Currency: How does it make us look to others?
Triggers: Does the environment remind people?
Public: Can people see others using/sharing the product?
Practical Value: Is it useful?
Stories:  Does your thing fit stories being told anyway?

That's a lot of stuff to get right. So let's test the list against my experience with Dilbert. As we know with the benefit of hindsight, Dilbert is hugely viral. So how does it do against the checklist?

Hero or villain (YES - bosses are villains)
Emotion (raw, human, honest)  (YES)
High production values (NO, but good enough)
Surprising information (NO)
Say what others are thinking (YES)
Frame it right to be clickable (on Facebook usually) (NOT APPLICABLE)
Inspire curiosity (YES - comics scream "read me.")
Mom-friendly (YES)
Social Currency: How does it make us look to others? (YES -humor is attractive)
Triggers: Does the environment remind people? (YES - workplace)
Public: Can people see others using/sharing the product? (YES - on cubicle walls)
Practical Value: Is it useful? (YES - humor entertains, informs, and relieves stress)
Stories:  Does your thing fit stories being told anyway? (YES)

Dilbert hit all of the viral points except for "surprising information" and high production values. But in my case, the poor artwork actually helped, I think, in the sense that it signaled I was more of a cubicle victim myself than an artist. And that became a big part of the story.

Now let's look at my recent attempt at a viral video that attracted only 15K clicks as of this writing. I'll provide a link to it below, but don't look yet. I'm going to tweak the teaser to it below and see if it makes you click.

Here's how my not-so-viral video stacks up on the checklist.

Hero or villain (NO - except in a joke way)
Emotion (raw, human, honest)  (NO)
High production values (YES)
Surprising information (YES, for some - the Wacom Companion product)
Say what others are thinking (NO)
Frame it right to be clickable (on Facebook usually) (NO)
Inspire curiosity (NO - and the teasers to it were not A-B tested)
Mom-friendly (NO - some bleeped cursing and a hot tub scene)
Social Currency: How does it make us look to others? (NO - neutral)
Triggers: Does the environment remind people? (YES -graphic art is everywhere)
Public: Can people see others using/sharing the product? (NO - not usually)
Practical Value: Is it useful? (YES - for artists who want freedom from desks.)
Stories:  Does your thing fit stories being told anyway? (NO)

When I was developing the script for the video, my angle was that almost everyone knows someone who is a graphic artist, or wants to be one. And the technology shown in the video - the Wacom Companion - is a very big deal for graphic artists. It's the first time in my career I can effectively do work on an airplane, for example. So I thought (incorrectly) that anyone who knew a graphic artist would helpfully forward the link with news of this breakthrough device.

I learned after the fact that non-artists are completely unimpressed with the new technology because they don't see how big a deal it is to people who draw for a living. Few people realized the information would be especially helpful to their artist friends.

So I failed hard at making the video viral. But in the process of failing, I picked up a half-dozen new and probably useful skills.

For starters, I learned a whole lot about what to do right next time if I want something to be viral. I could have simply read about how to make things viral, but trying and failing is a much richer and more memorable experience. The doing makes the learning real. So my odds of making something viral in the future just went way up.

Failure is part of my system, by the way, as I describe in How to Fail...  I choose projects that will teach me something useful and increase my market potential no matter what happens. So while my video did not go viral, I now have a fairly deep understanding of what went wrong. And that will almost certainly be useful for future projects.

I also picked up some insights about writing for the camera. I plan to write a Dilbert movie script in 2014, so most of that is useful. So I failed forward, as my career system is designed to do.

Now let's do a little test to see if I can "fix" my video clip and make it viral by paying attention to the checklist. I need to change the focus from "look at this technology" to something that inspires curiosity and has an emotional charge.

So here's my new teaser. What you don't know is that the video was shot entirely at my house, which I built a few years ago. The house has one room in particular that perhaps no other house in the world has. See if you can spot it. And remember, every interior scene shown is an actual room of my house.

My new teaser headline for the link is this: Dilbert cartoonist has a VERY unusual room in his house.

You can track the hit count on the page with the video.

 
 
 
Showing 121-130 of total 1076 entries
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog