New Rule: maintain mental "last updated" metadata

I was once in a conversation with a member of my parents' generation who had quite a number of very loud opinions on what constitutes responsible sexual behaviour. As the conversation progressed, it became apparent that they were unaware of the existence of dental dams, or that anyone had ever thought of addressing that particular need. Now this individual doesn't need that information for their own personal life - they've been married since before AIDS. They had all the sexual health information they need. However, it never occurred to them that this information may not be up to date.

We've all heard of things like this happening. Grandparents who put their newborn grandchildren to sleep on their stomachs instead of their sides (or whatever you're supposed to do now - don't rely on childfree bloggers for advice on how to avoid SIDS!) because that's what they do with their own children. People making declarative statements about how the school curriculum works based on what it was when they were in school. I'm probably guilty of this myself in ways I'm not even aware of. To use a fake example (because I'm obviously unaware of the real ones), I haven't given a moment's thought to HPV since I got Gardasil - I haven't had any reason to think about it. For all I know they have a test or a treatment now, but I'm still walking around with the assumption that there's no treatment and no way to tell if it's dormant but contagious.

So what we all need to do is be aware of when the information in our brain was last updated. You know how the files in your computer have a "last updated" attribute, so you can sort them by which is newest? We need to keep that in our brains, so as not to spread misinformation or make fools of ourselves.

New Rule: you block information, you lose

This train of thought started with the thing in the news recently where parents in Alberta could pull their kid from the classroom if they didn't like what was being talked about. It occurred to me that from the perspective of getting your kid to live your values in the long term, it would be more effective to talk about and refute what was being discussed in the classroom.

Then I read about how the Iranian government is trying to block people's access to the internet and twitter. So I look on twitter, and what's being posted there (at least on the English side - I can't read Farsi)? First aid information, the equivalent of headline news, amateur video of what's happening. Any competent government should be able to spin around that!

So here's the rule, applicable like Godwin: you block access to information, you lose.

If your position has any modicum of sense and you have any basic communication skills, you should be able to convince people of your position while allowing them access to full information. Readily provide them with copious amounts of selected information that support your position, trusting innate human laziness that they won't wade through google to confirm everything. Tell them about why the information they were given is really incorrect. Get some soundbites out there so they'll become conventional wisdom (like the 50% tax thing).

Blocking access to information should be automatically considered a sign of incompetence in the individual and unsoundness in the position they're trying to promote. They lose!

New Rule: when talking about the social safety net, use factual quantities

Some people think our social safety net is far too generous and waste of taxpayer dollars. Some people (full disclosure: myself included) think it is insultingly weak and an embarassment to us all. Both sides think there's a certain amount of ignorance on the other side, so we never get anywhere.

Solution: Every time you express an opinion on a part of the social safety net, include the quantity of benefit provided. This information is not difficult to google up, and it's a quick and easy way of ensuring that no one in in the conversation is coming from a position of ignorance.

For example, instead of saying "I think Employment Insurance is...", you say "I think Employment Insurance of 55% of your average earnings up to a maximum of $447 a week is..."

Instead of saying "I think welfare is...", say "I think welfare benefits of $572 a month for a single person with no dependents are..."

Since you aren't ignorant, this will have no impact on your argument, but it might pre-emptively mitigate some of your interlocutor's ignorance.

Technical specifications: since this information is readily googleable, on the internet a precise number with a link to a primary source is required. In verbal conversation, you're free to round to the nearest hundred for monthly values or to the nearest thousand for yearly values. If your interlocutor has a Blackberry or an iPhone and wants to fact-check you during verbal conversation, that is specifically not to be taken as a dis. The whole topic works better when everyone has factual information.

This rule also has a corollary that functions like the generally-accepted application of Godwin's Law: if you give incorrect quantities, you lose.

New Rule

If someone who has in the past demonstrated google fu asks you a question, you aren't allowed to tell them to google it unless you are absolutely certain the answer is readily googleable. Be prepared to suggest specific keywords when they reply that they have already googled it.

Let's make some new rules for the subway

1. Point to the train. One of the unorthodox tips for riding the TTC is to exaggerate your body language so the people behind you can see that you're running for a train. While I appreciate the intentions behind that idea, its execution is difficult, passive-aggressive, and easily misinterpreted, especially on centre-platform stations. Instead, let's all point to the trains. If you see a train, point to it. If you see someone else pointing to a train, point in the same direction. Then everyone in the station will quickly know which train is there.

2. Be your own pusher. In Tokyo, they have people whose whole job is to push passengers into crowded trains. In Toronto we don't, so people stop right in front of the doors even though there's a dozen people behind them. So from now on, if someone stops right in front of the doors and you're trying to get on, push them. You don't need much of a push - I've been trying it the past couple weeks and a gentle nudge always does the job.

How to communicate

1. If you can't think of the word, instead of going "um, um, um" or "What's it called again?" give your interlocutor some kind of a hint - whatever kind of word association is currently going on in your brain. "That actress, that blonde lady who was married to that really ugly guy…" or "not mitigated, like the opposite of mitigated - like reducing positive impact the same way that mitigate means reducing negative impact". Then your interlocutor can help come up with the word or might arrive at the right answer instead of the whole conversation being stalled by um um um. It works - we've all been in a conversation where one person goes "That guy who made that other movie with the skinny guy" and the other person knows EXACTLY what they're talking about.

2. The answer to "Where can I buy something like that?" is never "Anywhere!" You need a narrower definition of "anywhere," since your interlocutor clearly has no frame of reference. A productive answer is "I got mine at Winner's, but I've also seen them at Shopper's or even some of the bigger Loblaws." Then they have some specific places to work with plus a general idea of the range of places that will sell the thing in question.

3. If the name of something has changed, you need to mention what it's best known as in collective consciousness, and you need to do this in the headline or the lede. People recognize Skydome even when they don't recognize Rogers Centre. People recognize Stelco even when they don't recognize U.S. Steel. People recognize Dominion or A&P even when they don't recognize Metro. If they recognize the thing being talked about, they'll read your article. If they don't, they'll skip over it.

New Rule

Everyone in California who voted to eliminate people's right to marry anyone of any sex is hereby required to change their name to Doris.

Calling adults "girls"

Quite a few times I've heard middle-aged men (for some reason it's only ever middle-aged men) express confusion/frustration/anger that you aren't supposed to use the word girl to refer to a grown women, but sometimes grown women refer to each other as girls.

I've been working on clarifying this, trying to quantify it and make a mathematical formula based on age and balance of power, but my shower just gave me a much simpler rule:

It is acceptable for you to call another adult a girl (or a boy, as applicable) if it is acceptable for them to call you a girl or a boy in the same sentence in the same context.

New Rule: pronounce OB/GYN like two words instead of five letters

I recently learned that OB/GYN is pronounced O-B-G-Y-N. That's F-U-C-K-E-D. It should be pronounced ob-gyn. Two words, two syllables. Everyone started doing that right now.

New Rule: when making declarative statements about hair, specify hair type

From an article about how to pack when travelling for business, on what to do about your hair if you don't want to pack a hairdryer:

She also encourages people to forgo the blow dryer and use travel as a chance to wear hair naturally and "live simply."

Here's where we differ: My experience with female friends, family members and colleagues leads me to believe that women fear the thought of bad hair days.

So I say reward yourself for all the work by visiting a nearby salon. A blow dry typically costs less than $50 and - marathon notwithstanding - will last the duration of a three-day trip.

From my perspective sitting here with long straight oily hair, that is one of the most bizarre statements I've ever heard. It's so surreal I can't even come up with a good analogy. It makes just as much sense in my reality as if she had said "But these problems can be easily avoided by sleeping with a pair of fuzzy pink earmuffs under your pillow." Even if for some strange reason the blowout could last through sleep, my hair would still absolutely positively HAVE to be washed every single day so I don't look like I dunked my head in a vat of grease. Of course, I can easily wrangle my hair into a respectable conservative updo without any product whatsoever and let it air dry. It's completely unsexy, but it's quick and easy and does the job. So wear it naturally and live simply is extremely feasible for me (and is actually what I do most days anyway) while getting it blowdried at a salon and then leaving it for three days is something from the bizarro universe.

But all this aside, every hotel I've stayed in in my adult life has provided a hairdryer. Is that really that strange?

And if you're willing to spend $50, why not just buy a hairdryer at a local drugstore and leave it in the hotel room when you leave? Not being able to do your own hair and having to pay someone else to do it instead is a bit...Marie Antoinette, I think. You're not an Egyptian pharoah, this isn't Oscar night, a suitable hairdo should be in your repertoire.

So yeah, my point is, hardly any statements can apply to everyone's hair, so specify the kind of hair you're talking about.

New Rule: stop staying "Googlegänger", start saying "Doppelgoogler"

It has come to my attention that people are using the word "Googlegänger" to mean another person who comes up when you google yourself.

Good, well-intentioned coinage, but unfortunately it's wrong.

Googlegänger is a blend of "Google" and the German "Dopplegänger", meaning an exact double of a person. "Dopplegänger" itself is a blend of "dopple" meaning double, and "gänger" meaning literally "goer".

So as you can see, whoever coined "Googlegänger" inadvertently chose the wrong part of Dopplegänger to retain. A more accurate word would be "Doppelgoogler".

As a special incentive program, I have been authorized to permit anyone who switches from Googlegänger" to "Doppelgoogler" to use an umlaut on the O of their choice for purely aesthetic reasons, even though it is lexically incorrect.

New Rule: interest rate assumptions

Often when people are talking about or writing articles about financial planning, they blithely assume that you can earn interest at rates that seem unrealistically high to me. This harms the credibility of everything they say - why would I take investment advice from someone who assumes I can just wander in and get 20% interest?

So here's an exercise to make sure your interest rate assumptions are reasonable.

You: "...so if you invested that at X% interest..."
Me: "Okay, suppose I gave you my life's savings to invest, and we signed an airtight, no-loopholes, no escape contract for you to give me (X-1)% of the principal every year. You can keep any extra interest you earn, but you have to give me (X-1)% every year even if you don't earn that much. Would you accept that agreement?"

If the answer is yes, then you can go ahead and use that interest rate example. If the answer is no, choose a lower rate. If the answer is yes only because you are so freaking rich that you could easily absorb the yearly loss of (X-1)% of my life's savings, add another zero or two to the amount of my life's savings and try again.