In economics, they often talk about productivity, most often bemoaning the fact that it isn't high enough.
I wonder if anyone has studied the effect of the gig economy on productivity? Because it seems like it would have a strong negative impact.
For example, a freelance translator has to not only translate, but also handle marketing, advertising, billing, online presence, inquiries from prospective clients, and all the administrative aspects of running a business of which I'm unaware. In comparison, a staff translator spends nearly all their time translating, and their employer's administrative staff deal with most of the rest of that stuff. So it's easier for the staff translator to be more productive.
I'd imagine the same would hold in most occupations. And, on top of that, the shorter the gig is, the less productive it is. If industry standard is six-month contracts and then they transition to three-month contracts, workers have to spend time looking for work (rather than doing work) twice as often, and employers have to spend time hiring twice as often. More and more person-hours are being spent on the non-productive tasks associated with connecting people with work rather than simply spending the time on work.
I wonder if anyone has yet studied this enough to quantify it?
Showing posts with label thoughts from the shower. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thoughts from the shower. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Thursday, September 17, 2015
The first jokes
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?That was the first joke I ever learned, when I was maybe 3 or 4 years old. Before I learned that joke, I had never even heard of the concept of a joke. While googling to learn about its age and origin, I was surprised to discover that it is in fact an anti-joke. Expectations at the time were that the answer would be a humorous punchline, not a simple, practical statement of cause and effect.
A: To get to the other side!
But, just like "to get to the other side" was once novel and revolutionary, the basic riddle/joke format of asking a person a question to which you expect an answer so you can give a humorous answer instead was also once new and revolutionary. Someone, somewhere in history, was the very first person to do it. And someone was the very first person to think of it! They not only wrote the joke (and it must have been a good joke for the format to persist), they also thought of the whole format.
I wonder how that very first joke went? Since it was unprecedented, the person being told the joke probably gave a serious answer to the question, having no way of knowing that anything else might be expected. Did they get the joke? Did they think it was funny? They might not have since it was so unprecedented (and they might feel a bit perplexed or made a fool of because they thought they were being asked for actual information and acted accordingly), but enough people thought it was funny that it stuck.
Q: Knock knock!
A: Who's there?
Q: Boo!
A: Boo who?
Q: Don't cry, it's only a joke!
That was the first knock-knock joke I remember ever being told, also when I was around 3 or 4 years old (probably the same day I learned about the chicken - I have fuzzy memories of a revelatory day when I learned all about jokes), and I didn't get it because I didn't know that "boo hoo" was meant to be onomatopoeia for crying.
Knock-knock jokes also require precedent to function, since they require audience participation. I don't remember being explicitly taught the script, but I must have either been taught it or seen it repeated on TV.
But someone thought of the knock-knock joke, and taught someone else the script so it would function (or, like, wrote it into a play or something). And, somehow, it stuck!
Someone made the first pun. Someone was the first to use sarcasm. (And, possibly, someone else was the first person to use it successfully.) Someone was the first to fake farting on the grounds that they thought it was funny. Someone thought of and carried out the first practical joke. (It may even have been one of our primate ancestors - I'm sure at some point a monkey has slipped on a banana peel!) And all of these stuck, and got perpetuated.
What's even more interesting is that an unknowable number of other types of jokes that we've never heard of must have been thought of and attempted throughout human history, but they didn't stick because they weren't funny enough.
And this is still going on! It's quite possible that right this minute, somewhere in the world, someone is thinking of and attempting an all new type of joke that no one has ever thought of before, only to fail utterly.
It's also quite possible that right this minute, somewhere in the world, someone is thinking of and attempting an all new type of joke that no one has ever thought of before, and it will succeed and spread! Memes (in the sense of pictures with words on them that circulate on the internet) were developed within my adult life. Those videos where people caption a Hitler movie to reflect current events started after YouTube was invented, so that's within the last 10 years (and quite possibly much more recently). Someone might, this very minute, be inventing the next knock-knock joke, which, decades or centuries from now, will be retold by a preschooler who has just learned of the very concept of jokes.
Monday, September 07, 2015
The first beauticians
Someone, at some point in human history, was the first person to cut hair. Maybe they didn't even cut it - maybe they they just broke it off by hand, and later had the idea of applying blades or sharp stones or whatever.
And then, someone was the first person to cut hair for aesthetic reasons (rather than just because it got in the way or "Hey, let's see what happens!"). And someone was the first person to figure out that if you cut it a certain way it will fall a certain way. Someone invented bangs. Someone invented layers.
Someone invented braiding. I don't know if they first did it with human hair or to make rope. The idea of weaving strands together so they'll stay put in a single, cohesive whole had never before occurred to any human being, but someone not only thought of it, but also figured out how to do it.
Someone invented the idea of tying or clipping hair back. It seems glaringly obvious, but someone must have been the first (even if it was just the first human being who also had their hair get in the way.) Someone figured out the idea of a hair tie. Someone figured out the idea of a hair clip. Someone figured out a bun, and someone figured out that if you stick a stick through a bun it will stay.
Someone invented shaving. They came up with the idea of scraping the sharp thing along the skin to remove all the hair rather than cutting the hair further from the skin or pulling it out at the root. Some came up with the paradigm-shifting idea that not having hair where hair naturally grows might be aesthetically superior to one's natural state. Someone came up with the idea that if you apply stinky gunk to body hair and press a piece of cloth on it and pull the cloth out, the hair will come out. Someone came up with the idea of inventing chemicals that would cause the hair to just fall out. Someone though of zapping the hair with electricity and with lasers.
Someone was the first to think of dyeing hair. Actually, someone was the first to think of dyeing anything. Before that, it never occurred to anyone that you could change the colour of stuff! Or maybe they stumbled upon it by accident - fell into a vat of blueberry soup or something.
Someone invented piercings. "So what I'm going to do is stick a sharp thing through your flesh to make a hole. Then you can put shiny things in the hole. It will be pretty!"
For that matter, someone invented jewellery. Someone was the first person to think that wearing shiny things is pretty, and everyone agreed!
Someone invented tattoos. Someone thought of the idea of drawing something on their body permanently, and someone figured out that if you stick ink in your skin with a needle it will do just that. Or maybe they didn't intend it to be permanent and it was all an accident! (Although that wouldn't explain why they were sticking ink-covered needles in skin in the first place.)
And then, someone was the first person to cut hair for aesthetic reasons (rather than just because it got in the way or "Hey, let's see what happens!"). And someone was the first person to figure out that if you cut it a certain way it will fall a certain way. Someone invented bangs. Someone invented layers.
Someone invented braiding. I don't know if they first did it with human hair or to make rope. The idea of weaving strands together so they'll stay put in a single, cohesive whole had never before occurred to any human being, but someone not only thought of it, but also figured out how to do it.
Someone invented the idea of tying or clipping hair back. It seems glaringly obvious, but someone must have been the first (even if it was just the first human being who also had their hair get in the way.) Someone figured out the idea of a hair tie. Someone figured out the idea of a hair clip. Someone figured out a bun, and someone figured out that if you stick a stick through a bun it will stay.
Someone invented shaving. They came up with the idea of scraping the sharp thing along the skin to remove all the hair rather than cutting the hair further from the skin or pulling it out at the root. Some came up with the paradigm-shifting idea that not having hair where hair naturally grows might be aesthetically superior to one's natural state. Someone came up with the idea that if you apply stinky gunk to body hair and press a piece of cloth on it and pull the cloth out, the hair will come out. Someone came up with the idea of inventing chemicals that would cause the hair to just fall out. Someone though of zapping the hair with electricity and with lasers.
Someone was the first to think of dyeing hair. Actually, someone was the first to think of dyeing anything. Before that, it never occurred to anyone that you could change the colour of stuff! Or maybe they stumbled upon it by accident - fell into a vat of blueberry soup or something.
Someone invented piercings. "So what I'm going to do is stick a sharp thing through your flesh to make a hole. Then you can put shiny things in the hole. It will be pretty!"
For that matter, someone invented jewellery. Someone was the first person to think that wearing shiny things is pretty, and everyone agreed!
Someone invented tattoos. Someone thought of the idea of drawing something on their body permanently, and someone figured out that if you stick ink in your skin with a needle it will do just that. Or maybe they didn't intend it to be permanent and it was all an accident! (Although that wouldn't explain why they were sticking ink-covered needles in skin in the first place.)
Thursday, August 20, 2015
A better approach to ethical objection by doctors
I've blogged before about the mystery of doctors who choose to practise in a certain field of medicine even though they morally object to an integral part of that field of medicine. Surely they should have seen it coming that they'd be called upon to do the thing to which they morally object (in the case that inspired that blog post, prescribing contraception when working in a walk-in clinic) and surely they should have chosen a different field of medicine if they objected to this.
But with the eventual legalization of physician-assisted dying (as they seem to be calling it now) in the news, I see a situation where the doctors literally didn't sign up for this. It's quite possible for someone to have become a doctor without having seen it coming that they could be called upon to deliberately end a life.
So in the shower, I thought of a simple guideline that balances physicians' ethics, patients' rights, the "they should have seen it coming" factor, and the "they couldn't have seen it coming factor."
Doctors should be required to provide all procedures and services that were usual and customary in their field and their jurisdiction at the time when they begin practising. However, doctors can be permitted to opt out of only those procedures or services introduced after they began practising. The time when they "began practising" can be defined as either the time when they began their medical training as a whole, when they began their training in that specialization, when they graduated, when they began (or completed) their internship or residency - whatever the medical profession considers the optimal point in time.
So if you became a general practitioner in 1951, you can opt out of prescribing birth control pills on moral grounds. If you became a general practitioner in 2015, you had fair warning that you'd be called upon to prescribe birth control pills, so if you'd find that prospect morally objectionable, you had plenty of time to plan your career in a different direction.
If you became a doctor in 2007, you can opt out of physician-assisted dying on moral grounds. If you become a doctor in 2020, you'll have fair warning that you might be called upon to help people die in whatever specialties end up providing that service, so if you don't want to provide that service you can specialize in podiatry or obstetrics or something.
If a doctor changes specialization or changes jurisdictions, they're required to provide all the usual and customary procedures and services at the time of their transfer. The reasoning here is they have an opportunity to research what they're getting into and plan accordingly.
This will also make it easier for patients not to get stuck with doctors who won't provide the service they need. Patients can simply look up the doctor in CPSO or their jurisdiction's equivalent, and see when they began practising.
This way, the proportion of doctors providing a potentially-controversial service or treatment will always increase and never decrease. The acceptance of services among doctors (and therefore their availability) should mirror the acceptance of services among society (and therefore demand). After a transitional period, patients won't ever find themselves stuck with a doctor who is morally opposed to a usual and customary service or treatment in their field. But, at the same time, no doctor is required to provide any service or treatment that they didn't know they were getting into.
But with the eventual legalization of physician-assisted dying (as they seem to be calling it now) in the news, I see a situation where the doctors literally didn't sign up for this. It's quite possible for someone to have become a doctor without having seen it coming that they could be called upon to deliberately end a life.
So in the shower, I thought of a simple guideline that balances physicians' ethics, patients' rights, the "they should have seen it coming" factor, and the "they couldn't have seen it coming factor."
Doctors should be required to provide all procedures and services that were usual and customary in their field and their jurisdiction at the time when they begin practising. However, doctors can be permitted to opt out of only those procedures or services introduced after they began practising. The time when they "began practising" can be defined as either the time when they began their medical training as a whole, when they began their training in that specialization, when they graduated, when they began (or completed) their internship or residency - whatever the medical profession considers the optimal point in time.
So if you became a general practitioner in 1951, you can opt out of prescribing birth control pills on moral grounds. If you became a general practitioner in 2015, you had fair warning that you'd be called upon to prescribe birth control pills, so if you'd find that prospect morally objectionable, you had plenty of time to plan your career in a different direction.
If you became a doctor in 2007, you can opt out of physician-assisted dying on moral grounds. If you become a doctor in 2020, you'll have fair warning that you might be called upon to help people die in whatever specialties end up providing that service, so if you don't want to provide that service you can specialize in podiatry or obstetrics or something.
If a doctor changes specialization or changes jurisdictions, they're required to provide all the usual and customary procedures and services at the time of their transfer. The reasoning here is they have an opportunity to research what they're getting into and plan accordingly.
This will also make it easier for patients not to get stuck with doctors who won't provide the service they need. Patients can simply look up the doctor in CPSO or their jurisdiction's equivalent, and see when they began practising.
This way, the proportion of doctors providing a potentially-controversial service or treatment will always increase and never decrease. The acceptance of services among doctors (and therefore their availability) should mirror the acceptance of services among society (and therefore demand). After a transitional period, patients won't ever find themselves stuck with a doctor who is morally opposed to a usual and customary service or treatment in their field. But, at the same time, no doctor is required to provide any service or treatment that they didn't know they were getting into.
Wednesday, July 01, 2015
Why young LCBO workers still card me?
One of the things we did in my Sociolinguistics class in university was analyze print advertisements. While analyzing an ad for some kind of beauty product, the prof asked us who the target audience is.
"Women at the age where they are just starting to see fine lines on their face," said one of my classmates.
"And what age is that?" asked the prof?
"Late 20s," said one of my older classmates. The other older classmates and the prof all nodded and murmured assent.
I was rather surprised that the beginnings of wrinkles would turn up while you're still in your 20s, but, being only 19 years old myself at the time, I had no actual frame of reference.
My own fine lines began showing right on schedule, at the age of 27. And, since I became aware of them, I also began noticing the presence or absence of lines on other people's faces. I must have seen people with fine lines before, probably including those of my classmates in that Sociolinguistics class who could attest expertly to when fine lines start making their appearance, but it was never a factor that I took specific note of when processing a face as a whole.
It occurs to me that this might be the answer to the mystery of why younger LCBO workers keep carding me when older workers stopped long ago!
If the younger LCBO workers are like my younger self, they might not notice my fine lines as evidence that I'm no teenager. But they'd be more likely to notice my acne since they've most likely been through acne themselves.
Similarly, people who haven't started greying yet might not notice my few individual grey hairs (I didn't notice random strands of grey on people who were anything less than salt-and-pepper before I started greying myself), but the fact that my hair is long, which is culturally marked as youthful, is readily apparent to anyone of any age.
"Women at the age where they are just starting to see fine lines on their face," said one of my classmates.
"And what age is that?" asked the prof?
"Late 20s," said one of my older classmates. The other older classmates and the prof all nodded and murmured assent.
I was rather surprised that the beginnings of wrinkles would turn up while you're still in your 20s, but, being only 19 years old myself at the time, I had no actual frame of reference.
My own fine lines began showing right on schedule, at the age of 27. And, since I became aware of them, I also began noticing the presence or absence of lines on other people's faces. I must have seen people with fine lines before, probably including those of my classmates in that Sociolinguistics class who could attest expertly to when fine lines start making their appearance, but it was never a factor that I took specific note of when processing a face as a whole.
It occurs to me that this might be the answer to the mystery of why younger LCBO workers keep carding me when older workers stopped long ago!
If the younger LCBO workers are like my younger self, they might not notice my fine lines as evidence that I'm no teenager. But they'd be more likely to notice my acne since they've most likely been through acne themselves.
Similarly, people who haven't started greying yet might not notice my few individual grey hairs (I didn't notice random strands of grey on people who were anything less than salt-and-pepper before I started greying myself), but the fact that my hair is long, which is culturally marked as youthful, is readily apparent to anyone of any age.
Friday, June 12, 2015
Things They Should Invent: train PSWs in feminine facial hair removal techniques
A while back, I came up with the idea that nursing homes should provide free esthetics services so female patients don't have to deal with the indignity of facial hair.
Today, my shower gave me a far simpler idea: PSWs should be trained in hair removal methods that are appropriate for women's facial hair.
By general societal standards, removing facial hair is seen as more optional for men than for women. PSWs are trained in the more-optional removal of men's facial hair, so they should also be trained in the more-mandatory removal of women's facial hair.
As we know from our own firsthand experiences, tweezing out your yucky chin hairs is more of an everyday personal grooming thing that you do in your own bathroom rather than a specialized beauty treatment for which you go to a beautician. Therefore, it should be treated as such and be part of the patient's everyday personal care done by their PSWs. (Yes, beauticians do provide more hardcore facial hair removal services. Barbers will also shave clients if asked, but male patients get shaved by PSWs rather than having to pay to go down to the hairdresser.)
Some will argue that PSWs are already trained in shaving and that's a hair removal method. But it's not the a correct, appropriate, suitable method for women's facial hair. Shaving results in same-day regrowth and stubble (especially on hairier-than-average people - and any woman with facial hair is hairier than average), which means that the socially-inappropriate facial hair problem will return before the end of the day. Removing the hair at the root means the removal will last several days and grow back more gently and less visibly, allowing the patient to retain her dignity for longer.
And that's what this really is - a question of dignity. Tweezing or threading or otherwise removing the hair at the root spares female patients the indignity of facial hair and the indignity of suffering through the masculine-marked process of having their face shaved. PSWs are trained to retain as much as patients' dignity as possible when bathing them, dressing them, toileting them, feeding them, moving them - every single area of daily life. This should include the removal of unsightly facial hair.
Today, my shower gave me a far simpler idea: PSWs should be trained in hair removal methods that are appropriate for women's facial hair.
By general societal standards, removing facial hair is seen as more optional for men than for women. PSWs are trained in the more-optional removal of men's facial hair, so they should also be trained in the more-mandatory removal of women's facial hair.
As we know from our own firsthand experiences, tweezing out your yucky chin hairs is more of an everyday personal grooming thing that you do in your own bathroom rather than a specialized beauty treatment for which you go to a beautician. Therefore, it should be treated as such and be part of the patient's everyday personal care done by their PSWs. (Yes, beauticians do provide more hardcore facial hair removal services. Barbers will also shave clients if asked, but male patients get shaved by PSWs rather than having to pay to go down to the hairdresser.)
Some will argue that PSWs are already trained in shaving and that's a hair removal method. But it's not the a correct, appropriate, suitable method for women's facial hair. Shaving results in same-day regrowth and stubble (especially on hairier-than-average people - and any woman with facial hair is hairier than average), which means that the socially-inappropriate facial hair problem will return before the end of the day. Removing the hair at the root means the removal will last several days and grow back more gently and less visibly, allowing the patient to retain her dignity for longer.
And that's what this really is - a question of dignity. Tweezing or threading or otherwise removing the hair at the root spares female patients the indignity of facial hair and the indignity of suffering through the masculine-marked process of having their face shaved. PSWs are trained to retain as much as patients' dignity as possible when bathing them, dressing them, toileting them, feeding them, moving them - every single area of daily life. This should include the removal of unsightly facial hair.
Tuesday, June 02, 2015
Could working-class women dress themselves when upper-class women couldn't?
At certain points in Western history, aristocratic women didn't dress themselves. They had their maids help them. Based on what I've absorbed from the ether, they weren't necessarily able to dress themselves either, because of the design and complexity of the clothes.
For example, there's a scene in Downton where Lady Mary is going away for a weekend tryst, and she and Anna are looking through her wardrobe making sure that everything she packs is something she can put on all by herself (implying that she can't dress herself in all her clothes independently). And this is in the 1920s when clothes were easier - in the Edwardian and Victorian eras, with corsets and crinolines and everything, it would be even more difficult to dress oneself.
I also recently read a book that mentioned that Edwardian upper-class ladies would wear tea gowns in the afternoons because that's when they met with their lovers, and tea gowns were something that a lady could put back on herself (implying that she's not able to put on her other styles of dresses herself).
This makes me wonder about the situation for working-class women. Even if their dresses are more practical, the maids on Downton still have corsets and petticoats before the 1920s. (In fact, there was a brief period where the aristocrats were wearing the newer, more comfortable uncorseted dresses, but the maids - who had to do actual physical labour - were still in the old corseted dresses!) Could they dress themselves, or did they have to help each other dress? What about Daisy, who woke up before anyone else in the house? What about Mrs. Hughes and Mrs. Patmore? Did one of their subordinates see them in their underthings every morning? What if a working-class woman lived alone? If a household consisted of just husband and wife, did he have to learn how to do up a corset?
For example, there's a scene in Downton where Lady Mary is going away for a weekend tryst, and she and Anna are looking through her wardrobe making sure that everything she packs is something she can put on all by herself (implying that she can't dress herself in all her clothes independently). And this is in the 1920s when clothes were easier - in the Edwardian and Victorian eras, with corsets and crinolines and everything, it would be even more difficult to dress oneself.
I also recently read a book that mentioned that Edwardian upper-class ladies would wear tea gowns in the afternoons because that's when they met with their lovers, and tea gowns were something that a lady could put back on herself (implying that she's not able to put on her other styles of dresses herself).
This makes me wonder about the situation for working-class women. Even if their dresses are more practical, the maids on Downton still have corsets and petticoats before the 1920s. (In fact, there was a brief period where the aristocrats were wearing the newer, more comfortable uncorseted dresses, but the maids - who had to do actual physical labour - were still in the old corseted dresses!) Could they dress themselves, or did they have to help each other dress? What about Daisy, who woke up before anyone else in the house? What about Mrs. Hughes and Mrs. Patmore? Did one of their subordinates see them in their underthings every morning? What if a working-class woman lived alone? If a household consisted of just husband and wife, did he have to learn how to do up a corset?
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Teach me about the connotations of Orange County, California in the 1980s
When I was in elementary school (between 1985 and 1991), this story-teller sort of guy came to our school and told us some stories. When it came time to tell us the last story, he said we could choose between two: one was about a boy and his pond, and the other was about a big-city thief. His tone and delivery suggested that the boy and his pond story was idyllic (and, by extension, boring) and the big-city thief story was exciting. My schoolmates overwhelmingly voted for the story about the thief, so he told us that story.
Afterwards, there was Q&A session, and someone asked him if anyone actually asked to hear the story of the boy and his pond, and he replied that it had happened once, in Orange County, California. His tone and delivery suggested that if you knew anything about Orange County, California, you'd understand why this was and perhaps find it humorous.
Of course, as an elementary school student in southern Ontario, I didn't know anything about Orange County, California. In fact, I still don't. This memory came back to me in the shower this morning so I've been doing some googling, and I still can't figure out any characteristics of Orange County that would make it clear why students there in the 1980s would prefer to hear a story about a boy and his pond.
Anyone have any insight?
Afterwards, there was Q&A session, and someone asked him if anyone actually asked to hear the story of the boy and his pond, and he replied that it had happened once, in Orange County, California. His tone and delivery suggested that if you knew anything about Orange County, California, you'd understand why this was and perhaps find it humorous.
Of course, as an elementary school student in southern Ontario, I didn't know anything about Orange County, California. In fact, I still don't. This memory came back to me in the shower this morning so I've been doing some googling, and I still can't figure out any characteristics of Orange County that would make it clear why students there in the 1980s would prefer to hear a story about a boy and his pond.
Anyone have any insight?
Saturday, May 16, 2015
The folly of condemning a boycott
There was recently a story tweeted into my feed about proposed "zero tolerance" for boycotting Israel.
This reminded me of something I've seen in US contexts: when there is a boycott of a business because of its business or labour practices, there are some commentators who say it's unethical to boycott the business in question.
This is ridiculous and unworkable.
I want to make it clear, I don't have a horse in this race. To the best of my knowledge, none of the products I regularly buy or consider buying are from Israel. All the cases I've heard of where people are talking about boycotts as though they're unethical have to do with US retailers that aren't available to my Canadian self. I don't even have an opportunity to make these decisions, so I'm writing here solely as an external observer. And as an external observer, I just don't see how boycotting could be unethical or something that you could have "zero tolerance" for, because of the very nature of a boycott.
What is a boycott? It's choosing not to deal with a person or organization because you oppose some action or policy of theirs. (For syntactic simplicity, in this post I'm going to talk about boycott in terms of choosing not to buy from somewhere, but this can extend to all types of boycott.)
So if boycotting is unethical or punishable, that would mean that, in order to behave ethically or to not be punished, you are required to buy from them.
And that's clearly unworkable. The vast majority of people don't buy from the vast majority of sources the vast majority of the time. Sometimes there's a better source, sometimes there's a more affordable source, sometimes there's a more readily available source, sometimes we simply don't need or want or can't afford the product in question. If you're going to condemn people for not buying from somewhere, you'd have to condemn nearly everyone in the world. (And on top of that there's the question of people who have bought from there but not recently. How do you tell if they've moved from buying to boycotting or if they just haven't needed to buy anything lately?)
At this point, some of you are thinking I'm oversimplifying things. After all, a boycott isn't simply not buying from somewhere, it's making a concerted choice not to buy because you oppose the source's policies and/or actions.
So let's follow this to its natural conclusion. If the anti-boycott people are okay with consumers simply happening to not buy certain products or services as a result of the natural course of their lives, but are opposed to us making the deliberate, mindful decision not to buy from certain sources to disincentivize them from behaviour we believe to be harmful, that would mean that the moral/legal imperative to buy from the source is triggered by the source's harmful behaviour. If the source behaved in a way we considered appropriate, we wouldn't want to boycott them and therefore wouldn't be obligated to buy from them. But as soon as they engage in behaviour we find unacceptable, we're obligated to buy from them in order to avoid engaging in the allegedly immoral/punishable act of boycotting.
Which is, like, the exact opposite of how market forces are supposed to work. (Noteworthy because, I've noticed, many of the people saying boycotts are unethical seem to value market forces otherwise.)
This reminded me of something I've seen in US contexts: when there is a boycott of a business because of its business or labour practices, there are some commentators who say it's unethical to boycott the business in question.
This is ridiculous and unworkable.
I want to make it clear, I don't have a horse in this race. To the best of my knowledge, none of the products I regularly buy or consider buying are from Israel. All the cases I've heard of where people are talking about boycotts as though they're unethical have to do with US retailers that aren't available to my Canadian self. I don't even have an opportunity to make these decisions, so I'm writing here solely as an external observer. And as an external observer, I just don't see how boycotting could be unethical or something that you could have "zero tolerance" for, because of the very nature of a boycott.
What is a boycott? It's choosing not to deal with a person or organization because you oppose some action or policy of theirs. (For syntactic simplicity, in this post I'm going to talk about boycott in terms of choosing not to buy from somewhere, but this can extend to all types of boycott.)
So if boycotting is unethical or punishable, that would mean that, in order to behave ethically or to not be punished, you are required to buy from them.
And that's clearly unworkable. The vast majority of people don't buy from the vast majority of sources the vast majority of the time. Sometimes there's a better source, sometimes there's a more affordable source, sometimes there's a more readily available source, sometimes we simply don't need or want or can't afford the product in question. If you're going to condemn people for not buying from somewhere, you'd have to condemn nearly everyone in the world. (And on top of that there's the question of people who have bought from there but not recently. How do you tell if they've moved from buying to boycotting or if they just haven't needed to buy anything lately?)
At this point, some of you are thinking I'm oversimplifying things. After all, a boycott isn't simply not buying from somewhere, it's making a concerted choice not to buy because you oppose the source's policies and/or actions.
So let's follow this to its natural conclusion. If the anti-boycott people are okay with consumers simply happening to not buy certain products or services as a result of the natural course of their lives, but are opposed to us making the deliberate, mindful decision not to buy from certain sources to disincentivize them from behaviour we believe to be harmful, that would mean that the moral/legal imperative to buy from the source is triggered by the source's harmful behaviour. If the source behaved in a way we considered appropriate, we wouldn't want to boycott them and therefore wouldn't be obligated to buy from them. But as soon as they engage in behaviour we find unacceptable, we're obligated to buy from them in order to avoid engaging in the allegedly immoral/punishable act of boycotting.
Which is, like, the exact opposite of how market forces are supposed to work. (Noteworthy because, I've noticed, many of the people saying boycotts are unethical seem to value market forces otherwise.)
Sunday, May 03, 2015
Things They Should Study: does the societal move away from print newspapers affect how informed kids grow up to be?
I've blogged before about how a lot of my basic understanding of medical and political concepts comes from my lifelong habit of reading newspapers, and how my lifelong habit of reading newspapers comes from having them around the house when I was growing up.
This wasn't a result of parenting, it was a result of incidental proximity. My parents didn't try to get me to read newspapers are part of education or child-raising, they just had them sitting on the kitchen table for their own use. I just started rummaging through them in search of comics, moved on to adjacent features like advice columns and lighter news, and by middle school I was reading the local daily every day.
I wonder how this will play out for future generations as more people move away from print newspapers?
Even if the kids' parents read newspapers electronically, that doesn't leave as much opportunity for casual discovery. If everyone in the household uses their own devices, there's no opportunity whatsoever. If they have shared devices the possibility exists, but it's still less likely. When you finally get a turn with the ipad, you're going to use it for gaming or social media as you planned, not to go look at the boring news sites mom and dad look at. And with the move away from web towards apps, casual discovery is even less necessary because it's seen as a separate app.
Older kids will have the opportunity for casual discovery through social media, but I feel like that's not the same as the casual discovery you get from a newspaper. As I've blogged about before, I find that I read more articles in print that it would never occur to me to click online. I also find that my social media serves as more of an echo chamber, reiterating and going into greater depth on my own opinions and interests. Both of them have their function, but I feel like I'd be far more ignorant without the newspaper habit.
Of course, it's quite possible I feel this way because newspapers are my baseline. It's very easy for me to see ways that non-newspaper people are poorly informed by their lack of newspapers, but it's possible that I'm poorly informed in ways I can't perceived by not being more app-centric or something.
That's why I think it would be interesting to study how (and if) the absence of print newspapers (but with the presence of informed parents) in the house when kids are growing up affects their informedness as adults.
This wasn't a result of parenting, it was a result of incidental proximity. My parents didn't try to get me to read newspapers are part of education or child-raising, they just had them sitting on the kitchen table for their own use. I just started rummaging through them in search of comics, moved on to adjacent features like advice columns and lighter news, and by middle school I was reading the local daily every day.
I wonder how this will play out for future generations as more people move away from print newspapers?
Even if the kids' parents read newspapers electronically, that doesn't leave as much opportunity for casual discovery. If everyone in the household uses their own devices, there's no opportunity whatsoever. If they have shared devices the possibility exists, but it's still less likely. When you finally get a turn with the ipad, you're going to use it for gaming or social media as you planned, not to go look at the boring news sites mom and dad look at. And with the move away from web towards apps, casual discovery is even less necessary because it's seen as a separate app.
Older kids will have the opportunity for casual discovery through social media, but I feel like that's not the same as the casual discovery you get from a newspaper. As I've blogged about before, I find that I read more articles in print that it would never occur to me to click online. I also find that my social media serves as more of an echo chamber, reiterating and going into greater depth on my own opinions and interests. Both of them have their function, but I feel like I'd be far more ignorant without the newspaper habit.
Of course, it's quite possible I feel this way because newspapers are my baseline. It's very easy for me to see ways that non-newspaper people are poorly informed by their lack of newspapers, but it's possible that I'm poorly informed in ways I can't perceived by not being more app-centric or something.
That's why I think it would be interesting to study how (and if) the absence of print newspapers (but with the presence of informed parents) in the house when kids are growing up affects their informedness as adults.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
The first tourist
In the shower this morning, it occurred to me that some one person in human history must have been the very first tourist, by which I mean the first person to travel recreationally.
For all of human history, people have travelled to find food or to flee problems where they were living before or to trade or to warmonger or to find new unused or conquerable land or for a quest or for a religious pilgrimage.
But recreational travel wouldn't have been a thing for much of human history, because travel was difficult and too many people were too preoccupied to survive. Plus, because no one had ever done it before, it probably wouldn't have occurred to many people to do it.
And then, someone, somewhere, came up with the idea of "Hey, let's go over there for no particular purpose, just to look around! It will be fun!" No one in the history of the world had ever gone somewhere for no particular purpose before! But this person did, and somehow the idea caught on.
For all of human history, people have travelled to find food or to flee problems where they were living before or to trade or to warmonger or to find new unused or conquerable land or for a quest or for a religious pilgrimage.
But recreational travel wouldn't have been a thing for much of human history, because travel was difficult and too many people were too preoccupied to survive. Plus, because no one had ever done it before, it probably wouldn't have occurred to many people to do it.
And then, someone, somewhere, came up with the idea of "Hey, let's go over there for no particular purpose, just to look around! It will be fun!" No one in the history of the world had ever gone somewhere for no particular purpose before! But this person did, and somehow the idea caught on.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Things They Should Invent in Fiction: Getting To Know You magic spell
A trope that exists in fiction - especially fantasy genres where magic is present - is the love potion. You get the object of your affection to ingest the love potion, and they fall madly in love with you! Of course, the problem is that this will never be true love, because it's just the effects of the potion (e.g. Merope Gaunt in Harry Potter).
It occurred to me that what these makers of magic in fictional universes should invent instead is a "Getting To Know You" spell. You cast the spell on the object of your affection, and they instantly know you - your likes and dislikes, hopes and dream, everything that you need to learn about a person to know if they're a good match and to fall in love with them.
In fiction, the protagonist and the love interest often fall in love after plot points allow them to get past their preconceptions and get to know each other's real selves. (And, in real life, people suffering from unrequited love often feel like this would happen if the opportunity would only arise.)
At this point, you're probably thinking "But that would ruin the story! They'd get to know each other and fall in love instantly and then there's be no story to tell!"
But what it actually does it open up whole new story avenues!
What happens if the protagonist casts a Getting To Know You spell on their love interest, and this doesn't cause the love interest to become interested in them?
What if someone casts a Getting To Know You spell on the protagonist, but they aren't interested? And suddenly they have all this knowledge of some random person they're not interested in?
What if the protagonist casts a Getting To Know You spell on the love interest and the love interest appears by all signs to fall in love with the protagonist, but never casts at Getting To Know You back on the protagonist, so the protagonist doesn't know the love interest as well as the love interest knows the protagonist? Would this mean the love interest is up to something nefarious?
What if spies started trying to beguile their targets into casting a Getting To Know You spell on them in the hopes of learning their secrets, or at least making them more manipulable?
What if the spells aren't reversible, and casting them is a Big Life Step?
What if the spells are reversible, but you have to go on a quest to acquire a MacGuffin in order to reverse them?
And the person you thought was your love interest but who is in fact nefarious and now knows everything about you is trying to use this knowledge to hinder your quest?
In a universe where magic exists and the pitfalls of love potions have been proven, the next logical step would be for someone to come up with a Getting To Know You spell. I think this would open up new and interesting story avenues.
It occurred to me that what these makers of magic in fictional universes should invent instead is a "Getting To Know You" spell. You cast the spell on the object of your affection, and they instantly know you - your likes and dislikes, hopes and dream, everything that you need to learn about a person to know if they're a good match and to fall in love with them.
In fiction, the protagonist and the love interest often fall in love after plot points allow them to get past their preconceptions and get to know each other's real selves. (And, in real life, people suffering from unrequited love often feel like this would happen if the opportunity would only arise.)
At this point, you're probably thinking "But that would ruin the story! They'd get to know each other and fall in love instantly and then there's be no story to tell!"
But what it actually does it open up whole new story avenues!
What happens if the protagonist casts a Getting To Know You spell on their love interest, and this doesn't cause the love interest to become interested in them?
What if someone casts a Getting To Know You spell on the protagonist, but they aren't interested? And suddenly they have all this knowledge of some random person they're not interested in?
What if the protagonist casts a Getting To Know You spell on the love interest and the love interest appears by all signs to fall in love with the protagonist, but never casts at Getting To Know You back on the protagonist, so the protagonist doesn't know the love interest as well as the love interest knows the protagonist? Would this mean the love interest is up to something nefarious?
What if spies started trying to beguile their targets into casting a Getting To Know You spell on them in the hopes of learning their secrets, or at least making them more manipulable?
What if the spells aren't reversible, and casting them is a Big Life Step?
What if the spells are reversible, but you have to go on a quest to acquire a MacGuffin in order to reverse them?
And the person you thought was your love interest but who is in fact nefarious and now knows everything about you is trying to use this knowledge to hinder your quest?
In a universe where magic exists and the pitfalls of love potions have been proven, the next logical step would be for someone to come up with a Getting To Know You spell. I think this would open up new and interesting story avenues.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
There is no incentive to falsely take a citizenship oath
Recently in the news is the story that the government intends to appeal the Federal Court ruling that it is unlawful to require people to remove their clothing (in this case, a niqab) before taking a citizenship oath.
Sitting here steeped in white girl cultural hegemony, I tacitly assumed that they wanted people to uncover their faces during the oath for identification or fraud prevention purposes. But it occurred to me in the shower this morning that no one would cover their face during a citizenship ceremony for nefarious purposes, because there's no incentive to do so - nothing would be gained or achieved by doing so, and it wouldn't change anything.
Let's unpack this.
Scenario: Cindy the New Citizen has gone through the entire immigration process and permanent resident process and citizenship exam and all the hoops and paperwork and everything, and has just received an invitation to attend a citizenship ceremony and take the citizenship oath. Congratulations, Cindy! But Cindy doesn't attend the ceremony and take the oath. Instead, Irene the Imposter attends the ceremony, pretending to be Cindy, and takes the oath in her place.
So what would the outcome of this scenario be?
Would Irene become a citizen by taking the oath? Of course not - it's not a binding magical contract like in Harry Potter! The record would show that Cindy, who is fully qualified to be a citizen, is now a citizen. So Cindy would be a citizen and Irene's status would not change.
This means that Irene has no incentive to impersonate Cindy, because it would have no impact on Irene's status.
But what if it's not Irene whose intentions are nefarious, but rather Cindy? What if Cindy is trying to get citizenship without being beholden to the oath? Let's think about this.
Suppose, Cindy breaks her oath and is caught. When called out on it, she says "Nope, you can't hold me to that! I didn't take the oath - I sent an imposter on my behalf!" She's still in trouble, since the content of the oath is, essentially, promising to fulfill your duties as a citizen and obey the law, so she'd be in trouble for being derelict in her duties and/or breaking the law. And, on top of everything else, she'd also be guilty of fraud!
This means that Cindy has no incentive to send an imposter on her behalf, because that would only make things worse.
But what if Irene isn't there on Cindy's behalf? What if she's there without Cindy's knowledge?
I can think of two possible motives for that: either Irene is trying to steal Cindy's identity, or she's trying to inflict citizenship upon Cindy without her knowledge.
If Irene is trying to steal Cindy's identity, she would have had to start long before the citizenship ceremony. She could only find out about Cindy's citizenship ceremony if she has access to Cindy's mail, in which case she's either successfully stolen her identity, or has access to far more useful things like credit card statements and tax documents. Going to the ceremony and taking the oath as Cindy will have no impact on the extent of her identity theft.
If Cindy doesn't actually want citizenship and Irene is trying to inflict it upon her without her knowledge, Cindy wouldn't even be having a citizenship ceremony. There's quite a lot of work to do and steps to take to become a citizen, and if Cindy didn't want it, she could just do nothing.
There is simply no reason why anyone would falsely take the oath with nefarious intentions, because it would do nothing to help them achieve their nefarious intentions and basically wouldn't be worth their time. Therefore, there's no reason to fret about being able to see everyone's faces at all times.
Sitting here steeped in white girl cultural hegemony, I tacitly assumed that they wanted people to uncover their faces during the oath for identification or fraud prevention purposes. But it occurred to me in the shower this morning that no one would cover their face during a citizenship ceremony for nefarious purposes, because there's no incentive to do so - nothing would be gained or achieved by doing so, and it wouldn't change anything.
Let's unpack this.
Scenario: Cindy the New Citizen has gone through the entire immigration process and permanent resident process and citizenship exam and all the hoops and paperwork and everything, and has just received an invitation to attend a citizenship ceremony and take the citizenship oath. Congratulations, Cindy! But Cindy doesn't attend the ceremony and take the oath. Instead, Irene the Imposter attends the ceremony, pretending to be Cindy, and takes the oath in her place.
So what would the outcome of this scenario be?
Would Irene become a citizen by taking the oath? Of course not - it's not a binding magical contract like in Harry Potter! The record would show that Cindy, who is fully qualified to be a citizen, is now a citizen. So Cindy would be a citizen and Irene's status would not change.
This means that Irene has no incentive to impersonate Cindy, because it would have no impact on Irene's status.
But what if it's not Irene whose intentions are nefarious, but rather Cindy? What if Cindy is trying to get citizenship without being beholden to the oath? Let's think about this.
Suppose, Cindy breaks her oath and is caught. When called out on it, she says "Nope, you can't hold me to that! I didn't take the oath - I sent an imposter on my behalf!" She's still in trouble, since the content of the oath is, essentially, promising to fulfill your duties as a citizen and obey the law, so she'd be in trouble for being derelict in her duties and/or breaking the law. And, on top of everything else, she'd also be guilty of fraud!
This means that Cindy has no incentive to send an imposter on her behalf, because that would only make things worse.
But what if Irene isn't there on Cindy's behalf? What if she's there without Cindy's knowledge?
I can think of two possible motives for that: either Irene is trying to steal Cindy's identity, or she's trying to inflict citizenship upon Cindy without her knowledge.
If Irene is trying to steal Cindy's identity, she would have had to start long before the citizenship ceremony. She could only find out about Cindy's citizenship ceremony if she has access to Cindy's mail, in which case she's either successfully stolen her identity, or has access to far more useful things like credit card statements and tax documents. Going to the ceremony and taking the oath as Cindy will have no impact on the extent of her identity theft.
If Cindy doesn't actually want citizenship and Irene is trying to inflict it upon her without her knowledge, Cindy wouldn't even be having a citizenship ceremony. There's quite a lot of work to do and steps to take to become a citizen, and if Cindy didn't want it, she could just do nothing.
There is simply no reason why anyone would falsely take the oath with nefarious intentions, because it would do nothing to help them achieve their nefarious intentions and basically wouldn't be worth their time. Therefore, there's no reason to fret about being able to see everyone's faces at all times.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition VI
10. If you don't understand the difference between "required to" and "permitted to", and therefore advocate for policies requiring people to do things when policies permitting people to do those things would be sufficient to achieve your goals, you are henceforth required to do everything that you were previously simply permitted to do.
The penalty for failing to meet these new requirements is commensurate with whatever the penalty for failing to meet the requirements would have been in the policy you were advocating for.
The penalty for failing to meet these new requirements is commensurate with whatever the penalty for failing to meet the requirements would have been in the policy you were advocating for.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Would it really be a bad thing if income tax disincentivized people from working more?
A piece of conventional wisdom I've been hearing ever since I was a child that higher marginal income tax rates for higher tax brackets are a problem because people would be disincentivized to work more and earn more money.
I question that notion because of the way tax brackets work (the higher tax rate is applied to the next dollar earned, not to the income as a whole, so your net salary never decreases when your gross salary increases) but today in the shower it occurred to me: if it was in fact a disincentive to working more, would that actually be a problem?
Suppose you're working a 40-hour workweek, but you feel like you'd earn enough working 30 hours and the extra 10 just aren't worth your while. So you scale back to 30.
You know what that's called? Work-life balance! Good for you!
But what if everyone did it?
If everyone scaled back their 40-hour work week to 30 hours because it just wasn't worth it to them to work any longer, then only 75% as much work would get done. If there was demand for more work to be done, employers would have to hire more people.
Know what that's called? Job creation! Good for you!
I strongly doubt that higher income tax rates in higher tax brackets would have this kind of impact to any significant extent, because most people live a lifestyle that is commensurate with their income and aren't in a position to just go "Meh, I have enough, there's no point in earning any more."
But if they did, I don't think it would be a bad thing.
I question that notion because of the way tax brackets work (the higher tax rate is applied to the next dollar earned, not to the income as a whole, so your net salary never decreases when your gross salary increases) but today in the shower it occurred to me: if it was in fact a disincentive to working more, would that actually be a problem?
Suppose you're working a 40-hour workweek, but you feel like you'd earn enough working 30 hours and the extra 10 just aren't worth your while. So you scale back to 30.
You know what that's called? Work-life balance! Good for you!
But what if everyone did it?
If everyone scaled back their 40-hour work week to 30 hours because it just wasn't worth it to them to work any longer, then only 75% as much work would get done. If there was demand for more work to be done, employers would have to hire more people.
Know what that's called? Job creation! Good for you!
I strongly doubt that higher income tax rates in higher tax brackets would have this kind of impact to any significant extent, because most people live a lifestyle that is commensurate with their income and aren't in a position to just go "Meh, I have enough, there's no point in earning any more."
But if they did, I don't think it would be a bad thing.
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Analogy for assuming I'm going to get sick
I operate under the assumption that I'm going to have every medical problem - everything my ancestors have died of or even been diagnosed with, everything my genetics or behaviour makes it more likely for me to develop, basically everything I have an even slightly greater than average likelihood of contracting. I assume I'm going to get Alzheimer's, I assume I'm going to get cancer, I assume I'm going to get Barrett's esophagus, I assume I'm going to break a hip and become helpless.
There are people who think this approach is needlessly pessimistic, and who say things like "Why don't you just adopt a healthier lifestyle so you don't end up with these health problems?"
Today my shower gave me an analogy to explain why:
Suppose you want to enter a university program, but you don't have enough money to pay the tuition.
The university offers a scholarship to the very top student in the whole university every year, and this scholarship offers enough money to pay for the whole program. But only one such scholarship is offered, and it's only available to the one student with the very top marks in the whole university.
So is it a good strategy to decide "Okay, problem solved. I'll just get the best marks in the whole university and pay my tuition with that scholarship"? Or would it perhaps be a better idea to assume you won't win the big scholarship, and instead work out a way to assemble the funding from other, smaller, more winnable scholarships with multiple recipients, combined with perhaps a part-time job and some student loans?
To win the one single big scholarship, you have to address and overcome a wide variety of ever-changing factors. You not only have to be at the top of all your classes, you also have to be aware of what kind of marks other students are getting in other classes and figure out ways to top them. You need to keep in mind how various courses are graded, and choose courses (and maybe even a major) that make it more possible to get higher marks. (For example, it's easier to get extremely high marks in a math class than in a literature class, because answers to math problems can be unquestionably and objectively correct, whereas a literary analysis essay is more subjective and far less likely to be interpreted as perfect and therefore worth of a 100%.) You also have to be able to read your profs to determine how to extract the highest marks from them, (for example, I've had profs who give higher marks to essays that prove conventional theses, and I've had profs who give higher marks to essays that take a risk and prove an unconventional thesis, or have a good go at disproving a conventional thesis), and you have to do this early enough in the course so as not to have a sacrificial first assignment. To say nothing of the stress you'd have to put yourself under and the pleasures of life you'd have to give up to study enough to earn top marks in all things at all times!
This is rather difficult, isn't it? In addition to doing your absolute best in everything at all times, you have to be constantly and at every moment on top of an ever-changing lineup of factors, many of which are completely beyond your control. And if you drop the ball even for a second, there goes the scholarship you were depending on for funding. It's a lot easier, less stressful and more feasible to operate under the assumption that you're not going to get the big scholarship and instead work out a way to get more predictable funding. If you get the scholarship, bonus! All your problems are solved! But if you don't get it, you're prepared for the eventuality.
Similarly, I find the list of things you're supposed to do to prevent Alzheimer's, cancer etc. is large, complex, overwhelming, and ever-evolving. There is contradictory information out there, some of which is actively trying to discredit each other. It encompasses every facet of life, some of it involves factors that are beyond our control, and much more of it involves factors that it is possible to control but very difficult to do. There are aspects of it that we don't know yet, and there are aspects of it that may be thought to be helpful but later be discovered to be harmful.
So instead of making myself a slave to all that, I just assume I'm going to get all these diseases and plan accordingly. If I don't get them and end up dying peacefully in my sleep, bonus! But if I do get them, then I'm prepared for the eventuality.
There are people who think this approach is needlessly pessimistic, and who say things like "Why don't you just adopt a healthier lifestyle so you don't end up with these health problems?"
Today my shower gave me an analogy to explain why:
Suppose you want to enter a university program, but you don't have enough money to pay the tuition.
The university offers a scholarship to the very top student in the whole university every year, and this scholarship offers enough money to pay for the whole program. But only one such scholarship is offered, and it's only available to the one student with the very top marks in the whole university.
So is it a good strategy to decide "Okay, problem solved. I'll just get the best marks in the whole university and pay my tuition with that scholarship"? Or would it perhaps be a better idea to assume you won't win the big scholarship, and instead work out a way to assemble the funding from other, smaller, more winnable scholarships with multiple recipients, combined with perhaps a part-time job and some student loans?
To win the one single big scholarship, you have to address and overcome a wide variety of ever-changing factors. You not only have to be at the top of all your classes, you also have to be aware of what kind of marks other students are getting in other classes and figure out ways to top them. You need to keep in mind how various courses are graded, and choose courses (and maybe even a major) that make it more possible to get higher marks. (For example, it's easier to get extremely high marks in a math class than in a literature class, because answers to math problems can be unquestionably and objectively correct, whereas a literary analysis essay is more subjective and far less likely to be interpreted as perfect and therefore worth of a 100%.) You also have to be able to read your profs to determine how to extract the highest marks from them, (for example, I've had profs who give higher marks to essays that prove conventional theses, and I've had profs who give higher marks to essays that take a risk and prove an unconventional thesis, or have a good go at disproving a conventional thesis), and you have to do this early enough in the course so as not to have a sacrificial first assignment. To say nothing of the stress you'd have to put yourself under and the pleasures of life you'd have to give up to study enough to earn top marks in all things at all times!
This is rather difficult, isn't it? In addition to doing your absolute best in everything at all times, you have to be constantly and at every moment on top of an ever-changing lineup of factors, many of which are completely beyond your control. And if you drop the ball even for a second, there goes the scholarship you were depending on for funding. It's a lot easier, less stressful and more feasible to operate under the assumption that you're not going to get the big scholarship and instead work out a way to get more predictable funding. If you get the scholarship, bonus! All your problems are solved! But if you don't get it, you're prepared for the eventuality.
Similarly, I find the list of things you're supposed to do to prevent Alzheimer's, cancer etc. is large, complex, overwhelming, and ever-evolving. There is contradictory information out there, some of which is actively trying to discredit each other. It encompasses every facet of life, some of it involves factors that are beyond our control, and much more of it involves factors that it is possible to control but very difficult to do. There are aspects of it that we don't know yet, and there are aspects of it that may be thought to be helpful but later be discovered to be harmful.
So instead of making myself a slave to all that, I just assume I'm going to get all these diseases and plan accordingly. If I don't get them and end up dying peacefully in my sleep, bonus! But if I do get them, then I'm prepared for the eventuality.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Analogy for why you won't regret not doing things you don't enjoy
Between my introversion and the fact that I've been extremely fortunate to land exactly where I want to in life, I'm content. My life is very simple, contains exactly what I want, and makes me perfectly happy. Because of this, I don't feel the need to seek ambition or adventure.
Sometimes I encounter people who think I should be seeking ambition or adventure anyway (especially in regards to travelling), because they think I'll later regret not doing it. Even though I know full well that it would make me unhappy to do so, they seem to think I will look back and regret not doing the thing that will make me unhappy. Which I find absolutely bizarre!
Today my shower gave me an analogy:
Suppose, at some point in your adult life, you find that you're not able to get as much sex as you'd like.
That doesn't mean that you should have gotten in the car with the strange men who were driving by shouting obscene suggestions at you when you were 12 years old.
Even if some of those obscene suggestions ended up being activities you grew into with future partners - and even if, as an adult, you grow to miss them when circumstances aren't aligning to allow you to indulge in them - they weren't right for you back then. Not at that age, not with those strange men.
And, looking back at it as an adult - even as an undersexed adult - you don't look back and regret not getting in that car with those strange men. You recognize that it would have made you unhappy at the time, and that the unhappiness would stick with you as a bad memory, not as something your adult self will end up being glad you did.
Sometimes I encounter people who think I should be seeking ambition or adventure anyway (especially in regards to travelling), because they think I'll later regret not doing it. Even though I know full well that it would make me unhappy to do so, they seem to think I will look back and regret not doing the thing that will make me unhappy. Which I find absolutely bizarre!
Today my shower gave me an analogy:
Suppose, at some point in your adult life, you find that you're not able to get as much sex as you'd like.
That doesn't mean that you should have gotten in the car with the strange men who were driving by shouting obscene suggestions at you when you were 12 years old.
Even if some of those obscene suggestions ended up being activities you grew into with future partners - and even if, as an adult, you grow to miss them when circumstances aren't aligning to allow you to indulge in them - they weren't right for you back then. Not at that age, not with those strange men.
And, looking back at it as an adult - even as an undersexed adult - you don't look back and regret not getting in that car with those strange men. You recognize that it would have made you unhappy at the time, and that the unhappiness would stick with you as a bad memory, not as something your adult self will end up being glad you did.
Saturday, March 08, 2014
Typos and word counts
Sometimes I'm proofreading a translation or looking back at an old blog post, and I'm shocked to discover that I typed "their" when I was supposed to use "there". WTF? I know the difference full well! Why did the wrong one come out of my fingers?
Of course, my thoughts then turned to dementia. I never made these mistakes when I was a kid in school! Am I losing my mind??
But in the shower this morning, I realized there's a major difference between what I'm doing now and what I was doing in school: in my adult life, between translating and writing and blogging and emailing and chatting and assorted casual internet use, I invariably write thousands and thousands of words every day. I probably write more words in a day in my adult life than I'd write in a semester of any given class when I was in school.
I guess they had us write so little in school because the teachers had to mark all of it. If each teacher taught 100 students in any given semester (because it's plausible and makes the math easy) and they had the students write even 1,000 words a day, they'd have to read and mark 100,000 words a day, which would be rather a lot to do every single day.
But this means that, in adult life, I can make as many stupid brainfarts in a day as I did in a semester in school before I have to start worrying about losing my faculties.
Of course, my thoughts then turned to dementia. I never made these mistakes when I was a kid in school! Am I losing my mind??
But in the shower this morning, I realized there's a major difference between what I'm doing now and what I was doing in school: in my adult life, between translating and writing and blogging and emailing and chatting and assorted casual internet use, I invariably write thousands and thousands of words every day. I probably write more words in a day in my adult life than I'd write in a semester of any given class when I was in school.
I guess they had us write so little in school because the teachers had to mark all of it. If each teacher taught 100 students in any given semester (because it's plausible and makes the math easy) and they had the students write even 1,000 words a day, they'd have to read and mark 100,000 words a day, which would be rather a lot to do every single day.
But this means that, in adult life, I can make as many stupid brainfarts in a day as I did in a semester in school before I have to start worrying about losing my faculties.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
itunes lyrics efficiency
As I've mentioned before, I'm lyric-deaf, meaning I can't always clearly hear all the words of a song I'm listening to. As a result, often when I'm going about my everyday life, I feel the need to stop and google up the lyrics to the song I'm listening to.
But this morning my shower gave me an idea:
Every time I find myself googling up lyrics, I'll paste them into the "Lyrics" tab for that song. (Right-click the song, click on Get Info, choose the Lyrics tab.) Then they'll be available for me on my ipod, and apparently you can also download plug-ins that will show the contents of the Lyrics tab in itunes as the song plays. So if I keep doing this, every song with incomprehensible lyrics will eventually display its lyrics automatically when it plays.
But this morning my shower gave me an idea:
Every time I find myself googling up lyrics, I'll paste them into the "Lyrics" tab for that song. (Right-click the song, click on Get Info, choose the Lyrics tab.) Then they'll be available for me on my ipod, and apparently you can also download plug-ins that will show the contents of the Lyrics tab in itunes as the song plays. So if I keep doing this, every song with incomprehensible lyrics will eventually display its lyrics automatically when it plays.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Things They Should Invent: public birthday parties
Sometimes people can't celebrate their birthday on their actual birthday, because the people they most want to celebrate with aren't available on that day.
Solution: public, meet-up style birthday parties for anyone who has a birthday that day. I'm picturing the parties being held by a group of bars or pubs - the kind of place where any random person can walk in and have a good time - that would rotate among themselves so each one has to throw a birthday party only every couple of weeks or so.
You go in, show ID showing that it's your birthday, and you're entitled to one free drink and a piece of cake and maybe all the nachos you can eat over the course of the evening (or whatever else they can give away without wrecking their margins). The employees (and, hopefully, other customers and birthday people) congratulate you and wish you happy birthday and generally make a fuss over you. Maybe there could also be bonus freebies for people celebrating a milestone birthday. There would also be a general discount for people whose birthday it isn't on birthday party days, so there will be other people around to wish happy birthday to the birthday people.
The bars get attention, publicity, drink sales (because few people are going to limit themselves to the one free drink on their birthday), and maybe some new regulars who remember how this bar made them feel happy and welcome and celebrated on that birthday when they were all alone.
The bar's regulars get a discount and a bit of a party atmosphere on that particular day, and the possibility of attracting new and interesting regulars to the bar (if the birthday people are made to feel happy and welcome and celebrated.)
The birthday people get something fun to do on their birthday that makes them feel happy and welcome and celebrated, plus they get to meet other people who have the same birthday and thereby make friends who will totally be into celebrating their birthday on their birthday next year!
And, because the birthday people will meet birthday buddies, they might be able to make it just a one-year project. This would eliminate any "Meh, I'll go next year" sentiment among the birthday people, and thereby increase attendance and popularity.
Solution: public, meet-up style birthday parties for anyone who has a birthday that day. I'm picturing the parties being held by a group of bars or pubs - the kind of place where any random person can walk in and have a good time - that would rotate among themselves so each one has to throw a birthday party only every couple of weeks or so.
You go in, show ID showing that it's your birthday, and you're entitled to one free drink and a piece of cake and maybe all the nachos you can eat over the course of the evening (or whatever else they can give away without wrecking their margins). The employees (and, hopefully, other customers and birthday people) congratulate you and wish you happy birthday and generally make a fuss over you. Maybe there could also be bonus freebies for people celebrating a milestone birthday. There would also be a general discount for people whose birthday it isn't on birthday party days, so there will be other people around to wish happy birthday to the birthday people.
The bars get attention, publicity, drink sales (because few people are going to limit themselves to the one free drink on their birthday), and maybe some new regulars who remember how this bar made them feel happy and welcome and celebrated on that birthday when they were all alone.
The bar's regulars get a discount and a bit of a party atmosphere on that particular day, and the possibility of attracting new and interesting regulars to the bar (if the birthday people are made to feel happy and welcome and celebrated.)
The birthday people get something fun to do on their birthday that makes them feel happy and welcome and celebrated, plus they get to meet other people who have the same birthday and thereby make friends who will totally be into celebrating their birthday on their birthday next year!
And, because the birthday people will meet birthday buddies, they might be able to make it just a one-year project. This would eliminate any "Meh, I'll go next year" sentiment among the birthday people, and thereby increase attendance and popularity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)