Conventional wisdom is that you can't get medical care in the US unless you can pay for it. When I was a kid, they'd tell us to always carry your travel insurance information on your person at all times, because you can't assume a hospital will treat you until they know you're able to pay the bill.
But what happens if you go to the hospital, prove you can pay for the treatment they expect that you'll need, then it turns out to be more complicated and the complications are beyond your ability to pay? Do they turn out out of the hospital before you're fixed up? If not, what happens?
This train of thought was brought on by information I've seen in various places about the cost of childbirth, although I'm sure it applies to other situations as well. Apparently an uncomplicated vaginal birth costs four digits, a complicated c-section costs five digits, and NICU care (i.e. when the baby's in one of those boxes with tubes sticking out of him) costs six digits. I've seen, in multiple places, numbers in the $500,000 range for preemies who required a NICU stay. I would never be able to pay that - not even with a lifelong payment plan. However, I could easily afford the bill for an uncomplicated vaginal birth. But when you show up at the hospital in labour, not even the doctors can tell how complicated it's going to get. How do they handle this?
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
How clothing standards are completely subjective
My body is covered neck to wrist to ankle in thick, unflattering material that hides my shape. My hair is completely covered. My face is free of makeup.
There's a knock on the door. I'm hesitant to answer because I feel overexposed, but it's the UPS guy and if I don't take the package then I'll have to go all the way to Jane & Steeles to collect it. So I answer, and he averts his eyes a little to protect my modesty.
If he had come to the door half an hour later, I would have been wearing a fitted scoop-neck cap-sleeve shirt, a knee-length skirt, more makeup than strictly appropriate, and my hair completely uncovered and styled in a way that hints at its length and lusciousness. If the knock on the door had come then, I wouldn't have hesitated to answer because I wouldn't have felt overexposed, and he wouldn't have felt the need to avert his eyes because I was clearly fully clothed.
In the outfit I described in the first paragraph, I was just out of the shower in a bathrobe and hair towel. In the outfit I described in the third paragraph, I was dressed for work on a hot summer day in Toronto.
There's a knock on the door. I'm hesitant to answer because I feel overexposed, but it's the UPS guy and if I don't take the package then I'll have to go all the way to Jane & Steeles to collect it. So I answer, and he averts his eyes a little to protect my modesty.
If he had come to the door half an hour later, I would have been wearing a fitted scoop-neck cap-sleeve shirt, a knee-length skirt, more makeup than strictly appropriate, and my hair completely uncovered and styled in a way that hints at its length and lusciousness. If the knock on the door had come then, I wouldn't have hesitated to answer because I wouldn't have felt overexposed, and he wouldn't have felt the need to avert his eyes because I was clearly fully clothed.
In the outfit I described in the first paragraph, I was just out of the shower in a bathrobe and hair towel. In the outfit I described in the third paragraph, I was dressed for work on a hot summer day in Toronto.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Teach me about the US political process
Logistically, legislatively, is there any reason why they couldn't just legislate a single-payer health care system into place without first seeking broader consensus? I get that it's a bit arrogant and assholic to go around unilaterally doing something that so many people are opposed to, but could they just make it happen if they didn't care about pissing people off and future electability? If not, why not?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Advanced urban navigation
In the subway:
- If you're using a token, use the token-only turnstile. Not all turnstiles have a card swiper, so leave the ones that do for the Metropass users.
- If there's only one escalator and you're going in the same direction as it, take the escalator. Leave the stairs for the people going in the other direction, who have no choice but to use the stairs.
- If there's a train coming and you aren't running for it, assume the people behind you are running for it.
- Your dog is truly awesome, and everyone in the subway car agrees and is having a fabulous time petting him and squeeing at him. However, you need to have him in a sit on a tight leash every time the train pulls into a station. Why? Because some people are afraid of dogs, and those people might be waiting on the platform completely unaware that there's a dog in this car. You need to give them an opportunity to get on, get their bearings, realize there's a dog over to their right and head as far as possible to their left before Mr. Puppyface comes and slobbers on them. I know he's harmless, but that doesn't mean everyone wants him to lick them. There are a lot of harmless people on the subway too, but you still want a chance to consent before some random person walks up and kisses you.
In the grocery store:
- Act like you're driving. Do you leave your in the middle of the road parked perpendicularly when you need to run into a store? No, you pull off to the side. If you're driving down a busy street and accidentally pass your intended destination, do you do a u-turn (blocking all of traffic) and go back? No, you go around the block. Do the same with your cart.
- If your kid doesn't know the dance, don't let them push a cart during rush hour. You wouldn't let them practice driving during rush hour if they didn't know the rules of the road, would you?
- Don't have your children stand behind you in the grocery line. They get in the way of the person behind you putting their stuff on the conveyor belt, which slows down the line for several people. Have them stand in front of you, put stuff on the belt, and collect bags once the cashier has bagged your groceries.
On the street:
- If the sidewalk is temporarily narrower than usual due to construction or some other obstruction, don't panhandle, fundraise, hand out free samples, stop to talk on the phone, snog, smoke, loiter or wait for your friend in the narrow section. Walk a few doors down to the wider section so you don't block the whole sidewalk for everyone.
- I can totally see why you might leave garbage on the ground in front of the garbage can if the garbage can is full. However, before you do this, look at the company name on your take-out cup. Then look to your left and look to your right and see if you can see any franchises of that company. If you can, throw out your cup in there. There's no excuse to have Tim Hortons cups on the ground two doors down from Tim Hortons.
- When driving, signal your turns even if there's no car behind you. If the pedestrian to your left doesn't see your left turn signal, she'll assume you aren't turning in her direction and jaywalk out onto the street in front of you.
Life in general:
- If you're ever in charge of some being that doesn't understand the meaning of "Excuse me," (dog, cat, small child, llama, etc.), it's your job to make sure said being doesn't get in people's way.
- If you're using a token, use the token-only turnstile. Not all turnstiles have a card swiper, so leave the ones that do for the Metropass users.
- If there's only one escalator and you're going in the same direction as it, take the escalator. Leave the stairs for the people going in the other direction, who have no choice but to use the stairs.
- If there's a train coming and you aren't running for it, assume the people behind you are running for it.
- Your dog is truly awesome, and everyone in the subway car agrees and is having a fabulous time petting him and squeeing at him. However, you need to have him in a sit on a tight leash every time the train pulls into a station. Why? Because some people are afraid of dogs, and those people might be waiting on the platform completely unaware that there's a dog in this car. You need to give them an opportunity to get on, get their bearings, realize there's a dog over to their right and head as far as possible to their left before Mr. Puppyface comes and slobbers on them. I know he's harmless, but that doesn't mean everyone wants him to lick them. There are a lot of harmless people on the subway too, but you still want a chance to consent before some random person walks up and kisses you.
In the grocery store:
- Act like you're driving. Do you leave your in the middle of the road parked perpendicularly when you need to run into a store? No, you pull off to the side. If you're driving down a busy street and accidentally pass your intended destination, do you do a u-turn (blocking all of traffic) and go back? No, you go around the block. Do the same with your cart.
- If your kid doesn't know the dance, don't let them push a cart during rush hour. You wouldn't let them practice driving during rush hour if they didn't know the rules of the road, would you?
- Don't have your children stand behind you in the grocery line. They get in the way of the person behind you putting their stuff on the conveyor belt, which slows down the line for several people. Have them stand in front of you, put stuff on the belt, and collect bags once the cashier has bagged your groceries.
On the street:
- If the sidewalk is temporarily narrower than usual due to construction or some other obstruction, don't panhandle, fundraise, hand out free samples, stop to talk on the phone, snog, smoke, loiter or wait for your friend in the narrow section. Walk a few doors down to the wider section so you don't block the whole sidewalk for everyone.
- I can totally see why you might leave garbage on the ground in front of the garbage can if the garbage can is full. However, before you do this, look at the company name on your take-out cup. Then look to your left and look to your right and see if you can see any franchises of that company. If you can, throw out your cup in there. There's no excuse to have Tim Hortons cups on the ground two doors down from Tim Hortons.
- When driving, signal your turns even if there's no car behind you. If the pedestrian to your left doesn't see your left turn signal, she'll assume you aren't turning in her direction and jaywalk out onto the street in front of you.
Life in general:
- If you're ever in charge of some being that doesn't understand the meaning of "Excuse me," (dog, cat, small child, llama, etc.), it's your job to make sure said being doesn't get in people's way.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Things They Should Invent: foreign-language official document confirmation service
Many freelance translators don't translate birth certificates etc. I don't know if there's a particular business reason for this, but I've done a few as parts of larger files of documentation, and I do know that they are especially annoying to translate. (For the googlers: sorry, I can't translate yours or give you specific advice on how to get yours translated.) For example, I've seen death certificates from France that listed all the pertinent details (and some less-pertinent details such as birthplace and parents' names) in a single run-on sentence of over 100 words. While the gist of the information was simple, it took a not-insignificant amount of actual work to wrestle that sentence into something that the English reader would have a chance of understanding, and I'm never going to be happy with the results because it cannot be made idiomatic in English unless I completely restructure it, which is beyond the scope of translation.
I don't think the end user actually cares whether I reflect the structure of the original. I think they're just looking for the basic death certificate information. So what I'd like to do instead is either produce a summary of the certificate (just list name, time of death, place of death, cause of death in point form without having to worry about the structure of the original) or to issue an official certification letter saying something to the effect of "I hereby certify that the document in question is a death certificate for Pierre Untel."
The logical question at this point is "But then how do we know if the document is real?" The answer to that question is even with normal translation, you still don't know if the document is real. Certifying the validity of documents is outside the scope of the translator's job; we just translate the words on the paper. When I certify the translation, it means that my translation accurately reflects the original. It doesn't mean the original is accurate. I cannot certify the authenticity of the original document any more than I can certify that an article I'm asked to translate is factually correct. Nor would the method I'm proposing hinder the end user's ability to certify the validity of the original document. If the end user knows how to certify the validity of a death certificate from France, they wouldn't need it translated. They'd be familiar enough with the format that they could easily extract the necessary information themselves. In other words, even if they can't read every word on the page, they'd know that this is the space for the deceased's name, and this is the space for time of death, etc. They might have to get the cause of death translated, but that's a 10 minute turnaround at minimum charge rather than an hour spent wrestling with bizarre sentence structure.
Another advantage of this approach is that the less-desirable documentation translation market could be redirected to less-skilled translators without any particular loss of quality. A student in their final year of undergrad or a first-and-a-half generation immigrant looking to earn some extra cash could totally confirm "Yes, this says he was born in Belgium on such-and-such a date" or produce a point-form summary of the death certificate, even if a full translation of the run-on sentences and legalistic language is beyond their skills. This would give the newbies some experience and make it easier for
It sounds like I want the translation industry to invent this, but really what we need is for the end users of translations of official documents (governments, universities, etc.) to accept this kind of simplified translation when they don't actually need a full translation. It would make life easier for everyone, but we can't do it unless the end users would accept it.
I don't think the end user actually cares whether I reflect the structure of the original. I think they're just looking for the basic death certificate information. So what I'd like to do instead is either produce a summary of the certificate (just list name, time of death, place of death, cause of death in point form without having to worry about the structure of the original) or to issue an official certification letter saying something to the effect of "I hereby certify that the document in question is a death certificate for Pierre Untel."
The logical question at this point is "But then how do we know if the document is real?" The answer to that question is even with normal translation, you still don't know if the document is real. Certifying the validity of documents is outside the scope of the translator's job; we just translate the words on the paper. When I certify the translation, it means that my translation accurately reflects the original. It doesn't mean the original is accurate. I cannot certify the authenticity of the original document any more than I can certify that an article I'm asked to translate is factually correct. Nor would the method I'm proposing hinder the end user's ability to certify the validity of the original document. If the end user knows how to certify the validity of a death certificate from France, they wouldn't need it translated. They'd be familiar enough with the format that they could easily extract the necessary information themselves. In other words, even if they can't read every word on the page, they'd know that this is the space for the deceased's name, and this is the space for time of death, etc. They might have to get the cause of death translated, but that's a 10 minute turnaround at minimum charge rather than an hour spent wrestling with bizarre sentence structure.
Another advantage of this approach is that the less-desirable documentation translation market could be redirected to less-skilled translators without any particular loss of quality. A student in their final year of undergrad or a first-and-a-half generation immigrant looking to earn some extra cash could totally confirm "Yes, this says he was born in Belgium on such-and-such a date" or produce a point-form summary of the death certificate, even if a full translation of the run-on sentences and legalistic language is beyond their skills. This would give the newbies some experience and make it easier for
It sounds like I want the translation industry to invent this, but really what we need is for the end users of translations of official documents (governments, universities, etc.) to accept this kind of simplified translation when they don't actually need a full translation. It would make life easier for everyone, but we can't do it unless the end users would accept it.
Facing your fears
Think of a situation where you're afraid to do something, and then you work up the nerve and do it. Let's assume it goes sufficiently smoothly.
Is the positive feeling you (i.e. you, personally) get from having successfully faced your fears stronger than the negative feeling of the fears themselves?
Is the positive feeling you (i.e. you, personally) get from having successfully faced your fears stronger than the negative feeling of the fears themselves?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Let's consider friends a luxury, not a necessity
"But my friends are a necessity," you're thinking, "I really do need them!"
Don't worry, I don't want to take your friends away. But just stick with me for a second; if we consider friendship a luxury, then everyone will have the opportunity to get the same friendship benefits that you do.
If a person doesn't have any friends, society in general thinks there's something wrong with them. And while it's true there might be something wrong with them, they also have simply never had their paths cross with someone who is compatible to be a true friend. Think of how many people you know. How many of these people would you let call you at 3 in the morning with a crisis and gladly drop everything so they can cry on your shoulder without begrudging it even an instant? Probably not a super-huge percentage - for me, I can count the people on one hand.
Given how small this percentage is, isn't is possible that the friendless person just hasn't met any compatible friends yet?
There were a few years where I had no friends. The problem was that my bullies would mock me for having no friends, and people wouldn't want to be friends with me because the bullies were mocking me. So because of this, I adapted two personality traits that are hindrances to making friends: I got really defensive, and I acted like I had a whole nother active social life outside of school so I didn't need to be friends with anyone there. This kept the bullies away, but it also kept prospective friends away. Frankly, I'm astounded that I ended up with any friends at all!
Even now as an adult, if I found myself in a situation where I didn't have a sufficient number of friends, I would do everything possible to hide it. I would get defensive, I would dissemble, I would make up elaborate excuses, I would generally become an unpleasant person to spend time with. All of which would make people disinclined to be my friend, thus perpetuating the problem. If it were socially acceptable to admit to not having enough friends, or to admit to the trappings and side-effects of not having enough friends, I could be frank and candid and pleasant.
This train of thought originated from that guy who shot up an aerobics class because he couldn't get a date. I originally started blogging about how not wanting to have sex with someone isn't a personal diss. (Do you want to have sex with me? Probably not. Do you think negatively of me? Most likely not. Although, if you do, why are you wasting your time reading my blog?) Similarly, not being friends - like real, true, call-at-three-in-the-morning friends - with someone isn't a personal diss. (Think of your co-workers. How many of them can you chat perfectly pleasantly with, but don't have any particular need to see outside of work?) But if a person hasn't had sex in a long time, or doesn't have friends, society in general tends to think negatively of them. When developing a relationship, the revelation that one's prospective friend/lover doesn't have friends or hasn't had a lover in a long time is generally seen as a red flag. How is anyone supposed to self-actualize in this context?
Let's consider friendship and lovers as a luxury, the same way a dishwasher is a luxury. Dishwashers are awesome! If you've had one, you don't ever want to do without, and a lot of people who don't have them covet them. But if you don't have one, that isn't a sign that there's something wrong with you. It's mildly unfortunate, but doesn't have broader implications. "Oh, that's too bad. So how about that local sports team?" If we consider lack of friends the same way, stop looking at friendless people as inherently unstable, maybe fewer unstable people will feel the need to act out specifically because of a lack of friends.
Think about war. If you've never been in a war zone before, do you know precisely how you'd react if you were sent to a war zone and got PTSDed? Probably not. I certainly don't know what would happen to me, but it has the potential to be disastrous. But since I've never been in a war zone, whatever demons lurk there remain safely tucked away and have no potential whatsoever to be loosed upon the world. If people who don't have friends don't feel like they're under siege for not having friends, maybe any unpleasantness that might possibly be lurking will never have the opportunity to come to the surface. And when the unpleasantness doesn't ever come to the surface, it's much easier to make friends.
The Bird And The Worm (Album Version) - The Used
Don't worry, I don't want to take your friends away. But just stick with me for a second; if we consider friendship a luxury, then everyone will have the opportunity to get the same friendship benefits that you do.
If a person doesn't have any friends, society in general thinks there's something wrong with them. And while it's true there might be something wrong with them, they also have simply never had their paths cross with someone who is compatible to be a true friend. Think of how many people you know. How many of these people would you let call you at 3 in the morning with a crisis and gladly drop everything so they can cry on your shoulder without begrudging it even an instant? Probably not a super-huge percentage - for me, I can count the people on one hand.
Given how small this percentage is, isn't is possible that the friendless person just hasn't met any compatible friends yet?
There were a few years where I had no friends. The problem was that my bullies would mock me for having no friends, and people wouldn't want to be friends with me because the bullies were mocking me. So because of this, I adapted two personality traits that are hindrances to making friends: I got really defensive, and I acted like I had a whole nother active social life outside of school so I didn't need to be friends with anyone there. This kept the bullies away, but it also kept prospective friends away. Frankly, I'm astounded that I ended up with any friends at all!
Even now as an adult, if I found myself in a situation where I didn't have a sufficient number of friends, I would do everything possible to hide it. I would get defensive, I would dissemble, I would make up elaborate excuses, I would generally become an unpleasant person to spend time with. All of which would make people disinclined to be my friend, thus perpetuating the problem. If it were socially acceptable to admit to not having enough friends, or to admit to the trappings and side-effects of not having enough friends, I could be frank and candid and pleasant.
This train of thought originated from that guy who shot up an aerobics class because he couldn't get a date. I originally started blogging about how not wanting to have sex with someone isn't a personal diss. (Do you want to have sex with me? Probably not. Do you think negatively of me? Most likely not. Although, if you do, why are you wasting your time reading my blog?) Similarly, not being friends - like real, true, call-at-three-in-the-morning friends - with someone isn't a personal diss. (Think of your co-workers. How many of them can you chat perfectly pleasantly with, but don't have any particular need to see outside of work?) But if a person hasn't had sex in a long time, or doesn't have friends, society in general tends to think negatively of them. When developing a relationship, the revelation that one's prospective friend/lover doesn't have friends or hasn't had a lover in a long time is generally seen as a red flag. How is anyone supposed to self-actualize in this context?
Let's consider friendship and lovers as a luxury, the same way a dishwasher is a luxury. Dishwashers are awesome! If you've had one, you don't ever want to do without, and a lot of people who don't have them covet them. But if you don't have one, that isn't a sign that there's something wrong with you. It's mildly unfortunate, but doesn't have broader implications. "Oh, that's too bad. So how about that local sports team?" If we consider lack of friends the same way, stop looking at friendless people as inherently unstable, maybe fewer unstable people will feel the need to act out specifically because of a lack of friends.
Think about war. If you've never been in a war zone before, do you know precisely how you'd react if you were sent to a war zone and got PTSDed? Probably not. I certainly don't know what would happen to me, but it has the potential to be disastrous. But since I've never been in a war zone, whatever demons lurk there remain safely tucked away and have no potential whatsoever to be loosed upon the world. If people who don't have friends don't feel like they're under siege for not having friends, maybe any unpleasantness that might possibly be lurking will never have the opportunity to come to the surface. And when the unpleasantness doesn't ever come to the surface, it's much easier to make friends.
The Bird And The Worm (Album Version) - The Used
What if we're accepting subpar health care because of the US influence?
We have public health insurance. The US doesn't, and they're very loud and have us surrounded and outnumbered.
We're more inclined than we should be to think our system is mad crazy awesome just because it's better than the US's - after all, no matter what happens, there is no possible way, no matter what goes wrong, we can possibly end up with a hospital bill that's larger than our annual income. Conversely, whenever there's discussion about whether we should be changing our health care system, there's always a disproportionate US influence in the conversation, as though that's the only other plausible option.
What if this is really skewing our perception? What if our system is only mediocre, and looking at the US will make it worse, and where we really should be looking is, say, Japan?
Why don't we tune them out for a bit and see what the rest of the world has to say?
We're more inclined than we should be to think our system is mad crazy awesome just because it's better than the US's - after all, no matter what happens, there is no possible way, no matter what goes wrong, we can possibly end up with a hospital bill that's larger than our annual income. Conversely, whenever there's discussion about whether we should be changing our health care system, there's always a disproportionate US influence in the conversation, as though that's the only other plausible option.
What if this is really skewing our perception? What if our system is only mediocre, and looking at the US will make it worse, and where we really should be looking is, say, Japan?
Why don't we tune them out for a bit and see what the rest of the world has to say?
Coffee with chocolate milk
This morning I put chocolate milk in my coffee. It tastes like yummy take-out hot chocolate. Imagine the hot chocolate from a place in the league of Tim Hortons, whichever of those places is your favourite to get hot chocolate from. You know it isn't actually real hot chocolate, you know it's from powder, you know it doesn't meet the standards of Stuff White People Like organic foodies, but it's yummy, dammit, and it makes you happy on a cold day!
That's what this tastes like. Not life-changing, not essential, but worth doing.
That's what this tastes like. Not life-changing, not essential, but worth doing.
Things They Should Invent: socially-acceptable way of saying "Don't worry, I don't need condolences"
For the purposes of a blog post that I'm still composing, I needed to mention that someone I know passed away recently. It occurred to me that this might lead people to feel the need to express their condolences, so then I added "Don't worry, we weren't close." But that sounds horrible and awful and callous! But the fact of the matter is, we weren't close. Emotionally, he was an acquaintance. He was elderly, in poor health, and the death was not unexpected. Emotionally, I'm not bereaved or grieving.
To actually say this makes me sound especially coldhearted. But the reality is, this sometimes happens, and sometimes it's useful to be able to tell people that you aren't grieving, that they don't need to worry about your emotions. For example, when this death occurred, I thought I might be expected to attend the funeral. If I had been expected to attend the funeral, we would have had to juggle some things at work so I could have taken the time off on short notice. In a situation like that, it would be useful to be able to tell people "Don't worry, you don't have to manage my emotions, just my workload. I can still work at 100%, I just need a day off to put in an appearance at the funeral."
Let's make this socially acceptable.
To actually say this makes me sound especially coldhearted. But the reality is, this sometimes happens, and sometimes it's useful to be able to tell people that you aren't grieving, that they don't need to worry about your emotions. For example, when this death occurred, I thought I might be expected to attend the funeral. If I had been expected to attend the funeral, we would have had to juggle some things at work so I could have taken the time off on short notice. In a situation like that, it would be useful to be able to tell people "Don't worry, you don't have to manage my emotions, just my workload. I can still work at 100%, I just need a day off to put in an appearance at the funeral."
Let's make this socially acceptable.
Friday, August 14, 2009
My 2010 New Year's Resolution
For 2008 and 2009, I made anti-resolutions, which worked well. However, my resolution for 2010 is serious. I could flippantly spin it as another anti-resolution, but the fact of the matter is it's difficult and real and necessary. That's why I'm posting it now instead of waiting for New Year's, because it came to me now and I'd be doing myself (and perhaps others) a disservice if I put it off for months.
By the end of 2010, I need to cultivate Entitlement.
It's the missing link. It goes against the most ingrained hard-wired aspects of my nature, and it has to get done.
Everything for the past several years has been converging on this. In 2007, thanks to Heather Mallick's quirky choice of a book title, I discovered Eddie Izzard (and am still kicking myself for not listening to Poodle and looking him up years earlier). Suddenly, unexpectedly, at the age of 26, I had acquired my very first role model. In the past I was always able to give some appropriate names and reasons when asked who my role model is, but Eddie is the first time I actually felt it - the role model equivalent of being in love for real after thinking you were in love 47 times as a teenager. The thing that inspires me most about Eddie (apart from his moments of truly excessive awesomeness) is the way he's charmingly and disarmingly unapologetic. He messes up on stage, he says "Messed that up," laughs along with the audience, and just keeps going - no blushing, stammering, trying to hide the fact. He wants to buy a dress, he walks into the store and asks to try it on in his size - no abashedly asking if it wouldn’t be too much of a problem if he tried it on. I've been able to use that in my own life, and my social and professional skills have benefited.
My December 2008 birthday horoscope said questions would be answered in six weeks. They were, but, as these things usually go, it's not something I would have expected: I read Naked in Death by J. D. Robb. It's a bit trashy, but so much fun! The characters are interesting and compelling and witty and grow and evolve as the series progresses, the love scenes are sexy and inspiring, the mysteries are sufficiently suspenseful, and I just enjoy spending time in that universe. I promptly read all 34 books in the series, more often than I should staying up until 3 in the morning to finish a book. And it was in this series' protagonist, Eve Dallas, I found my second-ever role model. Eve inspires me in a number of different ways, but the most significant is that she doesn't get nervous - not even one bit - about talking to people. She was 30 when the series started - just a couple of years older than me. In the first book she spends a lot of time talking to people, interviewing suspects and witnesses and sources, and she's never ever the slightest bit nervous or hesitant. Until I know a person well, I always have to work up a little bit of nerve to talk to them. It might not show, but it's there, and a good part of the reason why it's there is because of my bullies. But Eve, who survived horrific abuse, doesn't even have a glimmer of hesitation (and we're inside her head, it would show), she just knocks on a door, flashes her badge, and talks to people. That blew my mind!
My 2009 New Year's anti-resolution was "Shut up and buy it!" (It's going well, by the way - a number of things bought that make me very happy, only one misfire so far. I just think it's in poor taste to blog about it in the current economic climate.) One thing I discovered that I didn't even know was there was that it isn't just the financial "Oh, I shouldn't!" factor stopping me from buying stuff. It's also the fact that I don't feel cool enough to buy the things that I want to buy. The products are out of my league, the retailers are way cooler than I'll ever be. For example, I covet Fluevog shoes. Despite the fact that I have bought some (and they are truly awesome) and got exceptional customer service every time I went in there, I'm still nervous to go into their store because they're so much cooler than me. I'm here, with money, ready to make a purchase, they're there, selling stuff, with 100% of empirical evidence suggesting that I'll get excellent service, and I'm still nervous. This is a problem, and creates more self-loathing than anything else since catholicism.
I had some angst about turning 28. I thought I'd be cooler by the time I turn 28, and I had, despite the fact that I know better, developed some age-specific goals that were not met. But after doing Shut Up and Buy It for a bit and enjoying the results, it occurred to me that even though I'm not cool enough to be 28, I might be able to become cool enough to be 30 by the time I turn 30.
Then I read Outliers, was introduced to the concept of Entitlement, and saw that it's what I'm missing. Eddie Izzard is so cool because he feels like he's totally allowed to be on that stage, and he's totally allowed to be buying that dress. Eve Dallas is so competent because she feels like she's totally allowed to be walking up to people and interrupting their day and interviewing them. My Shut Up and Buy It fails have been because I don't feel like I'm actually allowed to be shopping at those places or for those things. Entitlement is the characteristic I admire in my role models, and lack of Entitlement is the thing that causes me to self-sabotage my own goals. (No, Shut Up and Buy It isn't my only goal, but it's the most suitable example for this post.)
So I have to develop Entitlement. I'm never going to actually feel it, but I need to eventually be able to slip into it when necessary, like how I can easily slip into Perky Customer Service. At the end of 2010, I turn 30. If I can act with Entitlement on demand by then, I'll be cool enough to be 30. Then, as an added bonus, I can use my Entitlement to convince my doctor to sterilize me.
It's going to be hard. The introversion is an obstacle, the residual effects of the bullying are an obstacle, my poor social skills are an obstacle, my need for my betters to know better than me is an obstacle. I'll have to work against all these natural tendencies. Plus, this is one the one aspect of life, more than anything else, where I find it very hard to shrug off negative feedback. If one person to whom I'm practising my Entitlement reacts negatively, that will set me way back. But it has to be done.
I might find myself having to blog about it along the way, it will get self-indulgent (moreso than usual), it might get angsty, and it might get boring. But it's my blog, I'm totally allowed.
By the end of 2010, I need to cultivate Entitlement.
It's the missing link. It goes against the most ingrained hard-wired aspects of my nature, and it has to get done.
Everything for the past several years has been converging on this. In 2007, thanks to Heather Mallick's quirky choice of a book title, I discovered Eddie Izzard (and am still kicking myself for not listening to Poodle and looking him up years earlier). Suddenly, unexpectedly, at the age of 26, I had acquired my very first role model. In the past I was always able to give some appropriate names and reasons when asked who my role model is, but Eddie is the first time I actually felt it - the role model equivalent of being in love for real after thinking you were in love 47 times as a teenager. The thing that inspires me most about Eddie (apart from his moments of truly excessive awesomeness) is the way he's charmingly and disarmingly unapologetic. He messes up on stage, he says "Messed that up," laughs along with the audience, and just keeps going - no blushing, stammering, trying to hide the fact. He wants to buy a dress, he walks into the store and asks to try it on in his size - no abashedly asking if it wouldn’t be too much of a problem if he tried it on. I've been able to use that in my own life, and my social and professional skills have benefited.
My December 2008 birthday horoscope said questions would be answered in six weeks. They were, but, as these things usually go, it's not something I would have expected: I read Naked in Death by J. D. Robb. It's a bit trashy, but so much fun! The characters are interesting and compelling and witty and grow and evolve as the series progresses, the love scenes are sexy and inspiring, the mysteries are sufficiently suspenseful, and I just enjoy spending time in that universe. I promptly read all 34 books in the series, more often than I should staying up until 3 in the morning to finish a book. And it was in this series' protagonist, Eve Dallas, I found my second-ever role model. Eve inspires me in a number of different ways, but the most significant is that she doesn't get nervous - not even one bit - about talking to people. She was 30 when the series started - just a couple of years older than me. In the first book she spends a lot of time talking to people, interviewing suspects and witnesses and sources, and she's never ever the slightest bit nervous or hesitant. Until I know a person well, I always have to work up a little bit of nerve to talk to them. It might not show, but it's there, and a good part of the reason why it's there is because of my bullies. But Eve, who survived horrific abuse, doesn't even have a glimmer of hesitation (and we're inside her head, it would show), she just knocks on a door, flashes her badge, and talks to people. That blew my mind!
My 2009 New Year's anti-resolution was "Shut up and buy it!" (It's going well, by the way - a number of things bought that make me very happy, only one misfire so far. I just think it's in poor taste to blog about it in the current economic climate.) One thing I discovered that I didn't even know was there was that it isn't just the financial "Oh, I shouldn't!" factor stopping me from buying stuff. It's also the fact that I don't feel cool enough to buy the things that I want to buy. The products are out of my league, the retailers are way cooler than I'll ever be. For example, I covet Fluevog shoes. Despite the fact that I have bought some (and they are truly awesome) and got exceptional customer service every time I went in there, I'm still nervous to go into their store because they're so much cooler than me. I'm here, with money, ready to make a purchase, they're there, selling stuff, with 100% of empirical evidence suggesting that I'll get excellent service, and I'm still nervous. This is a problem, and creates more self-loathing than anything else since catholicism.
I had some angst about turning 28. I thought I'd be cooler by the time I turn 28, and I had, despite the fact that I know better, developed some age-specific goals that were not met. But after doing Shut Up and Buy It for a bit and enjoying the results, it occurred to me that even though I'm not cool enough to be 28, I might be able to become cool enough to be 30 by the time I turn 30.
Then I read Outliers, was introduced to the concept of Entitlement, and saw that it's what I'm missing. Eddie Izzard is so cool because he feels like he's totally allowed to be on that stage, and he's totally allowed to be buying that dress. Eve Dallas is so competent because she feels like she's totally allowed to be walking up to people and interrupting their day and interviewing them. My Shut Up and Buy It fails have been because I don't feel like I'm actually allowed to be shopping at those places or for those things. Entitlement is the characteristic I admire in my role models, and lack of Entitlement is the thing that causes me to self-sabotage my own goals. (No, Shut Up and Buy It isn't my only goal, but it's the most suitable example for this post.)
So I have to develop Entitlement. I'm never going to actually feel it, but I need to eventually be able to slip into it when necessary, like how I can easily slip into Perky Customer Service. At the end of 2010, I turn 30. If I can act with Entitlement on demand by then, I'll be cool enough to be 30. Then, as an added bonus, I can use my Entitlement to convince my doctor to sterilize me.
It's going to be hard. The introversion is an obstacle, the residual effects of the bullying are an obstacle, my poor social skills are an obstacle, my need for my betters to know better than me is an obstacle. I'll have to work against all these natural tendencies. Plus, this is one the one aspect of life, more than anything else, where I find it very hard to shrug off negative feedback. If one person to whom I'm practising my Entitlement reacts negatively, that will set me way back. But it has to be done.
I might find myself having to blog about it along the way, it will get self-indulgent (moreso than usual), it might get angsty, and it might get boring. But it's my blog, I'm totally allowed.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
To what extent is the delay in Google's Project 10 to the 100 a translation problem?
Project 10 to the 100 was originally supposed to be open for voting last January, but they say they got more response than they ever anticipated and it's taking way longer than expected to sort through the responses.
I wonder to what extent this is a translation problem?
They accepted submission in, and I quote, "English, German, French, Portuguese (Brazil), Turkish, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Spanish, Japanese, Italian, Polish, Dutch, Korean, Russian, Swahili, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, Arabic, Hindi, Greek, Czech, Hebrew, Danish, or Thai". If I'm counting right, that's 25 languages. So they all need to be translated into the preferred language of each of the people helping select the top 100, and then the top 100 all need to be translated into each of those 25 languages. Skimping on the translation will prevent ideas from being assessed fairly.
If I recall correctly, the submissions had to be very short. On one hand, this reduces the translation workload because there are fewer words. On the other hand, fewer words means less context or background, so it may well happen that there are cases where the translator honestly does not understand the problem they're attempting to solve, especially since Google seems smart enough to use target-language-mother-tongue translators, which means the person translating Thai into English may well be living in the states and not grok the, say, technical problem with rice paddies that the proposal is attempting to solve.
Also, I wonder if the word count requirements were the same for all languages? How would this affect the quality of the ideas? How would this affect the quality of the translations? (Imagine translating English to French without exceeding the English word count!)
I wonder to what extent this is a translation problem?
They accepted submission in, and I quote, "English, German, French, Portuguese (Brazil), Turkish, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Spanish, Japanese, Italian, Polish, Dutch, Korean, Russian, Swahili, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, Arabic, Hindi, Greek, Czech, Hebrew, Danish, or Thai". If I'm counting right, that's 25 languages. So they all need to be translated into the preferred language of each of the people helping select the top 100, and then the top 100 all need to be translated into each of those 25 languages. Skimping on the translation will prevent ideas from being assessed fairly.
If I recall correctly, the submissions had to be very short. On one hand, this reduces the translation workload because there are fewer words. On the other hand, fewer words means less context or background, so it may well happen that there are cases where the translator honestly does not understand the problem they're attempting to solve, especially since Google seems smart enough to use target-language-mother-tongue translators, which means the person translating Thai into English may well be living in the states and not grok the, say, technical problem with rice paddies that the proposal is attempting to solve.
Also, I wonder if the word count requirements were the same for all languages? How would this affect the quality of the ideas? How would this affect the quality of the translations? (Imagine translating English to French without exceeding the English word count!)
Monday, August 10, 2009
Another argument for sick leave and Good Jobs
My glasses broke today. They're half-frames, with the frame on the top half and the bottom of the lens held on by a thread-like thing. The thread thing came unattached, causing the lens to fall out (luckily it didn't break!) and leaving me helpless.
Luckily I was able to get to Lenscrafters before they closed and they were able to fix it for me. But on that desperate subway ride, I was thinking about what I would do if they couldn't fix my glasses. I can't work without my glasses - there's simply no point in showing up blind. So I thought about it and decided that the best plan was to find a one-hour glasses place (I don't know whether Lenscrafters does one hour at every location), go there first thing tomorrow, get my eyes checked (I know my current prescription is outdated), blindly trust the optician in helping me select frames (since Poodle is out of the country), limiting myself to the selection available on hand in one particular store, and hope they still have that thing where you can return them within a month for any reason. Absolute best case, that's half a day's work lost, several hundred dollars out of pocket, and walking around wearing glasses that were chosen with insufficient consideration for aesthetics. Worst case, I lose a day or two of work, or struggle to work with inadequate eyesight (which, best case, will worsen the quality of my work and create more work for my colleagues; worst case, it will be impossible.)
Fortunately, I can absorb this because I have a Good Job with sick leave. I could totally use my sick leave to drop everything and get my glasses replaced. (Some might argue that that's not being sick, but it's a necessary medical device that needs immediate replacement so sick leave is the closest possible accommodation). And I wouldn't lose any pay for taking sick time, which is good because it coincides with an unexpected several-hundred-dollar outlay. And (because I haven't yet bought new glasses during this two-year-period) this outlay would be partially mitigated by my insurance, which I have by virtue of this being a Good Job. (The insurance amount is insufficient, but it does help.) If I didn't have a Good Job, if I didn't have sick leave, I'd lose pay, I might even lose my job, and between the lost pay and the uninsured cost of new glasses I'd probably have to choose between getting the glasses and paying some other bill.
My broken glasses were a relatively minor malfunction. Things like this happen, that's life. Even if they hadn't been able to fix them, it would have taken a few hours' inconvenience to remedy the situation. A quick change of plans, a bit of schlepping around on the subway, putting a rush on the big text I have due at the end of the week. No one should be in a situation where a relatively minor malfunction like this has them up at night worrying about how they're going to pay the bills.
Luckily I was able to get to Lenscrafters before they closed and they were able to fix it for me. But on that desperate subway ride, I was thinking about what I would do if they couldn't fix my glasses. I can't work without my glasses - there's simply no point in showing up blind. So I thought about it and decided that the best plan was to find a one-hour glasses place (I don't know whether Lenscrafters does one hour at every location), go there first thing tomorrow, get my eyes checked (I know my current prescription is outdated), blindly trust the optician in helping me select frames (since Poodle is out of the country), limiting myself to the selection available on hand in one particular store, and hope they still have that thing where you can return them within a month for any reason. Absolute best case, that's half a day's work lost, several hundred dollars out of pocket, and walking around wearing glasses that were chosen with insufficient consideration for aesthetics. Worst case, I lose a day or two of work, or struggle to work with inadequate eyesight (which, best case, will worsen the quality of my work and create more work for my colleagues; worst case, it will be impossible.)
Fortunately, I can absorb this because I have a Good Job with sick leave. I could totally use my sick leave to drop everything and get my glasses replaced. (Some might argue that that's not being sick, but it's a necessary medical device that needs immediate replacement so sick leave is the closest possible accommodation). And I wouldn't lose any pay for taking sick time, which is good because it coincides with an unexpected several-hundred-dollar outlay. And (because I haven't yet bought new glasses during this two-year-period) this outlay would be partially mitigated by my insurance, which I have by virtue of this being a Good Job. (The insurance amount is insufficient, but it does help.) If I didn't have a Good Job, if I didn't have sick leave, I'd lose pay, I might even lose my job, and between the lost pay and the uninsured cost of new glasses I'd probably have to choose between getting the glasses and paying some other bill.
My broken glasses were a relatively minor malfunction. Things like this happen, that's life. Even if they hadn't been able to fix them, it would have taken a few hours' inconvenience to remedy the situation. A quick change of plans, a bit of schlepping around on the subway, putting a rush on the big text I have due at the end of the week. No one should be in a situation where a relatively minor malfunction like this has them up at night worrying about how they're going to pay the bills.
How did white Americans get so rich?
Barbara Ehrenreich found via David Olive:
The net worth. On average. Was $142,600 higher. $142,600 would be high for an average net worth anyway. Remember, net worth is assets minus debts. If I went and bought a condo right now my net worth would be in the negative six figures, because I'd owe a couple hundred thousand in mortgage. But this demographic has a net worth that's not just $142,600, but is $142,600 more than another sizeable demographic!
I'm not an economist, so I tend to assess economic things like this by extrapolating from my own situation. My income is close enough to the national household average, so I can do this. I know we're talking about another country here, but our dollars are close to par and the US household average in US dollars is close enough to the Canadian household average in Canadian dollars that I think it's safe to extrapolate from my own situation just to get a general idea of how life works. And when I extrapolate from my own situation, I can see acquiring a net worth of $142,600 eventually, if everything goes well and I don't lose my job or suffer any major disasters. A particularly ill-timed job loss could eliminate that possibility forever. However, I don't have any of the money-sucks that the average North American has - no children, no car, no mortgage, not carrying student loan debt. (And, since we're comparing with USians, no medical bills.) Given the percentage of the population that has a house, car, and children and is carrying some debt, I cannot imagine how enough people would have enough money that the average is well over $142,600.
Some people might say there's a difference in income tax rates. Some will loudly support this, some will loudly refute it. Here's a US income tax calculator, here's a Canadian income tax calculator (both from the "first useful google result" school of research). [Update: a non-USian friend thinks the US calculator might be federal tax only, and there might be state tax in varying amounts on top of that amount. We aren't sure about this and don't know enough about how US taxes work. Can any USians confirm or refute this?] Do your own math. In my case, the US amount is less than 1% higher than the Canadian amount.
So what's going on in that country that such a large number of people managed to acquire so much wealth?
In 1998, the net worth of white households on average was $100,700 higher than that of African-Americans. By 2007, this gap had increased to $142,600.
The net worth. On average. Was $142,600 higher. $142,600 would be high for an average net worth anyway. Remember, net worth is assets minus debts. If I went and bought a condo right now my net worth would be in the negative six figures, because I'd owe a couple hundred thousand in mortgage. But this demographic has a net worth that's not just $142,600, but is $142,600 more than another sizeable demographic!
I'm not an economist, so I tend to assess economic things like this by extrapolating from my own situation. My income is close enough to the national household average, so I can do this. I know we're talking about another country here, but our dollars are close to par and the US household average in US dollars is close enough to the Canadian household average in Canadian dollars that I think it's safe to extrapolate from my own situation just to get a general idea of how life works. And when I extrapolate from my own situation, I can see acquiring a net worth of $142,600 eventually, if everything goes well and I don't lose my job or suffer any major disasters. A particularly ill-timed job loss could eliminate that possibility forever. However, I don't have any of the money-sucks that the average North American has - no children, no car, no mortgage, not carrying student loan debt. (And, since we're comparing with USians, no medical bills.) Given the percentage of the population that has a house, car, and children and is carrying some debt, I cannot imagine how enough people would have enough money that the average is well over $142,600.
Some people might say there's a difference in income tax rates. Some will loudly support this, some will loudly refute it. Here's a US income tax calculator, here's a Canadian income tax calculator (both from the "first useful google result" school of research). [Update: a non-USian friend thinks the US calculator might be federal tax only, and there might be state tax in varying amounts on top of that amount. We aren't sure about this and don't know enough about how US taxes work. Can any USians confirm or refute this?] Do your own math. In my case, the US amount is less than 1% higher than the Canadian amount.
So what's going on in that country that such a large number of people managed to acquire so much wealth?
Sunday, August 09, 2009
I am officially throwing more plastic into the landfill than before the bag levy
Since the City of Toronto started requiring retailers to charge five cents for each plastic bag, a number of retailers (Metrominion, Loblaw's, possibly Shopper's but I'm not certain) have been providing larger plastic bags. This means I'm taking fewer plastic bags home. But, regardless of how big the bags are, I still empty my kitchen garbage every day because I'm not about to leave food garbage sitting around overnight. So the total number of plastic bags being used as garbage bags is the same, but the number incoming is reduced.
I have a stash of LCBO plastic bags. I started hoarding them when the LCBO started phasing them out, because they are without question the best plastic bags. I'm coming perilously close to having to break into that stash. I just put my last non-LCBO bag in the garbage can now, and it goes down the chute tomorrow. I'm probably going to get three plastic bags with my errands tomorrow and maybe one at the market on Thursday, which leaves me out of non-LCBO bags by the end of the week. Which means I either use LCBO bags for garbage, or buy garbage bags. Both of those contain significantly more plastic than regular pre-five-cent-levy plastic grocery bags.
If they had listened to me in the first place, we wouldn't be having this problem.
I have a stash of LCBO plastic bags. I started hoarding them when the LCBO started phasing them out, because they are without question the best plastic bags. I'm coming perilously close to having to break into that stash. I just put my last non-LCBO bag in the garbage can now, and it goes down the chute tomorrow. I'm probably going to get three plastic bags with my errands tomorrow and maybe one at the market on Thursday, which leaves me out of non-LCBO bags by the end of the week. Which means I either use LCBO bags for garbage, or buy garbage bags. Both of those contain significantly more plastic than regular pre-five-cent-levy plastic grocery bags.
If they had listened to me in the first place, we wouldn't be having this problem.
Shelter from the storm
There's a crazy thunderstorm going on outside, but I feel safe. My windows are good enough quality that the sound of the thunder is muffled. My air conditioning is working beautifully, so even though there's a rainforest-like humidex of 42 degrees outside, it's a brisk freon-tinged 24 in here. The weather is not going to get me; I can just sit back and enjoy the fireworks.
When humanity first evolved, they wouldn't have felt safe from the thunderstorm. The best they could have managed is to hide under a tree (yeah, brilliant idea) or in a cave. Even once they started building structure, they wouldn't have felt safe right away. A teepee or a longhouse or soddie isn't going to make you feel completely safe from the storm, even if it does keep you a bit drier. But on the other hand, if they were living in the best structure technologically possible at the time, they might have felt safe. Someone in, say, the 19th century probably wouldn't consider it a failure of their housing that they didn't have air conditioning.
So I wonder how far into human evolution it took before housing reached a level where people felt safe in a thunderstorm? I wonder how long it took before the majority of the population was living in a place where they felt safe? (Obviously this still varies around the world, but I'm thinking there was a time when the British royal family was feeling safe in Windsor Castle while the proles down the street were scared in their thatch-roofed cottage, whereas now most people probably feel safe in flats in London.) I wonder if, 100 years from now, people will be shocked that I could ever feel safe in this apartment?
When humanity first evolved, they wouldn't have felt safe from the thunderstorm. The best they could have managed is to hide under a tree (yeah, brilliant idea) or in a cave. Even once they started building structure, they wouldn't have felt safe right away. A teepee or a longhouse or soddie isn't going to make you feel completely safe from the storm, even if it does keep you a bit drier. But on the other hand, if they were living in the best structure technologically possible at the time, they might have felt safe. Someone in, say, the 19th century probably wouldn't consider it a failure of their housing that they didn't have air conditioning.
So I wonder how far into human evolution it took before housing reached a level where people felt safe in a thunderstorm? I wonder how long it took before the majority of the population was living in a place where they felt safe? (Obviously this still varies around the world, but I'm thinking there was a time when the British royal family was feeling safe in Windsor Castle while the proles down the street were scared in their thatch-roofed cottage, whereas now most people probably feel safe in flats in London.) I wonder if, 100 years from now, people will be shocked that I could ever feel safe in this apartment?
More thoughts from Outliers
1. Why is rice a staple food? Gladwell describes at length how a rice paddy requires daily diligent work, unlike, say, a wheat field where there are stages in the cultivation process where all you have to do is leave it alone and let it grow. So how did something that requires such painstaking cultivation end up being a staple food for so many people? Isn't there something else in that part of the world that grows more easily?
2. How much cultural bias is there in IQ tests? Gladwell mentions in passing a very advanced IQ test analogy question: “Teeth is to Hen as Nest is to ?” The general consensus of the internet is that the answer is mare. Hen's teeth and a mare's nest are both idioms whose literal meanings refer to non-existent things.
However, I would never have gotten that question right because I have never in my life, not once, heard the expression "mare's nest."
This ignorance is not entirely a function of my intelligence or lack thereof. It also means that the expression is absent from the active vocabulary of the people around me and the word choices of the writers whose work I consume. Now it's true I haven't read everything (although there have only been two books that I started and was unable to finish and a third that I neglected to start because they were too hard, and all of those I could have read if I'd had to for a school assignment or something), but no one can be expected to have read everything. And having read everything isn't entirely a sign of intelligence - it's also a sign of free time and hobby preferences. In any case, I don't know if I would have gotten the question right even if I had heard of a mare's nest, but my not having heard of it was at least partly a failure of my cultural environment. And I spent my entire life in an English-speaking community where the vast majority of the grownups were university educated. This makes me wonder how well these tests can assess people from other source cultures.
3. Why do the KIPP programs seem to rule out the possibility of going to college from public high school? Gladwell describes a USian middle-school program called KIPP, which gives motivated but economically disadvantaged public school students significantly more instructional hours so they can get scholarships to good private high schools and from there go on to college. But why are the school boards working on the assumption that the way into college is a private high school? Why aren't they also doing anything to help motivated by economically disadvantaged high school students go to college? Have these school boards written off all their high school students?
4. What are the Entitlement expectations of working-class authority figures? The book discusses Entitlement from the point of view of parents' expectations of their children and parents' and children's expectations of their authority figures. But what about the authority figures' expectations of people. In my own life, my friendly neighbourhood authority figures seem to expect that I'll have Entitlement, and I think it makes their jobs easier if people express their needs rather than being quietly complacent. Do working-class authority figures feel the same way, or do they expect their charges to be quietly complacent? If they do expect complacency, are they under them impression that they know their charges' needs as well as or better than their charges, or do they just not care?
2. How much cultural bias is there in IQ tests? Gladwell mentions in passing a very advanced IQ test analogy question: “Teeth is to Hen as Nest is to ?” The general consensus of the internet is that the answer is mare. Hen's teeth and a mare's nest are both idioms whose literal meanings refer to non-existent things.
However, I would never have gotten that question right because I have never in my life, not once, heard the expression "mare's nest."
This ignorance is not entirely a function of my intelligence or lack thereof. It also means that the expression is absent from the active vocabulary of the people around me and the word choices of the writers whose work I consume. Now it's true I haven't read everything (although there have only been two books that I started and was unable to finish and a third that I neglected to start because they were too hard, and all of those I could have read if I'd had to for a school assignment or something), but no one can be expected to have read everything. And having read everything isn't entirely a sign of intelligence - it's also a sign of free time and hobby preferences. In any case, I don't know if I would have gotten the question right even if I had heard of a mare's nest, but my not having heard of it was at least partly a failure of my cultural environment. And I spent my entire life in an English-speaking community where the vast majority of the grownups were university educated. This makes me wonder how well these tests can assess people from other source cultures.
3. Why do the KIPP programs seem to rule out the possibility of going to college from public high school? Gladwell describes a USian middle-school program called KIPP, which gives motivated but economically disadvantaged public school students significantly more instructional hours so they can get scholarships to good private high schools and from there go on to college. But why are the school boards working on the assumption that the way into college is a private high school? Why aren't they also doing anything to help motivated by economically disadvantaged high school students go to college? Have these school boards written off all their high school students?
4. What are the Entitlement expectations of working-class authority figures? The book discusses Entitlement from the point of view of parents' expectations of their children and parents' and children's expectations of their authority figures. But what about the authority figures' expectations of people. In my own life, my friendly neighbourhood authority figures seem to expect that I'll have Entitlement, and I think it makes their jobs easier if people express their needs rather than being quietly complacent. Do working-class authority figures feel the same way, or do they expect their charges to be quietly complacent? If they do expect complacency, are they under them impression that they know their charges' needs as well as or better than their charges, or do they just not care?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)