Via Antonia Zerbisias, a silly little study postulating that women have more orgasms with wealthier partners.
I didn't give this much attention when it first came out because it contradicts a lifetime's worth of empirical evidence.
But it occurred to me today: what if the link here is really charm/charisma/people skills? Sex is way better when your partner makes you feel special and important, and people who can make others feel special and important are likely to do better in business.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Things They Should Study: gender-based material wishlist comparison
Carol Goar has some statistics about men's vs. women's financial habits that lead her to conclude that if the economic stimulus does not address women's concerns, it won't work. On one hand, this reads like one of those articles written with the express intention of focusing on "women's issues", regardless of whether that is the best approach to the subject at hand. On the other hand, it is completely consistent with my reality. My Protect Existing Jobs policy is based on this reality, and protecting existing jobs would totally address every point Ms. Goar raises.
But the big question mark here, which I think might be a productive line of inquiry, is whether there's any difference between what men and women would spend their money on (but aren't spending it on because of financial uncertainty). Are the things they covet within their means (but they feel they shouldn't buy them) or beyond their means (i.e. the money simply isn't there)? Are the things they covet one-time purchases (capital expenditures) or ongoing lifestyle upgrades (operational expenditures)?
I'm thinking along these lines because most of the things I covet are lifestyle upgrades that are technically within my means, but I feel like I shouldn't because then if money becomes tight it will hurt to downgrade. For example, I'd very much like to use Touche Eclat and unless it runs out ridiculously quickly I could totally come up with $30-40 every time I need a new tube of concealer. But I feel like I shouldn't, so I'm making do with discontinued Skinlights purchased on ebay. I'd like to upgrade my hairdressing (I just recently upgraded from no hairdressing to hairdressing, and I like the results and want to go further) and the money is there, but if I lost my job having spent that much on my hair would be inexcusable. I'd love to get my bras at Secrets From Your Sister, but if they're as good as they say they are I won't be able to go back to ill-fitting $12 numbers from La Senza, and then if my bra explodes while I'm unemployed I'm screwed. With the exception of real estate, everything I covet is an operational expenditure that I probably could afford. And, with the exception of real estate, everything I covet is girly stuff.
My non-spending could be fully addressed with job security. If I were certain I was never going to lose my job, I would totally buy all those things. I would be buying $30 make-up and bras with prices in the three-digit range and the best hair stuff money can buy for the rest of my life.
But when I think about the men around me, the stuff they covet is different. They seem to covet more one-time purchases that they aren't purchasing because the money simply isn't there. A big-screen TV with surround sound. A car. A trip. A new computer. Their non-spending could be addressed by putting more money in their pocket. If the money was suddenly there for a big-screen TV, they'd get one. So, following Carol Goar's logic that women are underrepresented on economic decision-making, perhaps this is why some of our politicos seem to be under the impression that a tax cut would be an effective economic stimulus?
Now I have no way of knowing if I'm typical of women or if the men in my life are typical of men. But looking at all of this, I'm thinking perhaps someone should study the coveting habits of different economic groups to try to figure out what it would take to get different people spending.
But the big question mark here, which I think might be a productive line of inquiry, is whether there's any difference between what men and women would spend their money on (but aren't spending it on because of financial uncertainty). Are the things they covet within their means (but they feel they shouldn't buy them) or beyond their means (i.e. the money simply isn't there)? Are the things they covet one-time purchases (capital expenditures) or ongoing lifestyle upgrades (operational expenditures)?
I'm thinking along these lines because most of the things I covet are lifestyle upgrades that are technically within my means, but I feel like I shouldn't because then if money becomes tight it will hurt to downgrade. For example, I'd very much like to use Touche Eclat and unless it runs out ridiculously quickly I could totally come up with $30-40 every time I need a new tube of concealer. But I feel like I shouldn't, so I'm making do with discontinued Skinlights purchased on ebay. I'd like to upgrade my hairdressing (I just recently upgraded from no hairdressing to hairdressing, and I like the results and want to go further) and the money is there, but if I lost my job having spent that much on my hair would be inexcusable. I'd love to get my bras at Secrets From Your Sister, but if they're as good as they say they are I won't be able to go back to ill-fitting $12 numbers from La Senza, and then if my bra explodes while I'm unemployed I'm screwed. With the exception of real estate, everything I covet is an operational expenditure that I probably could afford. And, with the exception of real estate, everything I covet is girly stuff.
My non-spending could be fully addressed with job security. If I were certain I was never going to lose my job, I would totally buy all those things. I would be buying $30 make-up and bras with prices in the three-digit range and the best hair stuff money can buy for the rest of my life.
But when I think about the men around me, the stuff they covet is different. They seem to covet more one-time purchases that they aren't purchasing because the money simply isn't there. A big-screen TV with surround sound. A car. A trip. A new computer. Their non-spending could be addressed by putting more money in their pocket. If the money was suddenly there for a big-screen TV, they'd get one. So, following Carol Goar's logic that women are underrepresented on economic decision-making, perhaps this is why some of our politicos seem to be under the impression that a tax cut would be an effective economic stimulus?
Now I have no way of knowing if I'm typical of women or if the men in my life are typical of men. But looking at all of this, I'm thinking perhaps someone should study the coveting habits of different economic groups to try to figure out what it would take to get different people spending.
Kiva has gone crazy!
There's a notice on Kiva saying they've gotten so much press lately that there are more donors than loans, and they're not kidding! I've tried to donate to three different loans, and every time they ended up fully funded in the time it took me to google the field partner (Q: Why? A: To confirm that they're secular).
The third loan I looked at was at $0 when I first logged in. I looked at two other loans first, and by the time I got to the third loan it was fully funded up to $1000. A thousand dollars of funding in just a few minutes!
This is fantastic for Kiva and all the loan recipients, but it's starting to annoy me.
The third loan I looked at was at $0 when I first logged in. I looked at two other loans first, and by the time I got to the third loan it was fully funded up to $1000. A thousand dollars of funding in just a few minutes!
This is fantastic for Kiva and all the loan recipients, but it's starting to annoy me.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
What's up with sock sizes?
When you buy women's socks, the label says "Sizes 6-10". What's the point of that? First of all, that's ALL the standard women's shoe sizes. Secondly, it's not like there are other sizes on the shelf next to it. It's not like I can look at the size label, say "Oh, I'm a size 11" and go up to the next size. That's the only size they ever come in anyway. Why bother to label them if you aren't going to have different sizes?
(And in case you're wondering, 6-10 usually fits me anyway - I've only had two pairs of socks in my life where 6-10 was too small - and I can wear men's socks too which is fine since I usually wear just plain black.
(And in case you're wondering, 6-10 usually fits me anyway - I've only had two pairs of socks in my life where 6-10 was too small - and I can wear men's socks too which is fine since I usually wear just plain black.
How NOT to explain the meaning of a phrase
If a person says "I don't understand what they mean by [phrase]" or "What does [phrase] even mean?", replying with the dictionary definition of every word in the phrase is not helpful. (Especially when you include every meaning in the dictionary definitions, not just the one that applies to the phrase in question!)
Apart from the fact that if it were a matter of dictionary definitions they would just google it, if they are missing the meaning of the word they would say "What does [word] mean?" If I said "The Governor General prorogued Parliament" and you didn't know what prorogue meant, you wouldn't say "What does prorogue Parliament mean?", you would say "What does prorogue mean?" If, in some bizarro universe, you knew what the word prorogue means in general terms and you knew what the word Parliament means but you don't know what proroguing Parliament is, THEN you would say "What does prorogue Parliament mean?" You'd want to know the specific implications for Parliament, not the general dictionary definition.
Or, to use a simpler example, if you didn't understand what was meant "Coalition if necessary but not necessarily coalition," looking up all those words wouldn't help. The information you're probably missing here is that it means the Opposition doesn't intend to automatically make the Government fall, but they are prepared to do so if the Government is inadequate - basically using the threat of a coalition to keep the Government in line. That information isn't found in the dictionary definitions; if you don't get it, it's really a political strategy question.
So yeah, posting a definition of every word in a phrase doesn't help people understand the phrase. And worst case, it can make you look like a dickhead. Don't do it.
Apart from the fact that if it were a matter of dictionary definitions they would just google it, if they are missing the meaning of the word they would say "What does [word] mean?" If I said "The Governor General prorogued Parliament" and you didn't know what prorogue meant, you wouldn't say "What does prorogue Parliament mean?", you would say "What does prorogue mean?" If, in some bizarro universe, you knew what the word prorogue means in general terms and you knew what the word Parliament means but you don't know what proroguing Parliament is, THEN you would say "What does prorogue Parliament mean?" You'd want to know the specific implications for Parliament, not the general dictionary definition.
Or, to use a simpler example, if you didn't understand what was meant "Coalition if necessary but not necessarily coalition," looking up all those words wouldn't help. The information you're probably missing here is that it means the Opposition doesn't intend to automatically make the Government fall, but they are prepared to do so if the Government is inadequate - basically using the threat of a coalition to keep the Government in line. That information isn't found in the dictionary definitions; if you don't get it, it's really a political strategy question.
So yeah, posting a definition of every word in a phrase doesn't help people understand the phrase. And worst case, it can make you look like a dickhead. Don't do it.
Let the pilot be a hero!
What's up with the comments section people who don't want the pilot of that plane that landed in the water in NYC to be called a hero? His airplane lost both engines while flying over New York City, and not only did everyone on board survive (and I think only one person had a serious injury), but no one on the ground was even put at risk! He saved hundreds (maybe even thousands, depending on the surrounding population density) of lives in one of the most terrifying situations we can imagine ourselves in. Even if that's exactly what he's trained to do and any pilot could do it, objectively speaking that's a huge fucking deal! Let him be a hero! It isn't a zero-sum game. It won't take away someone else's hero designation. It won't make your penis fall off. Let him have some glory and prizes and laurels and maybe a paid week off if they can swing it.
Ask every hero in the world. I don't think any of them would begrudge him the hero designation.
Ask every hero in the world. I don't think any of them would begrudge him the hero designation.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Hoshi Sato demonstrates translator brain
I love this scene. It perfectly captures how the perfectionism that is necessary to our profession can paralyze us.
Can we have headbands come back in style please?
Today I accidentally discovered that my hair looks fantastic in a headband. It looks copious and flowing and I don't look like a trekkie or a polygamist. Unfortunately, the look isn't actively flattering to my face and it isn't in style. Since my haircut isn't fashionable, any hairstyle I do has to have two of the following: my hair looks good objectively, the hairstyle is actively flattering to my face, or the look is in style.
So can we have a headband trend please? I've already suffered enough with leggings and low boots and empire waists and all this other stuff I can't' wear.
Barring that, could we have chunky heels back in style please?
So can we have a headband trend please? I've already suffered enough with leggings and low boots and empire waists and all this other stuff I can't' wear.
Barring that, could we have chunky heels back in style please?
Things They Should UNinvent: slideshow-style top 10 lists
A lot of websites, especially magazine-type websites, present typical list-style articles (Top 10 Trendiest Cheeses! Eight Ways to Redecorate for Under $2!) as slideshows. You click on the link, it opens in a new window, you see a photo and blurb of the first item on the list, then you have to click the "Next" link (or wait for the slideshow to play automatically) to see what's next. For every item in the list, you have to click a link and wait for the page to load.
This is inconvenient! When I'm looking at a list-style article, I'm either looking to see what's on the list, or I'm skimming the list items to see if it's worth reading the whole article. The slideshow set-up makes it impossible to do this, which frustrates me and makes me less likely to read the article. The worst offender I saw was a top 100 list, with one item per slide. I forget which list exactly it was, precisely because the slideshow structure made it not worth my while to read.
If it is absolutely necessary to present your list as a slideshow, also include the list itself in text form (wwithout the blurbs or photos) so we can skim it briefly and see if the article is worth all the clicking.
This is inconvenient! When I'm looking at a list-style article, I'm either looking to see what's on the list, or I'm skimming the list items to see if it's worth reading the whole article. The slideshow set-up makes it impossible to do this, which frustrates me and makes me less likely to read the article. The worst offender I saw was a top 100 list, with one item per slide. I forget which list exactly it was, precisely because the slideshow structure made it not worth my while to read.
If it is absolutely necessary to present your list as a slideshow, also include the list itself in text form (wwithout the blurbs or photos) so we can skim it briefly and see if the article is worth all the clicking.
Friday, January 16, 2009
I am soooo old...
Iris - Goo Goo Dolls
When I was in high school this was the deepest, most meaningful song ever. It had the remarkable ability to perfectly reflect and magnify whatever emotion I was feeling at the time, and served as the perfect soundtrack to my life.
Today I heard it as Muzak.
There's a fucking H in it!
Is the H in "historic" properly pronounced in any dialect? I pronounce it on principle (a practice that predates Eddie Izzard, by the way), but I've heard people say "an historic" in Canadian, US, and UK English.
Okay, you can start calling them anti-choice again
They seem to insist
Edited to add: Language Log has some interesting (and new to me) information about historical/political context.
Edited to add: Language Log has some interesting (and new to me) information about historical/political context.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Two awesome things, one thing they should invent
1. Smurfs! There an international Smurfs translation index, plus Wikipedia has a list of how to say Smurf in any language you might ever need to say it in.
2. You know the expression "It's all Greek to me"? Have you ever wondered how they express the equivalent concept in Greek? Language Log has graphed how this plays out in different languages.
3. Things They Should Invent: a glossary of all the international translations of cromulent and embiggen.
2. You know the expression "It's all Greek to me"? Have you ever wondered how they express the equivalent concept in Greek? Language Log has graphed how this plays out in different languages.
3. Things They Should Invent: a glossary of all the international translations of cromulent and embiggen.
Things They Should Invent: rep-counting device
When you're exercising and you're really trying to push your number of reps to the limit, counting can actually be a hinderance. The numbers are going by SO slowly and your target is SO far away you're NEVER going to make it.
We need a device to count reps for us. Program in the target and just go. Then we can focus our brains on listening to music or watching TV or chatting (if you're the kind of person to work out with other people) and the device will beep when we're done.
It could be wearable, like a pedometer but probably with a different kind of gyroscope (assuming the thingy I'm talking about is in fact called a gyroscope). Maybe it could also be trainable for different exercises. There's a "program" mode where you do one rep or three reps to teach it what comprises a "rep" for this particular exercise, then it could be used for bicep curls or sit-ups or anything.
We need a device to count reps for us. Program in the target and just go. Then we can focus our brains on listening to music or watching TV or chatting (if you're the kind of person to work out with other people) and the device will beep when we're done.
It could be wearable, like a pedometer but probably with a different kind of gyroscope (assuming the thingy I'm talking about is in fact called a gyroscope). Maybe it could also be trainable for different exercises. There's a "program" mode where you do one rep or three reps to teach it what comprises a "rep" for this particular exercise, then it could be used for bicep curls or sit-ups or anything.
Things that bug me about random movies that I saw ages ago
1. In the recent Phantom of the Opera movie, Minnie Driver plays Carlotta, but since she can't sing opera a professional opera singer dubs the singing parts. It makes sense if you think about it from the perspective of casting an actress - the actress can't sing opera so we'll have someone else do it. However, being an opera singer also involves a certain amount of acting, and I find it difficult to believe that there are no professional opera singers who could play an over-the-top diva. Sopranos everywhere must be pissed!
2. In Juno, Juno could just take the van and drive off to the adoptive parents' house on a whim, even though it's established that it's like an hour away. The first time she gets a "Where have you been?" from her step-mother, but there are no consequences and she does it again a couple of times. I'll grant the character a bit more freedom than is realistic because this is a movie about teen pregnancy, but in no world can you just take the family's main vehicle for several hours without telling anyone! Even if her parents don't feel the need to closely supervise her, it's a matter of basic household logistics. People need to know when the car is coming back. If she isn't even going to be subject to this constraint, why bother to make the character a teenager?
Also, Bleeker can just stop running in the middle of track practice to talk to Juno? Since when is that allowed?
2. In Juno, Juno could just take the van and drive off to the adoptive parents' house on a whim, even though it's established that it's like an hour away. The first time she gets a "Where have you been?" from her step-mother, but there are no consequences and she does it again a couple of times. I'll grant the character a bit more freedom than is realistic because this is a movie about teen pregnancy, but in no world can you just take the family's main vehicle for several hours without telling anyone! Even if her parents don't feel the need to closely supervise her, it's a matter of basic household logistics. People need to know when the car is coming back. If she isn't even going to be subject to this constraint, why bother to make the character a teenager?
Also, Bleeker can just stop running in the middle of track practice to talk to Juno? Since when is that allowed?
My campaign promise
Dear Canadian politicians everywhere:
I have decided to walk the talk.
If you can create a situation where my employer is able to promise me that my job is safe, I will spend an extra $1000 in the next year. That's right, $1000 above and beyond what I would normally spend, and above and beyond my New Year's resolution. I will actively seek out things I would never have thought to buy otherwise.
What's more, I will spend all this money on Canadian-made, environmentally-friendly, ethical products, either that I can make good use of, or that the person I give them to as a gift can make good use of. If these products end up replacing any perfectly good items in my home, I will make sure the superceded items are donated to someone who can make good use of them. Nothing will end up in the landfill, nothing will go to waste. And, just to make everyone happy, I will buy them without using plastic bags (even though we all know that doesn't actually change my footprint).
You give me what I need from you to get through this crisis, I'll give you what you need from me to get through this crisis.
I have decided to walk the talk.
If you can create a situation where my employer is able to promise me that my job is safe, I will spend an extra $1000 in the next year. That's right, $1000 above and beyond what I would normally spend, and above and beyond my New Year's resolution. I will actively seek out things I would never have thought to buy otherwise.
What's more, I will spend all this money on Canadian-made, environmentally-friendly, ethical products, either that I can make good use of, or that the person I give them to as a gift can make good use of. If these products end up replacing any perfectly good items in my home, I will make sure the superceded items are donated to someone who can make good use of them. Nothing will end up in the landfill, nothing will go to waste. And, just to make everyone happy, I will buy them without using plastic bags (even though we all know that doesn't actually change my footprint).
You give me what I need from you to get through this crisis, I'll give you what you need from me to get through this crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)