Some of my co-workers and I have recently been dealing with an external individual who is less helpful and cooperative than we would like. My own personal interactions with this individual have been notably less unpleasant than those of my colleagues.
This seemed very odd to me. Normally, in life in general, if anyone is going to get an unpleasant response, it's going to be me. I'm not particularly charming or persuasive or authoritative or otherwise able convince people to do what I want them to. All the other people involved here have both better people skills and more authority than I do. And yet somehow I elicited the least unpleasant reaction, the reaction that was nearest to being cooperative.
So I was thinking about why this could be, and one theory that crossed my mind is that the individual in question might be racist. Of all the people involved, I am the only one with a name that sounds English.
Understand, I have no way of knowing if it actually is racism. There are a number of plausible explanations, I have no other hints of racism, and it would be a stupid way for this individual to be racist anyway. But that is an idea that occurred to me, so I started logicking the idea to its natural conclusion.
Let's suppose, for the purpose of this blog post, that this individual is in fact racist and is responding better to me for that reason. A pattern would develop, and people would start to notice that I can consistently get the best response from this individual. And suppose some other racist externals turned up, and also responded better to me for purely racist reasons. This would lead people to believe that I'm good at handling difficult externals. Co-workers might pass difficult externals off to me because I get better results. Racist externals might prefer to and in fact seek out to deal with me. And then if a promotion comes up for a position that involves dealing with externals, I'd end up being the natural choice. Not because I'm objectively better than my co-workers, but because of factors beyond anyone's control.
I wonder to what extent problems like this hinder people's career paths. Even if your employer is completely fair and equitable, if some of your customers or vendors or suppliers are biased against you, you're going to have a harder time doing your job well.
Someone should study this.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Things They Should Invent: poisonous window screens
Window screens are meant to keep bugs out, which is a good thing. But sometimes bugs just walk around on the screen, which is yucky and a bit scary because it seems like they might at any time figure out how to make their way through the holes in the screen.
Solution: make window screens poisonous to bugs. They touch them, they die. That will keep them out!
(Of course, non-poisonous ones would still need to be available for households where small children or pets might decide to lick a screen.)
Solution: make window screens poisonous to bugs. They touch them, they die. That will keep them out!
(Of course, non-poisonous ones would still need to be available for households where small children or pets might decide to lick a screen.)
YouTube language settings problem
In an attempt to achieve more language-neutral browser behaviour, I added multiple languages to my browser's language settings.
Problem: YouTube consistently and automatically sets its interface to the third language in my list. I've experimented, I've shifted things around in the list, it's always the third language. The first two are English and French, which YouTube does speak, but it skips right to the third.
Weird, eh?
Problem: YouTube consistently and automatically sets its interface to the third language in my list. I've experimented, I've shifted things around in the list, it's always the third language. The first two are English and French, which YouTube does speak, but it skips right to the third.
Weird, eh?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Why students should be encouraged to use Wikipedia
A lot of people tell students they shouldn't use Wikipedia when researching stuff for school.
I think they're missing out on a golden opportunity to teach critical thinking.
Wikipedia is hugely helpful. Even in my professional life, I find it's quite frequently the best resource for quickly and easily getting a general overview of a topic. However, it is of varying quality and is sometimes edited by people who have agendas.
Students should be taught how to how to identify good information vs. questionable information vs. propoganda in Wikipedia. They could, for example, take an article on a topic that interests them and analyze its quality. Go to the sources to see if they check out, do linguistic analysis for biais and spin, look at the discussion page and history and see if there are any edit wars going on and describe how that affects the current state of the article.
It's a live, real, and immediately applicable tool for not only teaching critical thinking, but showing students its importance.
Then, once they've learned all that, they shouldn't be discouraged from using it for research; they should be expected to understand that it isn't the alpha and the omega, and marked accordingly.
I think they're missing out on a golden opportunity to teach critical thinking.
Wikipedia is hugely helpful. Even in my professional life, I find it's quite frequently the best resource for quickly and easily getting a general overview of a topic. However, it is of varying quality and is sometimes edited by people who have agendas.
Students should be taught how to how to identify good information vs. questionable information vs. propoganda in Wikipedia. They could, for example, take an article on a topic that interests them and analyze its quality. Go to the sources to see if they check out, do linguistic analysis for biais and spin, look at the discussion page and history and see if there are any edit wars going on and describe how that affects the current state of the article.
It's a live, real, and immediately applicable tool for not only teaching critical thinking, but showing students its importance.
Then, once they've learned all that, they shouldn't be discouraged from using it for research; they should be expected to understand that it isn't the alpha and the omega, and marked accordingly.
Does oil decompose?
As we all remember from elementary school science class, crude oil is made of decomposed dinosaurs.
Question: if we left it in the ground, would it decompose further?
If it will decompose further, why doesn't plastic decompose? Plastic is made from oil.
If it won't decompose further, does that mean that other organic matter (mulch, compost, dead bodies in cemetaries) won't fully decompose either?
Question: if we left it in the ground, would it decompose further?
If it will decompose further, why doesn't plastic decompose? Plastic is made from oil.
If it won't decompose further, does that mean that other organic matter (mulch, compost, dead bodies in cemetaries) won't fully decompose either?
Things They Should Study: six degrees of separation strategy
The original six degrees of separation study was within the United States - the source people were in Kansas or somewhere conceptually similar, and the target person was in Boston or somewhere conceptually similar. This got me thinking that it would be interesting to do an international study involving people in completely different parts of the world. For example, I might be asked to get a letter to someone in Turkmenistan.
So then I got thinking about how I could get a letter to someone in Turkmenistan, and I came up with three separate strategies. The first would be to get it as close to Turkmenistan as possible. I would do this by sending it to Poland. However, people's connections tend not to be geographical beyond the very local level. (For example, I don't know anyone who lives in Barrie, so getting a letter to Barrie would be just as much of a crapshoot as getting it to Turkmenistan.)
The second strategy would be to try professional channels. If my target is a classical musician, I send it to someone I know who's a classical musician. However, your professional network doesn't necessarily reach your whole profession. (I couldn't reach a translator in Turkmenistan any more easily than I could reach a classical musician in Turkmenistan).
The third strategy would be to cast as wide a net as possible by sending it to the person I know who knows the most people. This seems like a better idea, but I'm still basically throwing darts blindfolded.
So thinking about all this, I think it would be interesting to do a study to see which strategy is most effective. All the source people would get three letters to send to one target person. They'd be instructed to send the first letter as close as geographically possible to the target (with all subsequent recipients instructed to do the same), the second as close as professionally possible (with all subsequent recipients instructed to do the same), and the third to the one person they know who knows the most people (with all subsequent recipients instructed to do the same until they can see in their network a direct path to the target.) I'm sure the results would be fascinating.
So then I got thinking about how I could get a letter to someone in Turkmenistan, and I came up with three separate strategies. The first would be to get it as close to Turkmenistan as possible. I would do this by sending it to Poland. However, people's connections tend not to be geographical beyond the very local level. (For example, I don't know anyone who lives in Barrie, so getting a letter to Barrie would be just as much of a crapshoot as getting it to Turkmenistan.)
The second strategy would be to try professional channels. If my target is a classical musician, I send it to someone I know who's a classical musician. However, your professional network doesn't necessarily reach your whole profession. (I couldn't reach a translator in Turkmenistan any more easily than I could reach a classical musician in Turkmenistan).
The third strategy would be to cast as wide a net as possible by sending it to the person I know who knows the most people. This seems like a better idea, but I'm still basically throwing darts blindfolded.
So thinking about all this, I think it would be interesting to do a study to see which strategy is most effective. All the source people would get three letters to send to one target person. They'd be instructed to send the first letter as close as geographically possible to the target (with all subsequent recipients instructed to do the same), the second as close as professionally possible (with all subsequent recipients instructed to do the same), and the third to the one person they know who knows the most people (with all subsequent recipients instructed to do the same until they can see in their network a direct path to the target.) I'm sure the results would be fascinating.
How to promote safer teen sexual behaviour: put the clitoris on the map
The sex ed I received in school was thorough and very informative, but it was focused entirely on preventing pregnancy and STD transmission, with no information about sexual pleasure. As a result, I didn't come away with any knowledge of specific sex acts, and I didn't learn about the clitoris there.
My parents had the good judgement to give me a book about "your changing body" that included slightly more sex ed information, including the location and function of the clitoris. It was quite the revelation, but I'm not sure if it was common knowledge among my peers. I remember in Grade 12 a classmate did her World Issues presentation on female genital mutilation, and she did think it was necessary to briefly mention in passing what the clitoris actually is. She most likely had a larger sample size than I did from which to determine how fluent in the geography of the vulva our classmates would be, so it is likely that a significant number of people did not know about the clitoris. Obviously everyone learns about it eventually, but it seems that a significant number of people spent several years of their sexually-aware life without knowing about the clitoris, and this was at the same age where the general social goal is to reduce risky sexual behaviour.
The sex ed I received, both at school and at home, was very reproduction-focused. It started with where babies come from, and moved on into birth control and STDs in a broader context of how to manage your changing body. That did make sense - my 10-year-old self who still thought boys were yucky didn't need to know much more than if a penis goes in your vagina you might get pregnant. However, because of this necessary focus on penises going into vaginas, and the tacit and societal implication that sex is like the ultimate in pleasure, we came away with the idea that penile-vaginal intercourse is the ultimate in pleasure. (I know this is all very heterocentric, but that's how my sex ed was. And because I'm extrapolating from my childhood sex ed, this blog post as a whole is probably going to come out heterocentric.)
However, as we all know, you can have a lot of fun stimulating the clitoris and for many women it is more pleasurable than vaginal penetration. And we also know that penetrative sex acts are higher risk than non-penetrative sex acts. So if sex ed gives people the idea that the ultimate in pleasure is a non-penetrative act, they will be more likely to go for that non-penetrative act instead of higher-risk penetrative acts.
So here's how to do it: include the clitoris on the diagram. In my sex ed, we had to memorize diagrams of the male and female reproductive organs and learn the function of each part. Simply include the clitoris on the female diagram, say that its purpose is to provide physical pleasure, and leave it at that. Yes, it's not immediately related to reproduction, but neither are the prostate or the vas deferens or the labia majora or the fallopian tubes, and we had to learn all those. No need to go into great detail, just mention it in passing like you do the vas deferens, along with the idea that it's the place to go for sexual pleasure, all before most of the kids have started experimenting sexually.
Then when they do start experimenting sexually, they're going to want to spend some time on the clitoris. Not all time is going to be spent on the clitoris, obviously, because the boys are still going to want the odd orgasm, but girls who are after orgasms and the boys who want to be sex gods (as opposed to the boys who just want to stick their penis in something) are going to go stampeding towards the clitoris. And as teens tend to have more limited time and opportunity to spend on sex, the more time that is spent on the clitoris means less time will be spent on penetration.
There is a school of thought whereby penile-vaginal penetration is not to be engaged in before marriage but other sex acts are acceptable, and this overlaps a school of thought wherein people are not to be taught how to protect themselves from STDs. Mentioning the clitoris here would be particularly beneficial, because unprotected cunnilingus and frottage and manual stimulation are much lower-risk activities and are certainly safer than unprotected saddlebacking.
Simple knowledge of the existence and function of the clitoris will get a large portion of teens interested in engaging in low-risk sexual behaviours when they do have the inclination and opportunity for sexual activity. There's no need to change sex ed, no need to talk about technique, no need to change whatever values are conveyed. Just make sure that this one part of the human anatomy is included and labelled on every anatomical diagram, just like the vas deferens, and nature will take its course.
My parents had the good judgement to give me a book about "your changing body" that included slightly more sex ed information, including the location and function of the clitoris. It was quite the revelation, but I'm not sure if it was common knowledge among my peers. I remember in Grade 12 a classmate did her World Issues presentation on female genital mutilation, and she did think it was necessary to briefly mention in passing what the clitoris actually is. She most likely had a larger sample size than I did from which to determine how fluent in the geography of the vulva our classmates would be, so it is likely that a significant number of people did not know about the clitoris. Obviously everyone learns about it eventually, but it seems that a significant number of people spent several years of their sexually-aware life without knowing about the clitoris, and this was at the same age where the general social goal is to reduce risky sexual behaviour.
The sex ed I received, both at school and at home, was very reproduction-focused. It started with where babies come from, and moved on into birth control and STDs in a broader context of how to manage your changing body. That did make sense - my 10-year-old self who still thought boys were yucky didn't need to know much more than if a penis goes in your vagina you might get pregnant. However, because of this necessary focus on penises going into vaginas, and the tacit and societal implication that sex is like the ultimate in pleasure, we came away with the idea that penile-vaginal intercourse is the ultimate in pleasure. (I know this is all very heterocentric, but that's how my sex ed was. And because I'm extrapolating from my childhood sex ed, this blog post as a whole is probably going to come out heterocentric.)
However, as we all know, you can have a lot of fun stimulating the clitoris and for many women it is more pleasurable than vaginal penetration. And we also know that penetrative sex acts are higher risk than non-penetrative sex acts. So if sex ed gives people the idea that the ultimate in pleasure is a non-penetrative act, they will be more likely to go for that non-penetrative act instead of higher-risk penetrative acts.
So here's how to do it: include the clitoris on the diagram. In my sex ed, we had to memorize diagrams of the male and female reproductive organs and learn the function of each part. Simply include the clitoris on the female diagram, say that its purpose is to provide physical pleasure, and leave it at that. Yes, it's not immediately related to reproduction, but neither are the prostate or the vas deferens or the labia majora or the fallopian tubes, and we had to learn all those. No need to go into great detail, just mention it in passing like you do the vas deferens, along with the idea that it's the place to go for sexual pleasure, all before most of the kids have started experimenting sexually.
Then when they do start experimenting sexually, they're going to want to spend some time on the clitoris. Not all time is going to be spent on the clitoris, obviously, because the boys are still going to want the odd orgasm, but girls who are after orgasms and the boys who want to be sex gods (as opposed to the boys who just want to stick their penis in something) are going to go stampeding towards the clitoris. And as teens tend to have more limited time and opportunity to spend on sex, the more time that is spent on the clitoris means less time will be spent on penetration.
There is a school of thought whereby penile-vaginal penetration is not to be engaged in before marriage but other sex acts are acceptable, and this overlaps a school of thought wherein people are not to be taught how to protect themselves from STDs. Mentioning the clitoris here would be particularly beneficial, because unprotected cunnilingus and frottage and manual stimulation are much lower-risk activities and are certainly safer than unprotected saddlebacking.
Simple knowledge of the existence and function of the clitoris will get a large portion of teens interested in engaging in low-risk sexual behaviours when they do have the inclination and opportunity for sexual activity. There's no need to change sex ed, no need to talk about technique, no need to change whatever values are conveyed. Just make sure that this one part of the human anatomy is included and labelled on every anatomical diagram, just like the vas deferens, and nature will take its course.
Things They Should Invent: language-neutral browser settings
A Google search led me to a French-language government page, and a dialogue box popped up helpfully noting that my browser settings had English selected as primary language and asking if I'd like to go to the English version of the page.
I can totally see how that would be helpful for normal people, but I was looking specifically for terminology that could be found on the French-language page.
I have the same problem with Google. It localizes its results to the user's interface language, with the assumption that if you're using Google in English you'd probably prefer English-language results.
Again, extremely helpful for normals, but hinders my terminological research. Every time I want to verify whether a term is idiomatic in a given language as opposed to being a calque from another language, I have to change my Google interface to the language in question.
Solution: a language-neutral browser setting. In the bit where you set your language preferences, there's a "Neutral" choice. Web sites read this and make no effort to accomodate your language preferences, instead letting you read whatever language you've landed on. Google reads this and delivers language-blind results.
The vast majority of people in the world could ignore this and go about their lives normally. But the few of us who need it could make use of it, and the result would be better quality translations, terminology, and linguistic research for everyone. It would also slow the anglicization of other languages because it would neutralize the annoying habit of US English being considered a default and enable us to land upon phraseology that is more idiomatic in other languages.
I can totally see how that would be helpful for normal people, but I was looking specifically for terminology that could be found on the French-language page.
I have the same problem with Google. It localizes its results to the user's interface language, with the assumption that if you're using Google in English you'd probably prefer English-language results.
Again, extremely helpful for normals, but hinders my terminological research. Every time I want to verify whether a term is idiomatic in a given language as opposed to being a calque from another language, I have to change my Google interface to the language in question.
Solution: a language-neutral browser setting. In the bit where you set your language preferences, there's a "Neutral" choice. Web sites read this and make no effort to accomodate your language preferences, instead letting you read whatever language you've landed on. Google reads this and delivers language-blind results.
The vast majority of people in the world could ignore this and go about their lives normally. But the few of us who need it could make use of it, and the result would be better quality translations, terminology, and linguistic research for everyone. It would also slow the anglicization of other languages because it would neutralize the annoying habit of US English being considered a default and enable us to land upon phraseology that is more idiomatic in other languages.
Things They Should Invent: computer snacks
Lots of people eat at the computer. However, the problem with eating at the computer is that if you're eating finger food, your keyboard and mouse get dirty.
Someone should come up with a way to package finger foods (chips, popcorn, carrot sticks, etc.) so that you can eat them without touching them - either through clever packaging or by providing a utensil.
Someone should come up with a way to package finger foods (chips, popcorn, carrot sticks, etc.) so that you can eat them without touching them - either through clever packaging or by providing a utensil.
What kind of jobs require a high school diploma?
Conventional wisdom is that you'll have better job opportunities if you finish high school than if you drop out.
What kinds of jobs require a high school diploma? Because of the way my job history turned out, I've never had or applied for a job that was specifically looking for a high school diploma. What kinds of skills that you learn in high school are they looking for?
What kinds of jobs require a high school diploma? Because of the way my job history turned out, I've never had or applied for a job that was specifically looking for a high school diploma. What kinds of skills that you learn in high school are they looking for?
Things They Should Invent: opposite of decimate
The literal meaning of decimate is to kill 1/10 of the population, but it has taken on a figurative meaning of massive epic death. (My theory is that it has taken on this figurative meaning because it's a really scary sounding word, based on pure aural aesthetics).
We need another word - equally scary sounding - to handle the figurative meaning of decimate by having a literal meaning that's the exact opposite: to kill 9/10 of the population and leave only 1/10 alive.
Suggestions welcome.
We need another word - equally scary sounding - to handle the figurative meaning of decimate by having a literal meaning that's the exact opposite: to kill 9/10 of the population and leave only 1/10 alive.
Suggestions welcome.
Friday, May 22, 2009
More information on inter-dog interaction please
Reading Antonia Z talk about dog park drama reminds me of a problem I've been having in my dog research.
I don't know much about inter-dog interaction, and I'm not finding much information about it.
Most of the information I am finding has to do with integrating a new dog into the household. That's not what I'm looking to do. I'm looking for what I need to know when I'm walking a dog and he meets another dog. Should I make my guy sit? Should I let them just walk up and sniff each other? Should I get the other dog's human's permission first? How much slack do I give my guy on the leash? What behaviour is normal? What behaviour requires human intervention? How is this different on-leash vs. off-leash vs. if one dog is leashed and the other isn't? (I've heard there are differences, I don't know what they are.) How do I protect my dog if the other dog gets nasty? How can I tell when he's getting nasty vs. just playing vs. attempting to mate? (Should I let them mate if they want to? It seems rude to stop them, but it seems like other humans would frown on me if I didn't intervene. And it seems vaguely inappropriate to ask the other dog's human's permission on behalf of my own dog.)
Ms. Z's article mentioned that puppies upset the balance in a pack. How? What should I do with this information if I have a puppy? What should I do with this information if I have an adult dog? What if my dog is little and there are big dogs around? What if my dog is big and there are little dogs around?
The information I have found googling dog park etiquette is either not about behaviour (e.g. make sure your dog is immunized and comes when you call him) or seems to assume that you can already read dog behaviour and know where the boundaries are. I don't know where the boundaries are and I'm not confident in my ability to read dog behaviour.
I've looked for this information and have not found it. If I had lower standards, I would totally assume it's all completely obvious when you see it happen and no further research and education are required. And if I had lower standards, I could totally walk over to the pet store and buy a puppy, who would then proceed to encounter another dog, and I'd be there with no idea what to do or expect.
This information needs to not only be available but obvious. It needs to fall into people's laps like the basics of crate training and sit-stay do, like the importance of spaying and neutering. I will get a shelter or rescue dog, and because of that I'll be able to ask his foster humans for tips on how he, personally, interacts with other dogs. But people who would buy from a pet store are also the people who are less likely to do as extensive research. So if information about inter-dog interaction is not made easy to stumble upon, these people with their store-bought puppies are going to be disturbing your dog park.
I don't know much about inter-dog interaction, and I'm not finding much information about it.
Most of the information I am finding has to do with integrating a new dog into the household. That's not what I'm looking to do. I'm looking for what I need to know when I'm walking a dog and he meets another dog. Should I make my guy sit? Should I let them just walk up and sniff each other? Should I get the other dog's human's permission first? How much slack do I give my guy on the leash? What behaviour is normal? What behaviour requires human intervention? How is this different on-leash vs. off-leash vs. if one dog is leashed and the other isn't? (I've heard there are differences, I don't know what they are.) How do I protect my dog if the other dog gets nasty? How can I tell when he's getting nasty vs. just playing vs. attempting to mate? (Should I let them mate if they want to? It seems rude to stop them, but it seems like other humans would frown on me if I didn't intervene. And it seems vaguely inappropriate to ask the other dog's human's permission on behalf of my own dog.)
Ms. Z's article mentioned that puppies upset the balance in a pack. How? What should I do with this information if I have a puppy? What should I do with this information if I have an adult dog? What if my dog is little and there are big dogs around? What if my dog is big and there are little dogs around?
The information I have found googling dog park etiquette is either not about behaviour (e.g. make sure your dog is immunized and comes when you call him) or seems to assume that you can already read dog behaviour and know where the boundaries are. I don't know where the boundaries are and I'm not confident in my ability to read dog behaviour.
I've looked for this information and have not found it. If I had lower standards, I would totally assume it's all completely obvious when you see it happen and no further research and education are required. And if I had lower standards, I could totally walk over to the pet store and buy a puppy, who would then proceed to encounter another dog, and I'd be there with no idea what to do or expect.
This information needs to not only be available but obvious. It needs to fall into people's laps like the basics of crate training and sit-stay do, like the importance of spaying and neutering. I will get a shelter or rescue dog, and because of that I'll be able to ask his foster humans for tips on how he, personally, interacts with other dogs. But people who would buy from a pet store are also the people who are less likely to do as extensive research. So if information about inter-dog interaction is not made easy to stumble upon, these people with their store-bought puppies are going to be disturbing your dog park.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Why do employers even allow employees to negotiate their salaries?
Conventional wisdom is that generally you should negotiate your salary when you're hired.
Why do employers allow this? I can't imagine how you would budget if you aren' certain what your employees' salaries are going to be.
Why do employers allow this? I can't imagine how you would budget if you aren' certain what your employees' salaries are going to be.
Homophobia is going to die out
This train of thought is inspired by, but ultimately unrelated to, watching Ellen Degeneres give a commencement speech.
Ellen Degeneres came out in 1997, when I was 16. Will and Grace first aired in 1998, when I was 17. Both were crucial to opening my mind. It was huge to see that these people are queer and...they were there, they were people, not much happened. Before this, I had never heard homosexuality spoken of as anything but A Problem, but suddenly it was just quietly there.
I graduated from university in 2003. It is now 2009. The people who are graduating from university this year were 10 when Ellen came out and 11 when Will and Grace first aired. They may or may not have been old enough to be aware of queerness before these TV shows.
The people who are graduating from high school this year were 6 when Ellen came out and 7 when Will and Grace first aired. They weren't even old enough to grok the concept of sexuality, never mind homosexuality. No mental shift necessary. Their homophobic parents must look like Archie Bunker to them.
Ten years from now, my generation of people who were still young enough to have experienced this cultural shift in adolescence will be pushing a respectable 40. The majority of all adults will have spent their entire adult life with queerness as no big deal, and Will and Grace will look like a minstrel show.
We're going to get there.
Ellen Degeneres came out in 1997, when I was 16. Will and Grace first aired in 1998, when I was 17. Both were crucial to opening my mind. It was huge to see that these people are queer and...they were there, they were people, not much happened. Before this, I had never heard homosexuality spoken of as anything but A Problem, but suddenly it was just quietly there.
I graduated from university in 2003. It is now 2009. The people who are graduating from university this year were 10 when Ellen came out and 11 when Will and Grace first aired. They may or may not have been old enough to be aware of queerness before these TV shows.
The people who are graduating from high school this year were 6 when Ellen came out and 7 when Will and Grace first aired. They weren't even old enough to grok the concept of sexuality, never mind homosexuality. No mental shift necessary. Their homophobic parents must look like Archie Bunker to them.
Ten years from now, my generation of people who were still young enough to have experienced this cultural shift in adolescence will be pushing a respectable 40. The majority of all adults will have spent their entire adult life with queerness as no big deal, and Will and Grace will look like a minstrel show.
We're going to get there.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Things They Should Study: how incompetent can you be and still successfully run a business?
This train of thought started with Bill Hendrickson on Big Love. He's an idiot, but he owns his own successful business.
Then I started thinking about real life, and it occurs to me that I've encountered more than one person who is an idiot and runs their business poorly, but their business continues to exist for years and years and years.
How can this be? Someone should study the incompetence tolerance of enterpreneurship.
Then this got me thinking that maybe I'm grossly overestimating how difficult it is to run a business. It all seems impenetrable to me, but if these idiots are doing it, maybe it isn't that hard? But then if it were THAT easy, wouldn't way more people run their own businesses instead of working for someone else? Think about how hard it is to find a decent job. If any old idiot could just start a business, wouldn't everyone just do that rather than running around sending their resume everywhere?
Then I started thinking about real life, and it occurs to me that I've encountered more than one person who is an idiot and runs their business poorly, but their business continues to exist for years and years and years.
How can this be? Someone should study the incompetence tolerance of enterpreneurship.
Then this got me thinking that maybe I'm grossly overestimating how difficult it is to run a business. It all seems impenetrable to me, but if these idiots are doing it, maybe it isn't that hard? But then if it were THAT easy, wouldn't way more people run their own businesses instead of working for someone else? Think about how hard it is to find a decent job. If any old idiot could just start a business, wouldn't everyone just do that rather than running around sending their resume everywhere?
Things They Should Invent: kiva for the abortion underground
Broadsheet talks about the lengths to which women in Ireland must go to seek abortions outside of the country.
One of the main problems is that it costs several thousand dollars, and not everyone and pull together several thousand dollars on such short notice. However, it occurs to me that a good number of the people who can't pull together several thousand dollars on short notice might be able to come up with that amount over the period of, say, a year.
What if there were some way to quickly loan money to these abortion patients? I can't think of any major lender who would do that. But what if it followed the Kiva model?
Kiva, for those of you who aren't already familiar with it, is a website that enables ordinary individuals to fund microloans to third-world entrepreneurs. It is extremely awesome and you should check it out even if you don't like my invention.
So to adapt this model for the abortion underground, anyone who wants to can contribute to a loan, and people who need abortions can take out loans that they pay back over a year. It would have to be more anonymous than Kiva, but otherwise it's essentially the same.
With Kiva, the money is credited back to the lender's account as the loan recipient repays it. For example, when the loan recipient pays back 10% of the loan, each of the lenders' accounts is credited with 10% of the amount that they lended. Most lenders immediately roll this amount over into another loan, but you can withdraw it if you want.
The system for the abortion underground would work the same, but with one exception: if you, your partner, your dependent, or your dependent's partner ever requires an abortion, you can withdraw the full cost from the funding pool immediately and with no hassle. Most people who can become pregnant (and, I assume, a good number of people whose partner or dependents can become pregnant) have at least given thought as to how they would go about getting an abortion should the need ever arise. Those who have the money do their research and go "Oh, so it costs $X? I have $X in my savings account, no problem!" then merrily go about their lives, perhaps keeping an eye on their financial arrangements to make sure they have $X liquid at all times. It would be practically no effort to put the $X that you have quietly earmarked as your abortion fund into the general funding pool, knowing that you can access it at any time if need be and in the meantime other people can benefit from it. The only sacrifice would be potential investment income, which in today's economy is negligible.
One of the main problems is that it costs several thousand dollars, and not everyone and pull together several thousand dollars on such short notice. However, it occurs to me that a good number of the people who can't pull together several thousand dollars on short notice might be able to come up with that amount over the period of, say, a year.
What if there were some way to quickly loan money to these abortion patients? I can't think of any major lender who would do that. But what if it followed the Kiva model?
Kiva, for those of you who aren't already familiar with it, is a website that enables ordinary individuals to fund microloans to third-world entrepreneurs. It is extremely awesome and you should check it out even if you don't like my invention.
So to adapt this model for the abortion underground, anyone who wants to can contribute to a loan, and people who need abortions can take out loans that they pay back over a year. It would have to be more anonymous than Kiva, but otherwise it's essentially the same.
With Kiva, the money is credited back to the lender's account as the loan recipient repays it. For example, when the loan recipient pays back 10% of the loan, each of the lenders' accounts is credited with 10% of the amount that they lended. Most lenders immediately roll this amount over into another loan, but you can withdraw it if you want.
The system for the abortion underground would work the same, but with one exception: if you, your partner, your dependent, or your dependent's partner ever requires an abortion, you can withdraw the full cost from the funding pool immediately and with no hassle. Most people who can become pregnant (and, I assume, a good number of people whose partner or dependents can become pregnant) have at least given thought as to how they would go about getting an abortion should the need ever arise. Those who have the money do their research and go "Oh, so it costs $X? I have $X in my savings account, no problem!" then merrily go about their lives, perhaps keeping an eye on their financial arrangements to make sure they have $X liquid at all times. It would be practically no effort to put the $X that you have quietly earmarked as your abortion fund into the general funding pool, knowing that you can access it at any time if need be and in the meantime other people can benefit from it. The only sacrifice would be potential investment income, which in today's economy is negligible.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Things They Should Invent: Cosby Show prequel
If I remember my Cosby Show chronology correctly, Cliff and Clair started sprogging before they finished their professional degrees. That means that the first few years were a madhouse. Clair would have been pregnant while in law school, she's articling and Cliff is interning and they have a toddler running around and another on the way, Clair having to take multiple and closely-spaced maternity leaves (in the 60s and 70s!)
That would have been way more interesting!
That would have been way more interesting!
Another theory on why urban people seem rude to exurban people
Conventional wisdom/gross generalizations etc. have it that exurban people tend to think that urban people are rude because we don't pay any particular attention to random other people whose paths we cross, whereas in smaller communities it's more common to say hi to and maybe even chat with people.
I've blogged before about how I think this might be due to our higher density. I cross paths with 100 people on the way to the subway - I can't say hi to all of them, I'd be walking down the street waving and nodding like the Queen! But it also occurs to me that part of the difference might be due to driving/walking/transit patterns.
If you live in a rural area and you need to go to the grocery store, you get in your car and drive there. While in transit, you are in a car, and anyone you cross paths with is in a car. Generally we are not obligated to greet cars. People tend to greet individuals they know and I have heard of people in small towns who wave at every car, but I seriously doubt anyone's feelings would be hurt if they're driving along and the stranger driving in the opposite direction fails to wave at them. You're more socially switched off while en route, and tend to switch back on when you reach your destination. Once there, you switch back on and start talking to people again.
If you live in a city and you need to go to the grocery store, you walk. While in transit, you are on foot, and anyone you cross paths with is on foot. But even though we're crossing paths with real people, we still seem to have mutually agreed to switch off in transit because if we don't we'll never get any downtime.
Add to this the high density, and we're probably encountering but not engaging more people in a day than a rural person might encounter face to face in a day (depending on the size and nature of their workplace - it stands if you compare grocery run to grocery run, but to compare day to day there are too many variables). So then when exurban people come here, they get ignored by more people than they might even see in one day back home. That might make a person feel dissed.
I've blogged before about how I think this might be due to our higher density. I cross paths with 100 people on the way to the subway - I can't say hi to all of them, I'd be walking down the street waving and nodding like the Queen! But it also occurs to me that part of the difference might be due to driving/walking/transit patterns.
If you live in a rural area and you need to go to the grocery store, you get in your car and drive there. While in transit, you are in a car, and anyone you cross paths with is in a car. Generally we are not obligated to greet cars. People tend to greet individuals they know and I have heard of people in small towns who wave at every car, but I seriously doubt anyone's feelings would be hurt if they're driving along and the stranger driving in the opposite direction fails to wave at them. You're more socially switched off while en route, and tend to switch back on when you reach your destination. Once there, you switch back on and start talking to people again.
If you live in a city and you need to go to the grocery store, you walk. While in transit, you are on foot, and anyone you cross paths with is on foot. But even though we're crossing paths with real people, we still seem to have mutually agreed to switch off in transit because if we don't we'll never get any downtime.
Add to this the high density, and we're probably encountering but not engaging more people in a day than a rural person might encounter face to face in a day (depending on the size and nature of their workplace - it stands if you compare grocery run to grocery run, but to compare day to day there are too many variables). So then when exurban people come here, they get ignored by more people than they might even see in one day back home. That might make a person feel dissed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)