As I've blogged about many times before, the reason why I'm so incredibly frustrated about attempts to ban plastic bags (first from the LCBO and then from Toronto) is that I already came up with a better solution to the stated problem. I solved the problem, I communicated the solution to the appropriate people, but, because the influential people aren't listening to me, I still have to suffer the inconvenience of their suboptimal "solution".
This reminds me of elementary school.
In elementary school we did a lot of group work, for the ostensible reason that it would teach us how to work with others in the workplace. I was one of the top students, but I was also one of the least popular students. And it would often happen in our group work that I would know the correct answer or the correct approach, but my group wouldn't listen to me because I'm not cool. (When I say "the correct answer", I'm referring to cases where there is a single objectively-correct answer or approach. How to calculate the area of a polygon. How to spell a word. What a French sentence says.) So then the work we turned in would have mistakes in it, and I'd get a worse mark than I would have gotten if I'd done the work myself. Apart from gym class, all the worst marks I got in elementary school and middle school were for group work, where the rest of my group would drag me down by disregarding my correct answers.
I always maintained that this doesn't actually prepare us for working with others in the workplace, because in the workplace there's a boss. The boss makes the final decision, and has the ultimate responsibility for the outcome. If I think I have a better idea than my boss, I speak my piece and then she decides. If she decides against my idea and I end up being right, she's the one who faces the consequences and I have better credibility for next time. I don't face negative consequences when my good ideas are not accepted.
But this plastic bag thing is just like elementary school group work. I'm looking at nuances and natural user behaviour patterns and non-intrusive approaches to optimizing the usage cycle, but the popular kids just want to blindly barrel through like a bulldozer shouting "BAN IT!", just like my classmates in elementary school who disregarded my explanations of order of operations and insisted on blindly barrelling through our math questions in the order the numbers appeared. And, like in elementary school, I still have to suffer the consequences of their poor decisions even though I know a better way to do it.
This made me realize there was a flaw in my elementary school education. Our group work was supposed to teach us how to get work done as part of a group. This should include how to convince others that your better ideas are actually better than the popular ideas. But they never actually taught us how to do this. They just threw us in groups and assumed we'd learn. No teacher ever actually explained to us how to get around this blind devotion to popularity. They just operated under the assumption that we'd automatically figure out how to solve these problems from working in groups, but that never happened. And now I'm 31 years old and unable to convince my governments to take a nuanced approach to an issue that will affect everyone every day.
At this point, you might be thinking "Maybe you're just generally unconvincing and don't have good ideas." But I do have good ideas and am able to present them convincingly in many contexts. In the workplace and in group projects in university, my ideas have been used quite often, either based on their clear value or based on the credibility I've developed by demonstrating my skill and expertise. Family and friends most often at least give my ideas serious consideration. Mnemonics I created in high school language classes are still used to this day, and my teacher even gave them to other teachers to use in their classes. I've even been able to get my dentist to try out my ideas when working on me, and he now has a better way of taking impressions for patients with small mouths and strong gag reflexes.
But I've never figured out how to get past blind following of popularity. And I think my teachers did us all a disservice by assuming that just working in a group would teach us how to overcome these pitfalls.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Saturday, June 09, 2012
Spiting Rob Ford: ur doin it wrong
Dear Toronto City Council:
I totally get wanting to stick it to Rob Ford. I'm no fan of the man myself. He came into work early on his very first day to cancel Transit City, which (as I explained to him in email shortly after his election) would hurt me more than any other government policy enacted in my lifetime. With that action, he lost any further benefit of the doubt I might have given him, and, before we even get into policy quality, I'm not above enjoying a little flicker of schadenfreude every time he's defeated.
However, by banning plastic bags in Toronto, you've just ensured his next election victory.
What you've done is introduced an inconvenience that people will notice every day, and that Ford opposed. Every single time someone ends up buying more groceries than they planned for; every single time someone opens the hall closet and their stash of those bulky annoying "reusable" bags that it's never actually convenient to use falls on their head; every single time someone needs to get shoes repaired, go to the farmer's market and buy clothes all in one trip; every single time someone runs out of garbage bags because they keep forgetting to buy garbage bags because they've never had to buy garbage bags before in their life because their grocery bags have always done the job, this irritant you've introduced will come up and slap them in the face.
As we know, Ford appeals to voters who don't closely follow the details of municipal politics, who don't have (or don't care to have) a broader view and are more likely to vote on things that affect them personally and directly. We saw this in the last election, with people swayed by groundless claims that a subway could be built quickly and cheaply, or by the prospect of saving a measly $60 a year on vehicle registration tax (an amount so negligible that they wouldn't even notice if $60 were pickpocketed from their wallet over the course of a year.) If spin and catchphrases and negligible cost savings could win him an election, imagine what a tangible daily irritant will do!
There are many things you could do to spite Rob Ford that will also make life easier and more fun for Torontonians. You could restore the library and bus services that were cut. You could build more bike lanes. You could extend Pride funding. You could build all of Transit City in its original form.
Or you could solve this whole plastic bag debacle by requiring stores to give away biodegradable plastic bags. As I've blogged about many many many many many times before, biodegradable bags would make environmentally optimal behaviour effortless. You don't have to remember to bring your reusable bags, you don't have to remember to buy garbage bags. You just go to a store and buy stuff without thinking about bags, and they give you a biodegradable bag. Then, when you get home, you reach for the nearest plastic bag to use for garbage, and it's biodegradable. You'd have to go out of your way to put plastic into the landfill. And, as an added bonus, it would spite Rob Ford because he's not so very into the City telling businesses how they can do business. You could also do so by extending the organic waste collection program to highrises, which will spite Rob Ford by costing money to implement, and do way more to address your ostensible goal of reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfills than a plastic bag ban would.
I totally get wanting to stick it to Rob Ford. I'm no fan of the man myself. He came into work early on his very first day to cancel Transit City, which (as I explained to him in email shortly after his election) would hurt me more than any other government policy enacted in my lifetime. With that action, he lost any further benefit of the doubt I might have given him, and, before we even get into policy quality, I'm not above enjoying a little flicker of schadenfreude every time he's defeated.
However, by banning plastic bags in Toronto, you've just ensured his next election victory.
What you've done is introduced an inconvenience that people will notice every day, and that Ford opposed. Every single time someone ends up buying more groceries than they planned for; every single time someone opens the hall closet and their stash of those bulky annoying "reusable" bags that it's never actually convenient to use falls on their head; every single time someone needs to get shoes repaired, go to the farmer's market and buy clothes all in one trip; every single time someone runs out of garbage bags because they keep forgetting to buy garbage bags because they've never had to buy garbage bags before in their life because their grocery bags have always done the job, this irritant you've introduced will come up and slap them in the face.
As we know, Ford appeals to voters who don't closely follow the details of municipal politics, who don't have (or don't care to have) a broader view and are more likely to vote on things that affect them personally and directly. We saw this in the last election, with people swayed by groundless claims that a subway could be built quickly and cheaply, or by the prospect of saving a measly $60 a year on vehicle registration tax (an amount so negligible that they wouldn't even notice if $60 were pickpocketed from their wallet over the course of a year.) If spin and catchphrases and negligible cost savings could win him an election, imagine what a tangible daily irritant will do!
There are many things you could do to spite Rob Ford that will also make life easier and more fun for Torontonians. You could restore the library and bus services that were cut. You could build more bike lanes. You could extend Pride funding. You could build all of Transit City in its original form.
Or you could solve this whole plastic bag debacle by requiring stores to give away biodegradable plastic bags. As I've blogged about many many many many many times before, biodegradable bags would make environmentally optimal behaviour effortless. You don't have to remember to bring your reusable bags, you don't have to remember to buy garbage bags. You just go to a store and buy stuff without thinking about bags, and they give you a biodegradable bag. Then, when you get home, you reach for the nearest plastic bag to use for garbage, and it's biodegradable. You'd have to go out of your way to put plastic into the landfill. And, as an added bonus, it would spite Rob Ford because he's not so very into the City telling businesses how they can do business. You could also do so by extending the organic waste collection program to highrises, which will spite Rob Ford by costing money to implement, and do way more to address your ostensible goal of reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfills than a plastic bag ban would.
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
Journalism wanted: who are these people who throw plastic bags away and what are their motivations?
People who are opposed to plastic bags claim two different problems:
1. They fill up landfills.
2. They litter the streets.
Both these alleged problems baffle me, because I cannot fathom how they could possibly happen in any appreciable quantities.
1. Everyone I know uses their plastic shopping bags as garbage bags, or to clean up after their pets. If they didn't use plastic shopping bags for this purpose, they'd have to purchase garbage bags for the same purpose, and the total amount of plastic that ends up in the landfill would be the same. (Some people have stopped getting plastic shopping bags since they introduced the five cent fee, but they buy plastic garbage bags instead so the total landfill plastic they are generating is still the same.)
But since people keep complaining about plastic bags in landfills, that would suggest that a significant number of people are bringing their purchases home in plastic bags, throwing the bags straight into the garbage, and presumably buying separate garbage bags for garbage and to clean up after their pets.
Who are these people? Why do they do it this way? Why do they not find plastic shopping bags suitable for their garbage and pet clean-up needs?
2. When you have a plastic shopping bag, it's because you've just purchased something and need a bag in which to carry it home. You need your plastic shopping bag the entire time you are outdoors, because it is being used to carry your purchase. Your need for the plastic bag doesn't stop until you get home. So how on earth does a plastic bag turn into litter?
I understand how litter happens - you cease to need one of the things you are carrying for whatever reason, it's more trouble than it's worth to carry a specific thing around until you encounter an appropriate receptacle. But I cannot picture any situation in which this might happen with a plastic bag. I cannot envision how you might cease to need the plastic bag that contains your shopping. Throwing a plastic bag on the ground makes as much sense as emptying your purse of its contents and throwing the purse on the ground. That just...doesn't happen.
But enough people to reach my ears are complaining about plastic bags being litter. So who are these people littering with plastic bags, and what kind of situations are they in that they're carrying a plastic bag but don't need it? Or does this mean our landfills don't work?
I'd really like to see some actual answers from the people who do these things, because I just cannot picture how they happen. It would also be interesting to know what percentage of the population does these things.
1. They fill up landfills.
2. They litter the streets.
Both these alleged problems baffle me, because I cannot fathom how they could possibly happen in any appreciable quantities.
1. Everyone I know uses their plastic shopping bags as garbage bags, or to clean up after their pets. If they didn't use plastic shopping bags for this purpose, they'd have to purchase garbage bags for the same purpose, and the total amount of plastic that ends up in the landfill would be the same. (Some people have stopped getting plastic shopping bags since they introduced the five cent fee, but they buy plastic garbage bags instead so the total landfill plastic they are generating is still the same.)
But since people keep complaining about plastic bags in landfills, that would suggest that a significant number of people are bringing their purchases home in plastic bags, throwing the bags straight into the garbage, and presumably buying separate garbage bags for garbage and to clean up after their pets.
Who are these people? Why do they do it this way? Why do they not find plastic shopping bags suitable for their garbage and pet clean-up needs?
2. When you have a plastic shopping bag, it's because you've just purchased something and need a bag in which to carry it home. You need your plastic shopping bag the entire time you are outdoors, because it is being used to carry your purchase. Your need for the plastic bag doesn't stop until you get home. So how on earth does a plastic bag turn into litter?
I understand how litter happens - you cease to need one of the things you are carrying for whatever reason, it's more trouble than it's worth to carry a specific thing around until you encounter an appropriate receptacle. But I cannot picture any situation in which this might happen with a plastic bag. I cannot envision how you might cease to need the plastic bag that contains your shopping. Throwing a plastic bag on the ground makes as much sense as emptying your purse of its contents and throwing the purse on the ground. That just...doesn't happen.
But enough people to reach my ears are complaining about plastic bags being litter. So who are these people littering with plastic bags, and what kind of situations are they in that they're carrying a plastic bag but don't need it? Or does this mean our landfills don't work?
I'd really like to see some actual answers from the people who do these things, because I just cannot picture how they happen. It would also be interesting to know what percentage of the population does these things.
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
What do urban planners do in the private sector, and why is this even an option?
From an article about why urban planners apparently don't want to work in Toronto:
It seems to me that private-sector urban planning would be analogous to a company whose business model is to barge in and tell people how they should renovate their houses. But, since these things exist, clearly I'm missing something. Can anyone explain to me why and how private-sector urban planning exists?
He calls his interview in Toronto a “positive experience;” even so, he was smart to go back to Lotusland, where he works as a planner in the private sector, and as president of the Council for Canadian Urbanism.and:
What on earth do urban planners do in the private sector? Why and how does private sector urban planning even exist? How can a private company plan a city? Doesn't urban planning inherently need to be done by the people with jurisdiction over planning the city?Councillor Adam Vaughan (Trinity-Spadina), a noted planning wonk, says Toronto’s lack of investment in its planning department turns off applicants.
“Every good young planner jumps ship because it’s better pay, better hours and more respect from clients if they work in the private sector.”
It seems to me that private-sector urban planning would be analogous to a company whose business model is to barge in and tell people how they should renovate their houses. But, since these things exist, clearly I'm missing something. Can anyone explain to me why and how private-sector urban planning exists?
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Dear Blogger: stop redirecting me to a profile creation page when I'm logged into a non-Blogger google account
I have more than one Google account. One of them I use for this blog, the others I use for other purposes. My other Google accounts don't have associated Blogger accounts because I don't use them for blogs.
Lately, when I go to blogger.com while signed into another Google account, I get this page (click to embiggen:
This page wants me to create either a Google+ account or a Blogger account associated with my other Google accounts. It doesn't give me an option to log out and log back in as my Blogger identity. To do that, I have to go back to google.ca and sign out.
But it gets worse.
When I try to read blog comments, I'm also getting redirected to the account creation page. This includes comments on my own blog, which I quite deliberately permit people to comment on without being logged in. While the radio buttons for commenting anonymously still exist, it won't let you get as far as the comment field without having a blogger account. (Readers with non-blogger Google accounts: you can still view the comments by clicking on the permalink in the post time at the bottom of each post.)
But it gets worse.
The cookies Google/Blogger are using are too persistent, even within the internal logic of this new strategy. When I try to go to blogger.com logged into the wrong account and then go back to google.ca to log out, blogger.com doesn't remember that I've logged out and takes me back to the account creation page. I have to go to google.ca, log out, log into the Google account associated with my blog, and then go back to blogger.com.
And this last time that I logged out to get the screenshot above, even that didn't work. I logged out on google.ca, logged in to my Blogger account, went to blogger.com, hit the account creation page even though I was already logged into an existing Blogger account, and ultimately had to go to my own blog and click on the Blogger icon on the top left to get into my Blogger dashboard. WTF?? Once I hit this horrible account creation screen, it starts popping up everywhere and hindering useability.
So, Blogger, here's what you need to do:
1. When people hit something they need a Blogger account for, like logging into blogger.com, give them a page where they can log in OR create an account.
2. When people hit something they don't need a Blogger account for, like viewing comments, don't try to make them to log in or create an account.
3. Make this screen less persistent, so it doesn't keep popping up illogically just because the user it it once.
This is hindering useability. It's a struggle to log into my own blog. Please fix it now.
Update: Now the same problem is happening with the "Sign In" link at the top right corner of my blog. I'm not signed in, I click on it to sign in, and it doesn't let me sign in, instead trying to get me to create an account under the other google identity I have logged in. #FAIL
Lately, when I go to blogger.com while signed into another Google account, I get this page (click to embiggen:
This page wants me to create either a Google+ account or a Blogger account associated with my other Google accounts. It doesn't give me an option to log out and log back in as my Blogger identity. To do that, I have to go back to google.ca and sign out.
But it gets worse.
When I try to read blog comments, I'm also getting redirected to the account creation page. This includes comments on my own blog, which I quite deliberately permit people to comment on without being logged in. While the radio buttons for commenting anonymously still exist, it won't let you get as far as the comment field without having a blogger account. (Readers with non-blogger Google accounts: you can still view the comments by clicking on the permalink in the post time at the bottom of each post.)
But it gets worse.
The cookies Google/Blogger are using are too persistent, even within the internal logic of this new strategy. When I try to go to blogger.com logged into the wrong account and then go back to google.ca to log out, blogger.com doesn't remember that I've logged out and takes me back to the account creation page. I have to go to google.ca, log out, log into the Google account associated with my blog, and then go back to blogger.com.
And this last time that I logged out to get the screenshot above, even that didn't work. I logged out on google.ca, logged in to my Blogger account, went to blogger.com, hit the account creation page even though I was already logged into an existing Blogger account, and ultimately had to go to my own blog and click on the Blogger icon on the top left to get into my Blogger dashboard. WTF?? Once I hit this horrible account creation screen, it starts popping up everywhere and hindering useability.
So, Blogger, here's what you need to do:
1. When people hit something they need a Blogger account for, like logging into blogger.com, give them a page where they can log in OR create an account.
2. When people hit something they don't need a Blogger account for, like viewing comments, don't try to make them to log in or create an account.
3. Make this screen less persistent, so it doesn't keep popping up illogically just because the user it it once.
This is hindering useability. It's a struggle to log into my own blog. Please fix it now.
Update: Now the same problem is happening with the "Sign In" link at the top right corner of my blog. I'm not signed in, I click on it to sign in, and it doesn't let me sign in, instead trying to get me to create an account under the other google identity I have logged in. #FAIL
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Buying happiness: summer skirts and dresses
I always feel frumpy and gross in shorts, so every hot day for my entire adult life I've been wearing skirts and dresses exclusively. They have many advantages:
- They're cooler. The breeze can blow up in between my thighs (right up to my ribs if I'm wearing an empire-waisted dress). I can be fully covered with less of the material actually touching my body. This is the best-possible balance of all of the advantage of being naked and all of the advantages of being clothed.
- They're attractive and femme. When I was a kid, and our summer vacations had us playing tourist in cities, I always felt particularly awkward and out of place in my suburban tourist shorts and t-shirts and running shoes. But I always feel like a proper grown-up city lady in my summer skirts and dresses.
- They make it very easy to look pulled together. In almost any of my summer outfits (with the exception of my long cotton hippy skirts), all I have to do is put my hair up (default for the summer anyway), choose a pair of shoes with heels (which I almost always wear anyway), put on big sunglasses (which I always wear outdoors in the sun anyway) and I look very close to glam. My "It's hot out and I feel fat" dress would fit right in at a wedding with the right hair/makeup/accessories, but it also wouldn't look out of place walking down the beach. I even wore it the second time we saw Eddie Izzard, after discovering at the last minute that I was too bloated to comfortably wear the outfit I'd originally planned, and I felt confident that I looked Eddie-worthy. None of my cool-weather outfits are that versatile!
- They're FUN! Skirts twirl and blow around in the breeze, and I can comfortably carry off flower prints in skirts and dresses that I'd feel frumpy wearing on a blouse with pants.
I've learned that I don't get tired of skirts and dresses (I'm still regularly wearing the skirts I bought when I first started my current job nine years ago), so whenever I see one I like, I try it on, and if it's reasonably flattering I buy it. My skirts pair nicely with plain fitted t-shirts and camis in solid colours, and the look is classic enough that I don't need to worry about any one piece going out of style. I still hate hot weather, but I never feel ugly and gross any more thanks to my summer skirts and dresses.
- They're cooler. The breeze can blow up in between my thighs (right up to my ribs if I'm wearing an empire-waisted dress). I can be fully covered with less of the material actually touching my body. This is the best-possible balance of all of the advantage of being naked and all of the advantages of being clothed.
- They're attractive and femme. When I was a kid, and our summer vacations had us playing tourist in cities, I always felt particularly awkward and out of place in my suburban tourist shorts and t-shirts and running shoes. But I always feel like a proper grown-up city lady in my summer skirts and dresses.
- They make it very easy to look pulled together. In almost any of my summer outfits (with the exception of my long cotton hippy skirts), all I have to do is put my hair up (default for the summer anyway), choose a pair of shoes with heels (which I almost always wear anyway), put on big sunglasses (which I always wear outdoors in the sun anyway) and I look very close to glam. My "It's hot out and I feel fat" dress would fit right in at a wedding with the right hair/makeup/accessories, but it also wouldn't look out of place walking down the beach. I even wore it the second time we saw Eddie Izzard, after discovering at the last minute that I was too bloated to comfortably wear the outfit I'd originally planned, and I felt confident that I looked Eddie-worthy. None of my cool-weather outfits are that versatile!
- They're FUN! Skirts twirl and blow around in the breeze, and I can comfortably carry off flower prints in skirts and dresses that I'd feel frumpy wearing on a blouse with pants.
I've learned that I don't get tired of skirts and dresses (I'm still regularly wearing the skirts I bought when I first started my current job nine years ago), so whenever I see one I like, I try it on, and if it's reasonably flattering I buy it. My skirts pair nicely with plain fitted t-shirts and camis in solid colours, and the look is classic enough that I don't need to worry about any one piece going out of style. I still hate hot weather, but I never feel ugly and gross any more thanks to my summer skirts and dresses.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Analogy for my non-thankfulness philosophy
I previously blogged my theory that we should not feel thankful for basic human rights or basic standard of living, instead feeling entitled to such things and taking them for granted.
Today my shower gave me an analogy:
Suppose I'm about to get married, and you ask me why I was going to marry that particular person. Starry-eyed, with little hearts circling around my head, I answer "Because he never hits me!"
That's not a good reason, now is it? Of course, it is something one should expect in a spouse. But it's so baseline that we should be taking it absolutely for granted and not even noticing it.
Now let's suppose I'm so genuinely thankful that my husband doesn't hit me that I express this at the slightest provocation. My husband might start to develop the sense that he's doing me a great favour by not hitting me, so he might feel less inclined to do me other favours like not flushing the toilet when I'm in the shower, or wearing headphones if he's going to stay up gaming on a night before I need to get up early for work the next morning. If a friend asks me for relationship advice, I might say something like "Does he hit you? No? Then what more can you ask for?", completely disregarding the fact that she's more comfortable and relaxed when she's alone than when her man's around. If I have a child, I might try to instill what I consider good relationship sense in her by talking about how thankful I am that my husband doesn't hit me and how important that is in a relationship. And, by doing this, I might be making her feel like she's being too picky for rejecting a prospective spouse whose life goals are incompatible, because she feels like she should just be grateful he doesn't hit her.
In short, what influence I have would be lowering the expectations of the people around me, encouraging them to accept lower standards. Whereas if I take for granted that he doesn't hit me, I'll instead be gushing starry-eyed about how how he's the best friend I've ever had and how I'm a better version of myself when I'm around him. What influence I have would encourage those around me to seek out similar compatibility in their relationships. And my hypothetical child, having grown up in a context where being hit by one's spouse is unheard of, would react with utter disbelief the first time she hears of such a thing. "He HIT you??? WTF? People just don't DO that to people they love!"
Today my shower gave me an analogy:
Suppose I'm about to get married, and you ask me why I was going to marry that particular person. Starry-eyed, with little hearts circling around my head, I answer "Because he never hits me!"
That's not a good reason, now is it? Of course, it is something one should expect in a spouse. But it's so baseline that we should be taking it absolutely for granted and not even noticing it.
Now let's suppose I'm so genuinely thankful that my husband doesn't hit me that I express this at the slightest provocation. My husband might start to develop the sense that he's doing me a great favour by not hitting me, so he might feel less inclined to do me other favours like not flushing the toilet when I'm in the shower, or wearing headphones if he's going to stay up gaming on a night before I need to get up early for work the next morning. If a friend asks me for relationship advice, I might say something like "Does he hit you? No? Then what more can you ask for?", completely disregarding the fact that she's more comfortable and relaxed when she's alone than when her man's around. If I have a child, I might try to instill what I consider good relationship sense in her by talking about how thankful I am that my husband doesn't hit me and how important that is in a relationship. And, by doing this, I might be making her feel like she's being too picky for rejecting a prospective spouse whose life goals are incompatible, because she feels like she should just be grateful he doesn't hit her.
In short, what influence I have would be lowering the expectations of the people around me, encouraging them to accept lower standards. Whereas if I take for granted that he doesn't hit me, I'll instead be gushing starry-eyed about how how he's the best friend I've ever had and how I'm a better version of myself when I'm around him. What influence I have would encourage those around me to seek out similar compatibility in their relationships. And my hypothetical child, having grown up in a context where being hit by one's spouse is unheard of, would react with utter disbelief the first time she hears of such a thing. "He HIT you??? WTF? People just don't DO that to people they love!"
Friday, May 25, 2012
While The Men Watch is a flawed concept
Recently in the news: something called While The Men Watch, which purports to be sports commentary for women who aren't into sports.Some argue that it's sexist because it assumes that men are watching sports and women aren't, but there's an even bigger flaw in its core concept:
The flaw is the idea that you need special programming just because your partner has appointment television that you're not interested in.
The flaw is the idea that you need special programming just because your partner has appointment television that you're not interested in.
Most people are competent adults with more than enough things that they have to do and want to do. If your partner is watching something on TV that you're not into, it's not like you're sitting there twiddling your thumbs. All the things that you have to do and want to do still exist.
For example, yesterday after work I made some very yummy pasta with asparagus and alfredo, watched a couple episodes of HIMYM (I'm catching up on the series lately), read the newspapers, caught up on my twitter feed and my google reader, sent a message of support to Eddie Izzard and checked out what kind of press he's getting after having to abandon his latest marathon challenge, watched the new Springsteen video, chatted with a friend and admired her latest baby videos (My Favourite Little Person, who is now six months old, can eat corn on the cob despite not having any teeth!), stripped the bed and washed the sheets, indulged in some fanfiction, enjoyed a few chapters of the Eve Dallas book I'm currently rereading, and played Sims a bit. No big deal, just a regular at-home evening, unwinding from the workday.
And all of that is exactly what I'd be doing if I had a partner watching a hockey game in my living room. And all of that is perfectly targeted to my needs and interests. Why do they think they can do better? Why do they think we think we need them to?
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Opposition to a casino in one's own neighbourhood is a public space issue
In the news today: a poll showing that people are more likely to oppose a casino if it's in their neighbourhood.
The media is generally interpreting this as either NIMBYism, or as a sign that people don't want gambling to happen near them.
But I don't think that's the whole story. I think it has more to do with the physical structure of a casino and its interface with the streetscape.
I have the impression that the casino they're talking about is meant to be rather large, to draw tourists from all over and also to host live performances. Casinos are traditionally designed to be windowless, so gamblers are less aware of the passage of time. So this has me (and, likely, your average citizen) picturing a big windowless box with a giant parking lot - a dead zone without eyes on the street replacing what is currently a bustling street full of shops and patios.
That sort of thing doesn't fit in most Toronto neighbourhoods. Most of our streets are already full of homes and businesses where people live and work and shop. When we picture a casino in our neighbourhood, we wonder what healthy, thriving buildings that we use every day would have to be torn down. I blogged before about how I find myself hating a development that plans to tear down businesses that I use all the time, and this is for a developer who's building a condo in my neighbourhood - exactly what I'm in the market for! Imagine how much more opposition would come to tearing down things people use all the time to build a casino, which most people use very rarely, if ever.
The locations being discussed for a casino (Ontario Place, Woodbine, etc.) are already separate from the streetscape and the day-to-day functioning of neighbourhoods. Either there's enough space to build it without tearing anything down, or they'd be replacing one tourist-magnet entertainment complex with another tourist-magnet entertainment complex. It has no impact on most people's day-to-day lives.
But if you take the hypothetical scenario into the respondent's neighbourhood, suddenly an implicit part of the question is "Do you want to replace some existing functional aspect of your neighbourhood with a casino?"
Asking people if they want a casino in their neighbourhood is akin to asking if they want a racetrack, or an amusement park, or a zoo, or a football stadium, or an airport, or a large hadron collider. If you say no, it isn't necessarily because you're opposed to any of these things as general concepts. It may well just be because you're already full.
The media is generally interpreting this as either NIMBYism, or as a sign that people don't want gambling to happen near them.
But I don't think that's the whole story. I think it has more to do with the physical structure of a casino and its interface with the streetscape.
I have the impression that the casino they're talking about is meant to be rather large, to draw tourists from all over and also to host live performances. Casinos are traditionally designed to be windowless, so gamblers are less aware of the passage of time. So this has me (and, likely, your average citizen) picturing a big windowless box with a giant parking lot - a dead zone without eyes on the street replacing what is currently a bustling street full of shops and patios.
That sort of thing doesn't fit in most Toronto neighbourhoods. Most of our streets are already full of homes and businesses where people live and work and shop. When we picture a casino in our neighbourhood, we wonder what healthy, thriving buildings that we use every day would have to be torn down. I blogged before about how I find myself hating a development that plans to tear down businesses that I use all the time, and this is for a developer who's building a condo in my neighbourhood - exactly what I'm in the market for! Imagine how much more opposition would come to tearing down things people use all the time to build a casino, which most people use very rarely, if ever.
The locations being discussed for a casino (Ontario Place, Woodbine, etc.) are already separate from the streetscape and the day-to-day functioning of neighbourhoods. Either there's enough space to build it without tearing anything down, or they'd be replacing one tourist-magnet entertainment complex with another tourist-magnet entertainment complex. It has no impact on most people's day-to-day lives.
But if you take the hypothetical scenario into the respondent's neighbourhood, suddenly an implicit part of the question is "Do you want to replace some existing functional aspect of your neighbourhood with a casino?"
Asking people if they want a casino in their neighbourhood is akin to asking if they want a racetrack, or an amusement park, or a zoo, or a football stadium, or an airport, or a large hadron collider. If you say no, it isn't necessarily because you're opposed to any of these things as general concepts. It may well just be because you're already full.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Why does textspeak still exist?
My cellphone is five years old, and it still has predictive text (T9). Today's phones are equipped with full keyboards and autocorrect, which is even better. These technologies both make it easier to write real words than to write fake words. If you type a real word, it will guess the word for you and you don't even always have to type all the letters. But if you want to type a fake word, you have to teach the device the word.
More and more communications are being typed on phones as opposed to keyboards, which means that more and more communications are being written with a device that makes it easier to type a real word than a fake word.
So what's up with people who still use textspeak for everything?
I know that sometimes you need to shorten things to keep it under 140 characters for platforms like twitter or SMS, but on sites like Failbook or Damn You Autocorrect I keep seeing people who are using textspeak systematically, for everything, even on platforms that don't have a character limit.
Why are they putting in all the extra effort?
More and more communications are being typed on phones as opposed to keyboards, which means that more and more communications are being written with a device that makes it easier to type a real word than a fake word.
So what's up with people who still use textspeak for everything?
I know that sometimes you need to shorten things to keep it under 140 characters for platforms like twitter or SMS, but on sites like Failbook or Damn You Autocorrect I keep seeing people who are using textspeak systematically, for everything, even on platforms that don't have a character limit.
Why are they putting in all the extra effort?
Things They Should Invent: require advertisers to make good on any offers they spam you with
From time to time I receive a flyer in my mailbox from my telecommunications provider, promoting a service I already use at a lower price than I'm currently getting. The fine print says this offer is only available to new customers.
I think this should be illegal. I think, because they arranged to have the offer put directly in my personal mailbox, the offer should be available to me personally. Any company that contacts you directly (by mail, phone, email, direct message, or any other medium) with an offer should be required to give you that offer.
This wouldn't necessarily have to apply to mass media advertising, like on TV or in newspapers. But if each individual has their own copy of the ad that has been sent directly to them personally and landed in physical or virtual space that is under their personal control or their household's control - so that you can say "This is my copy of this ad" - the advertiser should be required to make good on the offer.
I think this should be illegal. I think, because they arranged to have the offer put directly in my personal mailbox, the offer should be available to me personally. Any company that contacts you directly (by mail, phone, email, direct message, or any other medium) with an offer should be required to give you that offer.
This wouldn't necessarily have to apply to mass media advertising, like on TV or in newspapers. But if each individual has their own copy of the ad that has been sent directly to them personally and landed in physical or virtual space that is under their personal control or their household's control - so that you can say "This is my copy of this ad" - the advertiser should be required to make good on the offer.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Questions Downton Abbey needs to answer
I'm finally caught up with Downton Abbey, and there are some things I'm wondering.
1. How is Ethel supporting herself? Ethel was fired from her job as a housemaid when she was caught having sex with one of the soldiers. She and her baby are shown living in a tiny, dingy cottage and being brought food from Downton Abbey by Mrs. Hughes. She's clearly shown as impoverished and unemployable, so how is she even still living? We have seen hints of mechanisms for people to receive food, clothing and toys through charity, but how is she paying her rent? Who is her landlord who agreed to rent a house to someone unemployable, and why?
2. What's Sybil's day-to-day life now like? The Christmas Special mentioned that Sybil had married Branson and is now pregnant, which also means she's living at best a middle-class life after having grown up in the manor. How is she adjusting? Even though she learned some basic cooking and housekeeping when she trained as a nurse, there must be some things she wasn't expecting or wasn't prepared for - a Sybil equivalent of the Dowager Countess's "What is a weekend?" moment.
3. When are the maids going to get new dresses? In one of the post-war episodes, the ladies mention that more recent fashions (shorter skirts, less fitted bodices, corsets irrelevant) are more comfortable and better for moving around in than old fashions. "The old clothes were all very well if one spent the day on a chaise longue, but if one wants to get anything done, the new clothes are much better." But the maids' and the nurses' uniforms are still the old dress, with the full skirt and the hourglass figure designed with corsets in mind (even if they aren't actually wearing corsets underneath). I know that people didn't just replace perfectly functional clothes back in those days, but it does seem rather foolish to have the people who have to actually do physical labour wearing less practical clothes than the nobility.
1. How is Ethel supporting herself? Ethel was fired from her job as a housemaid when she was caught having sex with one of the soldiers. She and her baby are shown living in a tiny, dingy cottage and being brought food from Downton Abbey by Mrs. Hughes. She's clearly shown as impoverished and unemployable, so how is she even still living? We have seen hints of mechanisms for people to receive food, clothing and toys through charity, but how is she paying her rent? Who is her landlord who agreed to rent a house to someone unemployable, and why?
2. What's Sybil's day-to-day life now like? The Christmas Special mentioned that Sybil had married Branson and is now pregnant, which also means she's living at best a middle-class life after having grown up in the manor. How is she adjusting? Even though she learned some basic cooking and housekeeping when she trained as a nurse, there must be some things she wasn't expecting or wasn't prepared for - a Sybil equivalent of the Dowager Countess's "What is a weekend?" moment.
3. When are the maids going to get new dresses? In one of the post-war episodes, the ladies mention that more recent fashions (shorter skirts, less fitted bodices, corsets irrelevant) are more comfortable and better for moving around in than old fashions. "The old clothes were all very well if one spent the day on a chaise longue, but if one wants to get anything done, the new clothes are much better." But the maids' and the nurses' uniforms are still the old dress, with the full skirt and the hourglass figure designed with corsets in mind (even if they aren't actually wearing corsets underneath). I know that people didn't just replace perfectly functional clothes back in those days, but it does seem rather foolish to have the people who have to actually do physical labour wearing less practical clothes than the nobility.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Why are we resistant to the idea that we might have privilege?
Reading Scalzi's Lowest Difficulty Setting and the follow-up got me thinking. People are generally quite resistant to the idea that they have any sort of privilege. Their (and my) automatic, knee-jerk response tends to be "What? No I don't!"
But why is this?
I can tell you why I'm resistant to it. I'm resistant to it because for the vast majority of my life I was being given the message that I'm lucky about and should be thankful for things I didn't care about, many of which I didn't even like. For example, my parents would take us on stressfully long family vacations - whole summers lost to fighting off carsickness while having zero privacy - and tell me that I should be grateful that I get to travel. When we were travelling, my parents tried to save money by never eating at restaurants, instead taking us to a supermarket and telling us to pick out what we wanted to eat for dinner. But we never had a fridge or a stove or a microwave (and often not even a kettle), or even dishes or utensils. I'd ask if we can go to a restaurant because I'd been yearning for days for a nice big salad and a steaming plate of pasta, and they'd tell me I should be thankful we have food at all. My father went through this phase where he calculated that if they hadn't had kids they could drive a Mercedes instead of a Honda so he told us that we should be thankful they made that sacrifice and decided to have us. But, on top of the fact that I'm intrinsically nihilistic, this was during the worst of my bullying; I, and everyone else involved, would have been far happier if they'd gone for the Mercedes instead. (Even now, if I hadn't been born I obviously wouldn't be around to care, and I seriously doubt my parents would be postmenopausally regretting not having an overly-introverted, socially-awkward daughter with a non-lucrative career path and a lifestyle that rejects their values.)
So, because of all this, any sort of hint or insinuation that I have some sort of privilege or advantage or some other thing I should be thankful for evokes this feeling of all this stressful shit that I didn't even want to deal with in the first place piling up my tetris blocks and if they'd just left me alone I could go be alone in my room with a book and be much happier.
But these are all my own personal neuroses, stemming directly from specific feelings and experiences in my own life. None of this is broadly applicable to the general population.
So where's it coming from for everyone else?
But why is this?
I can tell you why I'm resistant to it. I'm resistant to it because for the vast majority of my life I was being given the message that I'm lucky about and should be thankful for things I didn't care about, many of which I didn't even like. For example, my parents would take us on stressfully long family vacations - whole summers lost to fighting off carsickness while having zero privacy - and tell me that I should be grateful that I get to travel. When we were travelling, my parents tried to save money by never eating at restaurants, instead taking us to a supermarket and telling us to pick out what we wanted to eat for dinner. But we never had a fridge or a stove or a microwave (and often not even a kettle), or even dishes or utensils. I'd ask if we can go to a restaurant because I'd been yearning for days for a nice big salad and a steaming plate of pasta, and they'd tell me I should be thankful we have food at all. My father went through this phase where he calculated that if they hadn't had kids they could drive a Mercedes instead of a Honda so he told us that we should be thankful they made that sacrifice and decided to have us. But, on top of the fact that I'm intrinsically nihilistic, this was during the worst of my bullying; I, and everyone else involved, would have been far happier if they'd gone for the Mercedes instead. (Even now, if I hadn't been born I obviously wouldn't be around to care, and I seriously doubt my parents would be postmenopausally regretting not having an overly-introverted, socially-awkward daughter with a non-lucrative career path and a lifestyle that rejects their values.)
So, because of all this, any sort of hint or insinuation that I have some sort of privilege or advantage or some other thing I should be thankful for evokes this feeling of all this stressful shit that I didn't even want to deal with in the first place piling up my tetris blocks and if they'd just left me alone I could go be alone in my room with a book and be much happier.
But these are all my own personal neuroses, stemming directly from specific feelings and experiences in my own life. None of this is broadly applicable to the general population.
So where's it coming from for everyone else?
Plot hole in my childhood
All too often, my parents dragged us along to do boring grownup stuff like shop for new windows for the house or pick out appliances. There was nothing for us to do - we wouldn't have known how to participate even if we'd wanted to - so we just had to stand around for hours and hours while they had boring conversations we didn't understand about stuff we didn't care about.
So why didn't they tell us to bring a book?
You've got two kids who don't get along with each other, being dragged along for time-consuming boring grownup stuff, both of whom are voracious readers. We would have been quite content to sit quietly and read. In fact, the reason why I resented being dragged along so much is because I really just wanted to be alone in my room with a book.
What is gained by having your kids be bored rather than quietly amused?
So why didn't they tell us to bring a book?
You've got two kids who don't get along with each other, being dragged along for time-consuming boring grownup stuff, both of whom are voracious readers. We would have been quite content to sit quietly and read. In fact, the reason why I resented being dragged along so much is because I really just wanted to be alone in my room with a book.
What is gained by having your kids be bored rather than quietly amused?
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Wherein visualization works for me for the only time in my life
A few weeks ago, I saw an absolutely disgusting image on TV. It caused me to switch off the TV, curl up in a fetal position, and stim. I'm tense and wringing my hands just writing this. The image was burned in my brain, and I knew it would be there forever. I knew it would sit there haunting me as I tried to fall asleep and it would come to me in my dreams for years to come.
This was the worst possible time for this to happen. It was during the few days when I thought I was going to be buying a condo and was nervous about doing something so big and important and completely unknown to me, which also coincided with the busiest time at work when everything absolutely had to get done by the day before Condo Day. I was carrying an unhealthy amount of stress and nerves as it was, and literally didn't have room to handle this disgusting image.
I had to do something, but there was nothing to be done. So I did something that I knew would never work: picturing the image as printed on a piece of paper, I reached out with my hands, mimed crumpling up the piece of paper, and threw it away over my shoulder.
It worked. Temporarily.
Then it came back.
So I crumpled it up and threw it away again.
I had to do this maybe half a dozen times, but I was eventually able to fall asleep without the image haunting me or invading my dreams.
The next day and the days that followed, the image kept popping into my head. I kept crumpling it up and throwing it away. It never stayed away permanently, but it always went away for a little while. After some time passed, the image had faded somewhat. It's still present (I never, ever, ever forget things that are visceral or emotionally-laden) but it has faded far more than I would have expected it to by now.
The visualization shouldn't have worked. I don't even believe in visualization. But it worked.
But I don't think it will work again unless I'm in similar distress. I read a while back about a concept called a "psychological immune system", where your brain protects itself against things that are just too much for it. That's never happened to me before, but I think that's what was happening here. But, for some bizarre reasons, it worked this one time. Freaky.
This was the worst possible time for this to happen. It was during the few days when I thought I was going to be buying a condo and was nervous about doing something so big and important and completely unknown to me, which also coincided with the busiest time at work when everything absolutely had to get done by the day before Condo Day. I was carrying an unhealthy amount of stress and nerves as it was, and literally didn't have room to handle this disgusting image.
I had to do something, but there was nothing to be done. So I did something that I knew would never work: picturing the image as printed on a piece of paper, I reached out with my hands, mimed crumpling up the piece of paper, and threw it away over my shoulder.
It worked. Temporarily.
Then it came back.
So I crumpled it up and threw it away again.
I had to do this maybe half a dozen times, but I was eventually able to fall asleep without the image haunting me or invading my dreams.
The next day and the days that followed, the image kept popping into my head. I kept crumpling it up and throwing it away. It never stayed away permanently, but it always went away for a little while. After some time passed, the image had faded somewhat. It's still present (I never, ever, ever forget things that are visceral or emotionally-laden) but it has faded far more than I would have expected it to by now.
The visualization shouldn't have worked. I don't even believe in visualization. But it worked.
But I don't think it will work again unless I'm in similar distress. I read a while back about a concept called a "psychological immune system", where your brain protects itself against things that are just too much for it. That's never happened to me before, but I think that's what was happening here. But, for some bizarre reasons, it worked this one time. Freaky.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Recommendations
I'm filling out a customer satisfaction for a grocery store, and it asks me how likely I am to recommend the store to family or friends. And, of course, the answer is "highly unlikely". Not because there's anything wrong with the store, but because why would I recommend a grocery store? I go there because they're near me and sell groceries. If you're nearby, I'll say "That's where the nearest grocery store is." If you're not nearby, I'll assume you want to go to one of the multiple comparable stores that's closer to you.
A website that sells undergarments contains very detailed descriptions of its bras, and solicits user reviews. The reviews include a checkbox for whether you'd recommend that bra to others. But why would I recommend a bra to others? Even if it works fantastically for me, that's meaningless to other people. It's such a person item that I would never presume that my experience is in any way applicable to others, or vice versa.
This is something I've been noticing an awful lot lately - reviews and feedback asking you if you'd recommend the thing in question to others, without any regard for whether recommending that genre of thing is even appropriate or relevant. What's up with that?
A website that sells undergarments contains very detailed descriptions of its bras, and solicits user reviews. The reviews include a checkbox for whether you'd recommend that bra to others. But why would I recommend a bra to others? Even if it works fantastically for me, that's meaningless to other people. It's such a person item that I would never presume that my experience is in any way applicable to others, or vice versa.
This is something I've been noticing an awful lot lately - reviews and feedback asking you if you'd recommend the thing in question to others, without any regard for whether recommending that genre of thing is even appropriate or relevant. What's up with that?
Saturday, May 12, 2012
False goals
One bit of conventional wisdom that has been omnipresent since I first heard of it in middle school Guidance class is that you should set goals. They gave us a worksheet where we had to write down five short-term goals, five medium-term goals, and five long-term goals. So I dutifully wrote down things like completing my science project, passing my next piano exam, and graduating.
But those weren't actual goals. Those were just things I was supposed to be doing at the time.
For most of my life, I haven't had actual goals. I wanted to finish high school and go to university because...that's what people usually do at that age, and I couldn't think of anything better. I wanted to get a job because...I didn't have one. The vast majority of things I could have described as goals were just following the script. I achieved these goals, of course, but that's because I basically took something I was already going to achieve within an appropriate timeframe by proceeding through life normally and thought of it as a goal.
It's not like I'm following the script at the expense of my real goals either. Most of the time there isn't actually anything there. For most of my life, there's been nothing on my bucket list. There's nothing on it now. There have only ever been two things on my bucket list, and no more than one has ever been on the list at a given time, with large gaps before, in between, and after. (The two things were losing my virginity and seeing Eddie Izzard - which points to another problem: my genuine goals are rather more dependent on the cooperation of others than typical goals are.) Most of the stuff that I might put on a goal list (buy a condo? get promoted?) is stuff where it wouldn't hurt if I didn't achieve it.
Right now I'm reading a book on success factors (which I might blog about once I'm done), and it talks about how people who are highly goal-oriented tend to be more successful than people who are less goal-oriented. And when I googled some terminology found in that book, the entire first page of google results was articles talking about how you won't ever be successful in life unless you very deliberately set goals and then work to achieve them.
But what if your goals aren't even real? How does that fall into this goal-setting philosophy?
But those weren't actual goals. Those were just things I was supposed to be doing at the time.
For most of my life, I haven't had actual goals. I wanted to finish high school and go to university because...that's what people usually do at that age, and I couldn't think of anything better. I wanted to get a job because...I didn't have one. The vast majority of things I could have described as goals were just following the script. I achieved these goals, of course, but that's because I basically took something I was already going to achieve within an appropriate timeframe by proceeding through life normally and thought of it as a goal.
It's not like I'm following the script at the expense of my real goals either. Most of the time there isn't actually anything there. For most of my life, there's been nothing on my bucket list. There's nothing on it now. There have only ever been two things on my bucket list, and no more than one has ever been on the list at a given time, with large gaps before, in between, and after. (The two things were losing my virginity and seeing Eddie Izzard - which points to another problem: my genuine goals are rather more dependent on the cooperation of others than typical goals are.) Most of the stuff that I might put on a goal list (buy a condo? get promoted?) is stuff where it wouldn't hurt if I didn't achieve it.
Right now I'm reading a book on success factors (which I might blog about once I'm done), and it talks about how people who are highly goal-oriented tend to be more successful than people who are less goal-oriented. And when I googled some terminology found in that book, the entire first page of google results was articles talking about how you won't ever be successful in life unless you very deliberately set goals and then work to achieve them.
But what if your goals aren't even real? How does that fall into this goal-setting philosophy?
Friday, May 11, 2012
How does the Crown have access to people's mental health diagnoses?
A series of cases occupying the country’s highest courts has cast a spotlight on Crown attempts to probe the personal backgrounds of prospective jurors, potentially undermining the sanctity of the jury system.Important question: how did the Crown come about information about people's mental health? That's medical records. Does the Crown also know that I have GERD? Does it know that I had strep throat at xmas?
[...]
The most contentious case involves a 2007 murder trial in Barrie, Ont., where the Crown was privy to private, background information about the mental health, age and driving records of many of the 280 citizens in the jury pool.
And here's why everyone should be worried about it, even people who have never sought mental health care: in my experience with mental health care, I didn't just talk to my mental health care provider about the specific issues that are in the DSM. I also talked to them about my parents' personality traits and my partner's sexual proclivities and the pros and cons of being friends with my friends. So if mental health information is somehow available to the Crown, any information about your interpersonal relationships with anyone you might know who has sought mental health care should logically be available by the same means.
Monday, May 07, 2012
False savings
For consumable products that I use regularly, I tend to clip coupons and watch for sales. However, I've noticed that a lot of coupons (and even some sales) are useless, because the products in question are regularly on sale for significantly less.
For example, I recently had a coupon to save a dollar on a multipack of kleenex (not necessarily Kleenex-brand kleenex, but some brand or another). However, even after the coupon, the price came to approximately a dollar a box. Meanwhile, between the two grocery stores and two drug stores I frequent, there's always some brand of kleenex on sale somewhere for 49 cents a box.
Today I saw a beauty product I use on sale for $8.99, so I bought three. The receipt told me I'd saved $12, since the regular price at that store was $12.99. However, the regular price of the same product at a different store is $9.99. So while I did save money and it was the right time to stock up, I only saved $3.
I'm always finding coupons to save a few dollars on certain brands of make-up that I use. And those brands of make-up are always about half price on ebay.
I don't go out of my way to comparison-shop, I just happen to live and work in high-density neighbourhoods containing several stores that sell things I regularly buy. But even then, it took me about seven years of living on my own before I started noticing these patterns. I can imagine how people in lower-density areas or people with children to take care of in addition to doing their job will be even less likely to notice these patterns.
How much extra money are stores making because customers fall for these false savings? And what other false savings might I not be noticing?
For example, I recently had a coupon to save a dollar on a multipack of kleenex (not necessarily Kleenex-brand kleenex, but some brand or another). However, even after the coupon, the price came to approximately a dollar a box. Meanwhile, between the two grocery stores and two drug stores I frequent, there's always some brand of kleenex on sale somewhere for 49 cents a box.
Today I saw a beauty product I use on sale for $8.99, so I bought three. The receipt told me I'd saved $12, since the regular price at that store was $12.99. However, the regular price of the same product at a different store is $9.99. So while I did save money and it was the right time to stock up, I only saved $3.
I'm always finding coupons to save a few dollars on certain brands of make-up that I use. And those brands of make-up are always about half price on ebay.
I don't go out of my way to comparison-shop, I just happen to live and work in high-density neighbourhoods containing several stores that sell things I regularly buy. But even then, it took me about seven years of living on my own before I started noticing these patterns. I can imagine how people in lower-density areas or people with children to take care of in addition to doing their job will be even less likely to notice these patterns.
How much extra money are stores making because customers fall for these false savings? And what other false savings might I not be noticing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)