Pick a Book
Oct. 6th, 2009 01:13 amA few weeks ago, an interviewer asked Jonathan Carroll to pick the one book he would give to aliens to explain humanity and the human condition. You can read his answer here.
What would you pick?
What would you pick?
Pick a Book
Oct. 6th, 2009 01:13 amA few weeks ago, an interviewer asked Jonathan Carroll to pick the one book he would give to aliens to explain humanity and the human condition. You can read his answer here.
What would you pick?
What would you pick?
Quality Men's Shoes?
Dec. 14th, 2007 01:31 amSo, a friend would like to buy shoes for his husband and asked me for advice. I don't have any, so I turn to my widely knowledgeable friends for help.
Now, my friend has a very simple approach to shoes. About once a year he goes to Payless and plunks down $19.99 for a pair of black lace-ups and wears them until they get holes in the soles a year later, when he repeats the process. His husband has a similar process, but doesn't like cheap shoes. So he goes to Bass or Timberland or wherever and plunks down $100 for a pair of black lace-ups and wears them until they get holes in the soles a year later, when he repeats the process.
The question is, are there actually men's shoes of sufficient quality that they would not fall apart in a year or so of constant wear? Can one plunk down $200 or $400 or whatever and actually get shoes that are better?
Any suggestions?
Now, my friend has a very simple approach to shoes. About once a year he goes to Payless and plunks down $19.99 for a pair of black lace-ups and wears them until they get holes in the soles a year later, when he repeats the process. His husband has a similar process, but doesn't like cheap shoes. So he goes to Bass or Timberland or wherever and plunks down $100 for a pair of black lace-ups and wears them until they get holes in the soles a year later, when he repeats the process.
The question is, are there actually men's shoes of sufficient quality that they would not fall apart in a year or so of constant wear? Can one plunk down $200 or $400 or whatever and actually get shoes that are better?
Any suggestions?
Quality Men's Shoes?
Dec. 14th, 2007 01:31 amSo, a friend would like to buy shoes for his husband and asked me for advice. I don't have any, so I turn to my widely knowledgeable friends for help.
Now, my friend has a very simple approach to shoes. About once a year he goes to Payless and plunks down $19.99 for a pair of black lace-ups and wears them until they get holes in the soles a year later, when he repeats the process. His husband has a similar process, but doesn't like cheap shoes. So he goes to Bass or Timberland or wherever and plunks down $100 for a pair of black lace-ups and wears them until they get holes in the soles a year later, when he repeats the process.
The question is, are there actually men's shoes of sufficient quality that they would not fall apart in a year or so of constant wear? Can one plunk down $200 or $400 or whatever and actually get shoes that are better?
Any suggestions?
Now, my friend has a very simple approach to shoes. About once a year he goes to Payless and plunks down $19.99 for a pair of black lace-ups and wears them until they get holes in the soles a year later, when he repeats the process. His husband has a similar process, but doesn't like cheap shoes. So he goes to Bass or Timberland or wherever and plunks down $100 for a pair of black lace-ups and wears them until they get holes in the soles a year later, when he repeats the process.
The question is, are there actually men's shoes of sufficient quality that they would not fall apart in a year or so of constant wear? Can one plunk down $200 or $400 or whatever and actually get shoes that are better?
Any suggestions?
Dusting the Bunnies
Feb. 15th, 2006 05:14 pmI have a shelf-full of stuffed animals (soft toys) collecting dust on a shelf in my workroom. Can anyone suggest a good way to dust them? I had thought of putting them in the dryer for a few minutes, and then someone said "use low heat!" and, well, our dryer doesn't have a low heat setting. No, really--the only variable setting is time. Would putting them in for, say, ten minutes be useful and reasonably harmless, y'think?
Dusting the Bunnies
Feb. 15th, 2006 05:14 pmI have a shelf-full of stuffed animals (soft toys) collecting dust on a shelf in my workroom. Can anyone suggest a good way to dust them? I had thought of putting them in the dryer for a few minutes, and then someone said "use low heat!" and, well, our dryer doesn't have a low heat setting. No, really--the only variable setting is time. Would putting them in for, say, ten minutes be useful and reasonably harmless, y'think?
Further reflection on The Know-It-All
Feb. 11th, 2006 03:27 amI should be in bed, but my mind is jumbling around a few different ideas and fitting them together.
For a while now, I've been intrigued by the portrayal of intelligent people in the media. Having recently read The Know-It-All, I find that a lasting impression from the book is how almost everyone to whom the author mentioned his quest to read the entire Encyclopaedia Brittanica thought it was a crazy thing to do. His wife was completely unsupportive and went so far as to begin fining him $1 for every irrelevant fact he mentioned.
I really enjoy facts. They're fun toys. I'm not sure I'd like A.J. Jacobs as a close personal friend, but as a dinner companion or cocktail party guest, he sounds great. The facts he found interesting enough to share and discuss in his book were interesting to me. I doubt I'll ever duplicate his feat, but I'm sure that if I did, I would find it fascinating. And that most of my friends would think it a pretty cool thing to do. Yes, yes--randomly reciting facts can be annoying, but no more so than constantly complaining about one's health. Why were most of the people he talked to (except, notably the super-high IQ guy and the Jeopardy champion) so down on the notion?
The other piece that keeps knocking around is a passage I found deeply disturbing and offensive from Ron Suskind's NYT Magazine article "Without a Doubt":
And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community.
I don't have any brilliant conclusion here, but I wonder things like "How could we change this?" and "What would it take to turn this around?" Smart people are important, and not just because I like them. Not liking smart people is, well, stupid.
For a while now, I've been intrigued by the portrayal of intelligent people in the media. Having recently read The Know-It-All, I find that a lasting impression from the book is how almost everyone to whom the author mentioned his quest to read the entire Encyclopaedia Brittanica thought it was a crazy thing to do. His wife was completely unsupportive and went so far as to begin fining him $1 for every irrelevant fact he mentioned.
I really enjoy facts. They're fun toys. I'm not sure I'd like A.J. Jacobs as a close personal friend, but as a dinner companion or cocktail party guest, he sounds great. The facts he found interesting enough to share and discuss in his book were interesting to me. I doubt I'll ever duplicate his feat, but I'm sure that if I did, I would find it fascinating. And that most of my friends would think it a pretty cool thing to do. Yes, yes--randomly reciting facts can be annoying, but no more so than constantly complaining about one's health. Why were most of the people he talked to (except, notably the super-high IQ guy and the Jeopardy champion) so down on the notion?
The other piece that keeps knocking around is a passage I found deeply disturbing and offensive from Ron Suskind's NYT Magazine article "Without a Doubt":
And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community.
I don't have any brilliant conclusion here, but I wonder things like "How could we change this?" and "What would it take to turn this around?" Smart people are important, and not just because I like them. Not liking smart people is, well, stupid.
Further reflection on The Know-It-All
Feb. 11th, 2006 03:27 amI should be in bed, but my mind is jumbling around a few different ideas and fitting them together.
For a while now, I've been intrigued by the portrayal of intelligent people in the media. Having recently read The Know-It-All, I find that a lasting impression from the book is how almost everyone to whom the author mentioned his quest to read the entire Encyclopaedia Brittanica thought it was a crazy thing to do. His wife was completely unsupportive and went so far as to begin fining him $1 for every irrelevant fact he mentioned.
I really enjoy facts. They're fun toys. I'm not sure I'd like A.J. Jacobs as a close personal friend, but as a dinner companion or cocktail party guest, he sounds great. The facts he found interesting enough to share and discuss in his book were interesting to me. I doubt I'll ever duplicate his feat, but I'm sure that if I did, I would find it fascinating. And that most of my friends would think it a pretty cool thing to do. Yes, yes--randomly reciting facts can be annoying, but no more so than constantly complaining about one's health. Why were most of the people he talked to (except, notably the super-high IQ guy and the Jeopardy champion) so down on the notion?
The other piece that keeps knocking around is a passage I found deeply disturbing and offensive from Ron Suskind's NYT Magazine article "Without a Doubt":
And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community.
I don't have any brilliant conclusion here, but I wonder things like "How could we change this?" and "What would it take to turn this around?" Smart people are important, and not just because I like them. Not liking smart people is, well, stupid.
For a while now, I've been intrigued by the portrayal of intelligent people in the media. Having recently read The Know-It-All, I find that a lasting impression from the book is how almost everyone to whom the author mentioned his quest to read the entire Encyclopaedia Brittanica thought it was a crazy thing to do. His wife was completely unsupportive and went so far as to begin fining him $1 for every irrelevant fact he mentioned.
I really enjoy facts. They're fun toys. I'm not sure I'd like A.J. Jacobs as a close personal friend, but as a dinner companion or cocktail party guest, he sounds great. The facts he found interesting enough to share and discuss in his book were interesting to me. I doubt I'll ever duplicate his feat, but I'm sure that if I did, I would find it fascinating. And that most of my friends would think it a pretty cool thing to do. Yes, yes--randomly reciting facts can be annoying, but no more so than constantly complaining about one's health. Why were most of the people he talked to (except, notably the super-high IQ guy and the Jeopardy champion) so down on the notion?
The other piece that keeps knocking around is a passage I found deeply disturbing and offensive from Ron Suskind's NYT Magazine article "Without a Doubt":
And for those who don't get it? That was explained to me in late 2002 by Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. "You think he's an idiot, don't you?" I said, no, I didn't. "No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!" In this instance, the final "you," of course, meant the entire reality-based community.
I don't have any brilliant conclusion here, but I wonder things like "How could we change this?" and "What would it take to turn this around?" Smart people are important, and not just because I like them. Not liking smart people is, well, stupid.
The subject of normality pops up from time to time in various discussions and often engenders debate on what is "normal" and whether there's any such thing, etc. I found myself thinking that one way to potentially get at the subject might be to ask the question "if you don't think you're normal, in what ways would you be different if you were normal?"
Anyone?
Anyone?
The subject of normality pops up from time to time in various discussions and often engenders debate on what is "normal" and whether there's any such thing, etc. I found myself thinking that one way to potentially get at the subject might be to ask the question "if you don't think you're normal, in what ways would you be different if you were normal?"
Anyone?
Anyone?
Calendar Failure
Oct. 27th, 2005 02:34 amI have a very good memory. It's not perfect, it's not eidetic, but it's very good. This can occasionally create problems: because my memory is usually good enough to keep track of my social engagements, I don't calendar them very rigorously. And then, once in a while, something does manage to slip my mind. Like now.
I know that there are two things I wanted to do tomorrow evening and that it seemed plausible to me that I might be able to do both. There are several things going on that either aren't of particular interest to me, or that are implausible in combination with the stuff I want to do. The most frustrating part is that I remember thinking earlier this evening Oh yes, that's the other thing I wanted to do tomorrow night! Good thing I remembered it!. But apparently it's very slippery, because it's gone again.
So if you know what it is that I can't remember, let me know. (Or if you're
muffyjo and I happened to say it out loud when I remembered it and you happen to remember what I said, speak right up.) I'm going to screen comments so that if it's an invite-only kind of thing, you needn't feel shy about it.
Drat! I hate this feeling.
I know that there are two things I wanted to do tomorrow evening and that it seemed plausible to me that I might be able to do both. There are several things going on that either aren't of particular interest to me, or that are implausible in combination with the stuff I want to do. The most frustrating part is that I remember thinking earlier this evening Oh yes, that's the other thing I wanted to do tomorrow night! Good thing I remembered it!. But apparently it's very slippery, because it's gone again.
So if you know what it is that I can't remember, let me know. (Or if you're
Drat! I hate this feeling.
Calendar Failure
Oct. 27th, 2005 02:34 amI have a very good memory. It's not perfect, it's not eidetic, but it's very good. This can occasionally create problems: because my memory is usually good enough to keep track of my social engagements, I don't calendar them very rigorously. And then, once in a while, something does manage to slip my mind. Like now.
I know that there are two things I wanted to do tomorrow evening and that it seemed plausible to me that I might be able to do both. There are several things going on that either aren't of particular interest to me, or that are implausible in combination with the stuff I want to do. The most frustrating part is that I remember thinking earlier this evening Oh yes, that's the other thing I wanted to do tomorrow night! Good thing I remembered it!. But apparently it's very slippery, because it's gone again.
So if you know what it is that I can't remember, let me know. (Or if you're
muffyjo and I happened to say it out loud when I remembered it and you happen to remember what I said, speak right up.) I'm going to screen comments so that if it's an invite-only kind of thing, you needn't feel shy about it.
Drat! I hate this feeling.
I know that there are two things I wanted to do tomorrow evening and that it seemed plausible to me that I might be able to do both. There are several things going on that either aren't of particular interest to me, or that are implausible in combination with the stuff I want to do. The most frustrating part is that I remember thinking earlier this evening Oh yes, that's the other thing I wanted to do tomorrow night! Good thing I remembered it!. But apparently it's very slippery, because it's gone again.
So if you know what it is that I can't remember, let me know. (Or if you're
Drat! I hate this feeling.
Optimization
Oct. 19th, 2005 12:10 pmI've been having a productive morning. The laundry is sorted and the washer and dryer humming madly. I've cleared up the mess of coke pallets in the laundry room, breaking them down for recycling pickup tomorrow. I went through all the mail, shredded the garbage with numbers on it, recycled most of the rest, paid the bills and put a new pile of catalogs in the bathroom for Christmas shopping.
While all of this has been going on, I've been thinking about a conversation about goals and priorities that I've had with a friend over the past few years. He rarely makes the same choices that I would and vice versa and at one point he revealed that he is occasionally nervous that I think the less of him for that. I responded that after years of puzzlement, I had finally figured out that, unlike myself, he's not optimizing his life for happiness. He's perfectly willing to be unhappy with a situation rather than upset the balance of his life. Some people try to maximize money, or fame, or professional success, or creativity, or altruism.
So that's my question today--what are you optimizing your life for?
While all of this has been going on, I've been thinking about a conversation about goals and priorities that I've had with a friend over the past few years. He rarely makes the same choices that I would and vice versa and at one point he revealed that he is occasionally nervous that I think the less of him for that. I responded that after years of puzzlement, I had finally figured out that, unlike myself, he's not optimizing his life for happiness. He's perfectly willing to be unhappy with a situation rather than upset the balance of his life. Some people try to maximize money, or fame, or professional success, or creativity, or altruism.
So that's my question today--what are you optimizing your life for?
Optimization
Oct. 19th, 2005 12:10 pmI've been having a productive morning. The laundry is sorted and the washer and dryer humming madly. I've cleared up the mess of coke pallets in the laundry room, breaking them down for recycling pickup tomorrow. I went through all the mail, shredded the garbage with numbers on it, recycled most of the rest, paid the bills and put a new pile of catalogs in the bathroom for Christmas shopping.
While all of this has been going on, I've been thinking about a conversation about goals and priorities that I've had with a friend over the past few years. He rarely makes the same choices that I would and vice versa and at one point he revealed that he is occasionally nervous that I think the less of him for that. I responded that after years of puzzlement, I had finally figured out that, unlike myself, he's not optimizing his life for happiness. He's perfectly willing to be unhappy with a situation rather than upset the balance of his life. Some people try to maximize money, or fame, or professional success, or creativity, or altruism.
So that's my question today--what are you optimizing your life for?
While all of this has been going on, I've been thinking about a conversation about goals and priorities that I've had with a friend over the past few years. He rarely makes the same choices that I would and vice versa and at one point he revealed that he is occasionally nervous that I think the less of him for that. I responded that after years of puzzlement, I had finally figured out that, unlike myself, he's not optimizing his life for happiness. He's perfectly willing to be unhappy with a situation rather than upset the balance of his life. Some people try to maximize money, or fame, or professional success, or creativity, or altruism.
So that's my question today--what are you optimizing your life for?