In studies conducted by Motivational Systems of West Orange, New Jersey, researchers found that 72% of the 12,000 participants reported that, in first time meetings, non-verbal communication carried significantly more weight than a verbal message (words). Only 6% of the respondents paid the slightest attention to what a person said at a first time meeting. This finding parallels Dr. Al Mehrabian's research at UCLA, who reported that only 7% of a person's communications effectiveness comes from words, while 38% is made up of tone of voice and 55% from non-verbal communication like eye contact, gestures, body language, dress, facial hair, etc. Ninety three percent of what is effectively communicated is non-verbal.
Think about it. Isn't it true that when you first meet someone new that your impression of them is based on how they look and sound? Even after you've known a person for a long time, you have a tendency to believe someone's body language more than the words that are used-and if the words don't match his or her body language, you may reject what is said altogether.
Remember, it is impossible to talk a person into having a great first impression of you or your company, no matter how hard you try. Also remember, how you look and act, rather than what you say is what gives you "an edge" with your customers, clients or prospects. A firm handshake, good posture, self-assured smile, professional manner and the way you dress are what people tune into. Sales representatives who try to talk or persuade a prospect into buying are totally ineffective. It appears that in selling, listening skills and not speaking skills are more important than the words that describe your products.
From the studies cited above and your own common sense, you can see that if you truly want to build a trusting relationship with a prospect, client or customer, you need to say as little as possible and get the other person to do most of the talking. When communicating with another person, always keep in mind that your words just don't compute!
To acquire a system where people talk themselves into buying, just click on http://www.thesellingedge.com/manual1.htm and then apply the techniques outlined in this unique self-directed learning manual in each of your sales transactions:
VIRDEN THORNTON is the founder and President of The $elling Edge, Inc. a firm specializing in sales, customer relations, and management training and development. Clients have included Sears Optical, Eastman Kodak, IBM, Deloitte & Touch, Bank One, Jefferson Pilot, and WalHMart to name a few. Virden is the author of Prospecting: The Key To Sales Success and the best selling Building & Closing the Sale, Fifty-Minute series books and Close That Sale, a video/audio tape series published by Crisp Publications, Inc. Menlo Park, California. He has also authored a Self-Directed Learning series of sales, coaching & team development, telemarketing, and personal productivity training guides.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Highway time
The big older Pontiac sped along eating up mile upon mile of highway. The driver slouched indolently behind the wheel, his left elbow resting comfortably on the car window fingers steadying the wheel but not gripping it, tapping in time to the classic rock on the radio. His right hand gripped the wheel at almost the top, but even that grip was relaxed, almost lazy. His rich hazel eyes were hidden behind aviator style sunglasses. He had a strong chin with a neatly trimmed goatee which matched his equally neatly trimmed short black hair.
The highway he was on stretched the length of the country, The Trans-Canada Highway, and he was driving west from the prairies towards the West Coast. The Rocky Mountains stretched before him, running north to south, like an impenetrable barrier. But Evan Kirby knew better; the highway found its winding way through mountain passes across the continental divide over several ranges ending in the Pacific Coastal Range and the sea. There by the sea, on the great Fraser River Delta which two million or more souls called home, lay Vancouver: a port city, a crossroads of the world. But the draw there for Evan was the rich and bountiful entertainment industry. Evan Kirby was a guitar player. He had played with an assortment of bands in prairie towns and cities but, drawn to classic rock and the new innovative sounds coming out of some of the west coast studios, had decided to try his luck in Vancouver. After all, he had reasoned, the weather's warmer there too.
The car was a cluttered mess and a Marshall amplifier took up more than half of the back seat. Some fast food bags and beverage cups littered the floor. On the seat beside him was a Calgary newspaper, a copy of Guitarplayer Magazine and a couple of CD's. As the car cruised further into the mountains the Calgary radio station he had been listening to started to crackle and break up. Evan steadied the wheel with a couple of fingers only and loaded a CD into the player. The car was filled with the sound of Led Zepplin as he cruised through the Banff National Park Gates.
Just west of the Banff townsite there were a couple of hitchhikers along the road. The first two were a grubby looking pair of men which Evan barely looked at. But his eyes were drawn to the slim girlish figure standing alone clutching a small pack to her side almost as though it were a teddy bear. The wind was blowing her long straight blonde hair wildly from beneath her hat, a crocheted close-fitting soft turquoise cap. She wore a pair of flared, faded and somewhat tattered blue jeans and a shirt that was a tight fitting long sleeved soft knit fabric in a darker turquoise than her hat with a dragon boldly painted across the front. Evan whistled under his breath as he pulled over to pick her up. 'Geez, she's just a kid.' he thought, 'They just get younger.'
The highway he was on stretched the length of the country, The Trans-Canada Highway, and he was driving west from the prairies towards the West Coast. The Rocky Mountains stretched before him, running north to south, like an impenetrable barrier. But Evan Kirby knew better; the highway found its winding way through mountain passes across the continental divide over several ranges ending in the Pacific Coastal Range and the sea. There by the sea, on the great Fraser River Delta which two million or more souls called home, lay Vancouver: a port city, a crossroads of the world. But the draw there for Evan was the rich and bountiful entertainment industry. Evan Kirby was a guitar player. He had played with an assortment of bands in prairie towns and cities but, drawn to classic rock and the new innovative sounds coming out of some of the west coast studios, had decided to try his luck in Vancouver. After all, he had reasoned, the weather's warmer there too.
The car was a cluttered mess and a Marshall amplifier took up more than half of the back seat. Some fast food bags and beverage cups littered the floor. On the seat beside him was a Calgary newspaper, a copy of Guitarplayer Magazine and a couple of CD's. As the car cruised further into the mountains the Calgary radio station he had been listening to started to crackle and break up. Evan steadied the wheel with a couple of fingers only and loaded a CD into the player. The car was filled with the sound of Led Zepplin as he cruised through the Banff National Park Gates.
Just west of the Banff townsite there were a couple of hitchhikers along the road. The first two were a grubby looking pair of men which Evan barely looked at. But his eyes were drawn to the slim girlish figure standing alone clutching a small pack to her side almost as though it were a teddy bear. The wind was blowing her long straight blonde hair wildly from beneath her hat, a crocheted close-fitting soft turquoise cap. She wore a pair of flared, faded and somewhat tattered blue jeans and a shirt that was a tight fitting long sleeved soft knit fabric in a darker turquoise than her hat with a dragon boldly painted across the front. Evan whistled under his breath as he pulled over to pick her up. 'Geez, she's just a kid.' he thought, 'They just get younger.'
The Shadow and the Flash
When I look back, I realise what a peculiar friendship it was. First, there was Lloyd Inwood, tall, slender, and finely knit, nervous and dark. And then Paul Tichlorne, tall, slender, and finely knit, nervous and blond. Each was the replica of the other in everything except colour. Lloyd's eyes were black; Paul's were blue. Under stress of excitement, the blood coursed olive in the face of Lloyd, crimson in the face of Paul. But outside this matter of colouring they were as like as two peas. Both were high-strung, prone to excessive tension and endurance, and they lived at concert pitch.
But there was a trio involved in this remarkable friendship, and the third was short, and fat, and chunky, and lazy, and, loath to say, it was I. Paul and Lloyd seemed born to rivalry with each other, and I to be peacemaker between them. We grew up together, the three of us, and full often have I received the angry blows each intended for the other. They were always competing, striving to outdo each other, and when entered upon some such struggle there was no limit either to their endeavours or passions.
This intense spirit of rivalry obtained in their studies and their games. If Paul memorised one canto of "Marmion," Lloyd memorised two cantos, Paul came back with three, and Lloyd again with four, till each knew the whole poem by heart. I remember an incident that occurred at the swimming hole - an incident tragically significant of the life-struggle between them. The boys had a game of diving to the bottom of a ten-foot pool and holding on by submerged roots to see who could stay under the longest. Paul and Lloyd allowed themselves to be bantered into making the descent together. When I saw their faces, set and determined, disappear in the water as they sank swiftly down, I felt a foreboding of something dreadful. The moments sped, the ripples died away, the face of the pool grew placid and untroubled, and neither black nor golden head broke surface in quest of air. We above grew anxious. The longest record of the longest-winded boy had been exceeded, and still there was no sign. Air bubbles trickled slowly upward, showing that the breath had been expelled from their lungs, and after that the bubbles ceased to trickle upward. Each second became interminable, and, unable longer to endure the suspense, I plunged into the water.
But there was a trio involved in this remarkable friendship, and the third was short, and fat, and chunky, and lazy, and, loath to say, it was I. Paul and Lloyd seemed born to rivalry with each other, and I to be peacemaker between them. We grew up together, the three of us, and full often have I received the angry blows each intended for the other. They were always competing, striving to outdo each other, and when entered upon some such struggle there was no limit either to their endeavours or passions.
This intense spirit of rivalry obtained in their studies and their games. If Paul memorised one canto of "Marmion," Lloyd memorised two cantos, Paul came back with three, and Lloyd again with four, till each knew the whole poem by heart. I remember an incident that occurred at the swimming hole - an incident tragically significant of the life-struggle between them. The boys had a game of diving to the bottom of a ten-foot pool and holding on by submerged roots to see who could stay under the longest. Paul and Lloyd allowed themselves to be bantered into making the descent together. When I saw their faces, set and determined, disappear in the water as they sank swiftly down, I felt a foreboding of something dreadful. The moments sped, the ripples died away, the face of the pool grew placid and untroubled, and neither black nor golden head broke surface in quest of air. We above grew anxious. The longest record of the longest-winded boy had been exceeded, and still there was no sign. Air bubbles trickled slowly upward, showing that the breath had been expelled from their lungs, and after that the bubbles ceased to trickle upward. Each second became interminable, and, unable longer to endure the suspense, I plunged into the water.
Brazen
"Ugh!" Stephanie Dwyer slammed her apartment door and stomped her foot. "Creep!" A picture fell off the wall and shattered. Water logged, droplets dripped from her nose, her hair, and her eyelashes, pooling at her feet. She scowled. Her new high heels were utterly ruined.
Courtney hid a chuckle behind her hand. Pointing the remote control at the television, she clicked off the sitcom she'd been watching. Her lips crooked into a half smirk. "This one turned into a jerk, too?"
Stephanie dropped her purse onto the coffee table and flopped onto the couch. She kicked her shoes off, scaring the cat who ran into the other room. Staring at the ceiling, she said, "All men should crash and burn."
"That good?" Courtney sat forward, flicking her long black hair behind her shoulders. "There's got to be a couple of good men out there. All we need is one good man each. Is that too much to ask?"
Stephanie lifted pained eyes to her roommate and best friend. "I don't think there's two good guys in this whole universe. I give up. I've had it. I'm not kissing any more toads."
Courtney looked thoughtful, tapping her chin with her forefinger. "Maybe we've been looking in the wrong universe."
Her friend was losing it big time. "What are you talking about?" Handsome Patrick had seemed so perfect, so wonderful. Until she'd caught him with Alyssa tonight, telling her the moon and stars shone only for her, that they were soulmates - the same pathetic lines he'd snared her with.
Some soulmate!
Jumping to her feet, Courtney paced in front of her. "What we need is a vacation away from the city to someplace totally different."
"With totally different kinds of men." Despite herself, her interest was piqued. "We need men who are the opposite of the bozos we've been finding here. No more big shot professionals."
Courtney grinned from ear to ear. "No more men who drive Mercedes."
"Or who wear Rolex's." Steph started to feel alive again.
"Or who drink champagne." Courtney downed a sip of her diet soda. Mischief danced in her dark eyes. "Give me a down to earth man who guzzles beer."
The spirit grabbed Steph, rejuvenating her. "Give me a man who wears boots!"
Courtney slapped her thigh. "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
Courtney hid a chuckle behind her hand. Pointing the remote control at the television, she clicked off the sitcom she'd been watching. Her lips crooked into a half smirk. "This one turned into a jerk, too?"
Stephanie dropped her purse onto the coffee table and flopped onto the couch. She kicked her shoes off, scaring the cat who ran into the other room. Staring at the ceiling, she said, "All men should crash and burn."
"That good?" Courtney sat forward, flicking her long black hair behind her shoulders. "There's got to be a couple of good men out there. All we need is one good man each. Is that too much to ask?"
Stephanie lifted pained eyes to her roommate and best friend. "I don't think there's two good guys in this whole universe. I give up. I've had it. I'm not kissing any more toads."
Courtney looked thoughtful, tapping her chin with her forefinger. "Maybe we've been looking in the wrong universe."
Her friend was losing it big time. "What are you talking about?" Handsome Patrick had seemed so perfect, so wonderful. Until she'd caught him with Alyssa tonight, telling her the moon and stars shone only for her, that they were soulmates - the same pathetic lines he'd snared her with.
Some soulmate!
Jumping to her feet, Courtney paced in front of her. "What we need is a vacation away from the city to someplace totally different."
"With totally different kinds of men." Despite herself, her interest was piqued. "We need men who are the opposite of the bozos we've been finding here. No more big shot professionals."
Courtney grinned from ear to ear. "No more men who drive Mercedes."
"Or who wear Rolex's." Steph started to feel alive again.
"Or who drink champagne." Courtney downed a sip of her diet soda. Mischief danced in her dark eyes. "Give me a down to earth man who guzzles beer."
The spirit grabbed Steph, rejuvenating her. "Give me a man who wears boots!"
Courtney slapped her thigh. "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
The Realm Of The Unreal
For a part of the distance between Auburn and Newcastle the road -- first on one side of a creek and then on the other -- occupies the whole bottom of the ravine, being partly cut out of the steep hillside, and partly built up with boulders removed from the creek-bed by the miners. The hills are wooded, the course of the ravine is sinuous. In a dark night careful driving is required in order not to go off into the water. The night that I have in memory was dark, the creek a torrent, swollen by a recent storm. I had driven up from Newcastle and was within about a mile of Auburn in the darkest and narrowest part of the ravine, looking intently ahead of my horse for the roadway. Suddenly I saw a man almost under the animal's nose, and reined in with a jerk that came near setting the creature upon its haunches.
'I beg your pardon,' I said; 'I did not see you, sir.'
'You could hardly be expected to see me,' the man replied civilly, approaching the side of the vehicle; 'and the noise of the creek prevented my hearing you.'
I at once recognized the voice, although five years had passed since I had heard it. I was not particularly well pleased to hear it now.
'You are Dr. Dorrimore, I think,' said I.
'Yes; and you are my good friend Mr. Manrich. I am more than glad to see you -- the excess,' he added, with a light laugh, 'being due to the fact that I am going your way, and naturally expect an invitation to ride with you.'
'Which I extend with all my heart.'
That was not altogether true.
Dr. Dorrimore thanked me as he seated himself beside me, and I drove cautiously forward, as before. Doubtless it is fancy, but it seems to me now that the remaining distance was made in a chill fog; that I was uncomfortably cold; that the way was longer than ever before, and the town, when we reached it, cheerless, forbidding, and desolate. It must have been early in the evening, yet I do not recollect a light in any of the houses nor a living thing in the streets. Dorrimore explained at some length how he happened to be there, and where he had been during the years that had elapsed since I had seen him. I recall the fact of the narrative, but none of the facts narrated. He had been in foreign countries and had returned -- this is all that my memory retains, and this I already knew. As to myself I cannot remember that I spoke a word, though doubtless I did.
'I beg your pardon,' I said; 'I did not see you, sir.'
'You could hardly be expected to see me,' the man replied civilly, approaching the side of the vehicle; 'and the noise of the creek prevented my hearing you.'
I at once recognized the voice, although five years had passed since I had heard it. I was not particularly well pleased to hear it now.
'You are Dr. Dorrimore, I think,' said I.
'Yes; and you are my good friend Mr. Manrich. I am more than glad to see you -- the excess,' he added, with a light laugh, 'being due to the fact that I am going your way, and naturally expect an invitation to ride with you.'
'Which I extend with all my heart.'
That was not altogether true.
Dr. Dorrimore thanked me as he seated himself beside me, and I drove cautiously forward, as before. Doubtless it is fancy, but it seems to me now that the remaining distance was made in a chill fog; that I was uncomfortably cold; that the way was longer than ever before, and the town, when we reached it, cheerless, forbidding, and desolate. It must have been early in the evening, yet I do not recollect a light in any of the houses nor a living thing in the streets. Dorrimore explained at some length how he happened to be there, and where he had been during the years that had elapsed since I had seen him. I recall the fact of the narrative, but none of the facts narrated. He had been in foreign countries and had returned -- this is all that my memory retains, and this I already knew. As to myself I cannot remember that I spoke a word, though doubtless I did.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Hottest Pepper
Being the (brazen) adventurist that I am, I have tried the hottest pepper on earth. Introduced to me as the Ghost Pepper, I came to find out this hot lil, devil vegetable goes by many scary and hard to pronounce names, and is damn hot.
My first and only experience with the ghost pepper was one to remember. One random Friday evening I was dining at a delicious Indian food restaurant (Red Fort) in Torrance, CA. The owner/manager of the restaurant (a gregarious and delightful man) came over to our table with a pair of scissors and a plastic bag of something. Having already expressed my love for spicy foods earlier in the evening, the owner asked me if I wanted to try a "very spicy pepper". Of course the "fearless and daring" side of my personality perked up and I said "YES"!!
*To back up for a minute, I like Sriracha and Tabasco sauce...not all spicy foods, so for me to declare with gusto that I like spicy foods (as though I am some spicy food aficionado) is idiotic of me.
The owner then proceeded to snip off a tiny speck of the pepper, put it on a napkin and allow me to proceed at my own risk. The scissors and plastic bag should have tipped me off as to how hot this pepper is, but I continued to place that tiny piece of pepper onto my tongue without hesitation.
After putting the speck of ghost pepper (size of a sprinkle) on my tongue, a burning sensation filled my mouth. After 10 seconds, I felt like the pepper was actually boring a hole directly through my tongue. Needless to say, I took the pepper immediately out of my mouth and started gulping red wine (to no alleviation). The burning, searing sensation lasted a good 30 minutes after the pepper was out of my mouth. After the pepper was crumpled in a napkin at my table, the owner came over and handed me his iPhone. On the screen a video was playing (below: Youtube video) of a man who put a piece of the intestinal track of the ghost pepper in his mouth. I seriously suggest you check this video out; great entertainment/warning.
The Ghost Pepper is not something to mess around with. It is the hottest pepper in the world.
My first and only experience with the ghost pepper was one to remember. One random Friday evening I was dining at a delicious Indian food restaurant (Red Fort) in Torrance, CA. The owner/manager of the restaurant (a gregarious and delightful man) came over to our table with a pair of scissors and a plastic bag of something. Having already expressed my love for spicy foods earlier in the evening, the owner asked me if I wanted to try a "very spicy pepper". Of course the "fearless and daring" side of my personality perked up and I said "YES"!!
*To back up for a minute, I like Sriracha and Tabasco sauce...not all spicy foods, so for me to declare with gusto that I like spicy foods (as though I am some spicy food aficionado) is idiotic of me.
The owner then proceeded to snip off a tiny speck of the pepper, put it on a napkin and allow me to proceed at my own risk. The scissors and plastic bag should have tipped me off as to how hot this pepper is, but I continued to place that tiny piece of pepper onto my tongue without hesitation.
After putting the speck of ghost pepper (size of a sprinkle) on my tongue, a burning sensation filled my mouth. After 10 seconds, I felt like the pepper was actually boring a hole directly through my tongue. Needless to say, I took the pepper immediately out of my mouth and started gulping red wine (to no alleviation). The burning, searing sensation lasted a good 30 minutes after the pepper was out of my mouth. After the pepper was crumpled in a napkin at my table, the owner came over and handed me his iPhone. On the screen a video was playing (below: Youtube video) of a man who put a piece of the intestinal track of the ghost pepper in his mouth. I seriously suggest you check this video out; great entertainment/warning.
The Ghost Pepper is not something to mess around with. It is the hottest pepper in the world.
Eat healthy
A whopping 20 percent of Canadians can’t afford their homes, according to a recently released study, and I’d guess that this statistic is comparable in the U.S. and other developed countries right now. The report went on to state that these people frequently choose unhealthy food options because they believe them to be cheaper and feel they can’t afford to eat right. So in my effort to help everyone who’s watching their money (isn’t that just about everyone these days?), I’ve compiled some of my favorite ways to eat more healthfully on a budget.
1. Double or triple your normal recipes and freeze the leftovers. You’ll dramatically cut down the cost of buying prepared and packaged foods. And, you’ll eat healthier when you’re tired or in a pinch for time.
2. Use seasonal fruits and vegetables as much as possible. When food is in season, it’s cheaper. Plus, you’ll be doing your part for the environment by eating more locally grown food.
3. Watch for sales. Plan your meals around some of the cheaper items you find.
4. Add more beans to your diet. Beans are not only the “magical fruit,” they can also work magic on your budget since they’re super nutritious and cheap. Dried beans can be cooked effortlessly overnight in a slow cooker. Place one cup dried beans and six cups water in a slow cooker before going to bed and cook on low overnight. Drain and rinse in the morning and they’re ready for use in your soup, stew, chili, salad, or other recipes.
5. Eat more vegetarian meals. Meat tends to be more expensive; not to mention, it also takes a higher toll on the environment and your body.
6. Take a page from the chef’s notebook. Use mirepoix as a base for many soups, stews, and rice dishes. Mirepoix is a fancy-sounding French word that simply means chopped onions, celery, and carrots. These are among the cheapest vegetables and they add lots of flavor to your meals.
7. Shop at your local farmers’ markets instead of grocery stores as much as possible. Most farmers’ market food doesn’t have the built-in costs of lengthy transportation, distributors, warehousing, etc. Plus, the food is fresher and frequently more nutritious, and eating locally is better for the environment.
8. Grow your own sprouts and herbs. Growing your own sprouts is much easier than you think. Not sure how? Read my article on how to do it.
9. Buy seasonal produce in bulk and freeze it. From berries to sliced peaches to chopped green and red peppers, many fruits and vegetables can be frozen.
10. Hit the bulk bins at your local health food or grocery store. Here’s where you’ll find the lower cost whole grains, beans, seeds, nuts, and flour. They’re usually substantially cheaper than their packaged counterparts are. And, less packaging is good for your wallet and the planet.
11. Shop the perimeter of your grocery store. You’ll find fresher, healthier options there. The center aisles are primarily reserved for the packaged, convenience foods that tend to cost more and are full of dangerous additives, trans fats, and sugar.
12. Make your own snacks. Prepared snack foods are not only full of junk ingredients that you should avoid, they tend to be expensive. Make a batch of cookies, muffins, or other snack food with wholesome, natural ingredients.
13. Plan ahead. A few minutes of planning your grocery list and the meals you’ll make can save you plenty of cash on impulse purchases you’ll be less likely to make.
Eating healthfully doesn’t have to be costly. With a little planning, you might be surprised at how inexpensive—and delicious—healthful eating can be.
1. Double or triple your normal recipes and freeze the leftovers. You’ll dramatically cut down the cost of buying prepared and packaged foods. And, you’ll eat healthier when you’re tired or in a pinch for time.
2. Use seasonal fruits and vegetables as much as possible. When food is in season, it’s cheaper. Plus, you’ll be doing your part for the environment by eating more locally grown food.
3. Watch for sales. Plan your meals around some of the cheaper items you find.
4. Add more beans to your diet. Beans are not only the “magical fruit,” they can also work magic on your budget since they’re super nutritious and cheap. Dried beans can be cooked effortlessly overnight in a slow cooker. Place one cup dried beans and six cups water in a slow cooker before going to bed and cook on low overnight. Drain and rinse in the morning and they’re ready for use in your soup, stew, chili, salad, or other recipes.
5. Eat more vegetarian meals. Meat tends to be more expensive; not to mention, it also takes a higher toll on the environment and your body.
6. Take a page from the chef’s notebook. Use mirepoix as a base for many soups, stews, and rice dishes. Mirepoix is a fancy-sounding French word that simply means chopped onions, celery, and carrots. These are among the cheapest vegetables and they add lots of flavor to your meals.
7. Shop at your local farmers’ markets instead of grocery stores as much as possible. Most farmers’ market food doesn’t have the built-in costs of lengthy transportation, distributors, warehousing, etc. Plus, the food is fresher and frequently more nutritious, and eating locally is better for the environment.
8. Grow your own sprouts and herbs. Growing your own sprouts is much easier than you think. Not sure how? Read my article on how to do it.
9. Buy seasonal produce in bulk and freeze it. From berries to sliced peaches to chopped green and red peppers, many fruits and vegetables can be frozen.
10. Hit the bulk bins at your local health food or grocery store. Here’s where you’ll find the lower cost whole grains, beans, seeds, nuts, and flour. They’re usually substantially cheaper than their packaged counterparts are. And, less packaging is good for your wallet and the planet.
11. Shop the perimeter of your grocery store. You’ll find fresher, healthier options there. The center aisles are primarily reserved for the packaged, convenience foods that tend to cost more and are full of dangerous additives, trans fats, and sugar.
12. Make your own snacks. Prepared snack foods are not only full of junk ingredients that you should avoid, they tend to be expensive. Make a batch of cookies, muffins, or other snack food with wholesome, natural ingredients.
13. Plan ahead. A few minutes of planning your grocery list and the meals you’ll make can save you plenty of cash on impulse purchases you’ll be less likely to make.
Eating healthfully doesn’t have to be costly. With a little planning, you might be surprised at how inexpensive—and delicious—healthful eating can be.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Strenghten Friendship
When I hear a couple boast that they never fight, I don’t feel envious—I feel suspicious. Every relationship is prone to disagreement, whether it’s between friends, parents and children, or partners. That’s just what happens when two people with different personalities and backgrounds come together. What’s more likely in the case of these purportedly argument-free couples is that they equate fighting with unhealthy relationships. But occasional conflict is actually a natural part of any partnership, as long as it’s fair and constructive. I spoke with Sandy Roos, a licensed marriage and family therapist (MFT) in the Bay Area, about the different ways in which couples can benefit from conflict—as well as why “never fighting” is worse than you might think.
The Upside of Conflict
When I proposed the idea of arguments’ being a healthy aspect of relationships, Sandy was quick to correct my choice of vocabulary. “Arguing means neither one is listening to the other,” she said. Instead, she uses the word “conflict”: “Conflict means growth is trying to happen in the relationship and new information is trying to enter the system.” When we fight with our partners, we’re trying to find common ground between our differences. At least, that’s what we should be doing if we want to find a solution. Too often, emotions get in the way of logic and conflict turns into something much less healthy. Names are called, fingers are pointed, and past fights are used as weapons.
But for couples who are able to avoid that destructive behavior—or what Sandy calls “unskillful ways to deal with differences”—conflict from time to time can be like relationship therapy. By expressing your feelings and talking through (not yelling, mind you) problems, you don’t give them a chance to fester and grow. Partners are less likely to feel ignored or disrespected. You’ll each understand the other’s priorities and needs better, which is of the utmost importance for relationship stability. It instills confidence about your ability to conquer problems in the future. You’re also more likely to resolve the issue, or at least come to terms with it, and that, in turn, helps strengthen the bond. “Resolving conflict in a safe way deepens the relationship, as it creates trust, intimacy, and a place where each partner can ask for what they need,” Sandy explains.
The Pitfalls of Avoidance
Couples who avoid conflict may think themselves uniquely harmonious, but that’s not always the case. It could be that one of the two has a problem voicing his or her frustrations and chooses to keep quiet, rather than rock the boat. That can be disastrous for relationships, according to Sandy. “Never having conflict is deadly,” she warns. “Things get shoved under the rug, until there’s so much distance and resentment built up that intimacy is severely compromised.” In other words, things should come up on occasion. It’s expected that two people won’t agree on everything; even identical twins get into rows. But if you don’t vent those nagging opinions or annoyances, they might bubble to the surface later in a big, bad way—potentially one that your relationship can’t recover from. And if you don’t trust your relationship enough to broach these issues in the first place, that doesn’t speak well for its future anyway.
Some partners walk on eggshells around each other because they haven’t learned to fight fairly. What starts as a small conflict turns into a huge mess of hurt feelings and words you can’t take back. Because emotions run high and trigger physical, bodily responses that only aggravate the situation (increased body temperatures, increased heart rate, et cetera), it’s all too easy to fall into these destructive fighting patterns. Sandy advises couples she works with to watch out for certain bad conflict behaviors.
* Blaming and criticizing
* Name calling and attacking
* Using sarcasm
* Shutting down emotionally (refusing to talk about anything)
* Saying you-statements (e.g., “You never help clean,” or, “You’re always belittling me”)
What It Takes to Make It Work
If you’re a couple who never fights, either because of trust issues or because of the fear of revisiting arguments past, there are steps you can take to overcome that avoidance. Sandy shared how she helps her clients in similar situations: “I let them know that there are safe ways to have conflict, and I do a great deal of educating on how to manage conflict so they become closer and experience more intimacy as a result,” she says. “After giving many tools, I coach them in the process and help them express themselves, ask for what they need, and use empathy with their partner to create trust and diminish insecurity.”
The tools she refers to include: using I-statements more (e.g., “I feel resentful when you don’t help me clean”), being honest about feelings without placing blame or getting defensive, taking small time-outs if you feel too stressed or upset, and—possibly the most important one of all—listening to your partner. Turning a bad conflict into a good one is the goal behind each tactic. In good conflicts, partners want to understand each other above all else. In bad conflicts, winning the argument becomes the top priority. But as anyone who’s been through a particularly bad fight can tell you, there are no winners when that’s the case. But there aren’t winners when you completely avoid issues, either. Once we realize that conflict isn’t always a negative thing—and in fact can be quite beneficial to the relationship—we can learn how to handle it the right way. It may take patience and riding out a few bumps along the way, but if the outcome is a partnership with a stronger foundation of trust, kindness, and understanding, it’s certainly worth a try.
The Upside of Conflict
When I proposed the idea of arguments’ being a healthy aspect of relationships, Sandy was quick to correct my choice of vocabulary. “Arguing means neither one is listening to the other,” she said. Instead, she uses the word “conflict”: “Conflict means growth is trying to happen in the relationship and new information is trying to enter the system.” When we fight with our partners, we’re trying to find common ground between our differences. At least, that’s what we should be doing if we want to find a solution. Too often, emotions get in the way of logic and conflict turns into something much less healthy. Names are called, fingers are pointed, and past fights are used as weapons.
But for couples who are able to avoid that destructive behavior—or what Sandy calls “unskillful ways to deal with differences”—conflict from time to time can be like relationship therapy. By expressing your feelings and talking through (not yelling, mind you) problems, you don’t give them a chance to fester and grow. Partners are less likely to feel ignored or disrespected. You’ll each understand the other’s priorities and needs better, which is of the utmost importance for relationship stability. It instills confidence about your ability to conquer problems in the future. You’re also more likely to resolve the issue, or at least come to terms with it, and that, in turn, helps strengthen the bond. “Resolving conflict in a safe way deepens the relationship, as it creates trust, intimacy, and a place where each partner can ask for what they need,” Sandy explains.
The Pitfalls of Avoidance
Couples who avoid conflict may think themselves uniquely harmonious, but that’s not always the case. It could be that one of the two has a problem voicing his or her frustrations and chooses to keep quiet, rather than rock the boat. That can be disastrous for relationships, according to Sandy. “Never having conflict is deadly,” she warns. “Things get shoved under the rug, until there’s so much distance and resentment built up that intimacy is severely compromised.” In other words, things should come up on occasion. It’s expected that two people won’t agree on everything; even identical twins get into rows. But if you don’t vent those nagging opinions or annoyances, they might bubble to the surface later in a big, bad way—potentially one that your relationship can’t recover from. And if you don’t trust your relationship enough to broach these issues in the first place, that doesn’t speak well for its future anyway.
Some partners walk on eggshells around each other because they haven’t learned to fight fairly. What starts as a small conflict turns into a huge mess of hurt feelings and words you can’t take back. Because emotions run high and trigger physical, bodily responses that only aggravate the situation (increased body temperatures, increased heart rate, et cetera), it’s all too easy to fall into these destructive fighting patterns. Sandy advises couples she works with to watch out for certain bad conflict behaviors.
* Blaming and criticizing
* Name calling and attacking
* Using sarcasm
* Shutting down emotionally (refusing to talk about anything)
* Saying you-statements (e.g., “You never help clean,” or, “You’re always belittling me”)
What It Takes to Make It Work
If you’re a couple who never fights, either because of trust issues or because of the fear of revisiting arguments past, there are steps you can take to overcome that avoidance. Sandy shared how she helps her clients in similar situations: “I let them know that there are safe ways to have conflict, and I do a great deal of educating on how to manage conflict so they become closer and experience more intimacy as a result,” she says. “After giving many tools, I coach them in the process and help them express themselves, ask for what they need, and use empathy with their partner to create trust and diminish insecurity.”
The tools she refers to include: using I-statements more (e.g., “I feel resentful when you don’t help me clean”), being honest about feelings without placing blame or getting defensive, taking small time-outs if you feel too stressed or upset, and—possibly the most important one of all—listening to your partner. Turning a bad conflict into a good one is the goal behind each tactic. In good conflicts, partners want to understand each other above all else. In bad conflicts, winning the argument becomes the top priority. But as anyone who’s been through a particularly bad fight can tell you, there are no winners when that’s the case. But there aren’t winners when you completely avoid issues, either. Once we realize that conflict isn’t always a negative thing—and in fact can be quite beneficial to the relationship—we can learn how to handle it the right way. It may take patience and riding out a few bumps along the way, but if the outcome is a partnership with a stronger foundation of trust, kindness, and understanding, it’s certainly worth a try.
Give Compliments That Mean Something
Carefully chosen words are among the most disposable items in today’s throwaway society.
Giving complimentsThat’s helped to make compliments — real, meaningful words of praise — an increasingly elusive treasure. The reality is that the art of giving meaningful compliments has become a dying one.
Part of it is political correctness. Part of it lies in the faceless, informal ways we’re connected to one another through technology.
It’s not that we’ve become cold and unfeeling. Most of us do issue compliments — to co-workers, loved ones and even sometimes strangers. But they tend to ring hollow, failing to truly connect with and touch the recipient.
And most of us want to give meaningful compliments that leave an impression. Often it’s simply a matter of simplicity and intent. We rush our words or worse — rehearse them — instead of allowing the compliment to organically emerge.
To help revive this dying art, here are five ways to help you give meaningful compliments:
1. Be Specific
Detail is the lifeblood of good writing. It’s also the heart of a great compliment. Hone in on a specific achievement or aspect and focus your words on that. A vague, generalized comment that can be recycled throughout the day — “You have beautiful eyes” or “Great presentation to the board” — lacks real meaning because of its cookie-cutter nature.
That man or woman gets a flimsy compliment about their eyes a few times a week. Instead, seize on a sliver that indicates you paid attention or that the recipient’s presence or actions have made a meaningful impact on you. It’s not just that she gave a great presentation — it’s that this particular moment proved so captivating.
Specific compliments have lasting power. So do those that favor character over objects or outward appearance. They indicate that you’ve truly taken stock of a person and their attributes and, in turn, compressed those thoughts into a value judgment.
2. Be Genuine
Meaning what you say is, well, inherent to a meaningful compliment. With a little skill you can make a platitude seem specific enough to mollify the recipient. Despite your knack for false sincerity, most people can tell when your words aren’t genuine. That’s why you shouldn’t force a compliment because it somehow seems like the time or place to offer one.
Sincerity is a byproduct of genuine belief or emotion. To toss up a compliment because of social convention or circumstance is to speak without real meaning. Writing about the art of compliments for Esquire magazine, Tom Chiarella summed it up perfectly: “If a worthwhile compliment needs anything, it is the weight of realization behind it.”
3. Be Patient
Giving the perfect compliment is also about waiting for the perfect moment. One thing you should avoid is trying to manufacture that moment — that’s inherently selfish and makes the giving more about you than the recipient. Flattery and puffery are impatient and have the giver’s best interests at heart. At the same time, waiting too long can mean the compliment loses its timeliness. Strive to strike a balance, focusing on the needs and timing of the recipient.
4. Be Succinct
It’s easy to start rambling when you say something nice about someone. Don’t linger around looking for a “thank you” or feel the need to repeat yourself or venture beyond the confines of the compliment. This is especially true if you’re moved to compliment a stranger. Breeze in, offer your heartfelt words and jump right back into life ongoing.
5. Be Yourself
You don’t need to assume some new persona to start dishing out compliments to co-workers and folks off the street. Possessing a degree of self-confidence is key to delivering meaningful compliments. Learning how to give these types of compliments will also make you a better — and more appreciative — recipient when the time comes to receive them.
Giving complimentsThat’s helped to make compliments — real, meaningful words of praise — an increasingly elusive treasure. The reality is that the art of giving meaningful compliments has become a dying one.
Part of it is political correctness. Part of it lies in the faceless, informal ways we’re connected to one another through technology.
It’s not that we’ve become cold and unfeeling. Most of us do issue compliments — to co-workers, loved ones and even sometimes strangers. But they tend to ring hollow, failing to truly connect with and touch the recipient.
And most of us want to give meaningful compliments that leave an impression. Often it’s simply a matter of simplicity and intent. We rush our words or worse — rehearse them — instead of allowing the compliment to organically emerge.
To help revive this dying art, here are five ways to help you give meaningful compliments:
1. Be Specific
Detail is the lifeblood of good writing. It’s also the heart of a great compliment. Hone in on a specific achievement or aspect and focus your words on that. A vague, generalized comment that can be recycled throughout the day — “You have beautiful eyes” or “Great presentation to the board” — lacks real meaning because of its cookie-cutter nature.
That man or woman gets a flimsy compliment about their eyes a few times a week. Instead, seize on a sliver that indicates you paid attention or that the recipient’s presence or actions have made a meaningful impact on you. It’s not just that she gave a great presentation — it’s that this particular moment proved so captivating.
Specific compliments have lasting power. So do those that favor character over objects or outward appearance. They indicate that you’ve truly taken stock of a person and their attributes and, in turn, compressed those thoughts into a value judgment.
2. Be Genuine
Meaning what you say is, well, inherent to a meaningful compliment. With a little skill you can make a platitude seem specific enough to mollify the recipient. Despite your knack for false sincerity, most people can tell when your words aren’t genuine. That’s why you shouldn’t force a compliment because it somehow seems like the time or place to offer one.
Sincerity is a byproduct of genuine belief or emotion. To toss up a compliment because of social convention or circumstance is to speak without real meaning. Writing about the art of compliments for Esquire magazine, Tom Chiarella summed it up perfectly: “If a worthwhile compliment needs anything, it is the weight of realization behind it.”
3. Be Patient
Giving the perfect compliment is also about waiting for the perfect moment. One thing you should avoid is trying to manufacture that moment — that’s inherently selfish and makes the giving more about you than the recipient. Flattery and puffery are impatient and have the giver’s best interests at heart. At the same time, waiting too long can mean the compliment loses its timeliness. Strive to strike a balance, focusing on the needs and timing of the recipient.
4. Be Succinct
It’s easy to start rambling when you say something nice about someone. Don’t linger around looking for a “thank you” or feel the need to repeat yourself or venture beyond the confines of the compliment. This is especially true if you’re moved to compliment a stranger. Breeze in, offer your heartfelt words and jump right back into life ongoing.
5. Be Yourself
You don’t need to assume some new persona to start dishing out compliments to co-workers and folks off the street. Possessing a degree of self-confidence is key to delivering meaningful compliments. Learning how to give these types of compliments will also make you a better — and more appreciative — recipient when the time comes to receive them.
Perfect partner
Many people think of soul mates as two people who find each other and know immediately that they’re destined to spend their lives together in ecstatic harmony. Others consider the idea about as credible as crystal healing, love potions, or the tooth fairy. Our culture is saturated with the notion that there’s one perfect partner out there for everybody, and to settle for anything less than this perfection is to deny oneself a chance at true happiness, which is surely waiting in the wings. The National Marriage Project, conducted in 2001, found that 94 percent of twenty- to twenty-nine-year-olds said that the person you eventually marry should be your soul mate, and 88 percent reported a belief that for everyone in the world, there was a spiritual twin out there somewhere. While the notion of soul mates sounds like a good one, does it color how we view relationships and marriage and set us all up for failure?
An Unrealistic Expectation
From the time we begin dating, most of us can picture an idealized version of our perfect partner. We want someone of a certain height, appearance, and intelligence, someone who perfectly complements our strengths and camouflages our weaknesses. Many believe that once we find this perfect partner, we’ll be happy together forever. One problem with this perspective is that it views relationships as things that happen to us, rather than things that we create by working hard on them. It assumes that once we’ve found our intended, they will complete us like the missing piece of a puzzle, and everything from then on should be easy and effortless. The search for a soul mate is dangerously close to the search for a completely perfect relationship, something we all know doesn’t exist.
Most people who believe in the idea of soul mates believe that the harmonious bliss of a new relationship is proof that their new love is indeed the one they’ve been waiting for. Eventually, after the newness of a relationship has worn off, people worry that the corresponding dip in excitement (which is perfectly normal) signifies that the relationship wasn’t meant to be after all. Dr. John Grey, PhD, author of Becoming Soulmates: Keys to Lasting Love, Passion and a Great Relationship, writes, “If we want a great relationship to deepen and last, we need to realize that ‘happily ever after’ includes feelings other than happiness. The myth of ‘soulmates’ is about a relationship that is blue sky forever. Always sunny, and that sunshine pours down on us, brightens us up, lifts us. In a real-world relationship, challenges come. The sky occasionally clouds.”
Does the Grass Seem Greener?
The most pernicious effect of the soul-mate myth is that it encourages people to believe that there must be something better out there. The myth can sometimes cause people to sabotage perfectly salvageable relationships because of the belief that finding one’s true spiritual equal will make a person blissfully happy at all times. Of course, few relationships can live up to this ideal, and the myth judges any lesser relationships as not worth the effort. After all, would your true soul mate criticize your friends? Would your true soul mate disagree with you about money or household chores? The idea of such a kindred soul leads people to believe that good relationships don’t require work and don’t involve disagreements, neither of which is true. Even people who are happy in their relationships are often left wondering, “Could I be happier? Could my real soul mate still be out there?” This thinking isn’t limited to those who believe wholeheartedly in soul mates, either. Even those with a more rational view of relationships can still fall into the trap of never being satisfied with any partner, viewing each and every small rift in the relationship as evidence that they could be happier with someone new.
Your Missing Piece Could Be Anyone
Many psychologists, including Dr. Grey, believe that soul mates aren’t something people find, they’re something people become. After that initial giddy excitement of a relationship wears off, couples who work together to solve their individual and collective problems are able to deepen their emotional bond, overcoming any challenges that come their way. That kind of shared experience can make a couple feel like soul mates, whether they’ve been together for two years or twenty. “You don’t just meet a soulmate and live happily ever after,” Dr. Grey writes. “I have observed that real-world soulmates become that—by growing together in certain ways and working through challenges successfully.” Those who claim to experience love at first sight may be potential soul mates, but it isn’t until they’ve really worked to forge a life together that they can become true confidants.
The idea of soul mates shouldn’t be limited to romantic relationships; who would argue that an unmarried person isn’t entitled to have a soul mate of his or her own? It’s not even realistic to think of soul mates as a one-per-person proposition. A person can have many soul mates, whether they’re friends, lovers, or relatives. Becoming a soul mate is about establishing a deep emotional connection, no matter whom it’s with. In our lives, we often meet people with whom we have an instant bond, and whether it’s a romantic or a platonic relationship, once you’ve weathered life’s storms together, who’s to say you can’t call each other “soul mate”?
Perhaps one of the most cynical things about the idea of soul mates is assuming that there’s only one person for everyone in the world, and that people who don’t find theirs are doomed to be romantically unfulfilled. With the right care and commitment, any loving couple can turn their relationship into the kind of soul-mate partnership they dream about. Those who constantly turn down prospective romantic partners because they’re not “the one” might find themselves holding out for a hero who will never come.
An Unrealistic Expectation
From the time we begin dating, most of us can picture an idealized version of our perfect partner. We want someone of a certain height, appearance, and intelligence, someone who perfectly complements our strengths and camouflages our weaknesses. Many believe that once we find this perfect partner, we’ll be happy together forever. One problem with this perspective is that it views relationships as things that happen to us, rather than things that we create by working hard on them. It assumes that once we’ve found our intended, they will complete us like the missing piece of a puzzle, and everything from then on should be easy and effortless. The search for a soul mate is dangerously close to the search for a completely perfect relationship, something we all know doesn’t exist.
Most people who believe in the idea of soul mates believe that the harmonious bliss of a new relationship is proof that their new love is indeed the one they’ve been waiting for. Eventually, after the newness of a relationship has worn off, people worry that the corresponding dip in excitement (which is perfectly normal) signifies that the relationship wasn’t meant to be after all. Dr. John Grey, PhD, author of Becoming Soulmates: Keys to Lasting Love, Passion and a Great Relationship, writes, “If we want a great relationship to deepen and last, we need to realize that ‘happily ever after’ includes feelings other than happiness. The myth of ‘soulmates’ is about a relationship that is blue sky forever. Always sunny, and that sunshine pours down on us, brightens us up, lifts us. In a real-world relationship, challenges come. The sky occasionally clouds.”
Does the Grass Seem Greener?
The most pernicious effect of the soul-mate myth is that it encourages people to believe that there must be something better out there. The myth can sometimes cause people to sabotage perfectly salvageable relationships because of the belief that finding one’s true spiritual equal will make a person blissfully happy at all times. Of course, few relationships can live up to this ideal, and the myth judges any lesser relationships as not worth the effort. After all, would your true soul mate criticize your friends? Would your true soul mate disagree with you about money or household chores? The idea of such a kindred soul leads people to believe that good relationships don’t require work and don’t involve disagreements, neither of which is true. Even people who are happy in their relationships are often left wondering, “Could I be happier? Could my real soul mate still be out there?” This thinking isn’t limited to those who believe wholeheartedly in soul mates, either. Even those with a more rational view of relationships can still fall into the trap of never being satisfied with any partner, viewing each and every small rift in the relationship as evidence that they could be happier with someone new.
Your Missing Piece Could Be Anyone
Many psychologists, including Dr. Grey, believe that soul mates aren’t something people find, they’re something people become. After that initial giddy excitement of a relationship wears off, couples who work together to solve their individual and collective problems are able to deepen their emotional bond, overcoming any challenges that come their way. That kind of shared experience can make a couple feel like soul mates, whether they’ve been together for two years or twenty. “You don’t just meet a soulmate and live happily ever after,” Dr. Grey writes. “I have observed that real-world soulmates become that—by growing together in certain ways and working through challenges successfully.” Those who claim to experience love at first sight may be potential soul mates, but it isn’t until they’ve really worked to forge a life together that they can become true confidants.
The idea of soul mates shouldn’t be limited to romantic relationships; who would argue that an unmarried person isn’t entitled to have a soul mate of his or her own? It’s not even realistic to think of soul mates as a one-per-person proposition. A person can have many soul mates, whether they’re friends, lovers, or relatives. Becoming a soul mate is about establishing a deep emotional connection, no matter whom it’s with. In our lives, we often meet people with whom we have an instant bond, and whether it’s a romantic or a platonic relationship, once you’ve weathered life’s storms together, who’s to say you can’t call each other “soul mate”?
Perhaps one of the most cynical things about the idea of soul mates is assuming that there’s only one person for everyone in the world, and that people who don’t find theirs are doomed to be romantically unfulfilled. With the right care and commitment, any loving couple can turn their relationship into the kind of soul-mate partnership they dream about. Those who constantly turn down prospective romantic partners because they’re not “the one” might find themselves holding out for a hero who will never come.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Moon
If you’ve ever seen the Moon rising over the horizon, looking so fat and looming that you felt like you could fall right into it, then you’ve been a victim of the famous Moon Illusion. And it is an illusion, a pervasive and persuasive one.
So, how does this thing work? Ah, step right up.
One of my favorite brain-benders is the Ponzo Illusion. You’ve seen it: the simplest case is with two short horizontal lines, one above the other, between two slanting but near-vertical lines. The upper line looks longer than the lower line, even though they’re the same length.
The illusion works because our brains are a bit wonky. The slanted lines make us think that anything near the top is farther away; the lines force our brain to think those lines are parallel but receding in the distance (like railroad tracks). The two horizontal lines are physically the same length, but our brain thinks the upper one is farther away. If it’s farther away, then duh, our brain says to itself, it must be bigger than the lower one. So we perceive it that way.
While procrastinating on reddit, (you do look at reddit, don’t you, especially the science section?) I found this beautiful example of Ponzo:
Heehee! You’d swear up and down* that the red vertical line on the right is much longer than the one on the left, wouldn’t you? It looks almost twice as long to me. It’s a very powerful perception.
But they’re not! I cut out the two red lines and put them side by side. They’re pretty much exactly the same length (well, they’re off by a bit due to resolution issues in the image, but not by nearly as much as your brain likes to think).
This example is a great one because it uses a real-life image. You can see the wall tiles getting smaller with distance, and the horizontal layout of them, complete with the lines between them, forces your brain to see the line on the right as farther away. Bang! Ponzo.
This illusion plays out all the time… including when the Moon is rising (you were wondering when I’d get back to that, weren’t you?). The Moon Illusion is in part due to this same effect, but weirdly, you also need to understand how we perceive the sky.
If I were to ask you what shape the sky is above your head, you’d probably answer "a hemisphere". But in fact, almost everyone perceives it as an inverted bowl, flattened at the top. Put it this way: if the sky were a hemisphere above you, you’d say the horizon was as far away as the zenith. But in fact most people perceive the horizon being farther away than the point straight over their heads; test after test has shown this. This isn’t too surprising; think of a cloudy day. The clouds over your head are maybe two or three kilometers above, but near the horizon they may be 100 kilometers away!
See where I’m going with this? When the Moon is on the horizon, your brain thinks it’s far away, much farther than when it’s overhead. So the Ponzo Illusion kicks in: your brain sees the Moon as being huge, and it looks like you could fall into it. The Illusion works for the Sun, too. In fact, years ago I saw Orion rising over a parking lot, and it looked like it was spread across half the sky. It’s an incredibly powerful illusion.
Oddly enough, when it’s on the horizon, the Moon actually is farther away than when it’s overhead. Not by much, really, just a few thousand kilometers (compared to the Moon’s overall distance of about 400,000 kilometers). Behold my Photoshop skillz:
So, how does this thing work? Ah, step right up.
One of my favorite brain-benders is the Ponzo Illusion. You’ve seen it: the simplest case is with two short horizontal lines, one above the other, between two slanting but near-vertical lines. The upper line looks longer than the lower line, even though they’re the same length.
The illusion works because our brains are a bit wonky. The slanted lines make us think that anything near the top is farther away; the lines force our brain to think those lines are parallel but receding in the distance (like railroad tracks). The two horizontal lines are physically the same length, but our brain thinks the upper one is farther away. If it’s farther away, then duh, our brain says to itself, it must be bigger than the lower one. So we perceive it that way.
While procrastinating on reddit, (you do look at reddit, don’t you, especially the science section?) I found this beautiful example of Ponzo:
Heehee! You’d swear up and down* that the red vertical line on the right is much longer than the one on the left, wouldn’t you? It looks almost twice as long to me. It’s a very powerful perception.
But they’re not! I cut out the two red lines and put them side by side. They’re pretty much exactly the same length (well, they’re off by a bit due to resolution issues in the image, but not by nearly as much as your brain likes to think).
This example is a great one because it uses a real-life image. You can see the wall tiles getting smaller with distance, and the horizontal layout of them, complete with the lines between them, forces your brain to see the line on the right as farther away. Bang! Ponzo.
This illusion plays out all the time… including when the Moon is rising (you were wondering when I’d get back to that, weren’t you?). The Moon Illusion is in part due to this same effect, but weirdly, you also need to understand how we perceive the sky.
If I were to ask you what shape the sky is above your head, you’d probably answer "a hemisphere". But in fact, almost everyone perceives it as an inverted bowl, flattened at the top. Put it this way: if the sky were a hemisphere above you, you’d say the horizon was as far away as the zenith. But in fact most people perceive the horizon being farther away than the point straight over their heads; test after test has shown this. This isn’t too surprising; think of a cloudy day. The clouds over your head are maybe two or three kilometers above, but near the horizon they may be 100 kilometers away!
See where I’m going with this? When the Moon is on the horizon, your brain thinks it’s far away, much farther than when it’s overhead. So the Ponzo Illusion kicks in: your brain sees the Moon as being huge, and it looks like you could fall into it. The Illusion works for the Sun, too. In fact, years ago I saw Orion rising over a parking lot, and it looked like it was spread across half the sky. It’s an incredibly powerful illusion.
Oddly enough, when it’s on the horizon, the Moon actually is farther away than when it’s overhead. Not by much, really, just a few thousand kilometers (compared to the Moon’s overall distance of about 400,000 kilometers). Behold my Photoshop skillz:
Rent house
Debating whether or not you should buy a house or continue renting a living space? So is everyone else. This debate goes on for many, as people work to think about what is best for their finances. Many fail to realize that buying is often the best choice, providing them with an investment that will recoup money in the long run. Buy or Rent a House?
Full Article
One of the greatest continued debates in personal finances revolves around the places that we live in. While some people believe that it is better to rent a house, others believe that it is better to purchase a home. There are plenty of different individuals who can make a strong case for each argument.
With that being said, you need to work to completely understand what is right for your situation. You need to work to understand the positives and the negatives of each argument to understand what you need to do.
The Case for Buying a House
The major benefit of purchasing a house comes from the fact that it is an investment; you are paying for something that you can physically own. When you pay it off, it is an investment that can bring money back. While you are spending money, you are putting it into something that you own, helping you to recoup the money that you pay. This is something that cannot be said for renting, as renters are paying someone to allow them to stay somewhere. There is no investment involved.
When you buy a home, you will also manage to pay less. Some people will be able to purchase a home and see lower monthly payments than if they had rented a house. In this market, home prices are continuing to drop. It is a buyers market, meaning that prices are staying low. This is the opportune time for individual to purchase a home.
The Case for Renting a House
Those who are looking to rent a home will know that they are removing themselves from any major financial decision. Renting is sometimes a better decision, as it helps individuals who are not ready for the large financial burden of a mortgage . It is also a great decision for those who are trying to work their credit up to a score that will provide a lower percentage rate on the mortgage loan.
Renting can be great for those who are not planning on staying in one place for too long. Those who move around from city to city on a regular basis will find the home-buying process too complicated to go through year after year. With the uncertainty of being able to sell a house quickly, these people will not want to put themselves in that position and will want to rent.
For some, there are good reasons for them to rent a home. With that being said, a majority of individuals will find that buying a house is the best option. Purchasing the house allows you to invest in something, rather than throwing money into something with no return. Buying a house brings ownership and pride, while providing for a better future, financially. While there are strong arguments for each side of the discussion, it is better to purchase a home.
Full Article
One of the greatest continued debates in personal finances revolves around the places that we live in. While some people believe that it is better to rent a house, others believe that it is better to purchase a home. There are plenty of different individuals who can make a strong case for each argument.
With that being said, you need to work to completely understand what is right for your situation. You need to work to understand the positives and the negatives of each argument to understand what you need to do.
The Case for Buying a House
The major benefit of purchasing a house comes from the fact that it is an investment; you are paying for something that you can physically own. When you pay it off, it is an investment that can bring money back. While you are spending money, you are putting it into something that you own, helping you to recoup the money that you pay. This is something that cannot be said for renting, as renters are paying someone to allow them to stay somewhere. There is no investment involved.
When you buy a home, you will also manage to pay less. Some people will be able to purchase a home and see lower monthly payments than if they had rented a house. In this market, home prices are continuing to drop. It is a buyers market, meaning that prices are staying low. This is the opportune time for individual to purchase a home.
The Case for Renting a House
Those who are looking to rent a home will know that they are removing themselves from any major financial decision. Renting is sometimes a better decision, as it helps individuals who are not ready for the large financial burden of a mortgage . It is also a great decision for those who are trying to work their credit up to a score that will provide a lower percentage rate on the mortgage loan.
Renting can be great for those who are not planning on staying in one place for too long. Those who move around from city to city on a regular basis will find the home-buying process too complicated to go through year after year. With the uncertainty of being able to sell a house quickly, these people will not want to put themselves in that position and will want to rent.
For some, there are good reasons for them to rent a home. With that being said, a majority of individuals will find that buying a house is the best option. Purchasing the house allows you to invest in something, rather than throwing money into something with no return. Buying a house brings ownership and pride, while providing for a better future, financially. While there are strong arguments for each side of the discussion, it is better to purchase a home.
Robust
President Obama's chief of staff says there is a political opportunity for the White House to pass a robust new energy bill following the Gulf Coast disaster. NPR's Neda Ulaby reports.
Rahm Emanuel, never known for mincing words, says there is a chance now for the president to act upon campaign promises to pass an energy bill with the support of industry and environmentalists. And he made it clear he believes the Republicans have fumbled badly by defending BP in the face of government demands for accountability. Emanuel said on ABC's This Week that the attitude displayed by Texas Republican Joe Barton who had retracted an apology to BP last week was indicative of a larger party philosophy.
"Other members of the Republican leadership have come to the defense of BP and attacked the administration for forcing them to set up an escrow account and fund it to the level of $20 billion. These aren't political gaffes."
Emanuel said it would be "dangerous" if such viewpoints came to control Congress after the fall election. Neda Ulaby, NPR News.
The man, who is overseeing the compensation fund for people damaged by the Gulf oil spill, is urging anyone affected to come forward. Kenneth Feinberg says the program would provide relief within weeks rather than going to court which could take years. He told NBC he will make sure every eligible, legitimate claim will be paid.
"The president of the United States has instructed me, 'Get these claims paid, get them paid quickly.' When I met with Governor Barbour, he told me frankly, 'Ken, time is the enemy.' And he's so right here."
Feinberg also rejected Republican Congressman Joe Barton's characterization of the fund as a "government shakedown". Barton later backed away from that statement.
A California man is under arrest for a wildfire burning near downtown Flagstaff, Arizona. NPR's Allison Keyes reports that crews continue to battle the 350-acre blaze and have managed to get half of it under control.
Flagstaff city spokeswoman Kimberly Ott says there is positive news today: first, the fire has only consumed half the area officials first thought; secondly, she says cooler temperatures and reduced winds are making it easier to fight the blaze.
"We have three aircraft – one fixed-wing, two helicopters – that will be working the fire today, along with a number of personnel on the ground, and we do have access-barrier tankers if we needed."
Ott says officials strongly urged people in the 170 household in the fire's path to evacuate. And most did, though a few remained in their homes. The fire started yesterday near the Little America Hotel, sending billowing smoke through parts of the city and backing up traffic on a nearby highway. So far, Ott says, the fire is not contained, but no buildings have been destroyed. Allison Keyes, NPR News.
The National Hurricane Center is monitoring tropical storm Celia in the Pacific off southern Mexico. It's expected to strengthen into the first hurricane but is not expected to threaten land.
Israeli officials announced today a loosening of the land blockade of Gaza. They said "effective immediately". All goods will be allowed into Gaza except those items that could have a military use. Through past three years, Israel permitted only basic humanitarian supplies. The situation in the Middle East is likely to come up at the White House June 29 during a visit by Saudi King Abdullah. That visit was announced today.
Britain's new government will be announcing its first budget this week, and widespread cuts are expected. As Larry Miller reports from London the British are braced for the worst.
The David Cameron-led coalition government says its inherited public spending is so out of control drastic measures are necessary. Giving Britain the budgetary bad news on Tuesday will be the head of Treasury, George Osborne.
"I don't see it as badness. I see it as decisive action to deal with Britain's record budget deficit ... the country in Europe with the largest budget deficit of any major economy at a time when markets and investors and businesses are looking around the world at countries that can't control their debts."
Among the likely measures are multibillion-dollar tax on banks, national sales tax above 18%, capital gains tax at 40%, a cut in welfare benefits, a public sector pay and pension's freeze and the elimination of thousands of government jobs. For NPR News, I am Larry Miller in London.
Rahm Emanuel, never known for mincing words, says there is a chance now for the president to act upon campaign promises to pass an energy bill with the support of industry and environmentalists. And he made it clear he believes the Republicans have fumbled badly by defending BP in the face of government demands for accountability. Emanuel said on ABC's This Week that the attitude displayed by Texas Republican Joe Barton who had retracted an apology to BP last week was indicative of a larger party philosophy.
"Other members of the Republican leadership have come to the defense of BP and attacked the administration for forcing them to set up an escrow account and fund it to the level of $20 billion. These aren't political gaffes."
Emanuel said it would be "dangerous" if such viewpoints came to control Congress after the fall election. Neda Ulaby, NPR News.
The man, who is overseeing the compensation fund for people damaged by the Gulf oil spill, is urging anyone affected to come forward. Kenneth Feinberg says the program would provide relief within weeks rather than going to court which could take years. He told NBC he will make sure every eligible, legitimate claim will be paid.
"The president of the United States has instructed me, 'Get these claims paid, get them paid quickly.' When I met with Governor Barbour, he told me frankly, 'Ken, time is the enemy.' And he's so right here."
Feinberg also rejected Republican Congressman Joe Barton's characterization of the fund as a "government shakedown". Barton later backed away from that statement.
A California man is under arrest for a wildfire burning near downtown Flagstaff, Arizona. NPR's Allison Keyes reports that crews continue to battle the 350-acre blaze and have managed to get half of it under control.
Flagstaff city spokeswoman Kimberly Ott says there is positive news today: first, the fire has only consumed half the area officials first thought; secondly, she says cooler temperatures and reduced winds are making it easier to fight the blaze.
"We have three aircraft – one fixed-wing, two helicopters – that will be working the fire today, along with a number of personnel on the ground, and we do have access-barrier tankers if we needed."
Ott says officials strongly urged people in the 170 household in the fire's path to evacuate. And most did, though a few remained in their homes. The fire started yesterday near the Little America Hotel, sending billowing smoke through parts of the city and backing up traffic on a nearby highway. So far, Ott says, the fire is not contained, but no buildings have been destroyed. Allison Keyes, NPR News.
The National Hurricane Center is monitoring tropical storm Celia in the Pacific off southern Mexico. It's expected to strengthen into the first hurricane but is not expected to threaten land.
Israeli officials announced today a loosening of the land blockade of Gaza. They said "effective immediately". All goods will be allowed into Gaza except those items that could have a military use. Through past three years, Israel permitted only basic humanitarian supplies. The situation in the Middle East is likely to come up at the White House June 29 during a visit by Saudi King Abdullah. That visit was announced today.
Britain's new government will be announcing its first budget this week, and widespread cuts are expected. As Larry Miller reports from London the British are braced for the worst.
The David Cameron-led coalition government says its inherited public spending is so out of control drastic measures are necessary. Giving Britain the budgetary bad news on Tuesday will be the head of Treasury, George Osborne.
"I don't see it as badness. I see it as decisive action to deal with Britain's record budget deficit ... the country in Europe with the largest budget deficit of any major economy at a time when markets and investors and businesses are looking around the world at countries that can't control their debts."
Among the likely measures are multibillion-dollar tax on banks, national sales tax above 18%, capital gains tax at 40%, a cut in welfare benefits, a public sector pay and pension's freeze and the elimination of thousands of government jobs. For NPR News, I am Larry Miller in London.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Morning Magic
I may not have been an early bird since birth, but after years of training myself to jump-start my day, my body naturally wants to get a move on as soon as it’s light outside. In fact, I’m now almost incapable of sleeping past 8 a.m.
Some people may consider that a tragic flaw, but I enjoy getting up early. I like not being rushed as I prepare for work, and I enjoy the morning hour when I’m alone in the office. For some people, waking up early isn’t the easiest lifestyle to sustain, but for those who can stick it out, it offers a bevy of benefits.
More “Me” Time
While my fiancé is hitting the snooze button repeatedly, I’m taking a leisurely shower, tidying up around the house, and catching up on last night’s Daily Show. When you wake up early, without phone calls, emails, or pestering family members, the time is yours to spend as you please, whether you meditate, exercise, read, or simply watch that television show your spouse hates. Many parents of young children find that the early-morning hours provide their only chance to enjoy a cup of coffee or relax alone before the day begins.
Regular Workouts
People’s motivation to exercise is high first thing in the morning. Many report that they are more likely to stick to a morning workout routine than to an afternoon or evening one, since distractions have a way of derailing later plans to get to the gym. Also, although it hasn’t been proven, some exercise physiologists believe that exercising in the morning on an empty stomach forces the body to burn stored fat, instead of other calories.
A study published in the November 2006 issue of the journal SLEEP found that exercising in the morning led to better sleep at night. The researchers theorized that the morning activity helped to properly align the body’s circadian rhythms. Test subjects who postponed exercise until the evening actually had a more difficult time falling asleep.
An Easier Commute
In some cities, the difference between a breezy, quick commute and total gridlock can be as little as fifteen minutes. Getting up early to beat traffic makes commuting not only more relaxing and peaceful, but also safer. Stressed driving, either because of traffic conditions or because the driver is running late, can lead to aggressive behavior, speeding, and poor decision making, increasing the chance of accidents. For those who rely on public transportation to get to work, getting up early can mean the difference between grabbing a seat on a nearly empty train or bus and cramming in next to strangers, holding on to the strap for dear life.
The Benefit of Breakfast
When you sleep in and hurry out the door, breakfast is often one of the first parts of the morning routine to go, and many people who sleep in very late end up skipping breakfast altogether and waiting until lunchtime to eat. Yet countless studies have demonstrated the positive effects of eating a healthy breakfast: people who do so tend to feel fuller, make better food choices throughout the day, and be a healthier weight than non–breakfast eaters. Waking up early gives us the benefit of time and energy to put together a healthy breakfast, instead of grabbing fast food or forgoing the meal entirely.
Family Matters
When you have time in the morning to tidy up the house, start prepping for dinner, or do errands, you can use the extra evening hours to relax and have fun with your partner, your kids, or your friends. Most people would probably rather spend their evenings enjoying a movie or eating a leisurely family dinner than doing housework. Getting your chores done at the beginning of the day makes those activities more possible.
High Productivity
In 2007, Yahoo! Finance surveyed twenty CEOs and high-powered executives at companies like Pepsi, Motorola, Avaya, and Xerox. One thing that all of them had in common was that they were all awake before 6 a.m. They used that time to get ahead on email, exercise, read the paper, or take care of family chores. All of the survey respondents said that getting up early was absolutely essential to their productivity.
A Brainpower Boost
There’s also some evidence that our brains are at their peak performance in the morning hours. In a study conducted at the University of North Texas, college students who reported getting up early had higher GPAs than students who slept in regularly.
Less Stress
When you get up early, you set a relaxed and comfortable pace for the whole day. Between getting yourself ready for work, getting your kids ready for school, commuting to work, and doing all the other things that have to happen before 9 a.m., things can get pretty stressful. Reducing stress has a big effect on health, since stress can result in headaches, stomachaches, hair loss, high blood pressure, and anxiety and can exacerbate other chronic ailments. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) estimates that stress-related conditions cost American businesses about $300 million every year. When you build extra time into your morning routine, you don’t feel like you’re rushing everywhere.
The biggest benefit of being a morning person is that the world operates on your schedule. Night owls may love sleeping till noon, but it’s a fact that most of life happens during the daytime, and if you’re not awake and ready, opportunity can pass you by. Waking up early isn’t the easiest thing to do, and even those of us who enjoy being early birds occasionally have days when we’re tempted to hit the snooze button (again). But it’s nice to know that once we’re out of bed, the world is ours for a few brief, shining moments … at least, until everyone else wakes up.
Some people may consider that a tragic flaw, but I enjoy getting up early. I like not being rushed as I prepare for work, and I enjoy the morning hour when I’m alone in the office. For some people, waking up early isn’t the easiest lifestyle to sustain, but for those who can stick it out, it offers a bevy of benefits.
More “Me” Time
While my fiancé is hitting the snooze button repeatedly, I’m taking a leisurely shower, tidying up around the house, and catching up on last night’s Daily Show. When you wake up early, without phone calls, emails, or pestering family members, the time is yours to spend as you please, whether you meditate, exercise, read, or simply watch that television show your spouse hates. Many parents of young children find that the early-morning hours provide their only chance to enjoy a cup of coffee or relax alone before the day begins.
Regular Workouts
People’s motivation to exercise is high first thing in the morning. Many report that they are more likely to stick to a morning workout routine than to an afternoon or evening one, since distractions have a way of derailing later plans to get to the gym. Also, although it hasn’t been proven, some exercise physiologists believe that exercising in the morning on an empty stomach forces the body to burn stored fat, instead of other calories.
A study published in the November 2006 issue of the journal SLEEP found that exercising in the morning led to better sleep at night. The researchers theorized that the morning activity helped to properly align the body’s circadian rhythms. Test subjects who postponed exercise until the evening actually had a more difficult time falling asleep.
An Easier Commute
In some cities, the difference between a breezy, quick commute and total gridlock can be as little as fifteen minutes. Getting up early to beat traffic makes commuting not only more relaxing and peaceful, but also safer. Stressed driving, either because of traffic conditions or because the driver is running late, can lead to aggressive behavior, speeding, and poor decision making, increasing the chance of accidents. For those who rely on public transportation to get to work, getting up early can mean the difference between grabbing a seat on a nearly empty train or bus and cramming in next to strangers, holding on to the strap for dear life.
The Benefit of Breakfast
When you sleep in and hurry out the door, breakfast is often one of the first parts of the morning routine to go, and many people who sleep in very late end up skipping breakfast altogether and waiting until lunchtime to eat. Yet countless studies have demonstrated the positive effects of eating a healthy breakfast: people who do so tend to feel fuller, make better food choices throughout the day, and be a healthier weight than non–breakfast eaters. Waking up early gives us the benefit of time and energy to put together a healthy breakfast, instead of grabbing fast food or forgoing the meal entirely.
Family Matters
When you have time in the morning to tidy up the house, start prepping for dinner, or do errands, you can use the extra evening hours to relax and have fun with your partner, your kids, or your friends. Most people would probably rather spend their evenings enjoying a movie or eating a leisurely family dinner than doing housework. Getting your chores done at the beginning of the day makes those activities more possible.
High Productivity
In 2007, Yahoo! Finance surveyed twenty CEOs and high-powered executives at companies like Pepsi, Motorola, Avaya, and Xerox. One thing that all of them had in common was that they were all awake before 6 a.m. They used that time to get ahead on email, exercise, read the paper, or take care of family chores. All of the survey respondents said that getting up early was absolutely essential to their productivity.
A Brainpower Boost
There’s also some evidence that our brains are at their peak performance in the morning hours. In a study conducted at the University of North Texas, college students who reported getting up early had higher GPAs than students who slept in regularly.
Less Stress
When you get up early, you set a relaxed and comfortable pace for the whole day. Between getting yourself ready for work, getting your kids ready for school, commuting to work, and doing all the other things that have to happen before 9 a.m., things can get pretty stressful. Reducing stress has a big effect on health, since stress can result in headaches, stomachaches, hair loss, high blood pressure, and anxiety and can exacerbate other chronic ailments. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) estimates that stress-related conditions cost American businesses about $300 million every year. When you build extra time into your morning routine, you don’t feel like you’re rushing everywhere.
The biggest benefit of being a morning person is that the world operates on your schedule. Night owls may love sleeping till noon, but it’s a fact that most of life happens during the daytime, and if you’re not awake and ready, opportunity can pass you by. Waking up early isn’t the easiest thing to do, and even those of us who enjoy being early birds occasionally have days when we’re tempted to hit the snooze button (again). But it’s nice to know that once we’re out of bed, the world is ours for a few brief, shining moments … at least, until everyone else wakes up.
Twelve Tips for Reading More
Of my hundreds of happiness-project resolutions, one of my very favorite resolutions is to read more.
Reading is an essential part of my work. It forms a crucial part of my social life. And far more important, reading is my favorite thing to do, by a long shot. I’m not a well-rounded person.
But reading takes time, and there aren’t many days when I can read as much as I’d like. Here are some strategies I use to help me get more good reading done.
1. Quit reading. I used to pride myself on finishing every book I started. No more. Life is short. There are too many wonderful books to read.
2. Read books you enjoy. When I’m reading a book I love—for example, I’m now reading A. S. Byatt’s The Children’s Book—I’m astonished by how much time I find to read during my day—which is another reason to stop reading a book I don’t enjoy.
3. Use TiVo. It’s much more efficient to watch shows on TiVo, because you skip the commercials and control when you watch. Then you have more time to read.
4. Skim. Especially when reading newspapers and magazines, I often get as much from skimming as I do with a leisurely reading. I have to remind myself to skim, but when I do, I get through material much faster.
5. Get calm. I have a sticky note posted in our bedroom that says, “Quiet mind.” It’s sometimes hard for me to settle down with a book; I keep wanting to jump up and take care of some nagging task. But that’s no way to read. Incidentally, one of the main reasons I exercise is to help me sit still for reading and writing; if I don’t exercise, I’m too jumpy.
6. Don’t fight your inclinations. Sometimes I feel like I should be reading one book when I actually feel like reading something entirely different. Now I let myself read what I want, because otherwise I end up reading much less.
7. Always have something to read. Never go anywhere empty-handed. I almost always read actual books, but I carry my Kindle with me everywhere, so that I know I’ll never be caught without something to read. It’s a great comfort.
8. Maintain a big stack. I find that I read much more when I have a pile waiting for me. Right now, I have to admit, my stack is so big that it’s a bit alarming, but I’ll get it down to a more reasonable size before too long.
9. Choose my own books. Books make wonderful gifts—both to receive and to give—but I try not to let myself feel pressured to read a book just because someone has given it to me. I always give a gift book a try, but I no longer keep reading if I don’t want to.
And some tips from great writers and readers:
10. Randall Jarrell: “Read at whim! Read at whim!”
11. Henry David Thoreau: “Read the best books first, otherwise you’ll find you do not have time.”
12. Samuel Johnson: “What we read with inclination makes a much stronger impression. If we read without inclination, half the mind is employed in fixing the attention, so there is but one half to be employed on what we read.”
Maybe you don’t love to read, so finding more time to do it isn’t a happiness challenge for you. The larger point is to make sure you’re finding time to do whatever it is that you find fun. Having fun is important to having a happy life, yet it’s all too easy for fun to get pushed aside by other priorities. I have to be careful to make time for reading, or, even though I love it, I might neglect it.
Have you found any good strategies to find more time to read, or to do whatever it is you find fun?
Reading is an essential part of my work. It forms a crucial part of my social life. And far more important, reading is my favorite thing to do, by a long shot. I’m not a well-rounded person.
But reading takes time, and there aren’t many days when I can read as much as I’d like. Here are some strategies I use to help me get more good reading done.
1. Quit reading. I used to pride myself on finishing every book I started. No more. Life is short. There are too many wonderful books to read.
2. Read books you enjoy. When I’m reading a book I love—for example, I’m now reading A. S. Byatt’s The Children’s Book—I’m astonished by how much time I find to read during my day—which is another reason to stop reading a book I don’t enjoy.
3. Use TiVo. It’s much more efficient to watch shows on TiVo, because you skip the commercials and control when you watch. Then you have more time to read.
4. Skim. Especially when reading newspapers and magazines, I often get as much from skimming as I do with a leisurely reading. I have to remind myself to skim, but when I do, I get through material much faster.
5. Get calm. I have a sticky note posted in our bedroom that says, “Quiet mind.” It’s sometimes hard for me to settle down with a book; I keep wanting to jump up and take care of some nagging task. But that’s no way to read. Incidentally, one of the main reasons I exercise is to help me sit still for reading and writing; if I don’t exercise, I’m too jumpy.
6. Don’t fight your inclinations. Sometimes I feel like I should be reading one book when I actually feel like reading something entirely different. Now I let myself read what I want, because otherwise I end up reading much less.
7. Always have something to read. Never go anywhere empty-handed. I almost always read actual books, but I carry my Kindle with me everywhere, so that I know I’ll never be caught without something to read. It’s a great comfort.
8. Maintain a big stack. I find that I read much more when I have a pile waiting for me. Right now, I have to admit, my stack is so big that it’s a bit alarming, but I’ll get it down to a more reasonable size before too long.
9. Choose my own books. Books make wonderful gifts—both to receive and to give—but I try not to let myself feel pressured to read a book just because someone has given it to me. I always give a gift book a try, but I no longer keep reading if I don’t want to.
And some tips from great writers and readers:
10. Randall Jarrell: “Read at whim! Read at whim!”
11. Henry David Thoreau: “Read the best books first, otherwise you’ll find you do not have time.”
12. Samuel Johnson: “What we read with inclination makes a much stronger impression. If we read without inclination, half the mind is employed in fixing the attention, so there is but one half to be employed on what we read.”
Maybe you don’t love to read, so finding more time to do it isn’t a happiness challenge for you. The larger point is to make sure you’re finding time to do whatever it is that you find fun. Having fun is important to having a happy life, yet it’s all too easy for fun to get pushed aside by other priorities. I have to be careful to make time for reading, or, even though I love it, I might neglect it.
Have you found any good strategies to find more time to read, or to do whatever it is you find fun?
Ready for 3D
If those monsters pissing off Sam Worthington this weekend have anything to say about it, we'd better prepare for Snooki, Scorsese, and those damn teenage vampires jumping straight out at a depraved American curiosity — and our wallets
Thrilled as I always am for a new Tyler Perry movie, Mr. Post-Post-Racial chose the wrong weekend to try and uncork another No. 1 opening at the box office. If only he'd expanded Why Did I Get Married Too? into the third dimension — that juggernaut we haven't been able to get enough of over the last month, and which on Friday thrusts Clash of the Titans in our faces. This time with more dragon!
Thing is, 3-D Tyler Perry isn't that far off. Hell, if Harold and Kumar now make the cut, 3-D everything isn't that far off. I wouldn't be entirely shocked — surprised maybe, but definitely not shocked — to hear that MTV was negotiating a Jersey Shore adaptation wherein a free pair of Oakleys sent you spiraling into some sort of bronzed Na'vi frontier. Nor to find ladies and geeks alike succumbing to aneurysms when someone gets the bright idea to convert Julia Roberts's Eat Pray Love to 3-D, adding a pseudo-sumptuous layer of texture to the story of a woman globe-trotting her way to middle age. Film snobs might shrug it all off ... until word comes that Werner Herzog has planned his next fringe-y drama in 3-D, because, well, why not?
Indeed, many of 3-D's critics and/or latecomers will attribute its surge to some Hollywood alchemy of novelty and greed. And they would be half-right. A more honest read would acknowledge the ways that 3-D reflects the increasingly complex sophistication of its audience. It's not just higher ticket prices that will have given us, by this Sunday, the unprecedented blockbuster trifecta of Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Titans. Instead, the slow march of culture is leaving behind 2-D the same way it did silent films, black-and-white, and Cinemascope: hungry for a visual ambition — or any ambition, for that matter — that overrides the outmoded past and counteracts the economic wasteland around us. Much as we did during the Great Depression, we have, perhaps without even knowing it, colluded with Hollywood to redefine what we talk about when we talk about movies.
If that's indeed the case, then we're well overdue to move that conversation out into the open. After all, Hollywood will still be Hollywood; I don't exactly want to be caught off-guard when New Line Cinema approves the besunglassed re-release of Valentine's Day in 2011. Don't snicker — at these prices (3-D ticket surcharges experienced a hike of up to 26 percent last weekend), it can and likely will happen to all genres at some point. Horror is the obvious move (the next installment of the Saw franchise will go 3-D in October), but what would keep romantic comedies from getting the same treatment? Even if it costs a studio $100,000 per minute to convert something like this summer's Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz pairing Knight & Day, the likely turnout would more than compensate over the first couple weekends. Not just because of the curiosity factor, either, but because it reinforces the comfort of knowing no one is above our new way of watching.
See, what's great about 3-D is that it reminds us how useless rules can be in a scenario where experimentation is the coin of the realm. And how flat-out irrelevant they become when progress comes whether we like it or not. But I think, under the circumstances — in which we feel alienated from our leaders, our bosses, our spouses, even our drilling — we do want them. We need new rules, in fact, just as badly as we needed the iPod, Facebook, or, come the next few years, a Blu-ray player and a flat-screen that's not as flat as it used to be. Our trips to see visually affected belching dragons are symptomatic of knowing that when you have no choice, you might as well hope for the best. But in the cultural subconscious, we also have a recent habit of rewarding Hollywood for its most adventurous behavior, be it Quentin Tarantino revising history in Inglourious Basterds or the apartheid action-allegory District 9. And the embrace of 3-D — whether by specific artistic choice (Avatar), obvious cash-grab (Titans), or both (Alice) — is about as adventurous as it gets. It's as though even the most cynical generation in American history can now identify with what it must have been like to experience the first talkie, or the F/X revolution of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Maybe it should come as no surprise that the more conservative blockbuster kingpin Michael Bay isn't going to compromise his forthcoming masterwork Transformers 3 for any homogenized "fake 3-D." (Probably because he'll be too busy planning fake Rosemary's Baby.)
Nevertheless, even Bay's defiance says something about the 3-D future belonging to the artists. Even if studios were to insist (as Warner Brothers recently did) that all their major releases be produced in 3-D, the format entitles filmmakers to a certain freedom that they might not have had without it. Avatar aside, there really is no road map or rulebook for what can or can't, should or shouldn't be attempted in the medium. This manifests itself in various ways, from explorations of the physics of falling food in Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs to Steven Soderbergh planning a 3-D musical version of Cleopatra (seriously). It cracks open a kind of challenge: Hey, Marty Scorsese, can you get better again with this stuff? Hey, P.T. Anderson and Coen kids, the screen still too small for you? We've already established that Tyler Perry's films routinely open to huge crowds, but if he was really savvy about the moment we're in, he'd get Madea Goes to 3-D underway one helluva lot faster than For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf. Not just for the money (though that, too), but because more than half his stories develop from hit plays anyway, and it would be kinda fascinating to see him adapt and preserve what he could of that format with the 3-D effect.
For now, though, Perry will be content as the spoiler at this week's 3-D party — a role you'll see diminish as more technology sweeps our multiplexes and 2-D goes the way of 8-millimeter home movies. It could take years, but not if Hollywood has anything to do with it: Based on how well the Titans conversion performs, expect studios to seriously consider bolstering this year's 3-D crop (already including Tron Legacy, Shrek Forever After, Toy Story 3D, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Piranha 3D and, of course, Jackass 3D) with closer looks at converting cash magnets like The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, or even the camp-classic-to-be Burlesque — assuming, of course, that audiences can handle both Christina Aguilera and Cher in 3-D all in one place. But, hey, there's only one way to find out.
Thrilled as I always am for a new Tyler Perry movie, Mr. Post-Post-Racial chose the wrong weekend to try and uncork another No. 1 opening at the box office. If only he'd expanded Why Did I Get Married Too? into the third dimension — that juggernaut we haven't been able to get enough of over the last month, and which on Friday thrusts Clash of the Titans in our faces. This time with more dragon!
Thing is, 3-D Tyler Perry isn't that far off. Hell, if Harold and Kumar now make the cut, 3-D everything isn't that far off. I wouldn't be entirely shocked — surprised maybe, but definitely not shocked — to hear that MTV was negotiating a Jersey Shore adaptation wherein a free pair of Oakleys sent you spiraling into some sort of bronzed Na'vi frontier. Nor to find ladies and geeks alike succumbing to aneurysms when someone gets the bright idea to convert Julia Roberts's Eat Pray Love to 3-D, adding a pseudo-sumptuous layer of texture to the story of a woman globe-trotting her way to middle age. Film snobs might shrug it all off ... until word comes that Werner Herzog has planned his next fringe-y drama in 3-D, because, well, why not?
Indeed, many of 3-D's critics and/or latecomers will attribute its surge to some Hollywood alchemy of novelty and greed. And they would be half-right. A more honest read would acknowledge the ways that 3-D reflects the increasingly complex sophistication of its audience. It's not just higher ticket prices that will have given us, by this Sunday, the unprecedented blockbuster trifecta of Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Titans. Instead, the slow march of culture is leaving behind 2-D the same way it did silent films, black-and-white, and Cinemascope: hungry for a visual ambition — or any ambition, for that matter — that overrides the outmoded past and counteracts the economic wasteland around us. Much as we did during the Great Depression, we have, perhaps without even knowing it, colluded with Hollywood to redefine what we talk about when we talk about movies.
If that's indeed the case, then we're well overdue to move that conversation out into the open. After all, Hollywood will still be Hollywood; I don't exactly want to be caught off-guard when New Line Cinema approves the besunglassed re-release of Valentine's Day in 2011. Don't snicker — at these prices (3-D ticket surcharges experienced a hike of up to 26 percent last weekend), it can and likely will happen to all genres at some point. Horror is the obvious move (the next installment of the Saw franchise will go 3-D in October), but what would keep romantic comedies from getting the same treatment? Even if it costs a studio $100,000 per minute to convert something like this summer's Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz pairing Knight & Day, the likely turnout would more than compensate over the first couple weekends. Not just because of the curiosity factor, either, but because it reinforces the comfort of knowing no one is above our new way of watching.
See, what's great about 3-D is that it reminds us how useless rules can be in a scenario where experimentation is the coin of the realm. And how flat-out irrelevant they become when progress comes whether we like it or not. But I think, under the circumstances — in which we feel alienated from our leaders, our bosses, our spouses, even our drilling — we do want them. We need new rules, in fact, just as badly as we needed the iPod, Facebook, or, come the next few years, a Blu-ray player and a flat-screen that's not as flat as it used to be. Our trips to see visually affected belching dragons are symptomatic of knowing that when you have no choice, you might as well hope for the best. But in the cultural subconscious, we also have a recent habit of rewarding Hollywood for its most adventurous behavior, be it Quentin Tarantino revising history in Inglourious Basterds or the apartheid action-allegory District 9. And the embrace of 3-D — whether by specific artistic choice (Avatar), obvious cash-grab (Titans), or both (Alice) — is about as adventurous as it gets. It's as though even the most cynical generation in American history can now identify with what it must have been like to experience the first talkie, or the F/X revolution of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Maybe it should come as no surprise that the more conservative blockbuster kingpin Michael Bay isn't going to compromise his forthcoming masterwork Transformers 3 for any homogenized "fake 3-D." (Probably because he'll be too busy planning fake Rosemary's Baby.)
Nevertheless, even Bay's defiance says something about the 3-D future belonging to the artists. Even if studios were to insist (as Warner Brothers recently did) that all their major releases be produced in 3-D, the format entitles filmmakers to a certain freedom that they might not have had without it. Avatar aside, there really is no road map or rulebook for what can or can't, should or shouldn't be attempted in the medium. This manifests itself in various ways, from explorations of the physics of falling food in Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs to Steven Soderbergh planning a 3-D musical version of Cleopatra (seriously). It cracks open a kind of challenge: Hey, Marty Scorsese, can you get better again with this stuff? Hey, P.T. Anderson and Coen kids, the screen still too small for you? We've already established that Tyler Perry's films routinely open to huge crowds, but if he was really savvy about the moment we're in, he'd get Madea Goes to 3-D underway one helluva lot faster than For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf. Not just for the money (though that, too), but because more than half his stories develop from hit plays anyway, and it would be kinda fascinating to see him adapt and preserve what he could of that format with the 3-D effect.
For now, though, Perry will be content as the spoiler at this week's 3-D party — a role you'll see diminish as more technology sweeps our multiplexes and 2-D goes the way of 8-millimeter home movies. It could take years, but not if Hollywood has anything to do with it: Based on how well the Titans conversion performs, expect studios to seriously consider bolstering this year's 3-D crop (already including Tron Legacy, Shrek Forever After, Toy Story 3D, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Piranha 3D and, of course, Jackass 3D) with closer looks at converting cash magnets like The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, or even the camp-classic-to-be Burlesque — assuming, of course, that audiences can handle both Christina Aguilera and Cher in 3-D all in one place. But, hey, there's only one way to find out.
High IQ
The Metropolitan Club, on Fifth Avenue at 60th street, is a palazzo in the mighty Manhattan style. Damn the expense. That’s what J.P. Morgan is supposed to have said when he commissioned Stanford White, the city’s most flamboyant architect, to build him a private gentleman’s club in 1894. Inside, on a Monday evening in late January, only a few members drifted over the red, monogrammed carpets, but it was still early, only a little after seven. This, however, is when Marilyn vos Savant likes to show up.
Savant, who has the world’s highest recorded IQ, is fond of dancing. She took it up seriously a few years ago with her husband, Robert Jarvik, the inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart, and they get to the club about once a month. If they arrive early enough, they can have the dance floor to themselves. And so it proved that Monday. The room was largely empty, the band were playing “Anything Goes” and once a happy, though quivering, old man was led from the floor by his partner, Savant and Jarvik could foxtrot wherever they pleased. A slim, prosperous couple in their sixties, they moved easily: she with a simple precision, he with the odd heel-tap, a bit of dash. After a time, though, as the floor filled up and became a carousel of perfectly tailored, carefully moving couples, they came back to their table. “It’s a social scene,” said Savant, who is 62, with a smile. “But it’s not our social scene. Let me just say that.” A few minutes later, when a serious-looking man happened to make a goofy swish right in front of them, Savant and Jarvik caught each other’s eye and couldn’t help laughing. Not long afterwards, they took a taxi home, to their midtown penthouse. “We usually dance more, a lot more,” said Savant as they are leaving. It is only 8.30pm. “And then we go back to the office.”
Savant – the surname is real, it was her mother’s maiden name – has had a unique claim to fame since the mid-1980s. It was then, almost 30 years after she took a test as a schoolgirl in downtown St Louis, Missouri, that her IQ came to light. In 1985, Guinness World Records accepted that she had answered every question correctly on an adult Stanford-Binet IQ test at the age of just 10, a result that gave her a corresponding mental age of 22 years and 11 months, and an unearthly IQ of 228.
The resulting publicity changed Savant’s life. She appeared on television and in the press, including on the cover of an in-flight magazine that Jarvik chanced to pick up. He decided to track her down and ask her out. It also led to the role for which she remains best known in America, writing a question-and-answer column, “Ask Marilyn”, for Parade, a Sunday magazine syndicated to more than 400 regional newspapers. For the past 22 years, Savant has tended their ceaseless queries – “How happy are larks, really?” “My wife blow-dries her hair every day. Can the noise damage her hearing?” – and in the process achieved a status that is Delphic yet tabloid. To her fans and other members of the world of high IQ, Savant is a prodigious, unusual talent who delights in solving problems. To her detractors, she is either trivial, someone who has squandered her gift, or proof, if they needed it, that IQ scores don’t add up to anything. In whatever form, she lodges in people’s minds. As evidence of her imprint on the national consciousness, Savant featured in an episode of The Simpsons in 1999. She was a member of the Springfield Mensa society, along with Geena Davis, the Hollywood actress and one-time star of Earth Girls are Easy.
In conversation, Savant steers clear of fancy remarks. She is overtly normal. “People expect me to be a walking encyclopaedia or a human calculator,” she says, or to “have very unusual, very esoteric, very arcane gifts and I’m really not that way at all.” Instead, she talks with the practised clarity of her columns, the pedantry of someone wary of misinterpretation. At one point, for example, Savant was describing a house where she lived in St Louis. “You could actually see stars,” she said, “unlike here in New York, where you can only see Venus,” then she halted. “I’m sorry, Venus is not a star.” When Savant, who is the author of several plays and half-a-dozen self-help books, does makes a cultural reference, she is careful not to sound too snooty. She prefers Proust to Joyce, she told me, although, she concedes, “Joyce does some nice bits in Ulysses.”
Savant, who has the world’s highest recorded IQ, is fond of dancing. She took it up seriously a few years ago with her husband, Robert Jarvik, the inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart, and they get to the club about once a month. If they arrive early enough, they can have the dance floor to themselves. And so it proved that Monday. The room was largely empty, the band were playing “Anything Goes” and once a happy, though quivering, old man was led from the floor by his partner, Savant and Jarvik could foxtrot wherever they pleased. A slim, prosperous couple in their sixties, they moved easily: she with a simple precision, he with the odd heel-tap, a bit of dash. After a time, though, as the floor filled up and became a carousel of perfectly tailored, carefully moving couples, they came back to their table. “It’s a social scene,” said Savant, who is 62, with a smile. “But it’s not our social scene. Let me just say that.” A few minutes later, when a serious-looking man happened to make a goofy swish right in front of them, Savant and Jarvik caught each other’s eye and couldn’t help laughing. Not long afterwards, they took a taxi home, to their midtown penthouse. “We usually dance more, a lot more,” said Savant as they are leaving. It is only 8.30pm. “And then we go back to the office.”
Savant – the surname is real, it was her mother’s maiden name – has had a unique claim to fame since the mid-1980s. It was then, almost 30 years after she took a test as a schoolgirl in downtown St Louis, Missouri, that her IQ came to light. In 1985, Guinness World Records accepted that she had answered every question correctly on an adult Stanford-Binet IQ test at the age of just 10, a result that gave her a corresponding mental age of 22 years and 11 months, and an unearthly IQ of 228.
The resulting publicity changed Savant’s life. She appeared on television and in the press, including on the cover of an in-flight magazine that Jarvik chanced to pick up. He decided to track her down and ask her out. It also led to the role for which she remains best known in America, writing a question-and-answer column, “Ask Marilyn”, for Parade, a Sunday magazine syndicated to more than 400 regional newspapers. For the past 22 years, Savant has tended their ceaseless queries – “How happy are larks, really?” “My wife blow-dries her hair every day. Can the noise damage her hearing?” – and in the process achieved a status that is Delphic yet tabloid. To her fans and other members of the world of high IQ, Savant is a prodigious, unusual talent who delights in solving problems. To her detractors, she is either trivial, someone who has squandered her gift, or proof, if they needed it, that IQ scores don’t add up to anything. In whatever form, she lodges in people’s minds. As evidence of her imprint on the national consciousness, Savant featured in an episode of The Simpsons in 1999. She was a member of the Springfield Mensa society, along with Geena Davis, the Hollywood actress and one-time star of Earth Girls are Easy.
In conversation, Savant steers clear of fancy remarks. She is overtly normal. “People expect me to be a walking encyclopaedia or a human calculator,” she says, or to “have very unusual, very esoteric, very arcane gifts and I’m really not that way at all.” Instead, she talks with the practised clarity of her columns, the pedantry of someone wary of misinterpretation. At one point, for example, Savant was describing a house where she lived in St Louis. “You could actually see stars,” she said, “unlike here in New York, where you can only see Venus,” then she halted. “I’m sorry, Venus is not a star.” When Savant, who is the author of several plays and half-a-dozen self-help books, does makes a cultural reference, she is careful not to sound too snooty. She prefers Proust to Joyce, she told me, although, she concedes, “Joyce does some nice bits in Ulysses.”
Monday, June 21, 2010
The Truth Behind the iPhone 4 Retina Display
Thanks to his ability to restructure the time-space continuum in accordance with his will, Steve Jobs normally gets away with pushing the credibility barrier a bit during product launches. But when he recently announced that the iPhone 4 sports a “Retina Display,” questions were raised. Were those tiny little pixels really so small that, when the iPhone 4 is vigilantly held a particular number of inches in front of your nose, the human eye cannot detect them? Calculators were whipped out, numbers were crunched, and experts batted about their sometimes-opposing views. We sorted through all the noise, interviewing key players (via email) to bring you the definitive answer. And that answer is: close, Steve, but no cigar.
But the really important question isn’t whether Steve’s math is perfectly correct. No, the more germane question is whether an ever-growing plethora of teeny-tiny pixels really matters in the greater scheme of things. Do more pixels equate to a better gadget experience for users? Are these little red-blue-green dots the holy grail of mobile displays--and if they are, can we trust companies to provide us with accurate specifications?
The math discussed in media stories and blog posts about the iPhone 4 was enough to give many of us brain cramps. Nonetheless, others were inspired to jump right in and wrestle with the numbers to extrapolate real-world usage data. Among them was Phil Plaits, a scientist who spent a few years calibrating a camera on board the Hubble Telescope and who now blogs for Discover Magazine.
“My first reaction to the announcement and the ensuing coverage was interest and curiosity. I figured [Jobs] wouldn't lie outright, so what really is the limit of human vision as far as pixel size? The math is simple, if you know it, so I did the calculations, and found that while his claim wasn't perfect, I thought in context it was fine,” said Plaits, who helpfully provides charts and graphs illustrating the central concepts in his blog post about the iPhone 4’s display.
But as usual, the devil is in the details.
“It's easy to make assumptions about pixel size and distance, but then you have to take into account human vision--which is complicated--how the pixels are laid out, whether there is space between them, how they're refreshed, and so on,” said Plaits, who adds that he opted not to worry about slicing the data that finely.
“I just wanted to see if, given some simple assumptions, you could make a smooth, continuous-looking display. The answer is yes, and the new iPhone display will be pretty close to that ideal.“
Some experts, however, say more accuracy is warranted. Dr. Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies Corporation, which produces video calibration, evaluation, and diagnostic products, said that exaggeration over display specifications has been “building for many years and has now become outlandishly unreliable, with many of the consumer specs being exaggerated by 1000 percent or more.”
Blame it on the snowball effect: Once one manufacturer exaggerates its exacting specs a tiny bit, all the competing companies do the same. The stakes are raised again and again, and pretty soon that little innocent snowball has morphed into an out-of-control abominable snowman.
“The manufacturers have actually painted themselves into a corner because the numbers they are quoting now are so ridiculously large that there is nowhere to go,” said Soneira. “The only realistic solution that I see to stop spec abuse is an organization (completely independent of the manufacturers) that develops a set of straightforward objective standards for measuring and advertising display specs for consumer monitors, laptops, HDTVs, smart phones, and other mobile displays.”
Soneira, whose statement about the iPhone 4 display sparked the furor over whether Apple was fibbing about the specs or not, envisions that manufacturers that meet those independent standards would be allowed to advertise their specs with a special controlled trademark, like the EnergyStar program. And consumers would learn to only trust specs with that trademark.
“I proposed this back in 2003, but it went nowhere because too many manufacturers resisted the idea,” Soneira said. “It's time for this solution to be implemented--or just imposed. It's in everyone's interest except for the manufacturers that can only compete using fraud.”
Soneira added that his initial analysis and comments on the Retina Display “were widely distorted and transformed into an attack on Apple and Steve Jobs--they were not. I simply did a quantitative analysis of what was said in the context of my campaign to eliminate (or more realistically, reduce) exaggeration in display specs. Apple's claim falls under glorious wording rather than numerical-spec abuse—and even with quantitative analysis, it's minor compared to what other manufacturers are saying. I sent Steve Jobs an email explaining that and got a reply from him.”
But the really important question isn’t whether Steve’s math is perfectly correct. No, the more germane question is whether an ever-growing plethora of teeny-tiny pixels really matters in the greater scheme of things. Do more pixels equate to a better gadget experience for users? Are these little red-blue-green dots the holy grail of mobile displays--and if they are, can we trust companies to provide us with accurate specifications?
The math discussed in media stories and blog posts about the iPhone 4 was enough to give many of us brain cramps. Nonetheless, others were inspired to jump right in and wrestle with the numbers to extrapolate real-world usage data. Among them was Phil Plaits, a scientist who spent a few years calibrating a camera on board the Hubble Telescope and who now blogs for Discover Magazine.
“My first reaction to the announcement and the ensuing coverage was interest and curiosity. I figured [Jobs] wouldn't lie outright, so what really is the limit of human vision as far as pixel size? The math is simple, if you know it, so I did the calculations, and found that while his claim wasn't perfect, I thought in context it was fine,” said Plaits, who helpfully provides charts and graphs illustrating the central concepts in his blog post about the iPhone 4’s display.
But as usual, the devil is in the details.
“It's easy to make assumptions about pixel size and distance, but then you have to take into account human vision--which is complicated--how the pixels are laid out, whether there is space between them, how they're refreshed, and so on,” said Plaits, who adds that he opted not to worry about slicing the data that finely.
“I just wanted to see if, given some simple assumptions, you could make a smooth, continuous-looking display. The answer is yes, and the new iPhone display will be pretty close to that ideal.“
Some experts, however, say more accuracy is warranted. Dr. Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies Corporation, which produces video calibration, evaluation, and diagnostic products, said that exaggeration over display specifications has been “building for many years and has now become outlandishly unreliable, with many of the consumer specs being exaggerated by 1000 percent or more.”
Blame it on the snowball effect: Once one manufacturer exaggerates its exacting specs a tiny bit, all the competing companies do the same. The stakes are raised again and again, and pretty soon that little innocent snowball has morphed into an out-of-control abominable snowman.
“The manufacturers have actually painted themselves into a corner because the numbers they are quoting now are so ridiculously large that there is nowhere to go,” said Soneira. “The only realistic solution that I see to stop spec abuse is an organization (completely independent of the manufacturers) that develops a set of straightforward objective standards for measuring and advertising display specs for consumer monitors, laptops, HDTVs, smart phones, and other mobile displays.”
Soneira, whose statement about the iPhone 4 display sparked the furor over whether Apple was fibbing about the specs or not, envisions that manufacturers that meet those independent standards would be allowed to advertise their specs with a special controlled trademark, like the EnergyStar program. And consumers would learn to only trust specs with that trademark.
“I proposed this back in 2003, but it went nowhere because too many manufacturers resisted the idea,” Soneira said. “It's time for this solution to be implemented--or just imposed. It's in everyone's interest except for the manufacturers that can only compete using fraud.”
Soneira added that his initial analysis and comments on the Retina Display “were widely distorted and transformed into an attack on Apple and Steve Jobs--they were not. I simply did a quantitative analysis of what was said in the context of my campaign to eliminate (or more realistically, reduce) exaggeration in display specs. Apple's claim falls under glorious wording rather than numerical-spec abuse—and even with quantitative analysis, it's minor compared to what other manufacturers are saying. I sent Steve Jobs an email explaining that and got a reply from him.”
Be afraid to start business
Starting a new business can be a turbulent undertaking. For one thing, there are no guarantees of success. Businesses fail every single day, and plenty of entrepreneurs come away with nothing to show for months or years of hard-fought effort. The idea of sacrificing a steady salary for an uncertain, hoped-for payday also tends to provoke anxiety.
While some are undeterred by these obstacles, others opt to play it safe and scrap their business plans altogether. Below are six of the most prevailing reasons why people are afraid to start businesses (and whether they make sense.)
1. The Economy
Some of the most common fears about starting businesses relate to how “the economy” is doing. If the economy is in a lull, many would be entrepreneurs assume that now must necessarily be the wrong time to get started. This belief is reinforced by nay-saying politicians and journalists who exaggerate even the very worst economic news.
Remember, though, that there is no single entity called “the economy.” What is loosely referred to as the economy is really just the vast, interconnected web of buyers and sellers accommodating each other through the market and price system. Moreover, there are two sides to every transaction. While some sectors of the economy may be hurting (such as finance and housing today), those on the other side of the affected transaction (like foreclosure specialists and storage facilities) could be thriving.
2. Uncertainty
Another fear that stops entrepreneurs from getting started is the uncertainty inherent in owning a business. Unlike a salaried job, business ownership provides no immediate or guaranteed pay. Income, if any, is commensurate with the company’s sales or profits. If you have grown accustomed to being paid on a regular schedule regardless of outcome, trading that in for the uncertainty of business ownership can feel like a leap of faith. It is entirely legitimate to wonder if your business will be capable of providing for you or your family.
That said, there is a flip side to the uncertainty. If and when your business does produce an income, no boss or employer can take it away. Never again will you have to plead for a raise or demonstrate why you “deserve” more. In business, your income is entirely determined by what you produce and/or sell.
3. Indecision
Others have reservations because they are undecided about what type of business to start. More often than not, these are people who know they want to be self-employed, but not in what capacity. This, too, can be a legitimate fear to have. If you currently work in a steady career, it is not enough to simply “go into business.” In order to credibly go off on your own, you must be confident about what kind of business you will open. You must also have the skills and expertise to succeed in that business.
Current or previous jobs are a good reference point. If you currently work for an accounting firm, starting your own is perfectly reasonable. Deciding to abruptly change course and buy an Alaskan crab fishing boat might warrant more scrutiny.
4. Debt
Debt can constitute a serious obstacle to entrepreneurship. If you are saddled with student loans or credit card bills, it will be difficult to obtain any start-up financing you might need. In severe instances (such as if your wages are being garnished), any income your business produces will go directly to your creditors anyway.
Needless to say, concern about your pre-existing debt is a completely defensible reason to fear starting a business. Rather than trying to juggle both at once, focus squarely on repaying all of your debts first. Once your financial slate is wiped clean, you can move on to business ownership with a clear mind.
5. Family Obligations
Financial concerns are not the only reason people fear starting businesses. The early years of a new company can be incredibly taxing, and some fear having little time to spend with their families. After all, everyone gets the same 24 hours in a day. There is only so much of yourself to go around, and if you’re putting in ten or twelve hour days at work, there is no way to also spend that time at home. (Unless you have a home office, that is.)
It may truthfully be that family time is a deal-breaker for you. On the other hand, don’t be too quick to relinquish your ambitions. Discuss with your spouse whether arrangements or sacrifices can be made for the early days of your company.
6. No Benefits
Finally, other would-be entrepreneurs worry about what losing benefits, such as employer-provided health insurance or 401(k) contributions, will do to their overall finances. This, too, is a serious concern worth addressing. Perhaps you or a family member has a long-standing health condition. In such a scenario, a sudden lack of coverage could prove devastating.
Not every situation is so dire, however. Retirement accounts (including IRAs, Solo 401(k)s and self-employed pensions) can be opened and funded on your own without the help of any employer. It may also be possible to form a pool with other entrepreneurs and buy health insurance at lower group rates, which is essentially how large employers buy it.
While some are undeterred by these obstacles, others opt to play it safe and scrap their business plans altogether. Below are six of the most prevailing reasons why people are afraid to start businesses (and whether they make sense.)
1. The Economy
Some of the most common fears about starting businesses relate to how “the economy” is doing. If the economy is in a lull, many would be entrepreneurs assume that now must necessarily be the wrong time to get started. This belief is reinforced by nay-saying politicians and journalists who exaggerate even the very worst economic news.
Remember, though, that there is no single entity called “the economy.” What is loosely referred to as the economy is really just the vast, interconnected web of buyers and sellers accommodating each other through the market and price system. Moreover, there are two sides to every transaction. While some sectors of the economy may be hurting (such as finance and housing today), those on the other side of the affected transaction (like foreclosure specialists and storage facilities) could be thriving.
2. Uncertainty
Another fear that stops entrepreneurs from getting started is the uncertainty inherent in owning a business. Unlike a salaried job, business ownership provides no immediate or guaranteed pay. Income, if any, is commensurate with the company’s sales or profits. If you have grown accustomed to being paid on a regular schedule regardless of outcome, trading that in for the uncertainty of business ownership can feel like a leap of faith. It is entirely legitimate to wonder if your business will be capable of providing for you or your family.
That said, there is a flip side to the uncertainty. If and when your business does produce an income, no boss or employer can take it away. Never again will you have to plead for a raise or demonstrate why you “deserve” more. In business, your income is entirely determined by what you produce and/or sell.
3. Indecision
Others have reservations because they are undecided about what type of business to start. More often than not, these are people who know they want to be self-employed, but not in what capacity. This, too, can be a legitimate fear to have. If you currently work in a steady career, it is not enough to simply “go into business.” In order to credibly go off on your own, you must be confident about what kind of business you will open. You must also have the skills and expertise to succeed in that business.
Current or previous jobs are a good reference point. If you currently work for an accounting firm, starting your own is perfectly reasonable. Deciding to abruptly change course and buy an Alaskan crab fishing boat might warrant more scrutiny.
4. Debt
Debt can constitute a serious obstacle to entrepreneurship. If you are saddled with student loans or credit card bills, it will be difficult to obtain any start-up financing you might need. In severe instances (such as if your wages are being garnished), any income your business produces will go directly to your creditors anyway.
Needless to say, concern about your pre-existing debt is a completely defensible reason to fear starting a business. Rather than trying to juggle both at once, focus squarely on repaying all of your debts first. Once your financial slate is wiped clean, you can move on to business ownership with a clear mind.
5. Family Obligations
Financial concerns are not the only reason people fear starting businesses. The early years of a new company can be incredibly taxing, and some fear having little time to spend with their families. After all, everyone gets the same 24 hours in a day. There is only so much of yourself to go around, and if you’re putting in ten or twelve hour days at work, there is no way to also spend that time at home. (Unless you have a home office, that is.)
It may truthfully be that family time is a deal-breaker for you. On the other hand, don’t be too quick to relinquish your ambitions. Discuss with your spouse whether arrangements or sacrifices can be made for the early days of your company.
6. No Benefits
Finally, other would-be entrepreneurs worry about what losing benefits, such as employer-provided health insurance or 401(k) contributions, will do to their overall finances. This, too, is a serious concern worth addressing. Perhaps you or a family member has a long-standing health condition. In such a scenario, a sudden lack of coverage could prove devastating.
Not every situation is so dire, however. Retirement accounts (including IRAs, Solo 401(k)s and self-employed pensions) can be opened and funded on your own without the help of any employer. It may also be possible to form a pool with other entrepreneurs and buy health insurance at lower group rates, which is essentially how large employers buy it.
South Africa
For about a month this summer, the 50 million or so inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa will play hosts to the globe's biggest sporting event, the World Cup. This culturally and ethnically diverse nation -- fittingly known as the Rainbow Nation -- is less than two decades separated from its apartheid past, during which time racism and discrimination were written into the country’s legislation. While crime and unemployment remain high, many can't help but regard the country’s selection as the stage for earth's premier sporting event as an indication that the new, post-apartheid South Africa is on the path to a bright future.
As it prepares to host the ultimate celebration of The Beautiful Game, we present five things you didn't know about South Africa.
1- South Africa has 11 official languages
The first thing you didn't know about South Africa is that it has 11 more official languages than the United States.
isiZulu, isiXhosa, Afrikaans, Sesotho sa Leboa, English, and Setswana are the most widely spoken languages in South Africa, with siSwati, isiNdebele, Sesotho, Tshivenda, and Xitsonga rounding out the 11 official languages. isiZulu, a Bantu language that uses the Latin alphabet, is the language of the Zulu people and the mother tongue to about one quarter of the country's population. About half the country can understand it.
On top of 11 official languages, South Africa also has three capital cities: Pretoria is the executive capital, Cape Town is the legislative capital and Bloemfontein is the judicial capital.
2- The symbol of South African football is probably not South African
In the event you don't know what the vuvuzela is, you will -- just listen to one World Cup match, you don't even need to watch it.
The vuvuzela is considered the trademark trumpet and symbol of South African football. Fans have become notorious for blowing these things at matches. At about a yard long, they're made of plastic, and, when blown incessantly, sound like an elephant on crack. They are by far the most controversial aspect of the 2010 World Cup, originally the subject of a FIFA ban. While the official state line is that the vuvuzela is a descendant of the kudu horn, which called villagers to meetings long ago, few accept this tenuous lineage. Rather, the horn seems to have its origins in the United States.
Whatever the case, nobody describes the vuvuzela better than Boogieblast, the company best known for making the horns: "You only hate them if you don't have one."
3- South Africa is home to the "Cradle of Humankind"
Another thing you didn't know about South Africa is that you were born there. We all were.
About a half hour northwest of the country's largest city, Johannesburg, is a 180-square mile chunk of real estate peppered with limestone caves. A little more than a decade ago, UNESCO declared this area a World Heritage Site and it was officially given a name that many had long understood to be true: The Cradle of Humankind. The reason? Because nowhere else on earth have archeologists found as many hominid fossils as they have in those caves, some dating back 3.5 million years. One cave complex in particular, known as Sterkfontein, also has the distinction of being the world's longest-running archaeological excavation, having begun in 1966.
As it prepares to host the ultimate celebration of The Beautiful Game, we present five things you didn't know about South Africa.
1- South Africa has 11 official languages
The first thing you didn't know about South Africa is that it has 11 more official languages than the United States.
isiZulu, isiXhosa, Afrikaans, Sesotho sa Leboa, English, and Setswana are the most widely spoken languages in South Africa, with siSwati, isiNdebele, Sesotho, Tshivenda, and Xitsonga rounding out the 11 official languages. isiZulu, a Bantu language that uses the Latin alphabet, is the language of the Zulu people and the mother tongue to about one quarter of the country's population. About half the country can understand it.
On top of 11 official languages, South Africa also has three capital cities: Pretoria is the executive capital, Cape Town is the legislative capital and Bloemfontein is the judicial capital.
2- The symbol of South African football is probably not South African
In the event you don't know what the vuvuzela is, you will -- just listen to one World Cup match, you don't even need to watch it.
The vuvuzela is considered the trademark trumpet and symbol of South African football. Fans have become notorious for blowing these things at matches. At about a yard long, they're made of plastic, and, when blown incessantly, sound like an elephant on crack. They are by far the most controversial aspect of the 2010 World Cup, originally the subject of a FIFA ban. While the official state line is that the vuvuzela is a descendant of the kudu horn, which called villagers to meetings long ago, few accept this tenuous lineage. Rather, the horn seems to have its origins in the United States.
Whatever the case, nobody describes the vuvuzela better than Boogieblast, the company best known for making the horns: "You only hate them if you don't have one."
3- South Africa is home to the "Cradle of Humankind"
Another thing you didn't know about South Africa is that you were born there. We all were.
About a half hour northwest of the country's largest city, Johannesburg, is a 180-square mile chunk of real estate peppered with limestone caves. A little more than a decade ago, UNESCO declared this area a World Heritage Site and it was officially given a name that many had long understood to be true: The Cradle of Humankind. The reason? Because nowhere else on earth have archeologists found as many hominid fossils as they have in those caves, some dating back 3.5 million years. One cave complex in particular, known as Sterkfontein, also has the distinction of being the world's longest-running archaeological excavation, having begun in 1966.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
iPhone Converter for Mac
Emicsoft iPhone Converter for Mac, professional and multi-functional, is the right software for users who want to make videos for iPhone, iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS. All supported formats are like AVI, MPEG 1/2, WMV, DivX, MP4, 3GP, MTS, M2TS, VOB, MOD, TOD and so on, which means you could convert almost all popular video formats to your iPhone and enjoy freely. It is also allowed to convert audio formats for iPhone including MP3, AAC, AIFF, M4A and WAV. What's more, this Mac iPhone Converter OS X is also works for iPod, iPod nano, iPod classic, iPod Touch, and Apple TV.
In order to help users create better video file, Emicsoft iPhone Converter for Mac offers practical and easy to operate functions to customize satisfied video effect. For example, you can get your favorite movie clip from the whole video and finish conversion separately, set the movie effect flexibly and freely, adjust brightness, contrast and saturation for output video. All profile parameters can be modified to save as new one. Emicsoft iPhone Converter Mac will be an essential tool for iPhone users and will make your iPhone become a great video player.
Click to get Windows version: iPhone Converter for Windows.
Emicsoft iPhone Converter for Mac
1. Converter for iPhone on Mac
Emicsoft iPhone Video Converter Mac is specially designed to convert video and audio formats such as AVI, WMV, Tod, Mod, MP4, MP3, WAV, AAC, AIFF and so on to iPhone on Mac.
2. All Apple devices supported
iPhone 3G Converter Mac can work for almost all popular Apple devices including iPod nano, iPod classic, iPod Touch, iPod Touch 2, iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and Apple TV.
3. Edit profile at ease
You can edit the profile parameters including video encoder, frame rate, resolution, video bit rate, audio encoder, channels, sample rate, and audio bit rate.
4. Create individualized video
Trim source movie into clips for conversion separately or wholly
Crop the movie playing region by resetting the adjustment values.
Movie contrast, brightness, saturation can be adjusted.
5. Preview movie
Before editing your movie, you can watch it on the preview screen. During the conversion progress, it is also available to get the real-time output effect.
6. Great video joiner
Emicsoft iPhone Converter for Mac allows users to add multiple files at the same time and join all checked files together by clicking "Merge into one file".
In order to help users create better video file, Emicsoft iPhone Converter for Mac offers practical and easy to operate functions to customize satisfied video effect. For example, you can get your favorite movie clip from the whole video and finish conversion separately, set the movie effect flexibly and freely, adjust brightness, contrast and saturation for output video. All profile parameters can be modified to save as new one. Emicsoft iPhone Converter Mac will be an essential tool for iPhone users and will make your iPhone become a great video player.
Click to get Windows version: iPhone Converter for Windows.
Emicsoft iPhone Converter for Mac
1. Converter for iPhone on Mac
Emicsoft iPhone Video Converter Mac is specially designed to convert video and audio formats such as AVI, WMV, Tod, Mod, MP4, MP3, WAV, AAC, AIFF and so on to iPhone on Mac.
2. All Apple devices supported
iPhone 3G Converter Mac can work for almost all popular Apple devices including iPod nano, iPod classic, iPod Touch, iPod Touch 2, iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, and Apple TV.
3. Edit profile at ease
You can edit the profile parameters including video encoder, frame rate, resolution, video bit rate, audio encoder, channels, sample rate, and audio bit rate.
4. Create individualized video
Trim source movie into clips for conversion separately or wholly
Crop the movie playing region by resetting the adjustment values.
Movie contrast, brightness, saturation can be adjusted.
5. Preview movie
Before editing your movie, you can watch it on the preview screen. During the conversion progress, it is also available to get the real-time output effect.
6. Great video joiner
Emicsoft iPhone Converter for Mac allows users to add multiple files at the same time and join all checked files together by clicking "Merge into one file".
Science success
In 2004, Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg, a professor of child and family studies at Leiden University, started carrying a video camera into homes of families whose 1-to-3-year-olds indulged heavily in the oppositional, aggressive, uncooperative, and aggravating behavior that psychologists call “externalizing”: whining, screaming, whacking, throwing tantrums and objects, and willfully refusing reasonable requests. Staple behaviors in toddlers, perhaps. But research has shown that toddlers with especially high rates of these behaviors are likely to become stressed, confused children who fail academically and socially in school, and become antisocial and unusually aggressive adults.
At the outset of their study, Bakermans-Kranenburg and her colleagues had screened 2,408 children via parental questionnaire, and they were now focusing on the 25 percent rated highest by their parents in externalizing behaviors. Lab observations had confirmed these parental ratings.
Bakermans-Kranenburg meant to change the kids’ behavior. In an intervention her lab had developed, she or another researcher visited each of 120 families six times over eight months; filmed the mother and child in everyday activities, including some requiring obedience or cooperation; and then edited the film into teachable moments to show to the mothers. A similar group of high-externalizing children received no intervention.
To the researchers’ delight, the intervention worked. The moms, watching the videos, learned to spot cues they’d missed before, or to respond differently to cues they’d seen but had reacted to poorly. Quite a few mothers, for instance, had agreed only reluctantly to read picture books to their fidgety, difficult kids, saying they wouldn’t sit still for it. But according to Bakermans-Kranenburg, when these mothers viewed the playback they were “surprised to see how much pleasure it was for the child—and for them.” Most mothers began reading to their children regularly, producing what Bakermans-Kranenburg describes as “a peaceful time that they had dismissed as impossible.”
And the bad behaviors dropped. A year after the intervention ended, the toddlers who’d received it had reduced their externalizing scores by more than 16 percent, while a nonintervention control group improved only about 10 percent (as expected, due to modest gains in self-control with age). And the mothers’ responses to their children became more positive and constructive.
Few programs change parent-child dynamics so successfully. But gauging the efficacy of the intervention wasn’t the Leiden team’s only goal, or even its main one. The team was also testing a radical new hypothesis about how genes shape behavior—a hypothesis that stands to revise our view of not only mental illness and behavioral dysfunction but also human evolution.
Of special interest to the team was a new interpretation of one of the most important and influential ideas in recent psychiatric and personality research: that certain variants of key behavioral genes (most of which affect either brain development or the processing of the brain’s chemical messengers) make people more vulnerable to certain mood, psychiatric, or personality disorders. Bolstered over the past 15 years by numerous studies, this hypothesis, often called the “stress diathesis” or “genetic vulnerability” model, has come to saturate psychiatry and behavioral science. During that time, researchers have identified a dozen-odd gene variants that can increase a person’s susceptibility to depression, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, heightened risk-taking, and antisocial, sociopathic, or violent behaviors, and other problems—if, and only if, the person carrying the variant suffers a traumatic or stressful childhood or faces particularly trying experiences later in life.
This vulnerability hypothesis, as we can call it, has already changed our conception of many psychic and behavioral problems. It casts them as products not of nature or nurture but of complex “gene-environment interactions.” Your genes don’t doom you to these disorders. But if you have “bad” versions of certain genes and life treats you ill, you’re more prone to them.
Recently, however, an alternate hypothesis has emerged from this one and is turning it inside out. This new model suggests that it’s a mistake to understand these “risk” genes only as liabilities. Yes, this new thinking goes, these bad genes can create dysfunction in unfavorable contexts—but they can also enhance function in favorable contexts. The genetic sensitivities to negative experience that the vulnerability hypothesis has identified, it follows, are just the downside of a bigger phenomenon: a heightened genetic sensitivity to all experience.
The evidence for this view is mounting. Much of it has existed for years, in fact, but the focus on dysfunction in behavioral genetics has led most researchers to overlook it. This tunnel vision is easy to explain, according to Jay Belsky, a child-development psychologist at Birkbeck, University of London. “Most work in behavioral genetics has been done by mental-illness researchers who focus on vulnerability,” he told me recently. “They don’t see the upside, because they don’t look for it. It’s like dropping a dollar bill beneath a table. You look under the table, you see the dollar bill, and you grab it. But you completely miss the five that’s just beyond your feet.”
Though this hypothesis is new to modern biological psychiatry, it can be found in folk wisdom, as the University of Arizona developmental psychologist Bruce Ellis and the University of British Columbia developmental pediatrician W. Thomas Boyce pointed out last year in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science. The Swedes, Ellis and Boyce noted in an essay titled “Biological Sensitivity to Context,” have long spoken of “dandelion” children. These dandelion children—equivalent to our “normal” or “healthy” children, with “resilient” genes—do pretty well almost anywhere, whether raised in the equivalent of a sidewalk crack or a well-tended garden. Ellis and Boyce offer that there are also “orchid” children, who will wilt if ignored or maltreated but bloom spectacularly with greenhouse care.
At first glance, this idea, which I’ll call the orchid hypothesis, may seem a simple amendment to the vulnerability hypothesis. It merely adds that environment and experience can steer a person up instead of down. Yet it’s actually a completely new way to think about genetics and human behavior. Risk becomes possibility; vulnerability becomes plasticity and responsiveness. It’s one of those simple ideas with big, spreading implications. Gene variants generally considered misfortunes (poor Jim, he got the “bad” gene) can instead now be understood as highly leveraged evolutionary bets, with both high risks and high potential rewards: gambles that help create a diversified-portfolio approach to survival, with selection favoring parents who happen to invest in both dandelions and orchids.
In this view, having both dandelion and orchid kids greatly raises a family’s (and a species’) chance of succeeding, over time and in any given environment. The behavioral diversity provided by these two different types of temperament also supplies precisely what a smart, strong species needs if it is to spread across and dominate a changing world. The many dandelions in a population provide an underlying stability. The less-numerous orchids, meanwhile, may falter in some environments but can excel in those that suit them. And even when they lead troubled early lives, some of the resulting heightened responses to adversity that can be problematic in everyday life—increased novelty-seeking, restlessness of attention, elevated risk-taking, or aggression—can prove advantageous in certain challenging situations: wars, tribal or modern; social strife of many kinds; and migrations to new environments. Together, the steady dandelions and the mercurial orchids offer an adaptive flexibility that neither can provide alone. Together, they open a path to otherwise unreachable individual and collective achievements.
This orchid hypothesis also answers a fundamental evolutionary question that the vulnerability hypothesis cannot. If variants of certain genes create mainly dysfunction and trouble, how have they survived natural selection? Genes so maladaptive should have been selected out. Yet about a quarter of all human beings carry the best-documented gene variant for depression, while more than a fifth carry the variant that Bakermans-Kranenburg studied, which is associated with externalizing, antisocial, and violent behaviors, as well as ADHD, anxiety, and depression. The vulnerability hypothesis can’t account for this. The orchid hypothesis can.
This is a transformative, even startling view of human frailty and strength. For more than a decade, proponents of the vulnerability hypothesis have argued that certain gene variants underlie some of humankind’s most grievous problems: despair, alienation, cruelties both petty and epic. The orchid hypothesis accepts that proposition. But it adds, tantalizingly, that these same troublesome genes play a critical role in our species’ astounding success.
The orchid hypothesis—sometimes called the plasticity hypothesis, the sensitivity hypothesis, or the differential-susceptibility hypothesis—is too new to have been tested widely. Many researchers, even those in behavioral science, know little or nothing of the idea. A few—chiefly those with broad reservations about ever tying specific genes to specific behaviors—express concerns. But as more supporting evidence emerges, the most common reaction to the idea among researchers and clinicians is excitement. A growing number of psychologists, psychiatrists, child-development experts, geneticists, ethologists, and others are beginning to believe that, as Karlen Lyons-Ruth, a developmental psychologist at Harvard Medical School, puts it, “It’s time to take this seriously.”
At the outset of their study, Bakermans-Kranenburg and her colleagues had screened 2,408 children via parental questionnaire, and they were now focusing on the 25 percent rated highest by their parents in externalizing behaviors. Lab observations had confirmed these parental ratings.
Bakermans-Kranenburg meant to change the kids’ behavior. In an intervention her lab had developed, she or another researcher visited each of 120 families six times over eight months; filmed the mother and child in everyday activities, including some requiring obedience or cooperation; and then edited the film into teachable moments to show to the mothers. A similar group of high-externalizing children received no intervention.
To the researchers’ delight, the intervention worked. The moms, watching the videos, learned to spot cues they’d missed before, or to respond differently to cues they’d seen but had reacted to poorly. Quite a few mothers, for instance, had agreed only reluctantly to read picture books to their fidgety, difficult kids, saying they wouldn’t sit still for it. But according to Bakermans-Kranenburg, when these mothers viewed the playback they were “surprised to see how much pleasure it was for the child—and for them.” Most mothers began reading to their children regularly, producing what Bakermans-Kranenburg describes as “a peaceful time that they had dismissed as impossible.”
And the bad behaviors dropped. A year after the intervention ended, the toddlers who’d received it had reduced their externalizing scores by more than 16 percent, while a nonintervention control group improved only about 10 percent (as expected, due to modest gains in self-control with age). And the mothers’ responses to their children became more positive and constructive.
Few programs change parent-child dynamics so successfully. But gauging the efficacy of the intervention wasn’t the Leiden team’s only goal, or even its main one. The team was also testing a radical new hypothesis about how genes shape behavior—a hypothesis that stands to revise our view of not only mental illness and behavioral dysfunction but also human evolution.
Of special interest to the team was a new interpretation of one of the most important and influential ideas in recent psychiatric and personality research: that certain variants of key behavioral genes (most of which affect either brain development or the processing of the brain’s chemical messengers) make people more vulnerable to certain mood, psychiatric, or personality disorders. Bolstered over the past 15 years by numerous studies, this hypothesis, often called the “stress diathesis” or “genetic vulnerability” model, has come to saturate psychiatry and behavioral science. During that time, researchers have identified a dozen-odd gene variants that can increase a person’s susceptibility to depression, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, heightened risk-taking, and antisocial, sociopathic, or violent behaviors, and other problems—if, and only if, the person carrying the variant suffers a traumatic or stressful childhood or faces particularly trying experiences later in life.
This vulnerability hypothesis, as we can call it, has already changed our conception of many psychic and behavioral problems. It casts them as products not of nature or nurture but of complex “gene-environment interactions.” Your genes don’t doom you to these disorders. But if you have “bad” versions of certain genes and life treats you ill, you’re more prone to them.
Recently, however, an alternate hypothesis has emerged from this one and is turning it inside out. This new model suggests that it’s a mistake to understand these “risk” genes only as liabilities. Yes, this new thinking goes, these bad genes can create dysfunction in unfavorable contexts—but they can also enhance function in favorable contexts. The genetic sensitivities to negative experience that the vulnerability hypothesis has identified, it follows, are just the downside of a bigger phenomenon: a heightened genetic sensitivity to all experience.
The evidence for this view is mounting. Much of it has existed for years, in fact, but the focus on dysfunction in behavioral genetics has led most researchers to overlook it. This tunnel vision is easy to explain, according to Jay Belsky, a child-development psychologist at Birkbeck, University of London. “Most work in behavioral genetics has been done by mental-illness researchers who focus on vulnerability,” he told me recently. “They don’t see the upside, because they don’t look for it. It’s like dropping a dollar bill beneath a table. You look under the table, you see the dollar bill, and you grab it. But you completely miss the five that’s just beyond your feet.”
Though this hypothesis is new to modern biological psychiatry, it can be found in folk wisdom, as the University of Arizona developmental psychologist Bruce Ellis and the University of British Columbia developmental pediatrician W. Thomas Boyce pointed out last year in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science. The Swedes, Ellis and Boyce noted in an essay titled “Biological Sensitivity to Context,” have long spoken of “dandelion” children. These dandelion children—equivalent to our “normal” or “healthy” children, with “resilient” genes—do pretty well almost anywhere, whether raised in the equivalent of a sidewalk crack or a well-tended garden. Ellis and Boyce offer that there are also “orchid” children, who will wilt if ignored or maltreated but bloom spectacularly with greenhouse care.
At first glance, this idea, which I’ll call the orchid hypothesis, may seem a simple amendment to the vulnerability hypothesis. It merely adds that environment and experience can steer a person up instead of down. Yet it’s actually a completely new way to think about genetics and human behavior. Risk becomes possibility; vulnerability becomes plasticity and responsiveness. It’s one of those simple ideas with big, spreading implications. Gene variants generally considered misfortunes (poor Jim, he got the “bad” gene) can instead now be understood as highly leveraged evolutionary bets, with both high risks and high potential rewards: gambles that help create a diversified-portfolio approach to survival, with selection favoring parents who happen to invest in both dandelions and orchids.
In this view, having both dandelion and orchid kids greatly raises a family’s (and a species’) chance of succeeding, over time and in any given environment. The behavioral diversity provided by these two different types of temperament also supplies precisely what a smart, strong species needs if it is to spread across and dominate a changing world. The many dandelions in a population provide an underlying stability. The less-numerous orchids, meanwhile, may falter in some environments but can excel in those that suit them. And even when they lead troubled early lives, some of the resulting heightened responses to adversity that can be problematic in everyday life—increased novelty-seeking, restlessness of attention, elevated risk-taking, or aggression—can prove advantageous in certain challenging situations: wars, tribal or modern; social strife of many kinds; and migrations to new environments. Together, the steady dandelions and the mercurial orchids offer an adaptive flexibility that neither can provide alone. Together, they open a path to otherwise unreachable individual and collective achievements.
This orchid hypothesis also answers a fundamental evolutionary question that the vulnerability hypothesis cannot. If variants of certain genes create mainly dysfunction and trouble, how have they survived natural selection? Genes so maladaptive should have been selected out. Yet about a quarter of all human beings carry the best-documented gene variant for depression, while more than a fifth carry the variant that Bakermans-Kranenburg studied, which is associated with externalizing, antisocial, and violent behaviors, as well as ADHD, anxiety, and depression. The vulnerability hypothesis can’t account for this. The orchid hypothesis can.
This is a transformative, even startling view of human frailty and strength. For more than a decade, proponents of the vulnerability hypothesis have argued that certain gene variants underlie some of humankind’s most grievous problems: despair, alienation, cruelties both petty and epic. The orchid hypothesis accepts that proposition. But it adds, tantalizingly, that these same troublesome genes play a critical role in our species’ astounding success.
The orchid hypothesis—sometimes called the plasticity hypothesis, the sensitivity hypothesis, or the differential-susceptibility hypothesis—is too new to have been tested widely. Many researchers, even those in behavioral science, know little or nothing of the idea. A few—chiefly those with broad reservations about ever tying specific genes to specific behaviors—express concerns. But as more supporting evidence emerges, the most common reaction to the idea among researchers and clinicians is excitement. A growing number of psychologists, psychiatrists, child-development experts, geneticists, ethologists, and others are beginning to believe that, as Karlen Lyons-Ruth, a developmental psychologist at Harvard Medical School, puts it, “It’s time to take this seriously.”
Conversation Etiquette Mistakes
We’re all capable of the occasional social blunder. Of course, some of us seem more prone to it than others, but even the savviest people aren’t impervious to such gaffes. And no scenario is richer with these potential faux pas than the everyday conversation, in which you can say the wrong thing, do the wrong thing, and occasionally spit on others when trying to pronounce nouns with German etymology.
No worries. We’ve all had our moments with conversation etiquette mistakes.
But just because these conversation etiquette mistakes happen across the board doesn’t mean they can’t be avoided. All it takes is good judgment, a little maturity and a look at the most common conversation mistakes.
No.10 – Changing the topic to suit your own interests
Everyone has their own conversation topics of choice — work, office gossip or early 20th century smelting techniques. There’s nothing wrong with having these topical preferences, just don’t force them onto others. Let the conversation progress naturally; contribute where relevant and on-topic. We know you’re dying to participate, but don’t try to make some forced transition from American politics to your taxidermy collection. We’re not interested.
No.9 – Checking your phone
Technology has become a distraction for many and, of course, the phone is the worst offender. It’s an extension of you; it’s your life; you couldn’t live without it. We know. But be aware of this conversation etiquette mistake. No matter how important the text, the e-mail or the brick breaker score may be, checking your phone during a conversation is one of the most insulting gestures. In some countries, the “phone check” is punishable by death. And although in Western culture it may only be looked at as a conversational faux pas, it’s still an ill-advised move.
No.8 – Not knowing your audience
Know your audience. You can’t hide behind “I am who I am, no matter who I’m talking to.” Certain people require a certain type of conversation. Your boss sees the PG version, your friends see the R version and, if you’re lucky, you have the occasional X-rated with the spouse. But no matter what, you should always be tailoring the act for the audience. Just because the one about the Jehovah’s Witness and the rabbi gets a good laugh with your pals doesn’t mean you’ll get the same reaction at your aunt’s wake.
No.7 – One-upmanship
It’s not only a conversation etiquette mistake, it’s an alienating trait to exercise. Even if you feel the urge to vocalize your greatness in comparison to others, do your best to suppress this competitive edge. Conversation is not a competition. You don’t have to one-up the other person’s story, their good news, their time to shine in the conversation spotlight. You’ll have yours — don’t worry.
No.6 – Talking from your seat
Time and time again you’ll be at a restaurant, and that friendly acquaintance will come by for the standard greeting. Often, like a lethargic royalty on his or her thrown, you’ll simply remain seated while the servant-like acquaintance asks about the family. It’s awkward, it’s rude and it can be easily avoided. Just get up. Stand from your seat, shake a hand, pat the back, and ask where little Jenny is applying to college. God, these kids grow up fast. But seriously, stand up.
No worries. We’ve all had our moments with conversation etiquette mistakes.
But just because these conversation etiquette mistakes happen across the board doesn’t mean they can’t be avoided. All it takes is good judgment, a little maturity and a look at the most common conversation mistakes.
No.10 – Changing the topic to suit your own interests
Everyone has their own conversation topics of choice — work, office gossip or early 20th century smelting techniques. There’s nothing wrong with having these topical preferences, just don’t force them onto others. Let the conversation progress naturally; contribute where relevant and on-topic. We know you’re dying to participate, but don’t try to make some forced transition from American politics to your taxidermy collection. We’re not interested.
No.9 – Checking your phone
Technology has become a distraction for many and, of course, the phone is the worst offender. It’s an extension of you; it’s your life; you couldn’t live without it. We know. But be aware of this conversation etiquette mistake. No matter how important the text, the e-mail or the brick breaker score may be, checking your phone during a conversation is one of the most insulting gestures. In some countries, the “phone check” is punishable by death. And although in Western culture it may only be looked at as a conversational faux pas, it’s still an ill-advised move.
No.8 – Not knowing your audience
Know your audience. You can’t hide behind “I am who I am, no matter who I’m talking to.” Certain people require a certain type of conversation. Your boss sees the PG version, your friends see the R version and, if you’re lucky, you have the occasional X-rated with the spouse. But no matter what, you should always be tailoring the act for the audience. Just because the one about the Jehovah’s Witness and the rabbi gets a good laugh with your pals doesn’t mean you’ll get the same reaction at your aunt’s wake.
No.7 – One-upmanship
It’s not only a conversation etiquette mistake, it’s an alienating trait to exercise. Even if you feel the urge to vocalize your greatness in comparison to others, do your best to suppress this competitive edge. Conversation is not a competition. You don’t have to one-up the other person’s story, their good news, their time to shine in the conversation spotlight. You’ll have yours — don’t worry.
No.6 – Talking from your seat
Time and time again you’ll be at a restaurant, and that friendly acquaintance will come by for the standard greeting. Often, like a lethargic royalty on his or her thrown, you’ll simply remain seated while the servant-like acquaintance asks about the family. It’s awkward, it’s rude and it can be easily avoided. Just get up. Stand from your seat, shake a hand, pat the back, and ask where little Jenny is applying to college. God, these kids grow up fast. But seriously, stand up.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
How to work
There are no shortage of internet articles proclaiming the end of the 9 to 5 working week. But, the reality for many of us is that our job is hard work, repetitive and often not particularly interesting. If you have to trudge into the office 9-5, 5 days a week, these are some suggestions to make work less of a burden and more enjoyable.
* Maintain Good Relationships with others: The problem with an office environment is that you have no choice of the people you work with. If your relationships with these people sour, it can make work a real pain. Therefore, work hard to maintain reasonable relationships with your work colleagues. These are some quick tips for effective work relationships:
o Don't harshly criticize others, even if they deserve it
o Don't take criticism too personally
o Avoid Gossip
o Avoid Arguments with loud and obnoxious people
If you find it difficult to get along with someone, force yourself to remember some positive quality that person has. - You may be surprised at how much the situation is improved.
* Take Pride in Your Work: Even if you don't particularly love your company, it is still advisable to try and do your job conscientiously. If you try to do your job well, you will gain a lasting satisfaction and it will help give a purpose to working. If you feel there is no point to your work, you will have a permanent feeling of dissatisfaction, and it will be impossible to enjoy your time at work. If you dislike the ethos of your company, you can still do a good job; but, feel you are doing it for your benefit and not the company's. For example, a good attitude will definitely help get a good recommendation when you are looking for a new job.
* Don't Take Your Work Home: The good thing about a 9 to 5 job is that at the end of the work day you are free. Therefore, it is important to make sure that you don't take any work home with you. This includes checking work emails or even thinking about your work situation. In the evening try to switch off; you will not be able to solve any problems at home, just leave everything until the next day.
* Be Detached from the Stress of Your Company: Many Companies have ambitious sales targets and profit margins. A Corporate philosophy such as this can easily create a pressured work environment for their employees. However, you should feel that it is not your responsibility to take on this stress. Why should you needlessly suffer just so that the company can pay a higher dividend to its shareholders? Do a good job, but don't feel obliged to sacrifice your own equanimity for the excessive demands of your company.
* Avoid Gossip: It is easy to get caught up in the workplace gossip. But, the fleeting pleasure of sharing gossip is rarely worth the long term cost of hurt feelings and damaged relationships. Rather than encourage gossip, practise random acts of kindness. Try pointing out some good things that others have done. It is the nature of life that what you give out, often comes back to you. If you share malicious gossip, don't be surprised if the same happens to you. At the same time, if you offer kindness, people will be inclined to return the favor.
* Take your lunch Break away from Work: Every now and then it is good to get away from from the pressured environment of work. A change of scenery helps to put the workplace into perspective. If you spend all your time at work, it can start to feel claustrophobic. If you can spend time in a good cafe or garden it can help to recharge the batteries. It is also helpful to be on your own or meet friends from outside work.
* Don't Feel Guilty for Problems that are not of your Own Making: One of the most difficult aspects of work is dealing with customer complaints. These complaints are often not your fault, but, it is you who have to suffer. It is important to remember, it is not your fault that your company is understaffed or trying to cut corners. In these situations we should never feel guilty, but, calmly and politely direct customers to the right channels for complaining.
* Spend 10% of Your Time doing something productive for Yourself: If work is boring there is a temptation to waste time reading surfing the internet, and participating in unproductive social networking. The situation is so commonplace that many employers resort to banning Facebook e.t.c. However, rather than surfing aimlessly why not do something productive? For example, developing a blog, and finding an alternative income source to your current job. Who knows maybe one day, you will be able to retire early...
* Maintain Good Relationships with others: The problem with an office environment is that you have no choice of the people you work with. If your relationships with these people sour, it can make work a real pain. Therefore, work hard to maintain reasonable relationships with your work colleagues. These are some quick tips for effective work relationships:
o Don't harshly criticize others, even if they deserve it
o Don't take criticism too personally
o Avoid Gossip
o Avoid Arguments with loud and obnoxious people
If you find it difficult to get along with someone, force yourself to remember some positive quality that person has. - You may be surprised at how much the situation is improved.
* Take Pride in Your Work: Even if you don't particularly love your company, it is still advisable to try and do your job conscientiously. If you try to do your job well, you will gain a lasting satisfaction and it will help give a purpose to working. If you feel there is no point to your work, you will have a permanent feeling of dissatisfaction, and it will be impossible to enjoy your time at work. If you dislike the ethos of your company, you can still do a good job; but, feel you are doing it for your benefit and not the company's. For example, a good attitude will definitely help get a good recommendation when you are looking for a new job.
* Don't Take Your Work Home: The good thing about a 9 to 5 job is that at the end of the work day you are free. Therefore, it is important to make sure that you don't take any work home with you. This includes checking work emails or even thinking about your work situation. In the evening try to switch off; you will not be able to solve any problems at home, just leave everything until the next day.
* Be Detached from the Stress of Your Company: Many Companies have ambitious sales targets and profit margins. A Corporate philosophy such as this can easily create a pressured work environment for their employees. However, you should feel that it is not your responsibility to take on this stress. Why should you needlessly suffer just so that the company can pay a higher dividend to its shareholders? Do a good job, but don't feel obliged to sacrifice your own equanimity for the excessive demands of your company.
* Avoid Gossip: It is easy to get caught up in the workplace gossip. But, the fleeting pleasure of sharing gossip is rarely worth the long term cost of hurt feelings and damaged relationships. Rather than encourage gossip, practise random acts of kindness. Try pointing out some good things that others have done. It is the nature of life that what you give out, often comes back to you. If you share malicious gossip, don't be surprised if the same happens to you. At the same time, if you offer kindness, people will be inclined to return the favor.
* Take your lunch Break away from Work: Every now and then it is good to get away from from the pressured environment of work. A change of scenery helps to put the workplace into perspective. If you spend all your time at work, it can start to feel claustrophobic. If you can spend time in a good cafe or garden it can help to recharge the batteries. It is also helpful to be on your own or meet friends from outside work.
* Don't Feel Guilty for Problems that are not of your Own Making: One of the most difficult aspects of work is dealing with customer complaints. These complaints are often not your fault, but, it is you who have to suffer. It is important to remember, it is not your fault that your company is understaffed or trying to cut corners. In these situations we should never feel guilty, but, calmly and politely direct customers to the right channels for complaining.
* Spend 10% of Your Time doing something productive for Yourself: If work is boring there is a temptation to waste time reading surfing the internet, and participating in unproductive social networking. The situation is so commonplace that many employers resort to banning Facebook e.t.c. However, rather than surfing aimlessly why not do something productive? For example, developing a blog, and finding an alternative income source to your current job. Who knows maybe one day, you will be able to retire early...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)