Archives for category: Choices we make

Yet another misleading title

OK, I fully understand the editors’ need to grab readers’ attention… I also understand the fact that the readers themselves have become somewhat forgiving… in the sense that most don’t even notice that the title which convinced them to read an article is only vaguely connected to the rest… but how far down this road do we need to go before understanding how dangerous it is?

Most people do not trust the media anymore… could it be that this had been helped by the continuously widening distance between the titillating titles and the actual content of the articles?

How about ‘Men are attracted by smart women but not enough for them to overcome a certain weariness’?

Now, that I’ve hopefully grabbed your attention, let me delve into the matter.

“…more and more research reveals that though the thought of a smart woman is appealing to men, a real, live smart woman standing in front of them is actually a turnoff.”

“Researchers at the University of Buffalo, California Lutheran University, and the University of Texas at Austin” developed a two tiered study to test their hypothesis.
During the first step 105 men where read a “hypothetical scenario in which a woman either outperformed or underperformed them in a math or English course, and then (they were) instructed … to imagine this woman as a romantic partner”. During this step the men who were outperformed tended to describe a more favorable impression about the woman they were compared to than the one offered by the others. And this finding seems to validate another claim made earlier this year: “Men value intelligence in women far above large breasts and long legs.”
During the second step each of the same men were asked to complete something that looked like an intelligence test and then offered the opportunity to meet a woman that had either out or under performed them. Surprisingly (or not?) the men who were going to meet a woman that was smarter than them “distanced themselves more from her, tended to rate her as less attractive, and showed less desire to exchange contact information or plan a date with her,”

This being somewhat inline with the conclusion of another study which finds that: “men’s avoidance of more intelligent or ambitious women could be due to fear of rejection by these higher quality women.”

Can we even try to draw a conclusion? Given so much contradictory information?

Let’s start from here:

“This study also did not take into account men who are already in a relationship with a more intelligent woman.”

Wow! It wasn’t that hard, after all…
Until now we were considering ‘thoughts’ and ‘impressions’ provided by individuals confronted with ‘hypothetical scenarios’ but who had no first hand experience about the real deal…

But do not despair. You haven’t lost precious time reading all this.

Here’s some ‘homework’ you might find challenging:

Why are some men – those who haven’t yet discovered that this situation could be comfortable – avoiding a romantic relationship with a more intelligent/ambitious woman? While so many same sex friendships bond people who display different levels of intelligence/ambition?

Are we that stuck in our old ‘gender roles’? Do males’ egos still tend to be threatened if they are not the alpha member of their household?

Or could it be that some of the males tend to associate female smartness with a variety of rather aggressive feminisms and it’s this that puts them off, not the the intelligence itself?

And why is it that justice is usually depicted as a blindfolded woman instead of an overbearing male?

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!
Another very efficient way to help would be to share my posts.

As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!

As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Instructive in more ways than one. I highly recommend that you watch it.

What grabbed my attention is the contradictory title. Does it make any sense for something to be both overspeeding and legal?

Either something is moving too fast for the specific conditions/road (and it eventually crashes) or it moves at a speed which exceeds the administratively established limit for that portion of the road but ‘overspeed’ which is legal?!?

In general this manner of relating to the surrounding reality is hailed as being ‘good for you’.

And it usually is but only as long as those involved remain inside the realm of reason:

“Three convicts were on the way to prison. They were each allowed to take one item with them to help them occupy their time while incarcerated. On the bus, one turned to another and said, “So, what did you bring?”

The second convict pulled out a box of paints and stated that he intended to paint anything he could. He wanted to become the “Grandma Moses of Jail”. Then he asked the first, “What did you bring?”

The first convict pulled out a deck of cards and grinned and said, “I brought cards. I can play poker, solitaire, gin, and any number of games.”

The third convict was sitting quietly aside, grinning to himself. The other two took notice and asked, “Why are you so smug? What did you bring?”

The guy pulled out a box of tampons and smiled. He said, “I brought these.”

The other two were puzzled and asked, “What can you do with those?”

He grinned and pointed to the box and said, “Well according to the box, I can go horseback riding, swimming, roller-skating….”  

Somebody on FB has captioned this image as ‘socialism for dummies’.

I’m afraid he hasn’t got a clue about what real world socialism is truly about.

What we see here is pure and unadulterated stupidity.
We could have been speaking of socialism if the guy wielding the saw would have taken command of the situation, climbed up the ladder, took it up with him and left the other two jerks looking up at him and wondering what had happened to them.

That would have been a bona fide socialist exploit!

“Jack goes to his friend Mike and says, “I’m sleeping with the pastor’s wife.
Can you hold him in church for an hour after services for me?”

The friend doesn’t like it but being a friend, he agrees.
After the services, he starts talking to the pastor, asking him all sorts of stupid questions, just to keep him occupied.
Finally the pastor gets annoyed and asks Mike what he’s really up to.
Mike, feeling guilty, finally confesses to the pastor… “My friend is screwing your wife right now, so he asked me to keep you occupied.”

The pastor smiles, puts a brotherly hand on Mike’s shoulder and says… “You’d better hurry home now.
My wife died five years ago.” “

Found on HotRodders.com

A FB friend of mine shared this old video with the following caption:

“He is the only president in the world to do this, and defend the workers’ labor RESPECT”

And this was my reaction to this:

“Are you that sure that he did this in order to ‘defend worker’s labor’? Or in order to present himself as the (God) ‘father of the nation’? Or maybe, just maybe, he needed the aluminum produced at that factory?

And even if he was animated by the purest ideals, the mere fact that he acted like he did – in a dictatorial manner – is extremely malignant for the rest of the society.
What will stop, from now on, the oligarchs from following his example – act dictatorially on their own feuds? Fright from being reprimanded by the ‘big boss’?
Are you sure this is what you wish for? A society drenched in fright?
I’m not defending the Deripasca’s of this world. Each of them would do exactly as Putin does, if he’d have enough power.
The point of all this being that our only defense against the arbitrary is to stop lionizing individuals who act in this manner.
I know it’s hard to do that when their actions coincide with our  short term wishes. It would help to keep in mind that on the longer term their manner of running things will eventually induce terminal fragility into our livelihood.

Hardly a day passes by without Putin, Russia’s current ruler, being present at the top of every major news channel.

While sometime ago he was lionized on the cover of many glossy magazines nowadays he is the star of a lot gloomier articles.

Happier days (last month). Photographer: Vasily Maximov/AFP/Getty Image

What’s going on there?

About a week ago a prominent Russian journalist addressed an open letterto President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, where he discusses his case and the significance its abandonment has for Russia as a nation,

Oleg Kashin, the author of the open letter, which can be read here in English, had been beaten to a pulp some 5 years ago and Last month, on September 7, 2015, after a surprisingly exhaustive investigation by Russian police, Kashin revealed the names of his alleged attackers. The men appear to be linked to Andrey Turchak, the powerful governor of Pskov, and ex-employees of the security department of “Zaslon,” a company owned by Turchak’s family that designs and produces aircraft electronics and weapons-targeting systems. Though the evidence against Turchak and his entourage has mounted in the press, he remains free and in office. He hasn’t even been questioned.”

Well, Kashin’s case is the perfect illustration for what Adam Michnik has mentioned last August: “Russia non è uno Stato totalitario, ma è un sistema autoritario”  (Russia is not a totalitarian state but an authoritarian system).

This observation solves perfectly an apparent paradox. How come the Russian police discovers, after five years, who had beaten – following orders given by one’s of Putin’s own protegees – a political dissenter?!?
Simply because there is an important difference between an ‘authoritarian system’ and a totalitarian state.

The authoritarian leader cannot act, not yet at least, like a totalitarian one. He is not in full control of everything under the sun in his country.

This apparently small thing is of paramount importance. Sooner or later more and more Russians will figure out for themselves that Putin is bad for them. Bad for Russia’s long term future.
Meanwhile the rest of the world has to thread this situation very carefully. Every time one of us wants to say anything about what’s going on in Ukraine or in Syria we must use “Putin” instead of “Russia”. It wasn’t Russia – but Putin – that annexed Crimea, encourages the Ukrainian separatists and supports the Syrian dictator by bombarding the Syrian moderate opposition.

By mentioning them separately – Putin distinct from Russia – we send a very powerful signal to the Russian people. That we understand they are not personally responsible for Putin’s acts and that we know they are not yet able to change anything.

If we fail to do so we’ll fall into Putin’s trap.

Our failure to understand, and insist upon, the simple fact that Putin is not Russia is the only thing that enables him to portray the rest of the world as nothing but a bunch of callous people who are devilishly conniving against Mother Russia – and himself as the only possible savior of the Russian People.

Adam Michnik, La sfida di Mosca al mondo e sempre piu imprevediblie, La Reppublica, http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2015/08/18/news/p-121206360/
Adam Michnik, While we Praise Ukrainian Restraint, Putin Builds His Neo-Soviet Empire, New Republic, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117462/adam-michnik-putins-post-soviet-empire-threatens-ukraine
Oleg Kashin, A letter to the Rulers of Russia, Global Voices, https://globalvoices.org/2015/10/04/a-letter-to-the-rulers-of-russia-from-oleg-kashin/Marc Champion, Why Russian Jets are Buzzing Turkey, Bloomberg View, http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-08/why-putin-s-russian-jets-in-syria-are-buzzing-turkey,
Better Failling, BBC dropped Clarkson. How much longer till Russia drops Putin?, Nicichiarasa, https://nicichiarasa.wordpress.com/2015/03/26/bbc-dropped-clarkson-how-much-longer-till-russia-drops-putin/
Michael Shaw, Reading the Pictures: Putin &Sochi: Let the FU’s Begin, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shaw/reading-the-pictures-puti_b_4699356.html

Just stumbled upon a text over the Internet and now I’m wondering: what’s the real meaning of this word, ‘witch’?

“Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur’s youthful happiness. So he offered him freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question.  Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer. If, after a year, he still had no answer, he would be killed.

The question was: What do women really want?

Such a question would have perplexed even the most knowledgeable man, and, to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. Since it was better than death, however, he accepted the monarch’s proposition to have an answer by year’s end He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everybody; the princess, the prostitutes, priests, the wise men, and the court jester.
 In all, he spoke with everyone but no one could give him a satisfactory answer.
What most people did tell him was to consult the old witch, as only she would know the answer. The price would be high as the witch was famous for the exorbitant prices she charged.
The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no alternative but to talk to the witch.
She agreed to answer his question, but he’d have to accept her price first; the old witch wanted to marry Gawain, the most noble of the Knights of the Round table and Arthur’s closest friend!
Young Arthur was horrified, she was hunchbacked and awfully hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage water and often made obscene noises.
He had never run across such a repugnant creature.  He refused to force his friend to marry her and to have to endure such a burden.
Gawain, upon learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur. He told him that nothing was too big a sacrifice compared to Arthur’s life and the preservation of the Round table.

Hence, their wedding was proclaimed, and the witch answered Arthur’s question;

What a woman really wants is to be able to be in charge of her own life.

Everyone instantly knew that the witch had uttered a great truth and that Arthur’s life would be spared. And so it went. The neighboring monarch spared Arthur’s life and granted him total freedom.

What a wedding Gawain and the witch had! Arthur was torn between relief and anguish.  Gawain was proper as always, gentle and courteous.
The old witch put her worst manners on display. She ate with her hands, belched and farted, and made everyone uncomfortable.
The wedding night approached: Gawain, steeling himself for a horrific night, entered the bedroom.
What a sight awaited!
The most beautiful woman he’d ever seen lay before him! Gawain was astounded and asked what had happened.
The beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when she’d been a witch, half the time she would be her horrible, deformed self.
And the other half, she would be her beautiful maiden self.
Which would he want her to be during the day and which during the night?
What a cruel question! Gawain began to think of his predicament;
During the day a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy of his home, an old spooky witch?
Or would he prefer having by day a hideous witch, but by night a beautiful woman to enjoy many intimate moments?
 
What would you do?
What Gawain chose follows below, but don’t read until you’ve made your own choice!
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >*
   >
Noble Gawain replied that he would let her choose for herself.
Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all the time, because he had respected her and had let her be in charge of her own life.

What is the moral of the story?
 
The moral is that it doesn’t matter if a woman is pretty or ugly, smart or dumb.
Underneath it all, she’s still a fucking witch!”

OK, VW couldn’t figure out how to balance the ever stricter polution norms with the public demand for simultaneously more powerfull  and cheaper to run/cleaner diesel engines so they decided to fake it. And it seems they were not the only ones to do that.

This development poses some questions.

– What were they hoping for? Did they really think that something like this could have gone unnoticed for ever?
– What were the regulators thinking? That it’s possible to solve pollution by simply changing some norms?
“Moore’s Law” (“overall processing power for computers will double every two years” has been valid, for a while, in a very young technological field.
Internal combustion engines have been around for more than a century, they are rather old. Everybody knows that it is hard to teach new tricks to an old horse yet we tried to clean exhaust gases well beyond the reasonable instead of radically changing the technology. Computers seemed to be able to help, but only for a while…

Could this be just another ‘application’ of the Peter Principle? “Managers rise to the level of their incompetence?” GM was, sometime ago, the No. 1 Automobile Company. It recently went through a painful bailout. Toyota, the next champion – its methods were studied at the most prestigious management schools – was hugely embarrassed lately by a technological failure.
OK, you might argue that what went on at VW was an ‘upfront’ fraud, not at all an ‘honest’ mistake. Indeed but still a mistake, even if a potentially catastrophic one. Mainly for the shareholders, of course, but also for the rest of us.
A certain dose of distrust towards established authority is healthy for the society, as a whole, while too many proofs of the established figureheads behaving callously generate a diffused disrespect for the law which is really bad for everybody.

In fact what happened at VW is exactly what people tend to do when they do not see any way out of a certain situation.
When they don’t really think that anything bad can happen to them, regardless of whatever they do.
Or both.

So. Is there anything to be learned from here? Except for the oldest lesson history keeps teaching us: ‘reaching the top is easy, staying there is the really tough job’?
Maybe.
Toyota says that transparency, “both inside and outside the company“, is a good way towards avoiding this kind of mistakes. “You have to be able to listen to your customers, not just hear them.

Please notice the importance of teamwork!
No matter which of the two partners makes a false move because he/it doesn’t really trust the other, the rider ends, legs up, in the ditch.
It’s also true that from time to time it’s the horse that gets a broken leg but the ultimate looser is, again, the rider – he has to continue on foot!