Does Abstinence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?
Oct 26, 2010 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
I asked Josh Libresco, Executive Vice President of The OSR Group, a public opinion and marketing research firm based in San Rafael, California, to weigh in on the recent CDC study showing that states emphasizing abstinence-only education in schools also have the highest teen pregnancy rates. Did the media infer too much causation?
__________________________________________________________________________________
Does Abstinence Make the Heart Grow Fonder?
Quinn Fabray, the fictional cheerleading captain on the Fox series, Glee, spent most of last season pregnant and feeling that the pregnancy had turned her world upside down. Ironically, Quinn was also the President of the Celibacy Club, at least until her condition was revealed and she quickly became the ex-President.
A new study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that irony is not confined to the Fox Network. According to the CDC study, some U.S. states have dramatically higher teenage pregnancy rates than others, and the states with the highest teen pregnancy rates happen to be states that emphasize abstinence-only education.
In Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont, for example, 2008 birth rates were less than 25 per 1,000 teens aged 15 to 19. By contrast, in Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, the birth rate was higher than 60 per 1,000 teens in the same age group.
There is no doubt that teen pregnancies can lead to poor health outcomes for both the mother and the child, and the CDC data have been used to advocate for more aggressive efforts at sex education.
But is it really fair to connect abstinence-only education with teen pregnancy? Or, to put it more precisely, is it fair to say that there is a causal link between abstinence-only education and higher teen pregnancy rates? The two items may be correlated, but is it fair to say that the first causes the second?
Other state-by-state data provide some clues. In the New England states, for example, the average age of mothers at first birth is more than 27, among the highest in the nation. (This is from a National Center for Health Statistics Study conducted in 2002.) At the other extreme are Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming - many of the same states highlighted above. In these states, the average age of mothers at first birth is around 23. Is the average lower because of teen births, or are there other factors that lead people to start their families earlier in these states?
A 2007 AAUW (American Association for University Women) study revealed that the same set of states also tends to be lowest in educational attainment for women. Arkansas ranks next to last among the states in the proportion of women who have achieved a four-year college degree. Mississippi ranks 45th; Oklahoma ranks 42nd, Texas is 35th, and New Mexico ranks 25th. Are these educational levels lower because of teen pregnancy, or are there other reasons that women in these states might choose to forgo college and begin their families earlier?
A 2010 study by the Guttmacher Institute provides another important piece of the puzzle. While teen birthrates are highest in the five states listed above, the abortion rates in these states tend to be among the lowest. Arkansas ranks 45th in the percentage of teens 15-19 who choose to end their pregnancies with abortions, and Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas are also in the bottom half of the states with respect to abortion percentage. Teens in the New England states are much more willing to consider abortions - for example, Connecticut ranks 5th on this measure, and Massachusetts ranks 11th. So some of the explanation for high teen birth rates in the abstinence-only states is that teens in those states are more likely to carry their babies to term.
And now we get to the key, unspoken factor in the equation - religion. In some states, strong Fundamentalist religious beliefs discourage sex education, and also discourage both birth control and abortion. Young women in Fundamentalist families may also be less interested in pursuing higher education and more interested in starting families early.
How does this relate to the five high-profile, abstinence-only states? According to statistics from the Southern Baptist Convention, in 1990, Mississippi had the highest percentage of Southern Baptists in the nation - almost 34%. Oklahoma was third, at 31%, and Arkansas, at 25%, was in 7th place. Texas stood 10th in Southern Baptist percentage (19%), and even New Mexico - not exactly a Southern state - had 10% Southern Baptists, good for 14th place nationwide.
So yes, it may be true that abstinence-only education is related to higher teen pregnancy, but it is also related to a number of other factors - including average age of the mother at birth, educational attainment of women, willingness to have an abortion, and even religious affiliation. Yet correlation is not the same as causation. The CDC study does not prove that abstinence-only education has somehow caused an increase in teen pregnancy, and the study does not separate the influence of abstinence-only education from the influences of many other, related factors.
After all, abstinence-only states should not be the only targets in the battle against teen pregnancy. In 2010, Ohio abandoned abstinence-only, and began a sex education program in schools for the first time in 10 years. Glee's Quinn Fabray lives in Lima, Ohio.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Josh Libresco is Executive Vice President of The OSR Group, a public opinion and marketing research firm based in San Rafael, California. His firm conducts research projects using online interviews, telephone surveys, focus groups, and other methods for corporations, foundations, and government agencies throughout the United States and in more than 60 countries around the world.
Crazy Eyes
Oct 25, 2010 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
I have a hypothesis that "Crazy Eyes" is a real thing.
We know that a person's eyes can reveal certain types of emotions. For example, your pupils will widen when you look at someone you love. That's why attraction is so hard to hide. I've spent the past few decades observing people's eyes to see if they reveal other secrets as well. One thing stands out.
I have a hypothesis that you can detect in a person's eyes when they have a preference for imagination over direct observation. Let's call that look Crazy Eyes because it can be unsettling to the third-party observer. With Crazy Eyes, I think the brain is accessing the imagination instead of the rational part of the brain, and it causes the eyes to have a sort of glassy, unblinking, dreamy, scary look. At least that's how it looks to me.
I was noticing this again recently as I watched a news program about religious activists who were organizing their lives around a worldview that needs to be imagined because it can't be directly observed. Their eyes had a spooky, dreamy look when they spoke of their plans, as if they were accessing their imaginations instead of whatever part of the brain does math. I'm not saying their worldview is wrong. I'm only saying that objective evidence in support of their worldview can't be directly observed, so imagination necessarily has an important role in their daily lives, and their eyes showed it. They had Crazy Eyes.
Suppose you did a study where you took one group of religious people and one group of skeptics and filmed each of them speaking about whatever is important to them. Then you cropped out everything but the eyes and showed the films to a group of volunteer subjects. Could the volunteers distinguish the skeptics from the believers just by their eyes? I think they could, at least more than chance would predict.
I thought of this topic because the other day while working out in the gym I was having an exceptionally good hypomanic creative flood. It was wonderful. One good idea after another was popping into my head. I stopped to use the restroom, and when I was washing my hands I looked in the mirror and noticed that I had Crazy Eyes. I was so deep in my imagination that my eyes looked different even to me. It was jarring.
My point is that I'm glad I work alone, and I totally understand why my cat won't give me eye contact.
We know that a person's eyes can reveal certain types of emotions. For example, your pupils will widen when you look at someone you love. That's why attraction is so hard to hide. I've spent the past few decades observing people's eyes to see if they reveal other secrets as well. One thing stands out.
I have a hypothesis that you can detect in a person's eyes when they have a preference for imagination over direct observation. Let's call that look Crazy Eyes because it can be unsettling to the third-party observer. With Crazy Eyes, I think the brain is accessing the imagination instead of the rational part of the brain, and it causes the eyes to have a sort of glassy, unblinking, dreamy, scary look. At least that's how it looks to me.
I was noticing this again recently as I watched a news program about religious activists who were organizing their lives around a worldview that needs to be imagined because it can't be directly observed. Their eyes had a spooky, dreamy look when they spoke of their plans, as if they were accessing their imaginations instead of whatever part of the brain does math. I'm not saying their worldview is wrong. I'm only saying that objective evidence in support of their worldview can't be directly observed, so imagination necessarily has an important role in their daily lives, and their eyes showed it. They had Crazy Eyes.
Suppose you did a study where you took one group of religious people and one group of skeptics and filmed each of them speaking about whatever is important to them. Then you cropped out everything but the eyes and showed the films to a group of volunteer subjects. Could the volunteers distinguish the skeptics from the believers just by their eyes? I think they could, at least more than chance would predict.
I thought of this topic because the other day while working out in the gym I was having an exceptionally good hypomanic creative flood. It was wonderful. One good idea after another was popping into my head. I stopped to use the restroom, and when I was washing my hands I looked in the mirror and noticed that I had Crazy Eyes. I was so deep in my imagination that my eyes looked different even to me. It was jarring.
My point is that I'm glad I work alone, and I totally understand why my cat won't give me eye contact.
The "I Wonder" App
Oct 22, 2010 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
A fun thing about the present is that it sometimes reveals glimpses of the future. Lately I have been enjoying a Google app for my phone that lets me speak search terms. The voice recognition is spectacular. I used it about five times yesterday. Fast-forward a few years, and let me paint a picture of your future.
You'll be wearing your Bluetooth earpiece - a future version of it - most of the day. And it will be listening to everything you say. When it hears you say, "I wonder..." it will fire up a search engine and wait for the rest of the sentence. The software will know you're using an earpiece, so the answer will be delivered as a brief verbal summary, like a smart friend whispering in your ear.
In the first versions of this service, you'll ask simple questions, such as "I wonder what ingredients go into a margarita," or "I wonder where the nearest Starbucks is." In later versions, as search engines and content sources evolve, you'll have access to more complicated answers, all with whisper-friendly brevity.
Now imagine that your earpiece has a camera. Google is already working on a search engine that will identify an object from a digital image. Someday you will be able to look at a flower and say, "I wonder what type of flower that is," and the answer will be whispered in your ear.
Now here's the cool-spooky part. As the technology improves, the voice in your ear will become more natural, and smarter, and it will be like your invisible friend. It will learn your preferences in a way no human ever has. I think it will be able to keep you company and make you less lonely. The whisper-in-your-ear aspect of this technology has the potential to feel like human contact but without the inconvenience of an actual human.
Now imagine that your earpiece can identify more key words than just "I wonder." It could learn to interject whenever it feels you need to be entertained, warned, informed, or even cheered up.
You'll also be able to control your environment through your earpiece. Just tell the TV what channel you want, and your smartphone will communicate with your cable box to make it so. You'll be able to verbally control your lights, heat, microwave, and just about anything else.
Now imagine you're also wearing a ring that senses motion and communicates with your smartphone. Your hand will become an air mouse to control everything from your cursor to the volume on your TV. If you're facing the TV, just say "volume" and move your hand higher or lower to adjust it. If you're in front of the computer, the ring would know to control the cursor.
Imagine walking into a room and turning on your ceiling fan simply by motioning toward it with a clockwise rotation of your hand. It would feel like having a magic power.
Imagine lifting weights and having your "reps" automatically whispered in your ear, along with encouragement that is appropriate to your exercise history. It would be your own personal trainer.
I often joke about become a cyborg - part human, part machine. But that day is coming for sure, and it will happen well within your lifetime. The first component is probably in your purse or pocket right now. And the second component might be in your ear.
You'll be wearing your Bluetooth earpiece - a future version of it - most of the day. And it will be listening to everything you say. When it hears you say, "I wonder..." it will fire up a search engine and wait for the rest of the sentence. The software will know you're using an earpiece, so the answer will be delivered as a brief verbal summary, like a smart friend whispering in your ear.
In the first versions of this service, you'll ask simple questions, such as "I wonder what ingredients go into a margarita," or "I wonder where the nearest Starbucks is." In later versions, as search engines and content sources evolve, you'll have access to more complicated answers, all with whisper-friendly brevity.
Now imagine that your earpiece has a camera. Google is already working on a search engine that will identify an object from a digital image. Someday you will be able to look at a flower and say, "I wonder what type of flower that is," and the answer will be whispered in your ear.
Now here's the cool-spooky part. As the technology improves, the voice in your ear will become more natural, and smarter, and it will be like your invisible friend. It will learn your preferences in a way no human ever has. I think it will be able to keep you company and make you less lonely. The whisper-in-your-ear aspect of this technology has the potential to feel like human contact but without the inconvenience of an actual human.
Now imagine that your earpiece can identify more key words than just "I wonder." It could learn to interject whenever it feels you need to be entertained, warned, informed, or even cheered up.
You'll also be able to control your environment through your earpiece. Just tell the TV what channel you want, and your smartphone will communicate with your cable box to make it so. You'll be able to verbally control your lights, heat, microwave, and just about anything else.
Now imagine you're also wearing a ring that senses motion and communicates with your smartphone. Your hand will become an air mouse to control everything from your cursor to the volume on your TV. If you're facing the TV, just say "volume" and move your hand higher or lower to adjust it. If you're in front of the computer, the ring would know to control the cursor.
Imagine walking into a room and turning on your ceiling fan simply by motioning toward it with a clockwise rotation of your hand. It would feel like having a magic power.
Imagine lifting weights and having your "reps" automatically whispered in your ear, along with encouragement that is appropriate to your exercise history. It would be your own personal trainer.
I often joke about become a cyborg - part human, part machine. But that day is coming for sure, and it will happen well within your lifetime. The first component is probably in your purse or pocket right now. And the second component might be in your ear.
Entertaining the Driver
Oct 21, 2010 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
I give you the following question of etiquette. You and one friend/spouse/relative are driving somewhere. You're the driver. The passenger whips out his or her phone and uses your car as a mobile phone booth for the duration of the trip, reasoning that this is an ideal time to return some calls and get things done.
As the driver, you can't listen to music, as this would interfere with the phone conversation. And you can't have a conversation of your own because the only other person in the car is busy. Is the passenger displaying bad etiquette?
Let's all agree that a few short calls to handle time-sensitive business would be agreeable in all cases. But let's say for this example that it's a one-hour drive, and most of it is taken up by phone calls. Is that bad etiquette?
Now suppose the passenger asks in advance if you would mind enduring this situation. He or she has lots of things to take care of, and you both know that you probably wouldn't be blabbing with each other anyway. Does that make it okay?
Put another way, does the passenger have some obligation to keep the driver entertained?
As the driver, you can't listen to music, as this would interfere with the phone conversation. And you can't have a conversation of your own because the only other person in the car is busy. Is the passenger displaying bad etiquette?
Let's all agree that a few short calls to handle time-sensitive business would be agreeable in all cases. But let's say for this example that it's a one-hour drive, and most of it is taken up by phone calls. Is that bad etiquette?
Now suppose the passenger asks in advance if you would mind enduring this situation. He or she has lots of things to take care of, and you both know that you probably wouldn't be blabbing with each other anyway. Does that make it okay?
Put another way, does the passenger have some obligation to keep the driver entertained?
Afghanistan Solution
Oct 20, 2010 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
If you were wondering when I would apply my vast lack of knowledge to the Afghanistan situation, today is the day.
Let's agree that we have a war that can't be won as long as Pakistan is supporting the Taliban, and that situation shows no sign of changing. Let's also agree that if the U.S. military pulls out of Afghanistan the Taliban will slay everyone who doesn't have a beard or a burka, and create a safe haven for terrorists. So pulling out is risky.
What do you do with a problem that is unsolvable? You take a play from corporate America. When your coworker can't solve a problem, he redefines the objective until it becomes a problem that is solvable.
Suppose we apply this method to Afghanistan. We redefine our purpose for being in Afghanistan as keeping Al Qaeda from having a state-supported training ground. That's close enough to our original goal that succeeding would mean something.
The first step would be to create safe zones in Afghanistan where the Afghans who are afraid of the Taliban can live and prosper. Maybe this requires some Israeli-style walls and the support of warlords who aren't fond of the Taliban. We give the citizens of Afghanistan a one-year warning and help relocate anyone who wants to get out of the zones that are likely to come under Taliban control. This would be hugely expensive, and a great hardship on the citizens. But unlike our current approach, it could work.
Then we pull back our military to well-defended bases and create drone and Special Forces training facilities that are designed for permanent operation. In this context, I'm stretching the meaning of "training" to include attacking any group of Taliban or Al Qaeda that appears to have a leader or a military asset.
The beauty of "surrendering" big parts of Afghanistan to the Taliban, and presumably Al Qaeda, is that it will cause the bad guys to congregate and form easy targets for drone attacks. As for the so-called training facility, I can't imagine better training than attacking live targets. And the future of warfare seems to include drones, so our national defense would be improving daily as we continue to sharpen our skills in a way that no other country can.
When the Taliban gets tired of being pounded by drones every day, and they ask for a meeting to discuss peace, we respond, "Peace to what? The war is already over. Have a nice day."
I remind you that my understanding of world affairs, and Afghanistan in particular, could be stored inside a thimble and leave plenty of room for a thumb. This blog is for people who like to toss around ideas. You won't find any answers here.
Let's agree that we have a war that can't be won as long as Pakistan is supporting the Taliban, and that situation shows no sign of changing. Let's also agree that if the U.S. military pulls out of Afghanistan the Taliban will slay everyone who doesn't have a beard or a burka, and create a safe haven for terrorists. So pulling out is risky.
What do you do with a problem that is unsolvable? You take a play from corporate America. When your coworker can't solve a problem, he redefines the objective until it becomes a problem that is solvable.
Suppose we apply this method to Afghanistan. We redefine our purpose for being in Afghanistan as keeping Al Qaeda from having a state-supported training ground. That's close enough to our original goal that succeeding would mean something.
The first step would be to create safe zones in Afghanistan where the Afghans who are afraid of the Taliban can live and prosper. Maybe this requires some Israeli-style walls and the support of warlords who aren't fond of the Taliban. We give the citizens of Afghanistan a one-year warning and help relocate anyone who wants to get out of the zones that are likely to come under Taliban control. This would be hugely expensive, and a great hardship on the citizens. But unlike our current approach, it could work.
Then we pull back our military to well-defended bases and create drone and Special Forces training facilities that are designed for permanent operation. In this context, I'm stretching the meaning of "training" to include attacking any group of Taliban or Al Qaeda that appears to have a leader or a military asset.
The beauty of "surrendering" big parts of Afghanistan to the Taliban, and presumably Al Qaeda, is that it will cause the bad guys to congregate and form easy targets for drone attacks. As for the so-called training facility, I can't imagine better training than attacking live targets. And the future of warfare seems to include drones, so our national defense would be improving daily as we continue to sharpen our skills in a way that no other country can.
When the Taliban gets tired of being pounded by drones every day, and they ask for a meeting to discuss peace, we respond, "Peace to what? The war is already over. Have a nice day."
I remind you that my understanding of world affairs, and Afghanistan in particular, could be stored inside a thimble and leave plenty of room for a thumb. This blog is for people who like to toss around ideas. You won't find any answers here.
My Chilean Miner Moment
Oct 18, 2010 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
This weekend, I went with my wife and another couple to an early dinner at a new restaurant in our area. At the end of dinner, I excused myself to use the restroom, which was down a hallway and around the corner.
The Men's room door was wedged open with a folded bit of cardboard on the floor. The Ladies room was just outside the Men's room, and I wasn't in a mood to put on a show. So I kicked the little cardboard wedge free. As the door slowly closed, I started doing my business, and noticed the reason that the door had been propped open. The door handle on the inside had been removed, or maybe it fell off. There was no way out. I was trapped like a Chilean coal miner.
As I washed my hands, I considered all of my MacGyver options for escape. The door had no grabby parts whatsoever on the inside, and it was snug in its frame, so I couldn't fit anything between the frame and the door.
And no, the door wasn't the type you push. It was a pull situation. Thanks for asking.
Yelling wouldn't have worked because the restrooms were too far from the main restaurant. There were only a few other people eating at that early time, and I worried that it could be a long wait before anyone came down the hallway.
I scanned my environment to see what tools, mechanisms, or explosive devices I could fashion to win my freedom. I had paper towels and soap. I also had a mirror that I could shatter if I needed shards. I had a wallet with some credit cards in my back pocket and an iPhone in my front pocket. In other words, I had nothing that could signal the outside world.
I wondered how long I could pound on the door with my iPhone before breaking through, but it was a substantial door, and I don't have that kind of upper body strength.
My only other path to the outside world was through the plumbing. I knew it was crazy to think about flushing my way to freedom, but if a pilot can land a passenger plane on the Hudson River, and 33 Chilean miners can each have a wife, a mistress, a baby mama, and a movie deal, anything is possible. I figured I would lose weight if I stayed in there long enough, and once I was turd-sized I could go all David Blaine, flush, dive, and hold my breath until I reached Lake Merritt in Oakland.
But that was more of a last resort sort of thing. For now, my best idea was to fashion a suction device to grab onto the door and create a temporary handle. But I didn't know how to form a suction device from paper towels, soap, and mirror shards. I considered wetting my lips, going all pouty, and doing a remora move on the door. But I decided that the Lake Merritt option had a higher chance of survival than touching a restroom door with my lips.
As fate would have it, desperation led to inspiration. I remembered that our dinner friends have iPhones too. That means they speak the special iPhone language. I dialed Matt and said something that sounded like "I...uck...th...oom..." . He responded, "...ou...cking...iot ...ha ha!" I won't translate that for you Droid users, but the bottom line is that he came and opened the door. I was happy to be reunited with my wife, but somewhat disappointed that I didn't get a movie deal out of it.
The Men's room door was wedged open with a folded bit of cardboard on the floor. The Ladies room was just outside the Men's room, and I wasn't in a mood to put on a show. So I kicked the little cardboard wedge free. As the door slowly closed, I started doing my business, and noticed the reason that the door had been propped open. The door handle on the inside had been removed, or maybe it fell off. There was no way out. I was trapped like a Chilean coal miner.
As I washed my hands, I considered all of my MacGyver options for escape. The door had no grabby parts whatsoever on the inside, and it was snug in its frame, so I couldn't fit anything between the frame and the door.
And no, the door wasn't the type you push. It was a pull situation. Thanks for asking.
Yelling wouldn't have worked because the restrooms were too far from the main restaurant. There were only a few other people eating at that early time, and I worried that it could be a long wait before anyone came down the hallway.
I scanned my environment to see what tools, mechanisms, or explosive devices I could fashion to win my freedom. I had paper towels and soap. I also had a mirror that I could shatter if I needed shards. I had a wallet with some credit cards in my back pocket and an iPhone in my front pocket. In other words, I had nothing that could signal the outside world.
I wondered how long I could pound on the door with my iPhone before breaking through, but it was a substantial door, and I don't have that kind of upper body strength.
My only other path to the outside world was through the plumbing. I knew it was crazy to think about flushing my way to freedom, but if a pilot can land a passenger plane on the Hudson River, and 33 Chilean miners can each have a wife, a mistress, a baby mama, and a movie deal, anything is possible. I figured I would lose weight if I stayed in there long enough, and once I was turd-sized I could go all David Blaine, flush, dive, and hold my breath until I reached Lake Merritt in Oakland.
But that was more of a last resort sort of thing. For now, my best idea was to fashion a suction device to grab onto the door and create a temporary handle. But I didn't know how to form a suction device from paper towels, soap, and mirror shards. I considered wetting my lips, going all pouty, and doing a remora move on the door. But I decided that the Lake Merritt option had a higher chance of survival than touching a restroom door with my lips.
As fate would have it, desperation led to inspiration. I remembered that our dinner friends have iPhones too. That means they speak the special iPhone language. I dialed Matt and said something that sounded like "I...uck...th...oom..." . He responded, "...ou...cking...iot ...ha ha!" I won't translate that for you Droid users, but the bottom line is that he came and opened the door. I was happy to be reunited with my wife, but somewhat disappointed that I didn't get a movie deal out of it.
How to Tax the Rich
Oct 14, 2010 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
If a well-dressed stranger walks up to you at the mall and asks for a dollar, with no reason given, you're unlikely to hand it over. But if the same person asks for a dollar and gives a specific reason, such as "...because my wallet was stolen and I need gas to get home," you're far more likely to hand over your money. (See the book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, by Cialdini.)
After the U.S. midterm election, the question of raising taxes on the rich, or allowing the so-called Bush tax breaks for the rich to expire naturally, will be hotly debated. You might think this sort of tax law would easily pass, given that 98% of the voters are not rich. But it won't work that way. The people who pay the most taxes also have the most control of the government. So in my imaginary role as president, I fantasize about how I could convince the rich to accept higher taxes on themselves. I think the key is in how specific the president gets about the purpose for the new taxes.
As it stands, Obama's likely proposition is that the rich will pay more taxes and the money will be distributed in some hard-to-fathom way across numerous budget categories, many of which the rich believe to be overfunded. Or maybe the tax revenue will be put toward reducing the deficit, which is a debatable and intangible benefit. Those are hard propositions to sell: "Give me a dollar and I will use it for miscellaneous."
Now imagine that instead of proposing to spray the new taxes into the general budget miasma, the President cleverly ties the new tax revenue to one specific category, such as national infrastructure. That funding would be a clear boon to employment, at least in the long run, and no one can argue against the need to improve our infrastructure. And arguably, the rich would benefit disproportionately from any infrastructure improvements.
But here's the best part, from a psychology perspective. Imagine that anyone rich enough to qualify for this Infrastructure Tax gets to use all roads and bridges without paying a toll for the following tax year. Each rich taxpayer family gets two of those little transmitters that go on your windshield to automatically signal toll booths that they are paid up. (We have those toll transmitters in California. I assume they will be everywhere soon.)
Obviously the rich will pay far more in taxes than they will save on bridge and road tolls, but people like any sense of privilege. I think it would make the tax increase go down easier. Every time the rich crossed a bridge they would feel special. That is clearly illogical, but psychology isn't about logic.
Society has accepted the notion that the rich can be taxed at a different rate than other people. I think we should consider the idea that the rich should be taxed in a different fashion than everyone else too, as a purely practical matter.
After the U.S. midterm election, the question of raising taxes on the rich, or allowing the so-called Bush tax breaks for the rich to expire naturally, will be hotly debated. You might think this sort of tax law would easily pass, given that 98% of the voters are not rich. But it won't work that way. The people who pay the most taxes also have the most control of the government. So in my imaginary role as president, I fantasize about how I could convince the rich to accept higher taxes on themselves. I think the key is in how specific the president gets about the purpose for the new taxes.
As it stands, Obama's likely proposition is that the rich will pay more taxes and the money will be distributed in some hard-to-fathom way across numerous budget categories, many of which the rich believe to be overfunded. Or maybe the tax revenue will be put toward reducing the deficit, which is a debatable and intangible benefit. Those are hard propositions to sell: "Give me a dollar and I will use it for miscellaneous."
Now imagine that instead of proposing to spray the new taxes into the general budget miasma, the President cleverly ties the new tax revenue to one specific category, such as national infrastructure. That funding would be a clear boon to employment, at least in the long run, and no one can argue against the need to improve our infrastructure. And arguably, the rich would benefit disproportionately from any infrastructure improvements.
But here's the best part, from a psychology perspective. Imagine that anyone rich enough to qualify for this Infrastructure Tax gets to use all roads and bridges without paying a toll for the following tax year. Each rich taxpayer family gets two of those little transmitters that go on your windshield to automatically signal toll booths that they are paid up. (We have those toll transmitters in California. I assume they will be everywhere soon.)
Obviously the rich will pay far more in taxes than they will save on bridge and road tolls, but people like any sense of privilege. I think it would make the tax increase go down easier. Every time the rich crossed a bridge they would feel special. That is clearly illogical, but psychology isn't about logic.
Society has accepted the notion that the rich can be taxed at a different rate than other people. I think we should consider the idea that the rich should be taxed in a different fashion than everyone else too, as a purely practical matter.
Insults
Oct 13, 2010 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
I've been staring at a half-written comic that I'm trying to finish. It calls for Dilbert to insult someone at a meeting. The problem is that I concocted an insult that I love too much, and unfortunately it's too edgy for a comic strip. Now I can't move on because it's stuck in my mind. My solution is to release the thought in this post and hope that by doing so it will free me to imagine something more appropriate.
The insult is a derogatory reference to a person's brain. And the phrase is...
shoulder turd
I feel better now. Thanks for listening.
The insult is a derogatory reference to a person's brain. And the phrase is...
shoulder turd
I feel better now. Thanks for listening.
Worst Person at the Meeting
Oct 12, 2010 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
Think about the most recent meeting you attended. Leave a comment below describing the worst person at the meeting. Be as unkind as you like.
In this context, "worst" could mean anything, such as most disruptive, dumbest, craziest, slowest talker, or anything else that drives you crazy.
Yes, I will be mining the comments for Dilbert comic fodder. Thank you in advance. But I think it will also be funny in its own right.
In this context, "worst" could mean anything, such as most disruptive, dumbest, craziest, slowest talker, or anything else that drives you crazy.
Yes, I will be mining the comments for Dilbert comic fodder. Thank you in advance. But I think it will also be funny in its own right.
The Imagination Interface
Oct 11, 2010 |
General Nonsense |
Permalink
I discovered as a child that the user interface for reprogramming my own brain is my imagination. For example, if I want to reprogram myself to be in a happy mood, I imagine succeeding at a difficult challenge, or flying under my own power, or perhaps being able to levitate objects with my mind. If I want to perform better at a specific task, such as tennis, I imagine the perfect strokes before going on court. If I want to fall asleep, I imagine myself in pleasant situations that are unrelated to whatever is going on with my real life.
My most useful mental trick involves imagining myself to be far more capable than I am. I do this to reduce the risk that I turn down an opportunity just because I am clearly unqualified. So far, this has worked well for me. I pursued a career in cartooning despite having no artistic talent. When a publisher asked me to write a book, I quickly agreed, despite having no relevant writing experience. When a business group asked me to give a humorous paid speech to their members, I said yes, despite having no meaningful experience at that sort of thing. If you spend a lot of time imagining you can run twenty miles, it makes the idea of running only ten miles seem entirely feasible.
As my career with Dilbert took off, reporters asked me if I ever imagined I would reach this level of success. The question embarrasses me because the truth is that I imagined a far greater level of success. That's my process. I imagine big.
I've never admitted this before, but my favorite imaginary scenario involves being elected President of the United States. I choose that job as the target of my imagination because I am spectacularly unqualified to hold public office. If I can successfully imagine being a great president, I won't have trouble imagining I can succeed at lesser tasks.
Some of you reading this blog would probably be good at the job of being president if given the chance. So for you, imagining success as a national leader might not be much of a stretch. But I am blessed with absolutely none of the qualities necessary for leadership. That's exactly why I choose to imagine it.
Let me give you an idea of how unqualified I am to be president. First, I'm not good at remembering names. Or faces. Or countries. My staff meetings would be a whole lot of "Maybe we should bomb what's-his-face's country. You know, the one that grows the coconuts. Or maybe they manufacture tractors. I remember that their leader had a funny hat. Make it happen."
I'm not charismatic. If I were to stop at diners as part of my campaign, people would ask me for coffee. It would be one bad photo op after another.
I can't ask people to sacrifice their personal interests for the greater good. It feels evil.
I couldn't force myself to spend time doing useless tasks such as visiting victims of natural disasters or working on a peace plan for the Middle East. I would argue that napping would be a better use of my time. And I would make matters worse by showing research to back my point.
I wouldn't be able to get through an entire press conference without saying "Blow me."
I would declare war on Pakistan because I like truth in labeling.
Obviously I couldn't last a full term in office, much less get elected. But that doesn't stop me from imagining that someday the American flag will have my face where the stars used to be.
Imagine big. You might surprise yourself.
My most useful mental trick involves imagining myself to be far more capable than I am. I do this to reduce the risk that I turn down an opportunity just because I am clearly unqualified. So far, this has worked well for me. I pursued a career in cartooning despite having no artistic talent. When a publisher asked me to write a book, I quickly agreed, despite having no relevant writing experience. When a business group asked me to give a humorous paid speech to their members, I said yes, despite having no meaningful experience at that sort of thing. If you spend a lot of time imagining you can run twenty miles, it makes the idea of running only ten miles seem entirely feasible.
As my career with Dilbert took off, reporters asked me if I ever imagined I would reach this level of success. The question embarrasses me because the truth is that I imagined a far greater level of success. That's my process. I imagine big.
I've never admitted this before, but my favorite imaginary scenario involves being elected President of the United States. I choose that job as the target of my imagination because I am spectacularly unqualified to hold public office. If I can successfully imagine being a great president, I won't have trouble imagining I can succeed at lesser tasks.
Some of you reading this blog would probably be good at the job of being president if given the chance. So for you, imagining success as a national leader might not be much of a stretch. But I am blessed with absolutely none of the qualities necessary for leadership. That's exactly why I choose to imagine it.
Let me give you an idea of how unqualified I am to be president. First, I'm not good at remembering names. Or faces. Or countries. My staff meetings would be a whole lot of "Maybe we should bomb what's-his-face's country. You know, the one that grows the coconuts. Or maybe they manufacture tractors. I remember that their leader had a funny hat. Make it happen."
I'm not charismatic. If I were to stop at diners as part of my campaign, people would ask me for coffee. It would be one bad photo op after another.
I can't ask people to sacrifice their personal interests for the greater good. It feels evil.
I couldn't force myself to spend time doing useless tasks such as visiting victims of natural disasters or working on a peace plan for the Middle East. I would argue that napping would be a better use of my time. And I would make matters worse by showing research to back my point.
I wouldn't be able to get through an entire press conference without saying "Blow me."
I would declare war on Pakistan because I like truth in labeling.
Obviously I couldn't last a full term in office, much less get elected. But that doesn't stop me from imagining that someday the American flag will have my face where the stars used to be.
Imagine big. You might surprise yourself.
