Dead Man Walking

There's a rare neuropsychiatric condition called Cotard's Syndrome where a person holds the delusional belief that they are dead or decaying, have lost their internal organs or blood, and even more rarely, can include delusions of immortality.

This is like the opposite of Sixth Sense syndrome, where a dead person thinks they're really alive (though who knows if that happens, I'd love to find out, but not the hard way).

So it seems that the people who suffer from this feel like they're dead (or ghosts?) and that everything around them isn't real. I'm sure that seeing movies like The Matrix doesn't help if someone does lean towards this condition - there are enough people already who are using the Neo defense, saying that they don't believe the world around them is real.

I'm wondering whether the people who think that they're decaying can actually see the decay, whether they have the visual hallucinations to reinforce this, or whether it's just a vague sense that they're decaying from the inside out.

This seems related to body dysmorphia, where healthy people wish to have a limb removed (dramatically exaggerated in Grey's Anatomy when someone takes a chainsaw in the ER that came in with another patient and saws off their own leg).

The brain is a strange beast, and sometimes produces strange results.

Baby Got Book

There's a new genius on the scene. A 17-month old girl has figured out how to read. Her parents taught her sign language right from the get-go, as is a common trend nowadays. Parents teach their kids to communicate in sign language because their verbal skills aren't progressed enough to express their needs, which can lead to frustration. So this little girl was taught sign language, and the only tv she watched was a sign language show. They never focused on teaching her letters (she's not even 2!), and don't know quite how she picked it up. She can even read cursive, which they didn't realize until they were at the Today Show interview!

While this is an amazing feat for a 2-year old (I remember teaching part-time at a Montessori school where 5 year olds were still having trouble with reading and letters), I do hope that it doesn't impact her childhood too much. Let's just hope that she stays grounded and is given a real childhood (go out and play!) rather than having her parents stuff her nose in the books all the time or send her to college when she's 10 (while great for the intellectual part of her, it is nevertheless socially isolating in her formative years). Still, the fact that she just "picked up" reading, just up and reading a cereal box one day? Amazing.

Everything Bad is Good for You

Everything Bad is Good for You by Steven Johnson (1573223077)
Rating: 8/10

The basic premise of this book is that video games, television and movies aren't necessarily the Big Evil that critics currently dismiss them as being. The author's main idea revolves around the Sleeper Curve - the fact that many of these games and shows promote critical thinking to such an extent that IQs have been steadily increasing over the years (they have been constantly reassessing the IQ so the average is always 100 - so someone with a 120 now would have been much higher several decades ago). This hasn't translated into better performance in school or the job market, just a reflection of IQ (and this isn't just a familiarity with IQ tests, as that levels off at about 5-6 points).

TV shows used to be limited to a plot-line encapsulated into one show. There were very few overarching themes (this is the Law & Order model). Dragnet was the previous incarnation of this. Then Hill Street Blues came on the scene, and with its 4-5 concurrent threads (plotlines), it was confusing for people at first. Looking back now, when we have 24 and the Sopranos (with about 20 threads), Hill Street Blues seems rather simplistic. This is the reason there are so many shows you just can't come into the middle of the season without being seriously confused. But modern audiences are used to keeping track of a lot of information at once, and it's what draws us in, makes us discuss it with friends, and spawns thousands and thousands of posts in online forums. And anything that spawns that much writing and interaction can't be all bad, right? Similarly with reality programming, the complexity comes not from the threads, but from all the various social relationships being built (Survivor, not Fear Factor). A quote from the book:

"Reality programming borrowed another key ingredient from [video] games: the intellectual labor of probing the system's rules for weak spots and opportunities As each show discloses its conventions, and each participant reveals his or her personality traits and background, the intrigue in watching comes from figuring out how the participants should best navigate the environment that's been created for them. The pleasure in these shows comes not from watching other human beings humiliated on national television; it comes from depositing other human beings in a complex, high-stakes environment where no established strategies exist, and watching them find their bearings. That's why the water-cooler conversation about these shows invariably tracks in on the strategy displayed on the previous night's episode."

So we're not dumbing down to the lowest common denominator, necessarily. Sure, there are plenty of stupid, brainless shows out there. But as a whole, shows are considerably more complex and intellectually and emotionally stimulating than they used to be. My generation grew up on the Flintstones, not by any stretch a very complex shows. This generation is growing up on Toy Story and Finding Nemo - movies from which you can find new allusions and jokes on every viewing.

I highly recommend this book.

Oscar critics are out of touch

So, I understand why people don't really like it when the Oscar winners are for little indy or niche films that hardly anybody has seen - you root more for the movies you've actually seen and when it's this random person you've never heard of, it can be irritating and you start saying that the Academy is out of touch with the people. And that's exactly what they're saying. There was a very similar article in the Metro this morning as well. Yes, it's true people are going to care more about the Oscars if they've seen the movies that are nominated, and yes it's true they'll care more if the people nominated are very well known and popular. But come on! The Academy should nominate movies that are popular so there's more of a buzz and more people are interesting watching? I don't think so. The Academy votes on the movies that were released this year, and if the best performances happen to be indy or niche movies, then so be it. This is why I made the decision (this was the third year now) to see all the major Oscar nominated movies (Leading Roles, Supporting Roles, Director and Picture). That way, I can watch the Oscars with a really good idea of how everyone did, root for my faves, but if they don't win, I can understand how well the winner actually did.

And I must say, my fave pics this year (with the exception of one category) perfectly lined up with the winners. As depressing and dark as this year's Oscar movies might have been, I must say in the past three years, it has been the best quality collection of nominees. As to the winners:

Best Actor - Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood). I was rooting for him, but didn't feel very strongly about it. He did an incredible job in the movie and certainly deserved the award. I would have been happy with Viggo Mortensen or Johnny Depp too. There Will Be Blood was a very looong movie and I can't say as I really enjoyed it (though I did quite like the ending), but the acting was definitely worth an award.

Best Actress - Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose). If she hadn't won this award, I think I might have thrown something at the television. I honestly think that all these women deserved an Oscar - Laura Linney and Julie Christie both gave wonderful performances in their movies and I would have grudgingly accepted those wins. I didn't have to though, since the Academy recognized Cotillard's breathtaking portrayal of Edith Piaf. When I saw it, I had to keep reminding myself that it was Cotillard (who was also in A Good Year), because she had so immersed herself in her character that it was hard to recognize her (think Jaime Foxx in Ray).

Best Supporting Actor - Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men). Ditto above. My hands down favorite. His portrayal was so so creepy that I felt like I had to check every corner in my car on the drive home. And what was even more amazing is that he turns out in real life to be Denny's (Grey's Anatomy) Spanish doppelganger.

Best Supporting Actress - Tilda Swinton (Michael Clayton). The only award I didn't agree with. I think my voice shrieked up a couple octaves with my "what?!" I didn't have a really strong preference in this category (I was leaning towards Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Bob Dylan), but Swinton was probably my least favorite of the bunch (except maybe the girl from Atonement).

Best Director/Best Picture - No Country for Old Men. Is it something subconscious that I just typed "No Country for Old Mean" instead of Men, then corrected it? Anyway. I loved this movie. Freaky as hell, yes. But since it's the Coen Brothers, it's not the same old Hollywood crap you always seem to get, and it's got an interesting ending, an intriguing plot line. Very happy that it won (though I think that the shorter Coen brother could have come across as a bit less patronizing and superior).

All in all, I'm very happy with the Oscar picks. Can't wait until next year's Oscar season (though I'm not unhappy to be able to take a break from seeing 2-3 movies a weekend!)

It's a Dog of a CD

A new product has hit the New Zealand music charts - music for your dog.

It's out of the range that human can hear (do you remember that exhibit at the aquarium, where they had a machine which played tones that could be heard by different animals, so you could "listen" to one that only dolphins could hear, but you couldn't actually hear it yourself? Kind of like that). It seems to have gotten mixed results thus far. Ranging from a dog attacking and killing the stereo, to dogs lying down and being still, the "music" doesn't have a standard across-the-board reaction. I'm wondering if the dogs different reactions are due to different sensitivities in their ears - you have someone with really acute hearing and play some really high pitched noises, they're going to do anything to get it to stop. Play the same thing for someone deaf, they might just sit down and chill, not realizing it's even there. Or maybe different breeds react differently. Or who knows, maybe it's a preference for the music genre - if you play me a capella or rock I'll stay calm, but if you play me a nice loud jazz or heavy metal CD, I might just go ahead and break your stereo if I don't know how to turn it off.

On the one hand, maybe some dogs would enjoy this. But isn't it kind of anthropocentric, to presume that our pets are going to enjoy a series of high pitched notes? And why don't they just have dog music in human ear range? Obviously dogs can hear in our range, since they respond to our voices. It just seems like another excuse given to part people with their hard earned cash.

Carnivore vs. Herbivore

Do you eat big, bloody, juicy steaks dripping in fat, glistening in gristle? Do you gravitate towards tofu and veggies, the light dishes and shunning anything remotely related to any animal byproduct? We have here the classic meat-eater vs. vegetarian/vegan debate.

People get really intense over this issue of what people put in their mouths. Take, for example, the proposed bill down in Mississippi to ban people with a BMI over 30 from eating out at restaurants. Now, totally ignoring the logistical issues (what about people on vacation, or at business meetings, or on dates, where do they eat?) and the scientific issues (there are people who are very fit and have a real BMI of under 30, but taking their weight and height into consideration would be considered obese), and the host of other random objections you could have (and there are many many many), why do people get so up in arms over what people eat? Yes, there are too many obese people in this country, yes they put a drain on our health care system, yes there are things that can be done about it (uh, say, education, or addressing poverty). But people get so uppity about what other people eat (there was a huge thread on The Straight Dope a few years ago where people were bashing a fat person for having had the audacity to buy ONE dough nut at Dunkin Donuts, geez). For instance, I know people on certain diets who insinuate constantly that their way is right and if you eat otherwise, you have a horrible diet.

So this brings me back to the question of meat vs. veggie. Personally, if you want to eat steak or veggies or cupcakes or frogs legs or chicken feet, I don't really care. Perhaps that's because I eat everything (yes, I've had chicken feet), though I do try to keep the fat and refined carbs out of my diet. Basically, I feel like it's none of anyone else's business what I want to eat (now, if I were 300lbs and my health was being impacted and my family and friends were afraid for my life and health, then intervention would be understandable, but I'm taking the obesity picture off the table, nevermind my Mississippi ramble last paragraph).

I've run into several militant vegetarians. I understand that they've gone vegetarian for health and ethical reasons. I'm fully aware of the chemicals in the meat, the horrible slaughterhouse process we have in this country, the sometimes inhumane treatment of animals, and the potential for foodbourne pathogens. I choose to eat meat anyway. Some of my very good friends are vegan or vegetarian, and the reason the it works is that non of us try to convert the others. Then these militant vegetarians come along and it seems like every conversation has to include vegetarianism at least once.

There are people who won't even date someone who eats meat, or who doesn't (see this discussion). And I respect that. I think everyone should make the decision whether it's important for them that the person they're dating has their same diet. I wouldn't have a problem dating a vegetarian, but honestly, since I cook a lot, it would make an impact to always cook vegetarian, though I have no problem with it on occasion). I've even heard the term Vegisexual used (people who only sleep with vegetarians). My problem arises with people who only want to date vegetarians, but they go out with meat eaters and then try to convert them. Same thing with smokers. I'm not a smoker, and I would prefer dating a non-smoker, though I could deal with it if someone did smoke. But I'm not going to try to get them to quit. Smoking, like vegetarianism, is a very personal health decision that shouldn't be made under pressure and should be made for the good of one's own health, and not for someone else.

Can't we all just get along? Live and let live? To each their own? (Fill in your own appropriate cliche hackneyed phrase here)

Spend your Euros...in NYC

So, what with the weakness of the dollar right now, some shops in Manhattan have begun accepting Euros as payment.

This is amazing and awesome - maybe this will encourage the US government to print up some money that's actually visually appealing, instead of plain old greenbacks (yeah yeah, they put a hint of pink in the new $20, but that doesn't hold a candle to the Euros' vibrant blue, pink, green and yellow).

I imagine this must make checking out at the store more of a hassle, unless they post the Euro price as well as the dollar price - they'll have to sit there with a calculator, figuring out how much it'll be (unless they're totally gypping buyers by having them pay 10Euros ($15) instead of the $10 ticketed price).

At the Canadian and Mexican borders, they've been accepting Canadian dollars and pesos in some of the stores for years, but this is the first time New York has gotten in on the action.

I'm all for it!

Flying the Friendly Skies - Naked

A German travel company is now taking bookings for holidays flights in Germany. Nudist flights.

The flight is very short, but quite expensive - $735. They insist that they're not charging for the privilege of being naked, just because it's a small plane (I don't recall the short hop from Boston to NY ever being that expensive, so I think this is a smile and nod moment). And that they're not countenancing entrance to the mile-high orgy club, just a normal flight where everyone (except the flight attendants) just happen to be naked.

All well and good. If they're happy being naked in the company of strangers, more power to them (they do make people aware of the nature of this flight when they buy their ticket, I trust?).

The thing I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around is this - how sanitary is this? I mean, who knows what kind of diseases people might have (and perhaps I'm betraying my scientific naivete here), but wouldn't someone who has something potentially get it on the seat and pass it to someone else? They must use some pretty strong disinfectant in between flights. And no matter how tolerant I am with the idea of people walking around in sanctioned naked areas (too each their own), I think it might just give me the willies to think that someone's bare butt was on the seat that my clothed butt is now sitting on. That's kind of like sharing my pants with someone else's butt. Blech.

A smile's worth a thousand words - or is it?

Think you're an ace at figuring out when people are genuine, when they're insincere? Decoding body languages, expressions, and gestures is one of the most natural things for human beings, but it turns out we're not always that good at it (or some people are just really good at dissimulating). The BBC UK has put together an online test to judge how good you are at discerning whether a smile is fake or genuine. Try it here.

I got 80% and of those I got wrong, it was evenly split between fake smiles I thought were genuine and vice versa. How'd you do?

Second Earth

Lest you think that this post is advocating the use of a new Second Life product, let me drag you back to the real world. Astronomers have found the most Earth-like planet ever discovered.

So my main question, apart from how we can get there (20 years of astronaut ice cream and beef jerky seems too much to ask of anyone, just to get there), is about the year. Their year is 13 days long. Imagine that? One day per month, just about - so what's that? three days of summer, three days of fall, three days of winter, four days of spring. So it could snow one day and then five days later be mid-summer? And we thought we had an ADD epidemic...

Fury over Nazi Fashion Bags

The Spanish clothing chain Zara recently pulled a whole line of handbags that were embroidered with little swastikas. My first reaction is "what the hell were they thinking to sell bags that have swastikas on them" - in Europe no less. The hubbub over the bags started in Britain when a woman returned a bag to the store after discovered the swastikas.

On second glance however, the mistake is easier to understand. The handbags were made in India. In India, the swastika is an ancient sign symbolizing the sun, strength, and good luck, much as it is an ancient symbol for fertility in other cultures. The designers in India were using that connotation to the symbol, rather than any anti-semitic meaning it could have imparted. Apparently, the buyers at Zara approved a mock-up without any swastikas (though you'd think someone would check before they actually went on the shelves).

Now, it's unfortunate that the Nazis appropriated a symbol which used to be so positive and turned it into something evil. It's unfortunate that Zara didn't realize its mistake. And it's unfortunate that people bought handbags that had symbols with such negative connotations and that have such a history (especially in Europe). But I highly doubt that it was an attempt on the part of Zara to legitimize fascism.

Term Limits for Marriages?

A Bavarian politician has come up with the intriguing idea of putting a 7-year expiration date on marriages.

Now, on the one hand, my thinking is that if it ain't broke, don't go breaking it. It's true some people (as she says) stay in marriages just because it's safe, or just because of the kids, or they're just afraid of the unknown. But if they're relatively content, that's their prerogative to forgo passion. It would just create an unnecessary amount of paperwork to make people file to renew their marriages every 7 years.

However, on the other hand, I can see some benefits to this - some people are just in bad marriages, but divorce is an expensive process. This might also force people to come up with pre-nuptial agreements (since the marriage would just expire, I'd imagine there wouldn't be the bickering as to who gets what, so you'd have to say in advance how you'd split it should you decide not to renew the marriage). But more importantly, it's a good way to check in with your spouse, it would serve as a starting point to discuss some of the issues in the marriage and make sure it's working for both people. Sometimes people go for years without ever talking about what's not working. If they were given the option to get out without the hassle of divorce lawyers, it might actually help to solidify marriages that are working because each person would have to think about what they wanted and communicate it to the other. But hey, perfect world, right?

I don't think this is the threat to marriage that the Christian right is necessarily painted it. Sure, there would be people who would decide to let the marriage expire, but those are probably the people who shouldn't be married anyway, and are providing an unhealthy view of marriage to their kids. It could help to bolster communication. But it could also just create headaches for everyone involved - the need to file paperwork just keep the status quo, the extra tax dollars needed to fund the department which processes the paperwork (or would there be an extra renewal charge, or just a "let it expire" charge?), then there would be the almost inevitable battles over property, especially if one person wants to renew and the other doesn't.

I'm on the fence, but tipping into the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" camp. What do you think?

Your Real Age

Take this Real Age Test. I have no idea what their credentials are, but I'm none too sure of their accuracy. Because, get this, while I may be 28 chronologically, apparently I'm 12.6 in my real age. Yes, you read right, I'm really an 8th grader. I find this vaguely disturbing. But the upside? It says I'll live til almost 90. I'll hold it to that, yes sirree I will!

What's your real age?

One Laptop per Child

I was watching 60 Minutes the other day and they had a segment about the One Laptop Per Child program, spearheaded by faculty members at the MIT lab. What they've done is to work with technology companies to create a cheap ($100) laptop that is virtually indestructible - there are no ports or holes in the plastic, so you can literally pour a glass of water over it and not harm it. There are little ear-like antennae sticking off the top, which just about triples the strength of the WiFi. The battery life in somewhere in the range of 10-12 hours, and then they have hand wound battery rechargers that can be used when the kids have no electricity at home (as most of them don't in the targeted areas).

In some countries where they've started this program, school attendance has shot up to 50% as the word of mouth gets around among the kids to tell them about the fun computers they get by going to school. The kids can then take the computers home with them and teach their whole families how to use them.

One of the controversial aspects of this program is that the program backers contend that the computers can be used in place of education (if they are not able to attend school themselves). And computers are definitely better than nothing. But what the critics have said is that, while the kids may learn to use the basic functions, they won't learn the savvy and depth they could get in school.

But my take on it is that in many of these 3rd World countries where education is hard to come by, self-taught education by computer will vastly expand the horizons of these kids beyond anything they could have achieved on their own.

Pee-Powered Batteries

Yes, there really are urine-powered batteries out there. But let me ask you something - since these batteries also run on water, what in god's name would bring someone to actually use urine to power these things? I mean, unless you're stuck in the desert, or on a life raft (I'm thinking salt water might be somehow corrosive to the batteries), and you have a desperate need to use something battery-powered (like a flashlight, what were you thinking?), why the hell wouldn't you just use water to recharge?

Food in schools

Take this junk food quiz first.

I'm just at a loss for words here. Complete loss. Seriously, it's no wonder that we're reaching a 30% obesity rate in this country if our schools consider water worse for you than sugary drinks, popsicles are banned but not snickers, and they don't take into account sat fats, calories, or gee, well really anything that's bad for you, focusing instead on only whether the food has nutritional value (ie vitamins and minerals - the lack thereof being why water gets the bad rap).

Hole in the Universe

Astronomers have just discovered a gaping hole in the universe. Apparently, there's nothing inside of it, no galaxies, stars, or dark matter. And it's nearly a billion light years across.

Now, I've never studied astronomy - I couldn't explain to you what exactly is meant by dark matter or string theory (though I do have vague impressions I've gotten from books and tv). But if I'm not mistaken, then this hole is basically outer space without all the detritus of planets, stars and galaxies.

Now, I'm curious what causes a big empty space like this. Did one of the marble-toting aliens (think Men in Black) take a vacuum to our universe? In any event, can you imagine how absolutely boring it would be to travel through that hole, even at warp speed? (Totally disregarding the fact that there would be no fuel, food, or sunlight to be had for a billion years, but hey that's just practicalities, right?)

18 Men Arrested for Cross-Dressing

So it seems that recently, 12 states in Northern Nigeria passed stricter Sharia laws (based on Muslim precepts). The power of these laws has remained active for centuries, but had been curtailed under British colonial rule. Now they're back in force. The sharia courts "impose strict punishments such as death for adultery or sodomy and amputation for theft."

Ok, hold on a second. I consider myself to be very tolerant of different cultures and understanding of customs that differ from my own - different practices are often quite intriguing and can tell me a lot about that culture and the ways they think. But I just can't get on board with death for adultery or amputation for theft. Sure, these things are not good to do as they hurt other people (either emotionally or monetarily). But whatever happened to prison (for theft), or exile as a feasible option if somebody does something that doesn't fit with your culture's mores (make it someone else's problem)? What about the Amish practice of shunning? Just pretend the person isn't there, they don't exist for you.

Do you think that the laws against adultery are equally applied to men and women? I'd be really surprised if they were. Historically, women committing adultery have been treated MUCH more harshly than men.

We watch movies like Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and think "oh my god, they're cutting people's hands off" but we "know" that it's a story about a past era, that we've reached a more "enlightened" time (if I can say that without sounding condescending - I don't mean enlightened as in how "we" do things. But rather, enlightened in that we don't force our will physically upon someone else, unless they've done something unmentionable like murder, rape, that kind of thing). But it's still really happening.

So, ok, I'll bet you that cutting people's hands off would be a deterrent for certain kinds of theft (white collar, armed robbery, that kind of thing), unless someone just figured that their plan was so perfect, they wouldn't get caught. But it's the really poor people who are stealing food for their family to eat that will be hit hard. No, I'm not condoning theft. But if the kids are hungry and crying, and there's no work to be had, I don't think that possible amputation (if caught) is going to prevent the theft of some food.

I understand that most religions have a problem with homosexuality. I don't agree with their negative view of it, but they're entitled to feel that it's wrong, I suppose. Just like abortion - people are entitled to be pro life. But my take on it is this - if you don't like it, don't do it. As long as it's not harming anyone, why should they get all in a murderous snit about it? If it's not accepted in their society, that's fine, do the whole exile/shunning thing. But to kill people for being homosexual?

Ok, so this is the extreme. It does say in the article that only one man, a convicted murderer, has been hanged under sharia law since it was enacted in 2002. So it could that adultery, sodomy and theft are punishable by death and amputation on the books only - much like there are some states in the US where there are anti-sodomy laws still on the books (couldn't tell you what the punishment for that is, or what states, just that I've heard that they're there....). But it looks like they are taking these 18 men to trial for dressing as women. Now the question is, if they didn't catch them in any homosexual acts, could they enforce the sodomy laws? I certainly hope not, because death for cross-dressing just seems so far out of proportion as to be ludicrous.

Matrixology - Are you really a Sim?

The New York Times recently reported on a new theory held by Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, that there is a 20% chance that our world is really the Sims. "Some computer experts" (which ones, I ask you?) have projected that, based on trends in processing power, we will have a computer system by mid-century that "could run “ancestor simulations” of their evolutionary history by creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully developed virtual nervous systems." This boils down to making us into an extended game of the Sims. Unlike the Matrix, where people could disconnect, "wake up" from their simulation, it would be nothing be a virtual network made of nothing but virtual brainpower.

Now, let me ask you, 20% chance?! I mean, seriously. It's a very intriguing idea and appeals to me in a philosophical and sociological way. However, to take it seriously, I really don't think so. I think that it certainly could soon be possible to run grand scale simulations in worlds (like Second Life - for more SL info, see my previous post on the subject) from our ancestors eras in a similar way to how we currently enjoy fantastical worlds (take, for instance, the popularity of the World of Warcraft or Ultima Online). Second Life has definitely taken on a whole life and economy of its own, but not to the extent this philosopher is talking about.

It would have to be a seriously powerful computer beyond all imagining to not only control a world of this size (and multiples for different eras), but to also imbue the virtual residents with emotions and with a self-awareness so they would feel like they were in control of their life. I'm picturing a Terminator 3 scenario here, where the virtual minds somehow gain their independence from their puppeteers and nuke the world.

In any event, not likely in my opinion. But an interesting philosophical discussion. Might we now see some "I'm a sim" defenses in trials like all those "Neos" out there who thought the world wasn't real so they could do whatever they wanted?

The Science of Insulting Women

The Freakonomics blog just moved over to The New York Times website. One of their first posts was about studies that have been done about negging - "a move that involves interjecting an insult during an initial conversation with a woman. The motivation behind the insult is to “lower her self-esteem, thus making her more vulnerable to your advances.”" This post has gotten the most comments I've seen on a Freakonomics post in a while, and I couldn't bring myself to read through all of them. After the first three or four posts by men saying that "all women" are attracted to bad men who insult their sense of self esteem, and that women never are interested in nice men who treat them right, I'd had enough.

Sure, there are women out there who like dangerous guys, guys who aren't interested, men who don't treat them right. Sometimes it's a result of their childhood - I have a relative who married a man who insults her quite often, but she's been married to him at least 30 years, perhaps in part because her father was not always the nicest when speaking with her mother. If it's something you grow up with, it may seem like the norm, that may be the example of a "successful" marriage. Who knows?]

But to generalize to say that that's what all women want, it sounds like that commenter thinks he's a nice guy, and has been burned by women interested in "bad boys." Some comments have said that women don't like to be complimented, or treated right. Now, I'm telling you right now, for all the men out there reading this post - yes, we do like to be complimented and treated right! (At least those of us with a healthy sense of self-respect and no bad boy complexes). And no, this doesn't mean we want compliments in every other breath, presents every other minute, and a man hanging on our every word. Because that's just damn slavish and sycophantic. But a man who knows how to use a well-placed compliment, have an intelligent conversation, and has his own interests in life is infinitely more appealing than either of the over-aggressively rude or sycophantic stereotypes.

The other thing I take issue with is the idea that women are only interested in men with status. That that's why they stay with men who insult them. No. No. No. Sure, perhaps women who stay with men like that feel like the men have more status, that's possible. But I think it's also in large part because the men have cut down their self esteem (or preyed on women who already have low self esteem) to such a level that the women feel like they don't deserve any better, or they don't want to be alone and don't have faith in themselves enough that they could find someone better.

I think the idea of trying to teach men who aren't comfortable interacting with women is a good one, but the way this Mystery is going about it just kind of turns my stomach. Teasing a woman just to let her know that you're on the same level as her is one thing, that she's not on a pedestal. But going beyond that into insulting (and to the "mate retention" behaviors also mentioned, such as her around to make sure she's not meeting other guys) sounds to me like it's the guy who has the low self-esteem - he's uncomfortable just being himself and let his conversation and looks attract women, so he has to resort to preying on the vulnerable. And there's someone out there actually making money for teaching men these tactics - books and a tv show, blech!