Category Archives: Miscellany

Indian Summer – Can We Be Offended If We Don’t Know?

Posted on by

Recently on Weather Underground, a show on the Weather Channel, the host said management had decreed they no longer use the phrase “Indian Summer” for a warm autumn day, but rather “Second Summer.” He went on to say some Native Americans find the phrase offensive but others do not, and left the impression he disagreed with his management – I don’t know how brave or foolish that may be for an employee on cable TV.

My Google search provided this as its top link: “Although the exact origins of the term are uncertain, it is thought to have been based on the warm and hazy conditions in autumn when native American Indians chose to hunt.”

While that certainly refers to Native Americans, it hardly seems offensive. Though I doubt warm fall days were the only time to hunt!

Phrase Finder says

“Indian summer is first recorded in Letters From an American Farmer, a 1778 work by the French-American soldier turned farmer J. H. St. John de Crèvecoeur…[It arrived in England] during the heyday of the British Raj in India. This led to the mistaken belief that the term referred to the Indian subcontinent.”

No one knows why the phrase refers to Indians, but Phrase Finder lists several theories. The one that may lead to offense is:

In a parallel with other ‘Indian’ terms it implied a belief in Indian falsity and untrustworthiness and that an Indian summer was an ersatz copy of the real thing.

Since no one knows the source of the term and there are many “harmless” theories, I’m surprised the phrase is falling into disrepute.

Dealing With Our Own Irrational Selves

Posted on by

 

upside of irrationalityQuite the hook
As a teenager, an accident left author Dan Ariely with third degrees burns over 70% of his body. He used the still-painful aftermath to propel his studies of topics such as who people choose to date (inspired by his own scarred face and body), and how people differ in their response to pain (that he continues to suffer.) Ariely may publish in scholarly journals, but in this book he follows his own advice to engage readers on an emotional level. Using a conversational tone, this drew me in and I read every word.

This is a strong recommendation from me, because I often skim sections of books.

We are irrational and that’s human nature
Human beings are irrational and make poor decisions, like texting while driving. “Given the mismatch between… technological development and human evolution, the same instincts and abilities that once helped us now often stand in our way.”

Stock markets, insurance, education designed without regard to human nature lead individuals astray and “sometimes fail magnificently.” His field of behavioral economics figures out the “hidden forces that shape our decisions.”

He hopes readers will consider what they might do differently once they understand their own nature better, but this isn’t easy. Ariely uses the example of his own badly damaged hand as an example. Doctors advised him to have it amputated, but he refused. Twenty years later it is less useful than a prosthetic and still causes him considerable pain.

He says, keeping the hand was probably a mistake, and analyzes the biases behind his decision – loss aversion, status quo, irreversibility, and others. He also discusses what psychological factors stop him from amputating the hand today – fear of hospitals, hedonic adaptation, and rationalizing the choice. “Despite the fact that I understand… some of my decision biases, I still experience them.”

Humans are difficult to study in the wild, or even in a lab
Ariely presents his research is a very accessible form, not heavy with jargon, and there is a bibliography if you want to learn more. He acknowledges that many of his experiments are flawed and he discusses how to overcome the problems – subjects are not selected randomly but volunteer, and many are college students who don’t represent the whole population. Experimental designs are sometimes changed to accommodate the subjects.

Some studies are familiar, for example, when a person who feels their partner – assigned to split a $10 incentive between them – keeps too much, refuses the insultingly low offer, and neither gets to keep any of the $10. (Human nature will punish a cheater, and other studies show that when we seek revenge, we don’t care who we punish.) But others are new to me.

I chuckled at one test run in India (where it’s cheaper to offer financially impressive rewards) that evaluated the effects of stress on performing mental tasks. Stress was created by handing the volunteer money equivalent to many days salary and asking for its return if they failed the tasks. But subjects sometimes ran away with the money, so the protocol was changed.

How American businessmen reacted when he applied the lessons from India (offering large financial incentives actually decreases performance after a certain point) to their own salary plans is also amusing. “If we keep following our gut and common wisdom… we will continue to make mistakes.” Continue reading →

Pantywaist

Posted on by

Bill O’Reilly used this as his word of the day in one of his recent shows, and he said something to the effect that it merely referred to clothing babies once wore and was not an insulting term. The dominant theme from an internet search is that it is “…a mild slur, meaning someone who is weak; a sissy. It is almost universally applied to men.” The term originated with the clothing of babies “…in one piece suits, a shirt and pants with snaps or buttons around the garments’ middles to allow easy access to diapers.” It was a “union suit” if it had long pants or a “pantywaist” if it had shorts. It might be called the trademarked “Onesie” today. Regardless, the consensus (and I often think things determined by consensus don’t turn out to be all that accurate) is that the term “…is an insult, so should be used with care.”

When More is Less

Posted on by

paradox of choiceThe Paradox of Choice was a strange book to read. I thoroughly enjoyed the first third of each chapter, but Schwartz belabors his points. Chapter One contains an example:

  • “I found 85 different varieties and brands of crackers” with descriptions of the variations – sounds silly, doesn’t it.
  • “285 varieties of cookies.” Yeah – it’s funny to think about.
  • “Across the aisle were juices – 13 sports drinks,’ 65 ‘box drinks’ for kids, 85… 75…” I see how choices can become overwhelming.
  • “95 options” of snacks, “15 flavors” of water, “61 varieties of sunscreen… 80 different pain relievers… 40 car stereo systems…” Enough already. I get it.

Choice provides control and happiness until it doesn’t
Schwartz points out that choice is vital to a sense of control and therefore to happiness, but there’s a point where the benefits level off and begin to drop. If you’re dedicated to getting the “best deal” all the time, you’ll be stressed out and make yourself miserable by second guessing your decisions.

“A majority of people want more control over their lives, but a majority of people also want to simplify their lives. There you have it – the paradox of our times.”

Achieving happiness
Researchers have been learning how to measure happiness for decades. Poverty is misery, but there’s a point at which more money doesn’t yield more happiness, either for an individual or a society. How these studies are conducted is interesting. I thought about articles I’ve read that Millennials are less willing to pursue an “American Dream” based on acquiring stuff, and more interested in urban living for it’s social resources than my old generation – but these points were not in Paradox (unless they were buried in the sections I skipped.)

“What seems to be the most important factor in providing happiness is close social relations.” But these impose burdens, requirements for fidelity and support that reduce choice. Here less choice leads to lesser short term control but more long term happiness. I’ve read that just talking to anther person raises your blood pressure, so we’re motivated to avoid close relationships – I thought about the book Bowling Alone – but these points were not in Paradox (unless they were buried in the sections I skipped.) Continue reading →

Long Time, No See

Posted on by

I was surprised to find quite a few sites discuss the origin of this phrase – I thought it would turn out to be a colloquial phrase with no origin.

Stackexchange found several uses in the early 1900s. William F. Drannan’s novel, Thirty-one Years on the Plains and in the Mountains, and Jeff W. Hayes’ novel, Tales of the Sierras (both 1900) put the words in the mouth of Native American characters. Other novels put the phrase in the mouths of Oriental characters. In fifteen years, Anglo characters in westerns used the phrase, and it continued to spread.

Some people suggest the phrase is a literal translation from Chinese – see the comments at englishforums.

Wikipedia includes Drannan’s usage, but also found “James Campbell’s Excursions, Adventures, and Field-Sports in Ceylon (published 1843): ‘Ma-am—long time no see wife—want go to Colombo see wife.'”

“How and why did such a grammatically awkward phrase become a widely accepted part of American speech?” asks NPR. They found the first print usage to be Drannan’s novel, but also report sources that claim sailors (maybe English, maybe America) picked it up in China.

“By 1920, the phrase makes it into Good Housekeeping magazine. The novelist Raymond Chandler used it in more than one of his books,” and today is seen as American slang.

Sinister

Posted on by

I’m deviating from expressions because I find the etymology of the word interesting. It refers to being left- handed, and both of our children are dominantly left-handed. The root of the word sinister is the Latin sinistra, which refers to being left-handed. Left-handed evolved over time to mean evil, threatening, or unlucky. It has also been considered as meaning the person has been touched by the devil. On the other hand (so to speak) another web site explains, “There is something righteous about the right hand: it is supposed to point in the right direction and do everything right.” I’ve not noticed that our children have suffered any more than other left-handed people who have to deal with right-handed tools, etc., and I noted in sports that being left-handed (and left-footed in soccer) was an advantage.