Both fast reads and I don't have a lot to say about either. Also, I apologize in advance because I'm cranky today. In fact, I wish I had read something truly awful, because there's nothing I'd like better right now than to write a long rant about something.
Freakonomics (Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner): This is neither freaky, nor economics. It is however, REALLY interesting. The cover says genius, but honestly, I wouldn't go quite that far. Basically they mine data for interesting patterns and answer important questions such as: What do school teachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? (cheating), Why do drug dealers live with their moms? (it's a big pyramid scheme, only the guys at the top are making a lot of money),Why did crime drop so suddenly in the 1990's? (legalized abortion).
It's new, it's exciting, but in the end it's fluff. Albeit very manly fluff. The book reads like an extended article, which is not surprising considering Dubner is a journalist. (Levitt is the economist of the pair.) If you read the bonus material in the back of the book, which is the collection of articles Dubner wrote for the New York Times covering Levitt's work, well you would have just read the book. Everything from the book is in those articles. Everything from those articles is in the book. If they've exhausted all of the research Levitt has done so far, maybe it's time to do some more data digging?
If anyone has read Super Freakonomics I'd be interested to hear their thoughts.
How to Shop for a Husband: The Consumer Guide to Getting a Great Buy on a Guy (Janice Lieberman): Here's the book in a nutshell: Don't be too picky, but be choosy. Do compromise, don't settle. Look for a guy with good insides or "guts" as they say. See what's under the hood. Look for one that will last or "the little black dress". Use the mirror in the dressing room, check the price tag, as well as the care instructions, and know when after-purchase repairs and alterations are possible. (Personally I thought the shopping analogy was going a bit too far at this point...) They really mean: look for a guy who is similar to you, make sure you know what you're getting into before you get to the register (altar) or get it home, and know what you can change about a man (and what you can't).
I would definitely recommend either The Rules or Marry Him over this book. It's not even funny or especially well written. Yes it's good advice, but none of it is new. We all know when you're looking for a great pair of pants that will last you don't go to H&M. Just apply that same thinking to men.
As for me, I'm not really shopping for a husband right now, so I'll be in the shoe department...
Monday, February 28, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Comfort Me With Apples - Ruth Reichl
You have probably deduced from reading this blog that I love books. Here's a new fun fact about me: I also love food. And when the two come together it's like a delicious explosion of bibliofoodaphilia. (Yes, I did just invent a new word.)
One of the things that's so great about reading is that words have the ability to make you feel emotion and let you experience something you otherwise might not. Imagine you're holding a peach; it's firm yet soft in your hand, a beautifully orangey-pink color. You take a bite and your teeth sink through the fuzzy skin, feeling the burst as the fleshy insides dance in your mouth with their sweet flavor delighting your taste buds one by one. A drop of juice escapes through the corner of your lips and begins to roll down your chin. You try to catch it with your tongue but it's too late, and all you can do is giggle at the simple pleasure that comes from eating a perfectly ripe peach.
There. I made you hungry didn't I? The power of language at work...and no one does this as well as Ruth Reichl. From her first book of stories about growing up, "Tender at the Bone", followed by "Comfort Me With Apples", to her third book, "Garlic and Sapphires", chronicling her life in disguise as the New York Times food critic, her writing is filled with humor, wit, and touching stories about how food can bring families together (or pull them apart).
I read the 'trilogy' out of order, beginning with Garlic and Sapphires, then Tender at the Bone, and I just finished Comfort Me With Apples. But it didn't even matter. The writing is so poignant, honest, and approachable she probably could have written about her love of anthills and I would have been fascinated.
Reichl has an amazing gift that allows the reader to enter her world of food, letting us experience that first bite of peach time and time again. It left me desperately wanting to be a part of it all...and also pretty hungry.
One of the things that's so great about reading is that words have the ability to make you feel emotion and let you experience something you otherwise might not. Imagine you're holding a peach; it's firm yet soft in your hand, a beautifully orangey-pink color. You take a bite and your teeth sink through the fuzzy skin, feeling the burst as the fleshy insides dance in your mouth with their sweet flavor delighting your taste buds one by one. A drop of juice escapes through the corner of your lips and begins to roll down your chin. You try to catch it with your tongue but it's too late, and all you can do is giggle at the simple pleasure that comes from eating a perfectly ripe peach.
There. I made you hungry didn't I? The power of language at work...and no one does this as well as Ruth Reichl. From her first book of stories about growing up, "Tender at the Bone", followed by "Comfort Me With Apples", to her third book, "Garlic and Sapphires", chronicling her life in disguise as the New York Times food critic, her writing is filled with humor, wit, and touching stories about how food can bring families together (or pull them apart).
I read the 'trilogy' out of order, beginning with Garlic and Sapphires, then Tender at the Bone, and I just finished Comfort Me With Apples. But it didn't even matter. The writing is so poignant, honest, and approachable she probably could have written about her love of anthills and I would have been fascinated.
Reichl has an amazing gift that allows the reader to enter her world of food, letting us experience that first bite of peach time and time again. It left me desperately wanting to be a part of it all...and also pretty hungry.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
True at First Light - Ernest Hemingway
As you probably gathered from my previous posts, I've been "reading" this one for a while. And by reading I mean I've been carrying it around in my purse with the intent to read it. But I finally forced myself to finish it yesterday and immediately felt an immense sense of satisfaction. Small confession: because my blog posts on dating books have been the most popular, (Marry Him has 47 page hits; my review of Prozak Highway has 9), a friend gave me another one to review called How to Shop for a Husband which I have been secretly reading. However, it is definitely not my intention to make this into a blog about dating books, and it has also recently come to my attention that some of my dates actually do read this...
So, back to Hemingway. In the time I've been reading this book, I've discussed it with a number of people who have all had the same reaction: "Huh, I haven't heard of that one" and there's a simple explanation. The book was released in 1999. If you're a Hemingway fan, you're probably aware that he died in 1961. The original manuscript, which was unfinished at the time of his death, was donated by his wife at the time to the John F. Kennedy library and later edited, reworked, and finished by Hemingway's son, Patrick. I can't be 100% sure of this, but there was a point in the book towards the end where the style seemed to shift, the circles turned into awkward ovals, and I'm guessing that's where Patrick took over.
Brief synopsis: Ernest and his wife Mary are living in a remote village in Africa where Ernest is in charge following the departure of Pop, another white hunter who serves as the leader. There are a variety of other characters including gun bearers, game scouts, and some cooks/servants mentioned, but otherwise the story is completely focused hunting with tiny bits of Ernest and Mary sprinkled in. But mainly hunting.
In the first half of the book, nothing happened. Oh, there was plenty of talk. First there was Ernest's paranoia that he would be robbed by neighboring villages or murdered in his sleep by his own servants (there was some sort of religious controversy happening in Africa at the time). Then there were the prisoners that escaped who were on their way to the camp but who never materialized. There were some destructive animals, crazy villagers, and the persistent fear that Mary would be mauled by her lion while trying to kill it before Christmas. None of it happened.
In the second half of the book, as predicted, Mary kills the lion. No further mention is made of The Informer being hanged, though I thought I had that one figured out too, especially after he's caught stealing a bottle of lion fat. Other notable events in the second half of the book: the celebration of the killing of Mary's lion which lasts about 50 pages, Ernest kills a leopard, Mary goes to Nairobi to go shopping, and while she's gone Ernest takes up with a native girl who likes to stroke his gun holster (euphemism anyone?) and sit next to him in the car.
If someone gave this to me as a first draft, I would say it has a lot of potential. There are a few beautifully written segments throughout and despite the horrific nature of the situation, the scene in which Hemingway describes having to kill his horse as a young boy is especially impressive. However, as a published piece of literature, particularly coming from an author who was known to revise and revise and revise until he was sure the words were perfect, the book came up short for me. I struggled to engage with the story, feel a sense of closeness to the characters, or really even come away from the book with a message or new understanding.
I can't help but wonder if Hemingway would be pleased with this version of the story, or whether, if maybe the manuscript should have remained safely tucked away in the John F. Kennedy Library for us to admire as a lovely first draft.
So, back to Hemingway. In the time I've been reading this book, I've discussed it with a number of people who have all had the same reaction: "Huh, I haven't heard of that one" and there's a simple explanation. The book was released in 1999. If you're a Hemingway fan, you're probably aware that he died in 1961. The original manuscript, which was unfinished at the time of his death, was donated by his wife at the time to the John F. Kennedy library and later edited, reworked, and finished by Hemingway's son, Patrick. I can't be 100% sure of this, but there was a point in the book towards the end where the style seemed to shift, the circles turned into awkward ovals, and I'm guessing that's where Patrick took over.
Brief synopsis: Ernest and his wife Mary are living in a remote village in Africa where Ernest is in charge following the departure of Pop, another white hunter who serves as the leader. There are a variety of other characters including gun bearers, game scouts, and some cooks/servants mentioned, but otherwise the story is completely focused hunting with tiny bits of Ernest and Mary sprinkled in. But mainly hunting.
In the first half of the book, nothing happened. Oh, there was plenty of talk. First there was Ernest's paranoia that he would be robbed by neighboring villages or murdered in his sleep by his own servants (there was some sort of religious controversy happening in Africa at the time). Then there were the prisoners that escaped who were on their way to the camp but who never materialized. There were some destructive animals, crazy villagers, and the persistent fear that Mary would be mauled by her lion while trying to kill it before Christmas. None of it happened.
In the second half of the book, as predicted, Mary kills the lion. No further mention is made of The Informer being hanged, though I thought I had that one figured out too, especially after he's caught stealing a bottle of lion fat. Other notable events in the second half of the book: the celebration of the killing of Mary's lion which lasts about 50 pages, Ernest kills a leopard, Mary goes to Nairobi to go shopping, and while she's gone Ernest takes up with a native girl who likes to stroke his gun holster (euphemism anyone?) and sit next to him in the car.
If someone gave this to me as a first draft, I would say it has a lot of potential. There are a few beautifully written segments throughout and despite the horrific nature of the situation, the scene in which Hemingway describes having to kill his horse as a young boy is especially impressive. However, as a published piece of literature, particularly coming from an author who was known to revise and revise and revise until he was sure the words were perfect, the book came up short for me. I struggled to engage with the story, feel a sense of closeness to the characters, or really even come away from the book with a message or new understanding.
I can't help but wonder if Hemingway would be pleased with this version of the story, or whether, if maybe the manuscript should have remained safely tucked away in the John F. Kennedy Library for us to admire as a lovely first draft.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough - Lori Gottlieb
I am almost ashamed to admit that I finished this book already. But I literally couldn't put it down. (Though it should be noted that I was embarrassed to be seen in public with it and may or may not have hid it inside the Hemingway book while reading on BART.)
Lest anyone get concerned, the book is not actually encouraging women to settle, (although if you listen closely you can still hear the feminists crying) it merely suggested that women take a more realistic look at dating. Our list of "Must haves" is actually mostly nice to haves. We want a man who is tall, successful, and likes wine tasting. We need a man who is loyal, trustworthy, and supportive. It's about erasing the image you have in your head of Mr. Perfect, because frankly, he doesn't exist. The funny, sweet, kind of geeky guy who has had a crush on you for ages will be a great husband, father, and partner. The really sexy, exciting guy will probably cheat on you with his secretary.
Women are quick to discount a man because he's not tall enough, makes less money, can't dress well. We write him off after the first date because we didn't feel sparks or chemistry; because your future husband would never order sparkly water, chew with his mouth open, like Justin Bieber, etc...But the lesson is that none of that matters because you have a partner who is a great father for your kids, who respects you, and who will be there for you. Maybe a first date that's nice but doesn't blow your mind is a better predictor of success in a relationship. In the cases she cites, couples who began with friendship and didn't feel the butterflies immediately were more likely to still be together and happy than those who said the relationship started with great chemistry.
I thought of the guy with the piercings who asked me out last week. I had eliminated him as a possibility because my future husband would definitely not have his ears or nose pierced. But was he reliable, loyal, & trustworthy? Could I look past that and not "settle", but "compromise" and learn to love someone like that? The prospect seemed doubtful, but that's exactly what Gottlieb encourages her readers to do.
To test this theory I logged on to Okcupid.com, a free internet dating site my friends had been bugging me to try. I began with the ideal man as I pictured him in my head and filtered accordingly. I had 7 matches.
I began expanding the list. I'm 5'6", do I really need a guy who's at least 6'? I lowered my minimum height to 5'10". He could live within 50 miles, have kids. Be as young as 24 or as old as 35. He didn't have to be Jewish. He could own a cat. Items I was not willing to budge on: single, non-smoker, no drugs, wants kids. I had 100 pages of matches. Maybe none of them were Mr. Right, but I wasn't even giving them the chance to find out!
The more I read the book the more I realized I had been eliminating potentially great guys because "I just knew they weren't the one". Because when I imagined my future life that isn't who I imagined I'd end up with. But then I tried to follow her advice and imagine my future self alone. The thought was depressing. So why had I ruled out all the guys I'd been on dates with recently?
Gottlieb argues that women in our generation have been brought up with a sense of entitlement. We believe we can, and deserve, to have it all. But the truth is, while most women are out being "maximizers" looking for the best that's out there, the smart ones are realizing that good is good enough and grabbing it. We want someone not just as good as us, but better than us. Women who are a 7 want a 9. We over-analyze the faults with men and ignore our own. Divorced with kids? No way. Never mind that you have a crazy stalker ex boyfriend, don't know how to boil water, and let your hamster run freely around the living room. Her point is simply that everyone comes with baggage, and if you want to find a partner, it's time to acknowledge yours and accept someone else's.
Because the book was written by a 40 year old woman whose options are much more limited, I related, but still had a hard time with her advice. Her matchmaker struggles to find any men in the database to set her up with; after 1 day on okcupid I had 57 emails... But the message is solid and I think it's an important one so that we don't end up 41 and single wishing we hadn't passed up the guys in our twenties who were good enough. We expect that after rejecting guy after guy there will always be more guys to reject. But there won't. Because we're not willing to compromise for a 7, we hold out for a 9, and ultimately end up settling for a 5.
So I'll leave you with this thought from Gottlieb and her dating coach, "You can be as picky as you like, as long as you have the option of being that way."
Lest anyone get concerned, the book is not actually encouraging women to settle, (although if you listen closely you can still hear the feminists crying) it merely suggested that women take a more realistic look at dating. Our list of "Must haves" is actually mostly nice to haves. We want a man who is tall, successful, and likes wine tasting. We need a man who is loyal, trustworthy, and supportive. It's about erasing the image you have in your head of Mr. Perfect, because frankly, he doesn't exist. The funny, sweet, kind of geeky guy who has had a crush on you for ages will be a great husband, father, and partner. The really sexy, exciting guy will probably cheat on you with his secretary.
Women are quick to discount a man because he's not tall enough, makes less money, can't dress well. We write him off after the first date because we didn't feel sparks or chemistry; because your future husband would never order sparkly water, chew with his mouth open, like Justin Bieber, etc...But the lesson is that none of that matters because you have a partner who is a great father for your kids, who respects you, and who will be there for you. Maybe a first date that's nice but doesn't blow your mind is a better predictor of success in a relationship. In the cases she cites, couples who began with friendship and didn't feel the butterflies immediately were more likely to still be together and happy than those who said the relationship started with great chemistry.
I thought of the guy with the piercings who asked me out last week. I had eliminated him as a possibility because my future husband would definitely not have his ears or nose pierced. But was he reliable, loyal, & trustworthy? Could I look past that and not "settle", but "compromise" and learn to love someone like that? The prospect seemed doubtful, but that's exactly what Gottlieb encourages her readers to do.
To test this theory I logged on to Okcupid.com, a free internet dating site my friends had been bugging me to try. I began with the ideal man as I pictured him in my head and filtered accordingly. I had 7 matches.
I began expanding the list. I'm 5'6", do I really need a guy who's at least 6'? I lowered my minimum height to 5'10". He could live within 50 miles, have kids. Be as young as 24 or as old as 35. He didn't have to be Jewish. He could own a cat. Items I was not willing to budge on: single, non-smoker, no drugs, wants kids. I had 100 pages of matches. Maybe none of them were Mr. Right, but I wasn't even giving them the chance to find out!
The more I read the book the more I realized I had been eliminating potentially great guys because "I just knew they weren't the one". Because when I imagined my future life that isn't who I imagined I'd end up with. But then I tried to follow her advice and imagine my future self alone. The thought was depressing. So why had I ruled out all the guys I'd been on dates with recently?
Gottlieb argues that women in our generation have been brought up with a sense of entitlement. We believe we can, and deserve, to have it all. But the truth is, while most women are out being "maximizers" looking for the best that's out there, the smart ones are realizing that good is good enough and grabbing it. We want someone not just as good as us, but better than us. Women who are a 7 want a 9. We over-analyze the faults with men and ignore our own. Divorced with kids? No way. Never mind that you have a crazy stalker ex boyfriend, don't know how to boil water, and let your hamster run freely around the living room. Her point is simply that everyone comes with baggage, and if you want to find a partner, it's time to acknowledge yours and accept someone else's.
Because the book was written by a 40 year old woman whose options are much more limited, I related, but still had a hard time with her advice. Her matchmaker struggles to find any men in the database to set her up with; after 1 day on okcupid I had 57 emails... But the message is solid and I think it's an important one so that we don't end up 41 and single wishing we hadn't passed up the guys in our twenties who were good enough. We expect that after rejecting guy after guy there will always be more guys to reject. But there won't. Because we're not willing to compromise for a 7, we hold out for a 9, and ultimately end up settling for a 5.
So I'll leave you with this thought from Gottlieb and her dating coach, "You can be as picky as you like, as long as you have the option of being that way."
What's in the Big Brown Box?
I'm almost exactly halfway through Hemingway's True at First Light. Frankly, the book makes me want to shoot myself. Hemingway just talks in circles, but never actually goes anywhere. So far, Ernest has been left in charge of an African village, has a wife named Mary who must kill a lion for reasons that are never explained but apparently is a life or death situation, and has nightmares about hanging a man from a neighboring village referred to as The Informer.
Predictions for the second half of the book? Mary kills the lion, The Informer gets hanged (hung? I think it's hanged...both look wrong).
Because I hate this book, I have been reading very little and instead using my time on the train to play my favorite iPhone game: Jetball. If you haven't downloaded it, you should. Or not, because actually it's kind of addicting. Sorry.
I have also been cheating on this blog with my other lower maintenance blog where I post whatever I'm currently coveting. Shameless plug: covetit.blogspot.com
BUT, everything is about to change.Today, my shipment from Amazon.com arrived.
Items included:
Snoop: What your stuff says about you - Sam Gosling, Ph.D. (I'm fascinated by our fascination with stuff)
Sarah's Key - Tatiana De Rosnay (NY Times bestseller that seems to be getting lots of positive press)
Little Bee - Chris Cleave (#1 NY Times bestseller. The Washington Post says it will blow me away. I should know better than to trust these by now, but I just couldn't resist)
Inside the Mind of the Shopper Herb Sorensen, Ph.D. (Yup, I'm a nerd and I'm totally fine with it)
Freakonomics - Levitt & Dubner (Also a New York Times bestseller, but more importantly, EVERY guy I know lists this book as a favorite. Conversation material for my otherwise super awkward dates? Hello.)
And finally, the highly anticipated Marry Him. I'm already on page 40 post lunch break.
These books sponsored by: my cousin Greg and my company who both generously provided me Amazon gift cards for Christmas. Thanks!
Predictions for the second half of the book? Mary kills the lion, The Informer gets hanged (hung? I think it's hanged...both look wrong).
Because I hate this book, I have been reading very little and instead using my time on the train to play my favorite iPhone game: Jetball. If you haven't downloaded it, you should. Or not, because actually it's kind of addicting. Sorry.
I have also been cheating on this blog with my other lower maintenance blog where I post whatever I'm currently coveting. Shameless plug: covetit.blogspot.com
BUT, everything is about to change.Today, my shipment from Amazon.com arrived.
Items included:
Snoop: What your stuff says about you - Sam Gosling, Ph.D. (I'm fascinated by our fascination with stuff)
Sarah's Key - Tatiana De Rosnay (NY Times bestseller that seems to be getting lots of positive press)
Little Bee - Chris Cleave (#1 NY Times bestseller. The Washington Post says it will blow me away. I should know better than to trust these by now, but I just couldn't resist)
Inside the Mind of the Shopper Herb Sorensen, Ph.D. (Yup, I'm a nerd and I'm totally fine with it)
Freakonomics - Levitt & Dubner (Also a New York Times bestseller, but more importantly, EVERY guy I know lists this book as a favorite. Conversation material for my otherwise super awkward dates? Hello.)
And finally, the highly anticipated Marry Him. I'm already on page 40 post lunch break.
These books sponsored by: my cousin Greg and my company who both generously provided me Amazon gift cards for Christmas. Thanks!
Saturday, February 12, 2011
What should I do with my life?
On a whim (and because it was in the $3.99 book bin at Borders) I purchased Test Your Own Job Aptitude: Exploring Your Career Potential - Jim Barrett and Geoff Williams. The check boxes on the front cover were what did me in. Why yes! I would like to find out how to become fully satisfied in my career, discover my natural talents and find the job that's perfect for me!!
After a brief overview of how to use the book, (other than read it, draw in it, or burn it I'm not sure what ways there are. I guess you could use it as toilet paper in a pinch...) chapter 2 launches right into testing your abilities. 40 pages of questions across 7 topics. Here's how I did on the test:
Verbal reasoning: A
Numerical reasoning: A
Perceptual reasoning: C
Spatial ability: A
Acuity skills: A
Analytical ability: A
Technical ability: E
Hmmm...apparently I am not very good at looking at unfolded shapes and determining which 3D shapes could be made based on them or anything mechanical/technical. Possible careers to rule out based on this? Apparently nothing. Barrett and Williams assure me that it's not all about what my abilities are since I could:
a) go back to school for more training
b) motivate myself into learning about these things
c) become magically smarter overnight
There are some suggested careers for people who score high on just 1 ability, and then some for those who score high on just 2. I'm not really sure how to use this since apparently I'm good at 5 things. Looking at all of the combinations, apparently I can do almost anything. So far, not helpful.
Clearly I need to move on to chapter 3 to determine my personality which of course means more questions.
They use a FLAG scale.
I'm definitely more Sensitive than Factual, more Calm than Lively scale, more Passive than Aggressive. I'm a little stuck on the last one, I score an 11 out of 20 for Independent vs Group. This makes me an SCPI or and SCPG. The description for SCPI is "The Loner". I decide to go with SCPG as my personality type which is described as "The Supporter". Suggested careers: Therapist or nursery school teacher.
Chapter 4 is all about motivation and figuring out what I want to do means, you guessed it, more questions. I actually found this part to be very helpful. You have 3 points to assign to 2 options. Would I rather be: an interpreter or a gardener? A statistician or a politician? Some are easy 3 points for one and 0 for another. Others sound equally unappealing and I struggle to assign one the 2pt majority. But at the end I have my motivations in 7 categories:
Literary: 51
Creative: 49
Social: 26
Executive: 26
Research: 42
Practical: 26
Administrative: 30
The book provides suggested careers if you have just one primary motivation which I skip. Clearly I have 2 that are almost tied. I skip to the combined areas to see that my suggested careers are: advertising copywriter or film reviewer.
Then the book encourages me to go back through and list every career suggested to me based on my primary and combined scores. The list is about 20 professions long but the moment I start to look over them some definite themes emerge:
a) Author, novelist, journalist, editor, literary critic
b) Counselor, therapist, psychologist, anthropologist
c) Teacher, nursery school teacher, language teacher
Fascinating! There's a follow up section such as barriers to achieving my goals where I write a little blurb about what's standing in the way: lack of education/certification for some of these, the fear of risking a steady paycheck, the dread of going back to school, etc...
Then finally at the back of the book, a career index. It becomes very clear this book was written in the 80's. Milkman, silversmith, blacksmith: all there. Noticeably missing: Venture capitalist, investment banker, software engineer, pharmaceutical sales rep...
To my surprise, market researcher is listed: Acuity and analytical abilities with a factual, calm, and independent personality with research and administrative motivation. This explains why I'm good at my job, but crave more human interaction, and sometimes feel like it's not fulfilling.
$3.99 to find all this out? The book is a bargain if you ask me! I will happily loan out my copy to anyone interested in taking this test, though it does have markings all over it. But hey, at least I didn't use it as toilet paper!
After a brief overview of how to use the book, (other than read it, draw in it, or burn it I'm not sure what ways there are. I guess you could use it as toilet paper in a pinch...) chapter 2 launches right into testing your abilities. 40 pages of questions across 7 topics. Here's how I did on the test:
Verbal reasoning: A
Numerical reasoning: A
Perceptual reasoning: C
Spatial ability: A
Acuity skills: A
Analytical ability: A
Technical ability: E
Hmmm...apparently I am not very good at looking at unfolded shapes and determining which 3D shapes could be made based on them or anything mechanical/technical. Possible careers to rule out based on this? Apparently nothing. Barrett and Williams assure me that it's not all about what my abilities are since I could:
a) go back to school for more training
b) motivate myself into learning about these things
c) become magically smarter overnight
There are some suggested careers for people who score high on just 1 ability, and then some for those who score high on just 2. I'm not really sure how to use this since apparently I'm good at 5 things. Looking at all of the combinations, apparently I can do almost anything. So far, not helpful.
Clearly I need to move on to chapter 3 to determine my personality which of course means more questions.
They use a FLAG scale.
I'm definitely more Sensitive than Factual, more Calm than Lively scale, more Passive than Aggressive. I'm a little stuck on the last one, I score an 11 out of 20 for Independent vs Group. This makes me an SCPI or and SCPG. The description for SCPI is "The Loner". I decide to go with SCPG as my personality type which is described as "The Supporter". Suggested careers: Therapist or nursery school teacher.
Chapter 4 is all about motivation and figuring out what I want to do means, you guessed it, more questions. I actually found this part to be very helpful. You have 3 points to assign to 2 options. Would I rather be: an interpreter or a gardener? A statistician or a politician? Some are easy 3 points for one and 0 for another. Others sound equally unappealing and I struggle to assign one the 2pt majority. But at the end I have my motivations in 7 categories:
Literary: 51
Creative: 49
Social: 26
Executive: 26
Research: 42
Practical: 26
Administrative: 30
The book provides suggested careers if you have just one primary motivation which I skip. Clearly I have 2 that are almost tied. I skip to the combined areas to see that my suggested careers are: advertising copywriter or film reviewer.
Then the book encourages me to go back through and list every career suggested to me based on my primary and combined scores. The list is about 20 professions long but the moment I start to look over them some definite themes emerge:
a) Author, novelist, journalist, editor, literary critic
b) Counselor, therapist, psychologist, anthropologist
c) Teacher, nursery school teacher, language teacher
Fascinating! There's a follow up section such as barriers to achieving my goals where I write a little blurb about what's standing in the way: lack of education/certification for some of these, the fear of risking a steady paycheck, the dread of going back to school, etc...
Then finally at the back of the book, a career index. It becomes very clear this book was written in the 80's. Milkman, silversmith, blacksmith: all there. Noticeably missing: Venture capitalist, investment banker, software engineer, pharmaceutical sales rep...
To my surprise, market researcher is listed: Acuity and analytical abilities with a factual, calm, and independent personality with research and administrative motivation. This explains why I'm good at my job, but crave more human interaction, and sometimes feel like it's not fulfilling.
$3.99 to find all this out? The book is a bargain if you ask me! I will happily loan out my copy to anyone interested in taking this test, though it does have markings all over it. But hey, at least I didn't use it as toilet paper!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
You can learn to build an airplane from a book, but can you learn to date from one?
I am picky when it comes to men. I admit it. I've rejected guys for important reasons like never wanting kids, and for silly reasons like wearing pants that unzip into shorts on our first date (we were not going hiking).
Last week I was asked out on a date by a man with both ears and his nose pierced. "No, I would NEVER date someone like that", I exclaimed to our receptionist once we were out of earshot. Her response? "Piercings are removable..He might be a great guy."
*Gulp*...she had a point. I tried to argue that a person who would get those things pierced had a certain type of personality that probably also involved tattoos, motorcycles, an attraction to dangerous situations...but she just looked at me with all the wisdom of her 42 year old self and said "I think you need to read Marry Him". I googled it as soon as I got back to my desk Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. I ordered a copy making sure to mark it as a gift (otherwise next thing you know my suggested reading will include 'Don't Kill Yourself, There's Still Hope!' and 'Caring for Your 5 Cats: How to Make Sure Skittles Doesn't Feel Left Out').
Last week I was asked out on a date by a man with both ears and his nose pierced. "No, I would NEVER date someone like that", I exclaimed to our receptionist once we were out of earshot. Her response? "Piercings are removable..He might be a great guy."
*Gulp*...she had a point. I tried to argue that a person who would get those things pierced had a certain type of personality that probably also involved tattoos, motorcycles, an attraction to dangerous situations...but she just looked at me with all the wisdom of her 42 year old self and said "I think you need to read Marry Him". I googled it as soon as I got back to my desk Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. I ordered a copy making sure to mark it as a gift (otherwise next thing you know my suggested reading will include 'Don't Kill Yourself, There's Still Hope!' and 'Caring for Your 5 Cats: How to Make Sure Skittles Doesn't Feel Left Out').
It got me thinking about the other dating books I've read over the years. First, there was the classic -The Rules: Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right, followed by the popular He's Just Not That Into You: The No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys, and in my senior year of college, the very appropriately gifted Why Men Love Bitches: From Doormat to Dreamgirl - A Woman's Guide to Holding Her Own in a Relationship. And of course, the male equivalent of a dating book -The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists.
First, The Rules:Yes, it's a little old fashioned. It was written in the 90's when people still gave out their home phone number, wore pantyhose, placed personal ads in a newspaper, and had an egg timer in the kitchen. But the advice is sound. If you make it easy for him, he'll date you because it's convenient, not because he's crazy about you. Better to be hard to get and weed out the guys who aren't serious.
Key points from the book:
Key points from the book:
#1 - Be busy. Have your own life and keep it even after you get into a relationship. If you don't have a date for Friday or Saturday night, make other plans! Go out with your girlfriends, spend time with your family, do something you enjoy.
#2 - Don't accept a last minute date. If you're the kind of girl he can have on 5 minute notice, he'll treat you like one. Think about it: if he's calling you at the last second he might be bored or maybe his friend or date cancelled, not because he really wants to see you.
#3 - Don't call him. Don't ask him out. If you make it easy, he'll go out with you because it doesn't require much effort. But then one day he's going to realize he doesn't really love you and you're going to get hurt.
Next, He's Just Not That Into You. Yes, some of this is pretty straightforward. Well of course if he's not calling he's just not that into me... But it's SO easy when you meet a guy you really like to make excuses. "O he has a big trial this week", "O his mom is in town", etc... My personal favorite quote from the book, "I hate to tell you, but that whole 'I don't want to ruin the friendship' excuse is a racket." Boy do I wish I had this book when I was a teenager...
When my friends come to me for boy advice I remind them it takes less than 10 seconds to write a text that says "Thinking of you :)" and hit the send button. And when that doesn't work, I give them my copy of this book. If he likes you and wants to ask you out, he will. Period. End of story.
Next, Why Men Love Bitches. The book should have been called Why Men Love Strong Independent Women (her use of the word bitch is very liberal). The "attraction principles" are pretty simple: the less interested you are in him, the more interested he'll be in you. Men view being too nice or trying too hard as signs of weakness and they won't respect you. So if you put yourself first, don't get into a situation where you need him, and don't do nice things for him, he'll follow you around like a puppy.
Manipulative? Yes. Effective? Yes. Worth a read, but probably won't result in the type of healthy partnership most of us are looking for.
And finally, The Game. Not only is this book enormously entertaining, but it has helped me avoid the creepers at bars by recognizing when someone is trying to use the techniques from this book on me.
PUAs (pick-up artists) use a series of very calculated tips & tricks to get the number close, the kiss close, and ultimately, sex (after which they will most definitely not call you).
My personal favorite: the neg. It's a gentle put down to make a woman feel insecure and thus feel like she needs to win the man's approval. "It's so funny the way your nose wiggles when you talk!" *pause while you wait for her to be slightly offended* "No no, it's cute!"
Other ways to spot a game reader: he's peacocking (wearing something attention getting), asks if you want to see a magic trick, and/or approaches you with some crazy story about a friend who has a problem he could use your advice on.
I've seen this work, but men of the world, consider this a warning: we're onto your game.
Next, Why Men Love Bitches. The book should have been called Why Men Love Strong Independent Women (her use of the word bitch is very liberal). The "attraction principles" are pretty simple: the less interested you are in him, the more interested he'll be in you. Men view being too nice or trying too hard as signs of weakness and they won't respect you. So if you put yourself first, don't get into a situation where you need him, and don't do nice things for him, he'll follow you around like a puppy.
Manipulative? Yes. Effective? Yes. Worth a read, but probably won't result in the type of healthy partnership most of us are looking for.
And finally, The Game. Not only is this book enormously entertaining, but it has helped me avoid the creepers at bars by recognizing when someone is trying to use the techniques from this book on me.
PUAs (pick-up artists) use a series of very calculated tips & tricks to get the number close, the kiss close, and ultimately, sex (after which they will most definitely not call you).
My personal favorite: the neg. It's a gentle put down to make a woman feel insecure and thus feel like she needs to win the man's approval. "It's so funny the way your nose wiggles when you talk!" *pause while you wait for her to be slightly offended* "No no, it's cute!"
Other ways to spot a game reader: he's peacocking (wearing something attention getting), asks if you want to see a magic trick, and/or approaches you with some crazy story about a friend who has a problem he could use your advice on.
I've seen this work, but men of the world, consider this a warning: we're onto your game.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Kafka on the Shore - Haruki Murakami
After finding this under my dresser only half read, you may recall from my previous blog post I was not exactly thrilled. However, it turns out that I cannot always be right... The second half of the book was much better with minimal animal cruelty and things actually began to happen.
Quick character/plot line synopsis:
Nakata: An elderly man who cannot read or write, he lives a very simple life as has the unique ability to talk to cats. Numerous hints are given to suggest that he was the child who never fully recovered from the accident on the hill (see the worst 5 books of 2010 if you're not familiar with this yet). In the second half of the book, after murdering "Johnnie Walker", he goes on an adventure searching for the "entrance stone" which he is not yet sure what to do with, but knows it's very important. He can also apparently make various things fall from the sky by opening his umbrella.
Kafka Tamura: A 15 year old boy who runs away from home (his father is later revealed to be the famous sculptor known by Nakata as Johnnie Walker). He makes friends with another boy, who later turns out to be a girl, in the library and he/she is able to get Kafka a job doing basic janitorial work in exchange for a place to live. He develops a crush on the librarian, Miss Seiko, who may or may not be his mother, and in fulfilling a prophecy his father gave him as a young boy, sleeps with her.
Ok all caught up now.
If there's a theme to this book of seemingly unrelated plot lines, it's reality. What is it? And can you fool people into believing in it? At one point, Colonel Sanders dressed as pimp appears to guide Nakata and his truck driver friend, but says he is neither human nor Buddha.An imaginary bird/human talks to people and gives them advice. Kafka has sex with a ghost.
It's a fine line between weird and totally insane and though I grew to appreciate the reality bending existence of the two men, at times the book seemed to cross over into the territory of straight jackets in a padded room. Fish falling from the sky? Really?
In the end, I thought the book was ok. Did I like it? No, not really. But I definitely don't think it would have made it into the bottom 5 books of 2010 had I finished it. The writing is good and the story thought provoking, but the scene of paralyzed cats being cut open hung over me like a cloud and I just couldn't fully invest. Final verdict: skippable.
Quick character/plot line synopsis:
Nakata: An elderly man who cannot read or write, he lives a very simple life as has the unique ability to talk to cats. Numerous hints are given to suggest that he was the child who never fully recovered from the accident on the hill (see the worst 5 books of 2010 if you're not familiar with this yet). In the second half of the book, after murdering "Johnnie Walker", he goes on an adventure searching for the "entrance stone" which he is not yet sure what to do with, but knows it's very important. He can also apparently make various things fall from the sky by opening his umbrella.
Kafka Tamura: A 15 year old boy who runs away from home (his father is later revealed to be the famous sculptor known by Nakata as Johnnie Walker). He makes friends with another boy, who later turns out to be a girl, in the library and he/she is able to get Kafka a job doing basic janitorial work in exchange for a place to live. He develops a crush on the librarian, Miss Seiko, who may or may not be his mother, and in fulfilling a prophecy his father gave him as a young boy, sleeps with her.
Ok all caught up now.
If there's a theme to this book of seemingly unrelated plot lines, it's reality. What is it? And can you fool people into believing in it? At one point, Colonel Sanders dressed as pimp appears to guide Nakata and his truck driver friend, but says he is neither human nor Buddha.An imaginary bird/human talks to people and gives them advice. Kafka has sex with a ghost.
It's a fine line between weird and totally insane and though I grew to appreciate the reality bending existence of the two men, at times the book seemed to cross over into the territory of straight jackets in a padded room. Fish falling from the sky? Really?
In the end, I thought the book was ok. Did I like it? No, not really. But I definitely don't think it would have made it into the bottom 5 books of 2010 had I finished it. The writing is good and the story thought provoking, but the scene of paralyzed cats being cut open hung over me like a cloud and I just couldn't fully invest. Final verdict: skippable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)