Here's an article scolding you for not being better about your email. (Just yesterday I saw a related tweet, and her feed is cracking me up.)
BUT the part I want to acknowledge is this:
When researchers compiled a huge database of the digital habits of teams at Microsoft, they found that the clearest warning sign of an ineffective manager was being slow to answer emails. Responding in a timely manner shows that you are conscientious -- organized, dependable and hardworking. And that matters. In a comprehensive analysis of people in hundreds of occupations, conscientiousness was the single best personality predictor of job performance. (It turns out that people who are rude online tend to be rude offline, too.)
(Caveat: studying the digital habits of teams at Microsoft is cousin to studying the 18 year olds taking Psych 1 at large research institutions.)
But anyway: this kind of thing is vastly better than how well someone interviews, as a predictor of job competence. When you're hiring, you're trying to determine if this total stranger is competent, and the interview process selects for people who are good at the interview process.
Do I have any idea how to implement such a measure? Of course not.
Guest Post - Messianism and Mundanity
Moschi writes: It is a truth universally acknowledged that a Big Pharma company in possession of a profit motive must be in want of a chronic medication for a disease of the rich; and conversely that it can have no interest in the afflictions of the poor, these being left to the philanthropies of the enlightened wealthy. Imagine then my surprise to find, with nary a disruptor in sight, Takeda developing a vaccine for WHO-designated neglected tropical disease dengue fever, hot on the heels of a failed trial by Sanofi, developing its own vaccine in pursuit not merely of a product but a "$1 billion-a-year blockbuster product". It being irresponsible not to speculate, I shall venture that the dismal decades of neoliberalism have so inured left-liberals to the conventions of consumerism that only the demand signals of atomized individuals are ever entered into consideration, while those of the health ministries of dozens of nation states have been discounted entirely.
Heebie's take: Interesting! (Mostly irrelevant but: one thing that I've found shocking is how little outrage there has been over the extortion of insulin for diabetics.)
That thing in The Cut about the woman and the husband and the sex and the blah blah blah
Here's my question about it. If they must run these tacky, unenlightening diaries which may or may not be some kind of put-on, couldn't they at least consider limiting those whom they engage to jot them down to people with at least one (1) single solitary tittle of writing ability? Or, if that is not possible (perhaps because anyone capable of attending to their prose enough to give it some style would also realize that what they're writing is stupid and not worth publishing), could these joyless expectorations not be given some quantum of vim under the attentions of an editor? Even corpses are made up before being put on public view.
A blogger I sometimes read has found out she's pregnant, at age 46. (I'm not going to link because she's a bit out-of-sync with the house style here, but if you're curious, email me.) Obviously she's having some reasonable identity reflections, considering being a mother after having a life where she felt committed to not being a mother.
One thing I occasionally say to prospective parents, if it seems like they're ambivalent for certain kinds of reasons, is that there's a big difference between having a kid and having multiple kids. With one kid, you will have maybe five years of your life feeling upside down, but then you will mostly feel like you have your life back, and it incorporates your child.
I'm not saying having one kid is an intermediate state between being a parent and not being a parent, but I am saying that the time constraints of having one kid in elementary school is halfway between the time constraints of having multiple kids and not having any kids.
All this goes out the window if you don't have two active parents, or if there are health/mental health/other extenuating circumstances. But I still think it's useful to be said, occasionally.
I hope I haven't offended anyone. Obviously I only have experience in one family and I'm wildly overgeneralizing here. But I remember a birthday party where I was awkwardly talking with some hippie mamas who all knew each other and each had one kid, and one said something like, "I so don't feel like a mom, with a minivan and a bedtime routine." They all agreed and listed some other conventional trappings of being a suburban mom, and the gist was that they felt like an adult with their kid and it's very freewheeling. Eventually I ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 'd my part and sheepishly admitted that we've got one hell of a bedtime routine, a minivan, and are highly scheduled.
I don't know when life stops feeling upside down with two kids, roughly. Based on my friends, I'd say when the younger kid is in late elementary school, in the 9-11 range.
I don't know when it rights itself if you have more than two. I am ready for a bit of a breather, though.
This is getting posted by a bunch of people at the other place: The Magical Thinking of Guys Who Love Logic.
It's probably good, but I find the kind of person so nauseating that I couldn't really get into the article.
Clearly these men have some unresolved shit that they're avoiding, just like the most heavy-handed proponent of conversion therapy for gay teenagers is always closeted and full of self-loathing. It's so glaring and self-evident that it pains me to do a deep dive into the avoidance mechanisms of their psyche, because it feels like getting sucked into the ruminating of someone doggedly arguing everything around a point to avoid sitting with an uncomfortable truth.
Also: being able to say you're a mathematician is really satisfying around these douches.
Guest Post - You Can't Go Home Again
Mossy Charry writes: From Bangladesh:
"Some men say it is a sin for women to work because in Myanmar we never worked," said Nuran Kis, 40, a Rohingya mother of eight, who is teaching others to sew in a women-only centre."My husband supports me though because we need money and want to survive," [...] some men were initially reluctant to allow women and girls to come to these centres but gradually that [is] changing.[...]Most of the Rohingya are illiterate, having had limited access to education - and healthcare - in Myanmar's Rakhine state where they were refused citizenship and free movement.[...]"This is the first time I have ever done any kind of work like this [...] I like this work and want to keep doing it as long as I can to support my family," said Banu, who is raising her four children as a single mother after her husband died.[...]"This is a group going through forced societal change and women are finding new forms of confidence,"Bonus link!:
Islam is one of 570 Rohingya on the Elephant Response Team, known locally as the tusk force...
Heebie's take: I have no take! It's almost weirdly feel-good. That's probably because I've been so brainwashed to scan for clickbait journalistic techniques, so that when they appear authentically, they smell funny.