The Intelligent Bayesian, by Walter E. Williams
The New Republic, Nov. 10, 1986, at 18
...Men are not gods. Therefore, men face challenges gods would not have to endure - ignorance and uncertainty. To make decisions, we need to have information about the world around us. The information we gather is not only imperfect, it is costly as well. So we learn to economize by guessing, prejudging, and using stereotypes.
Imagine you are challenged to a basketball game and must select 5 out of 20 people who appear to be equal in every respect except race and sex. There are five black and five white females, five black and five white males. You have no information about their basketball proficiency. There is a million-dollar prize for the contest. How would you choose a team? If you thought basketball skills were randomly distributed by race and sex, you would randomly select. Most people would perceive a strong associative relationship between basketball skills on the one hand, and race and sex on the other. Most would confine their choice to males, and their choice would be dominated by black males.
Can we say such a person is a sexist/racist? An alternative answer is that he is behaving like an intelligent Bayesian (Sir Thomas Bayes, the father of statistics). Inexpensively obtained information about race and sex is a proxy for information that costs more to obtain, namely, basketball proficiency.
There is a large class of human behavior that generally falls into the same testing procedures. Doctors can predict the probability of hypertension by knowing race, and osteoporosis by knowing sex. A white jeweler who does not open his door to young black males cannot be labeled a racist any more than a black taxi driver who refuses to pick up young black males at night. Black females and white females and white males commit holdups, but in this world of imperfect information cab drivers and jewelers play the odds. To ask them to behave differently is to disarm them.
While reading this I kept thinking of an article I read in The Onion, titled something like "Stereotypes are Helpful!" I don't have it in front of me (its buried in one of my books), but in it the author basically said that when he needed to do banking, he found someone who was Jewish, when he wanted someone who is good at math, he found an Asian, etc. And I thought to myself, why wouldn't you use stereotypes? In our world where it costs time and effort to actually gain information on people and their habits, the person who stereotypes will be better off than the person who picks randomly (but possibly worse than a person who gains information on these people).
The problem for the jeweler or the cab driver is that by the time they have garnered the additional information needed to ascertain whether their customer/fare is going to rob them, it is too late. So they may elect to not serve that person at all. Is that a terrible thing? Thoughts?
Monday, January 30, 2006
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Heroic Dockery Saves Duke Yet Again
Durham, NC - This has become old hat for Sean Dockery.
Dockery hit a back-breaking three pointer at the 17:21 mark of the second half, propelling Duke to a 82-63 victory over hated rival UVA.
The crucial shot came right after UVA guard Adrian Joseph cut the Duke lead to 15 with a three pointer, silencing the normally raucous Cameron Crazies.
But Dockery brought Duke back from the verge of defeat, as he has so many times before. Just two months ago Dockery hit a 45 footer at the buzzer to beat Virginia Tech. A few weeks ago he was fouled on a three pointer in a tight 81-68 win over NC State, and just a few days ago he led Duke to victory in ESPN.com's simulated final four.
Dockery also had a key play in the first half. With Duke holding onto a tenuous 12-2 lead, J.J. Redick grabbed a defensive rebound and saw Dockery streaking upcourt. Redick passed to Dockery, who intentionally missed the wide open layup, which led to a Shelden Williams offensive rebound and a J.J. Redick three pointer.
Defensively, Dockery was his masterful self, constantly harassing the usually dominant UVA guards. The two starting guards combined for an anemic 11-25 shooting night, as they could not recover from the intense defense that was 5 Sean Dockery fouls.
"He just does it all for them," UVA star Sean Singletary said. "You just have to tip your hat to him."
Game Notes: Dockery finished with 3 points, 3 assists and 2 rebounds. J.J. Redick moved closer to the top of the all time scoring list at Duke, with 40 points on 11-13 shooting. Shelden Williams nearly recorded yet another triple double, with 17 points, 10 rebounds, and 8 blocks.
Durham, NC - This has become old hat for Sean Dockery.
Dockery hit a back-breaking three pointer at the 17:21 mark of the second half, propelling Duke to a 82-63 victory over hated rival UVA.
The crucial shot came right after UVA guard Adrian Joseph cut the Duke lead to 15 with a three pointer, silencing the normally raucous Cameron Crazies.
But Dockery brought Duke back from the verge of defeat, as he has so many times before. Just two months ago Dockery hit a 45 footer at the buzzer to beat Virginia Tech. A few weeks ago he was fouled on a three pointer in a tight 81-68 win over NC State, and just a few days ago he led Duke to victory in ESPN.com's simulated final four.
Dockery also had a key play in the first half. With Duke holding onto a tenuous 12-2 lead, J.J. Redick grabbed a defensive rebound and saw Dockery streaking upcourt. Redick passed to Dockery, who intentionally missed the wide open layup, which led to a Shelden Williams offensive rebound and a J.J. Redick three pointer.
Defensively, Dockery was his masterful self, constantly harassing the usually dominant UVA guards. The two starting guards combined for an anemic 11-25 shooting night, as they could not recover from the intense defense that was 5 Sean Dockery fouls.
"He just does it all for them," UVA star Sean Singletary said. "You just have to tip your hat to him."
Game Notes: Dockery finished with 3 points, 3 assists and 2 rebounds. J.J. Redick moved closer to the top of the all time scoring list at Duke, with 40 points on 11-13 shooting. Shelden Williams nearly recorded yet another triple double, with 17 points, 10 rebounds, and 8 blocks.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Back at Duke, the game of choice was Beeramid. It had everything - strategy, bluffing, and of course lots of drinking. The record I think is still 6 beers on the last card, held by one Jon Roth. If I recall correctly, we gave him a half hour to drink them. And I don't think he got through all of them before passing out in his room.
I tried to bring this great game back to Cinnaminson. It faltered, due to the closed mindedness of certain people like Jimbo and Stasko. They apparently did not like the "math" involved, which included solving difficult equations such as 1/5 of a beer times two, and 1/3 of a beer times one. And god forbid if someone gives out 2/5 of a beer and gets bullshitted... who knows how much someone drinks in that instance? Its impossible!
But I digress.
The game of choice for Section Fers here at UVA Law is speed quarters. We play with a slight variation of those rules. And don't get me wrong, I do enjoy playing it. But I miss beeramid. In beeramid, there is more strategy. Do I try to bluff and say I have two of this card? Who do I bullshit when I have one of the cards and three people have assigned drinks to me already? And perhaps more importantly, there is a definite end of the game in beeramid. There is no such end in speed quarters; it just goes on until people don't want to play anymore.
What is the best part of beeramid? It inspires great stories. I want to tell the story of the greatest beeramid move ever (some details may be slightly off). And somehow, it was accomplished by one Kevin Lacker. We were in Vegas, playing beeramid with two decks, and were at the 1/3 level. A queen comes up, and most of us remember that a queen came up on an earlier level. Lacker did not give out any drinks on that queen. Ben assigns Lacker a third, and Lacker responds by giving Ben a full beer (three thirds, for those of you who are not good at the beeramid "math"). Ben jumps up and says, "I know you didn't call on the queen earlier. BULLSHIT!" To which Lacker laughs and shows Ben three queens. Which means that Ben now had 2 full beers to drink because of Lacker slowplaying the three queens.
Of course, some people think Lacker just forgot to call on the earlier queen, but we'll never know for sure.
I remember when James and Mark both assigned me like a 1/3 of a beer. However, using my counting skills, I realized that only one of them could have the card. So I debated who was more likely to bullshit me and I called bullshit on James. He dropped his head and began to drink 2/3 of a beer. Then, I looked at Mark, and said, I don't think you have it either! And he also dropped his head and began to drink his 2/3 of a beer.
Are there any great speed quarters stories? Or asshole? Or mushroom? No. While they may be fine drinking activities, most people do not remember certain games of them with fond memory. And thats one big reason why beeramid is one of the very few great drinking games in existence.
I tried to bring this great game back to Cinnaminson. It faltered, due to the closed mindedness of certain people like Jimbo and Stasko. They apparently did not like the "math" involved, which included solving difficult equations such as 1/5 of a beer times two, and 1/3 of a beer times one. And god forbid if someone gives out 2/5 of a beer and gets bullshitted... who knows how much someone drinks in that instance? Its impossible!
But I digress.
The game of choice for Section Fers here at UVA Law is speed quarters. We play with a slight variation of those rules. And don't get me wrong, I do enjoy playing it. But I miss beeramid. In beeramid, there is more strategy. Do I try to bluff and say I have two of this card? Who do I bullshit when I have one of the cards and three people have assigned drinks to me already? And perhaps more importantly, there is a definite end of the game in beeramid. There is no such end in speed quarters; it just goes on until people don't want to play anymore.
What is the best part of beeramid? It inspires great stories. I want to tell the story of the greatest beeramid move ever (some details may be slightly off). And somehow, it was accomplished by one Kevin Lacker. We were in Vegas, playing beeramid with two decks, and were at the 1/3 level. A queen comes up, and most of us remember that a queen came up on an earlier level. Lacker did not give out any drinks on that queen. Ben assigns Lacker a third, and Lacker responds by giving Ben a full beer (three thirds, for those of you who are not good at the beeramid "math"). Ben jumps up and says, "I know you didn't call on the queen earlier. BULLSHIT!" To which Lacker laughs and shows Ben three queens. Which means that Ben now had 2 full beers to drink because of Lacker slowplaying the three queens.
Of course, some people think Lacker just forgot to call on the earlier queen, but we'll never know for sure.
I remember when James and Mark both assigned me like a 1/3 of a beer. However, using my counting skills, I realized that only one of them could have the card. So I debated who was more likely to bullshit me and I called bullshit on James. He dropped his head and began to drink 2/3 of a beer. Then, I looked at Mark, and said, I don't think you have it either! And he also dropped his head and began to drink his 2/3 of a beer.
Are there any great speed quarters stories? Or asshole? Or mushroom? No. While they may be fine drinking activities, most people do not remember certain games of them with fond memory. And thats one big reason why beeramid is one of the very few great drinking games in existence.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Last semester I had four real classes. I had the threat of being cold called on in three of them. My preparation for those classes was directly proportional to the likelihood of me being called on in that particular class. For example, if I had just been called on in the previous class, then I would pretty much just skim the cases for that day. If I had not been called on in some time, I would not only write down notes in the margins of my book, but also type up summaries of the facts, holding, reasoning, etc.
In the fourth class, there was no threat of being cold called. As a result, I rarely did the reading. I was not alone in this, as virtually nobody did the reading except for a few gunners.
Some of you may not know what a "gunner" is. A gunner is a person who always does the readings and always raises their hand to talk in class. We don't like gunners.
In any event, the proportion of classes where I will be cold called on appears to now be reversed. I now have three classes where I will probably not be cold called on (two classes I will know when I'm "on call", and the third just seems rather unlikely), and one class where I could be called on at any moment and the professor has indicated that participation is very important in determining final grades. Will this result lead me to do much less reading this semester?
One would think that a failure to do a thorough job on the readings will lead to a lower grade on the final. However, my experiences from one semester of law school indicate otherwise. In the class I routinely did not do the reading for last semester, I got a B+. In the class I did the reading for because I was absolutely terrified of the professor, I got a B+. I suppose one could argue that if I actually did all of the readings for the first class, I might have gotten an A-, but that seems speculative.
In any event, I'm going to attempt to do all of the readings for all of my classes this semester, cold calling or not. Of course, I say this now, but when Feb Club (a party every night in the month of February), Mock Trial (probably meeting twice a week to discuss the problem), and softball start up again, I might be singing a different tune.
In the fourth class, there was no threat of being cold called. As a result, I rarely did the reading. I was not alone in this, as virtually nobody did the reading except for a few gunners.
Some of you may not know what a "gunner" is. A gunner is a person who always does the readings and always raises their hand to talk in class. We don't like gunners.
In any event, the proportion of classes where I will be cold called on appears to now be reversed. I now have three classes where I will probably not be cold called on (two classes I will know when I'm "on call", and the third just seems rather unlikely), and one class where I could be called on at any moment and the professor has indicated that participation is very important in determining final grades. Will this result lead me to do much less reading this semester?
One would think that a failure to do a thorough job on the readings will lead to a lower grade on the final. However, my experiences from one semester of law school indicate otherwise. In the class I routinely did not do the reading for last semester, I got a B+. In the class I did the reading for because I was absolutely terrified of the professor, I got a B+. I suppose one could argue that if I actually did all of the readings for the first class, I might have gotten an A-, but that seems speculative.
In any event, I'm going to attempt to do all of the readings for all of my classes this semester, cold calling or not. Of course, I say this now, but when Feb Club (a party every night in the month of February), Mock Trial (probably meeting twice a week to discuss the problem), and softball start up again, I might be singing a different tune.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
srvfan18 (12:18:14 AM): yeah cooper got sooo thrown out of this bar at like 2am
Evan4444 (12:18:16 AM): so stupid
Evan4444 (12:18:18 AM): really
srvfan18 (12:18:22 AM): yeah it was classic cooper
srvfan18 (12:18:30 AM): goes up to the bar wasted
srvfan18 (12:18:33 AM): asks for two more beers
srvfan18 (12:18:43 AM): meanwhile hes got like lets say a fifth of beer left in each
Evan4444 (12:18:52 AM): ok
srvfan18 (12:18:53 AM): so the bartenders like finish your beer first
srvfan18 (12:19:13 AM): so cooper just stares at him, then turns the glasses over
Evan4444 (12:19:16 AM): oh man
srvfan18 (12:19:17 AM): thus emptying them on the bar
Evan4444 (12:19:19 AM): hahahahah
srvfan18 (12:19:35 AM): so some locals like what the fuck and picks up cooper to throw him out
Evan4444 (12:19:41 AM): wait not a bouncer
Evan4444 (12:19:44 AM): just like a random guy at the bar
srvfan18 (12:19:45 AM): me and gibbs have to like run from the back of the bar
srvfan18 (12:19:47 AM): man we think so
srvfan18 (12:19:48 AM): haha
srvfan18 (12:19:57 AM): like we think it was just a regular
Evan4444 (12:20:00 AM): man clearly if i'm there
srvfan18 (12:20:02 AM): they didnt have a bouncer
Evan4444 (12:20:02 AM): i act like i don't know cooper
Evan4444 (12:20:07 AM): i just sit there and ignore
srvfan18 (12:20:12 AM): eh i tried to get into a fight with the guy
srvfan18 (12:20:17 AM): we were all pretty toasted
Evan4444 (12:20:21 AM): half hearted effort
srvfan18 (12:20:24 AM): but the best part is
srvfan18 (12:20:31 AM): so we leave get cantina fine
srvfan18 (12:20:37 AM): cooper goes home at like 3am
srvfan18 (12:20:47 AM): wakes up in the bronx at 4:15
Evan4444 (12:20:50 AM): what?
srvfan18 (12:20:53 AM): he passed out on the subway
srvfan18 (12:21:00 AM): woke up at like the last stop in the bronx
Evan4444 (12:21:04 AM): man
srvfan18 (12:21:13 AM): the MTA guy is like asking if cooper is ok
srvfan18 (12:21:23 AM): so cooper finally gets home like post 5am
srvfan18 (12:21:29 AM): lets just say...katie was NOT happy
Evan4444 (12:21:30 AM): katie... not happy!
Evan4444 (12:21:59 AM): obv katie blames you
srvfan18 (12:22:04 AM): yeah lets just say he wont be hanging out with me for a while
srvfan18 (12:22:05 AM): obv
Evan4444 (12:18:16 AM): so stupid
Evan4444 (12:18:18 AM): really
srvfan18 (12:18:22 AM): yeah it was classic cooper
srvfan18 (12:18:30 AM): goes up to the bar wasted
srvfan18 (12:18:33 AM): asks for two more beers
srvfan18 (12:18:43 AM): meanwhile hes got like lets say a fifth of beer left in each
Evan4444 (12:18:52 AM): ok
srvfan18 (12:18:53 AM): so the bartenders like finish your beer first
srvfan18 (12:19:13 AM): so cooper just stares at him, then turns the glasses over
Evan4444 (12:19:16 AM): oh man
srvfan18 (12:19:17 AM): thus emptying them on the bar
Evan4444 (12:19:19 AM): hahahahah
srvfan18 (12:19:35 AM): so some locals like what the fuck and picks up cooper to throw him out
Evan4444 (12:19:41 AM): wait not a bouncer
Evan4444 (12:19:44 AM): just like a random guy at the bar
srvfan18 (12:19:45 AM): me and gibbs have to like run from the back of the bar
srvfan18 (12:19:47 AM): man we think so
srvfan18 (12:19:48 AM): haha
srvfan18 (12:19:57 AM): like we think it was just a regular
Evan4444 (12:20:00 AM): man clearly if i'm there
srvfan18 (12:20:02 AM): they didnt have a bouncer
Evan4444 (12:20:02 AM): i act like i don't know cooper
Evan4444 (12:20:07 AM): i just sit there and ignore
srvfan18 (12:20:12 AM): eh i tried to get into a fight with the guy
srvfan18 (12:20:17 AM): we were all pretty toasted
Evan4444 (12:20:21 AM): half hearted effort
srvfan18 (12:20:24 AM): but the best part is
srvfan18 (12:20:31 AM): so we leave get cantina fine
srvfan18 (12:20:37 AM): cooper goes home at like 3am
srvfan18 (12:20:47 AM): wakes up in the bronx at 4:15
Evan4444 (12:20:50 AM): what?
srvfan18 (12:20:53 AM): he passed out on the subway
srvfan18 (12:21:00 AM): woke up at like the last stop in the bronx
Evan4444 (12:21:04 AM): man
srvfan18 (12:21:13 AM): the MTA guy is like asking if cooper is ok
srvfan18 (12:21:23 AM): so cooper finally gets home like post 5am
srvfan18 (12:21:29 AM): lets just say...katie was NOT happy
Evan4444 (12:21:30 AM): katie... not happy!
Evan4444 (12:21:59 AM): obv katie blames you
srvfan18 (12:22:04 AM): yeah lets just say he wont be hanging out with me for a while
srvfan18 (12:22:05 AM): obv
Monday, January 23, 2006
I'm sitting in Federal Income Tax right now. It is oppressively hot in the room, and perhaps even more annoyingly, there is a guy sitting behind me whose laptop is loud - far too loud. I can't tell if its the fan on his laptop or whether he for some reason has a CD running in his CD drive, but it is whatever that noise is x 3.
I want to say something, but what on earth does one say?
"Excuse me, the noise emitting from your laptop is infuriating me. Furthemore, I've convinced myself that it is emitting heat directly onto me in this already 85 degree room. Can you please fix that by tomorrow?"
Guess I'll find a new seat tomorrow.
I want to say something, but what on earth does one say?
"Excuse me, the noise emitting from your laptop is infuriating me. Furthemore, I've convinced myself that it is emitting heat directly onto me in this already 85 degree room. Can you please fix that by tomorrow?"
Guess I'll find a new seat tomorrow.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
I was just flipping through the channels when fortune smiled upon me.
Oh Oxygen (of all networks) there was Jennifer Love Hewitt, in a bra and some shorts, jumping and bouncing around while trying on lots of random articles of clothing. This went on for like 3 minutes (opening credits of some movie).
Ah, that was nice.
Oh Oxygen (of all networks) there was Jennifer Love Hewitt, in a bra and some shorts, jumping and bouncing around while trying on lots of random articles of clothing. This went on for like 3 minutes (opening credits of some movie).
Ah, that was nice.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
*Am I a Dockery hater?
First, read the ESPN recap for the game.
It of course, talks about how great Sean Dockery is. And the "proof" is in the sequence of plays.
1) Lee Melchionni tracks down a loose ball, drives, kicks it to a wide open Dockery, who hits the three and then is run into by a moronic NC State player, causing the foul.
2) Dockery almost air balls the FT, it bounces right back to him, and he passes the ball to Lee Melchionni, who hits a wide open three.
Now most people, myself included, would say that Dockery and Melchionni had an equal amount to do with this 6-0 run as the other person. Melchionni finds an open Dockery. Dockery finds an open Melchionni. The only difference is that Dockery was fouled and that Dockery badly missed a FT.
But reading through that ESPN recap, you would think that Dockery stole the ball himself, nailed a three while a defender was hanging on his arm, intentionally missed a FT, saved a woman from a burning building, handed the ball to Melchionni, and then helped him shoot his three pointer.
Look at his line. Its almost identical to Lee's, except Lee has a few more points and Dockery has a few more assists. Defense? I recall Dockery guarding Bennerman, who was 5-7 for 12 points. Bennerman averages 12 points a game. Lee guarded Evitmov, who had 2 points. Evitmov averages 11.
I've been called a Dockery hater. Its not that I hate Dockery, but I hate how anything he does is instantly gold. And I think Melchionni is a good foil for Dockery, as he does similar things to Dock, but gets nowhere near the same amount of credit. I guess I would like objective sports reporting - far too often, sports writers and commentators decide in advance what they want the story to be, and then mold the facts to their story. TMQ this week has a few words on the Pittsburgh defense "blitzing" their way to victory over the Colts. Michael Lewis has written how baseball commentators view small ball as the way to victory in the playoffs, ignoring the home runs that usually are the game deciding plays. In a similar vein, these college basketball writers and commentators know in advance what they want the storyline to be for any Duke game - Redick can play in the NBA, Shelden has improved his offensive game, and anything Dockery does is the most important play in the game. Just because the writer or commentator says it, doesn't make it true.
Regular blogging schedule to resume this Monday.
First, read the ESPN recap for the game.
It of course, talks about how great Sean Dockery is. And the "proof" is in the sequence of plays.
1) Lee Melchionni tracks down a loose ball, drives, kicks it to a wide open Dockery, who hits the three and then is run into by a moronic NC State player, causing the foul.
2) Dockery almost air balls the FT, it bounces right back to him, and he passes the ball to Lee Melchionni, who hits a wide open three.
Now most people, myself included, would say that Dockery and Melchionni had an equal amount to do with this 6-0 run as the other person. Melchionni finds an open Dockery. Dockery finds an open Melchionni. The only difference is that Dockery was fouled and that Dockery badly missed a FT.
But reading through that ESPN recap, you would think that Dockery stole the ball himself, nailed a three while a defender was hanging on his arm, intentionally missed a FT, saved a woman from a burning building, handed the ball to Melchionni, and then helped him shoot his three pointer.
Look at his line. Its almost identical to Lee's, except Lee has a few more points and Dockery has a few more assists. Defense? I recall Dockery guarding Bennerman, who was 5-7 for 12 points. Bennerman averages 12 points a game. Lee guarded Evitmov, who had 2 points. Evitmov averages 11.
I've been called a Dockery hater. Its not that I hate Dockery, but I hate how anything he does is instantly gold. And I think Melchionni is a good foil for Dockery, as he does similar things to Dock, but gets nowhere near the same amount of credit. I guess I would like objective sports reporting - far too often, sports writers and commentators decide in advance what they want the story to be, and then mold the facts to their story. TMQ this week has a few words on the Pittsburgh defense "blitzing" their way to victory over the Colts. Michael Lewis has written how baseball commentators view small ball as the way to victory in the playoffs, ignoring the home runs that usually are the game deciding plays. In a similar vein, these college basketball writers and commentators know in advance what they want the storyline to be for any Duke game - Redick can play in the NBA, Shelden has improved his offensive game, and anything Dockery does is the most important play in the game. Just because the writer or commentator says it, doesn't make it true.
Regular blogging schedule to resume this Monday.
Friday, January 13, 2006
The following applies to girls. If you are a guy, well you may want to read this too.
The situation is as follows. You (a girl) and a girlfriend of yours wish to meet for dinner. You both have boyfriends, and they are coming along for dinner, but the boyfriends do not know each other.
When you are about to sit down for dinner, it is obvious that the two girls should not sit on the same side of the table. However, it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that the two girls sit diagonal from each other. A diagram may help, henceforth referred to as setup 1.
Kim / Evan
Table
BF / Kim's GF
Why is this setup necessary? Well lets consider the other possible setup, which will henceforth be referred to has setup 2.
Kim / Evan
Table
Kim's GF / BF
It is assumed that Kim and Kim's GF will be doing 90 percent of the talking, with 10 percent of the talking done by the boyfriends. Of that 10 percent talking by the boyfriends, 9 percent of it is done in the course of the conversation between the girls, while 1 percent of it actually between the boyfriends. The exact percentages may vary, but the general proportions are clear: The girls are doing most of the talking, and it is to each other.
In setup 2, the girls will lean over the table to talk to each other, while the boyfriends have four options.
1) Awkwardly stare at each other
2) Attempt to have an awkward conversation with each other
3) Attempt to enter the conversation, but this forces the GF to look at both the BF and the other GF, which is very difficult given the angles
4) Find a TV to look at
The reason that these are the only options is because the boyfriends have no "cover" in the dinner. They are actually forced to either engage or avoid the other guy, and this is problematic. Now compare to setup 1, where the girlfriends are diagonal from each other.
In this setup, there is "cover" for each boyfriend. Both girls are leaning towards the center in order to conversate. Neither guy is forced to talk to the other guy; in fact, it would be very difficult for them to do so. Both guys can freely enter or leave the conversation as they are needed, and all the GF must do is move her eyes slightly to engage her own BF. This is the optimal setup, even though there is slightly more distance between the GFs.
A similar situation occurs when there is a square table. In this instance, the girls must sit across from each other, for similar reasons to the ones stated above.
The timing of the seating is important. Once a couple has made the first move and sat down, the other couple must sit accordingly, or the entire dinner could be awkward for at least two of the participants. Quick, and correct decisions must be made. If you fear that the opposing couple will not sit correctly, allow them to make the first move towards sitting. Practice all the conceivable situations before you get to dinner, and your dinner will be that much more enjoyable.
The situation is as follows. You (a girl) and a girlfriend of yours wish to meet for dinner. You both have boyfriends, and they are coming along for dinner, but the boyfriends do not know each other.
When you are about to sit down for dinner, it is obvious that the two girls should not sit on the same side of the table. However, it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that the two girls sit diagonal from each other. A diagram may help, henceforth referred to as setup 1.
Kim / Evan
Table
BF / Kim's GF
Why is this setup necessary? Well lets consider the other possible setup, which will henceforth be referred to has setup 2.
Kim / Evan
Table
Kim's GF / BF
It is assumed that Kim and Kim's GF will be doing 90 percent of the talking, with 10 percent of the talking done by the boyfriends. Of that 10 percent talking by the boyfriends, 9 percent of it is done in the course of the conversation between the girls, while 1 percent of it actually between the boyfriends. The exact percentages may vary, but the general proportions are clear: The girls are doing most of the talking, and it is to each other.
In setup 2, the girls will lean over the table to talk to each other, while the boyfriends have four options.
1) Awkwardly stare at each other
2) Attempt to have an awkward conversation with each other
3) Attempt to enter the conversation, but this forces the GF to look at both the BF and the other GF, which is very difficult given the angles
4) Find a TV to look at
The reason that these are the only options is because the boyfriends have no "cover" in the dinner. They are actually forced to either engage or avoid the other guy, and this is problematic. Now compare to setup 1, where the girlfriends are diagonal from each other.
In this setup, there is "cover" for each boyfriend. Both girls are leaning towards the center in order to conversate. Neither guy is forced to talk to the other guy; in fact, it would be very difficult for them to do so. Both guys can freely enter or leave the conversation as they are needed, and all the GF must do is move her eyes slightly to engage her own BF. This is the optimal setup, even though there is slightly more distance between the GFs.
A similar situation occurs when there is a square table. In this instance, the girls must sit across from each other, for similar reasons to the ones stated above.
The timing of the seating is important. Once a couple has made the first move and sat down, the other couple must sit accordingly, or the entire dinner could be awkward for at least two of the participants. Quick, and correct decisions must be made. If you fear that the opposing couple will not sit correctly, allow them to make the first move towards sitting. Practice all the conceivable situations before you get to dinner, and your dinner will be that much more enjoyable.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
So I was doing my final registration for my classes for my next semester of law school, and I saw a link that let me check my grades. I figured I'd get some email or something letting me know when grades come in. But I wanted to look anyway just for the hell of it, and lo and behold, one of my grades was in. And it was for my LAST final, Civil Procedure.
Never has mediocrity felt so good.
But now I'm going to have a heart attack every time I check for future grades. I just need one A- to make me gold, because an A minus (3.7) more than counteracts a straight B (3.0). Come on A minuses!
Never has mediocrity felt so good.
But now I'm going to have a heart attack every time I check for future grades. I just need one A- to make me gold, because an A minus (3.7) more than counteracts a straight B (3.0). Come on A minuses!
Monday, January 09, 2006
I asked for, and received a pair of suspenders for Christmas. Why did I ask for suspenders?
I have to admit, one of the motivations is the prospect of wearing them in a courtroom one day, snapping them with both hands while proclaiming, "Now I'm no big city lawyer..."
Plus they're a pretty cool way to hold up your pants.
I have to admit, one of the motivations is the prospect of wearing them in a courtroom one day, snapping them with both hands while proclaiming, "Now I'm no big city lawyer..."
Plus they're a pretty cool way to hold up your pants.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Me, Fishman, Al, Ben, and Gibbs are in the B Bar at the Borgata last night. We've all had quite a few drinks and lost a fair amount of money. But... the plan to make a fool out of Ben has been in the works, and it is about to unfold.
Evan (whispering to Ben): Yo, Kim has suggested that if we get married, we should have a joint bachelor/bachelorette party. What do you think?
Ben (excited): Thats what Kate said to me!
Evan: Yeah, I heard like a lot of people are doing it that way these days.
Ben (even more excited): Yeah! But I got railed on so badly from everyone! I can't believe this!
Al: What are you guys talking about over there?
Ben: Nothing, nothing.
Al: No, come on, what are you guys talking about over there?
Ben (smug): Well, remember when I brought up the idea of a joint bachelor/bachelorette party that you bitched at me so badly for! Well Evan is thinking about doing the same thing!!
Evan: Kim never suggested that awful awful idea you moron!
Ben (realizing he's been trapped): Wh... what?
Evan: You idiot! Its such a stupid idea! How can you even bring this up in the first place! Are you even a man?
Evan, Fishman, Al, Gibbs: Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Evan (whispering to Ben): Yo, Kim has suggested that if we get married, we should have a joint bachelor/bachelorette party. What do you think?
Ben (excited): Thats what Kate said to me!
Evan: Yeah, I heard like a lot of people are doing it that way these days.
Ben (even more excited): Yeah! But I got railed on so badly from everyone! I can't believe this!
Al: What are you guys talking about over there?
Ben: Nothing, nothing.
Al: No, come on, what are you guys talking about over there?
Ben (smug): Well, remember when I brought up the idea of a joint bachelor/bachelorette party that you bitched at me so badly for! Well Evan is thinking about doing the same thing!!
Evan: Kim never suggested that awful awful idea you moron!
Ben (realizing he's been trapped): Wh... what?
Evan: You idiot! Its such a stupid idea! How can you even bring this up in the first place! Are you even a man?
Evan, Fishman, Al, Gibbs: Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Random thoughts about the end of the USC/Texas football game tonight. Specifically, thoughts about the last minute of the game and the post game interviews.
1) The USC timeout after Texas scored and got ready to attempt a two point conversion, is without question the worst timeout I have ever seen called in my life. For those of you who missed it, here is the situation. Texas is down 5 points, and they score a TD with 19 seconds left. Of course they go are going to go for a two point conversion. Inexplicably, when Texas lines up for the two point conversion, USC is confused and calls a timeout. THEIR LAST TIMEOUT!!
With 19 seconds left, it is not impossible to get a FG after a kickoff, especially in college where first downs stop the clock until the ball is placed down by the referees. However, tying the game is of course very unlikely. Having no timeouts makes it near impossible. On the final play of the game, USC could not possibly go down the middle of the field because they did not have the timeout that they idiotically called for no reason. The game should have been tied and sent into OT.
I cannot believe the announcers did not harp on this more.
2) I didn't hear the entire Carroll walking off the field interview, but I did see him sort of shrug about the timeout and say that it didn't work out as well as he wanted. Yeah, because in that dire 19 seconds down situation, you would surely spend a timeout to be down 1 point instead of 3. And of course, when Texas called the most obvious play that even I knew they would call (Vince Young QB keeper), USC was not prepared for it. Good timeout Pete.
3) Matt Leinart's sideline post-game interview with whoever that girl was classic. First, he accidentally said that they (USC) won. Then, the girl said something like, "Well win or lose, great career Vince."
Awesome.
1) The USC timeout after Texas scored and got ready to attempt a two point conversion, is without question the worst timeout I have ever seen called in my life. For those of you who missed it, here is the situation. Texas is down 5 points, and they score a TD with 19 seconds left. Of course they go are going to go for a two point conversion. Inexplicably, when Texas lines up for the two point conversion, USC is confused and calls a timeout. THEIR LAST TIMEOUT!!
With 19 seconds left, it is not impossible to get a FG after a kickoff, especially in college where first downs stop the clock until the ball is placed down by the referees. However, tying the game is of course very unlikely. Having no timeouts makes it near impossible. On the final play of the game, USC could not possibly go down the middle of the field because they did not have the timeout that they idiotically called for no reason. The game should have been tied and sent into OT.
I cannot believe the announcers did not harp on this more.
2) I didn't hear the entire Carroll walking off the field interview, but I did see him sort of shrug about the timeout and say that it didn't work out as well as he wanted. Yeah, because in that dire 19 seconds down situation, you would surely spend a timeout to be down 1 point instead of 3. And of course, when Texas called the most obvious play that even I knew they would call (Vince Young QB keeper), USC was not prepared for it. Good timeout Pete.
3) Matt Leinart's sideline post-game interview with whoever that girl was classic. First, he accidentally said that they (USC) won. Then, the girl said something like, "Well win or lose, great career Vince."
Awesome.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)