![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Edward Cat is such a tease. Christine and i went to the pool area last night to collect him for the evening. He ducked between the shrubs and the pool-heater house. We sat on the lounges; he sauntered between us. We stood up; he sauntered off into shrubs. We took point around the shrub; he scooted between us towards home. We headed after him; he went under benches. Finally, i led Christine in, no small feat there, itself! I waited five minutes, opened the front door, and Edward sauntered in. "Where's dinner?"
Harumph.
He's such a sweet cat.
--==∞==--
I finally did my Gate 8, a bit of virtual paperwork that needed to be done in May. I had intended to do More Stuff than the bare minimum, but at this point the bare minimum is all i did. I don't think we'll have a problem because of that, and it's now time to work on the next quarter's gate 8. I told myself i could buy a specific comic book as a reward, but i suppose the local comic book store is closed today.
--==∞==--
So i'm starting the welbutrin and tapering off on the prozac by taking one every other day (as i have stupid capsules i can't cut in half). I'm hoping for "me" to come back: the more i reflect on it, the more i fell like i have been calmed beyond my own inner calm.
--==∞==--
I'm listening to Nudge now as my drive time distraction. They propose a "Libertarian paternalism" where "choice architects" are aware of their power and choose to arrange choices so that people are more likely to choose the generally best choice, but are still free to choose something else if that is specifically the best for them. I find the framing annoying, and would love a book that just addressed the power of the choice architects, but they apparently need to convince partisan policy makers that people (a) don't always make the immediate best choice and (b) people still need choice! Now that i think of it, they don't try to convince anyone of b: they take b as an obvious Truth. It's the power of "choice architects" in policy making that they are extolling, while making the point that most people don't act like rational agents most of the time.
Apparently, the average human doesn't like to loose: sticks (which we choose ourselves?) are more effective than carrots. So, i may have offered the carrot of a new book out to myself for doing the gate 8, but i can admit it is the loss of face of not having it done and being called out on the fact that motivated me -- finally -- to complete it. The authors offer anecdotes of economist professors using loss of money to motivate them to loose weight, keep weight off, and finish their dissertations. In each case the authors point out the abstract gains the faculty would have made if they actually followed through with their goals, but the authors argue that the chosen penalties helped strengthen the motivation. (See http://www.stickk.com/about.php)
Hrm.
Harumph.
He's such a sweet cat.
--==∞==--
I finally did my Gate 8, a bit of virtual paperwork that needed to be done in May. I had intended to do More Stuff than the bare minimum, but at this point the bare minimum is all i did. I don't think we'll have a problem because of that, and it's now time to work on the next quarter's gate 8. I told myself i could buy a specific comic book as a reward, but i suppose the local comic book store is closed today.
--==∞==--
So i'm starting the welbutrin and tapering off on the prozac by taking one every other day (as i have stupid capsules i can't cut in half). I'm hoping for "me" to come back: the more i reflect on it, the more i fell like i have been calmed beyond my own inner calm.
--==∞==--
I'm listening to Nudge now as my drive time distraction. They propose a "Libertarian paternalism" where "choice architects" are aware of their power and choose to arrange choices so that people are more likely to choose the generally best choice, but are still free to choose something else if that is specifically the best for them. I find the framing annoying, and would love a book that just addressed the power of the choice architects, but they apparently need to convince partisan policy makers that people (a) don't always make the immediate best choice and (b) people still need choice! Now that i think of it, they don't try to convince anyone of b: they take b as an obvious Truth. It's the power of "choice architects" in policy making that they are extolling, while making the point that most people don't act like rational agents most of the time.
Apparently, the average human doesn't like to loose: sticks (which we choose ourselves?) are more effective than carrots. So, i may have offered the carrot of a new book out to myself for doing the gate 8, but i can admit it is the loss of face of not having it done and being called out on the fact that motivated me -- finally -- to complete it. The authors offer anecdotes of economist professors using loss of money to motivate them to loose weight, keep weight off, and finish their dissertations. In each case the authors point out the abstract gains the faculty would have made if they actually followed through with their goals, but the authors argue that the chosen penalties helped strengthen the motivation. (See http://www.stickk.com/about.php)
Hrm.
Tags:
no subject
no subject