interiors

I sometimes use tools to analyze my websites, two non-technical tools in particular are TypeAnalyzer and GenderAnalyzer .  TypeAnalyzer returns the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) classification, while GenderAnalyzer returns the gender.  The more interesting of the two is the MBTI classification; I am not surprised that my written presence is easily discerned as male.  From what I understand, most persons' FaceBook posts are easily classified . My usual, as in almost always, MBTI classification is INTJ, so I found it interesting when my social sites, Twitter and FaceBook, showed me to be ISTJ.  A little surprised, I tried a few other of my sites, LinkedIn and Google+, which both were classified as INTJ.  From there, I just kept going: ISTJ:   Twitter ,  FaceBook INTJ: Google+ , LinkedIn , Algorithms INTP: Interiors , Foxes and Hedgehogs ESFJ: LastFM ISFP: GoodReads ESTJ: Amazon (my reviews) ESTP: LifeHacker Although it is conceivable t...

A friend got a kick out of this, so I will share...: Oli: Wowsa, do you know you have 4 different email addresses James?! Me: Apologies for the proliferation of accounts, but only four? For GMail I have three, one primary, one for managing my mother's affairs - she is in long-term care - and one that I just created fror future use as self-promotion. For Outlook/Hotmail and for Yahoo, I have two each, although one Yahoo account comes with domain ownership. Then there is another domain I own, and that comes with its own address. Lastly, there are My mac accounts. I actually have three, one of which is our married account, but Apple's domain changes triple that; the domains are mac.com, me.com, and icloud.com, meaning 9 Mac accounts.

A comment I posted in Krugman's post, Delusions of Reason : Similarly, Republicans often project their flaws onto Democrats: Obama is a Nazi: It is almost insanely obvious who the real fascists are. Oh right, he wants to steal their money... Democratic policies will destroy the economy: A slew of recent data-oriented publications show the opposite, although one claims that it does not matter. Oddly, no publication claimed Republicans are better for the economy or for the stock market. Liberal policies will destroy the country: Studies typically show an inverse correlation between religiosity and inequality with social welfare. Democrats will take away our freedom: The freedom of money is such an import human right, along with freedom for guns and SUV's, but not the freedom from want, to have a one's health, etc. 

Although I decry Romney's sentiment, the truth is that we are all dependent on government. Government is good for people. The modern capitalist-democratic state would be a failure if not for the state preventing or correcting its abuses, although nowadays the government is often an abettor of corruption. Certainly Wall Street could not have survived without the government, nor would there be much health care, since no one would have insurance, nor could people afford health care, nor would there be many 'cures' since that would have required research, which the government typically funds. Nix the educational system and what do you have? The list becomes even longer when you start considering in investments in infrastructure - anyone remember roads, bridges, and the internet? - and on regulation that everything relies.

Regarding a post from David Brooks : Economic growth is treated as an unquestioned good, when in fact, it has almost no correlation with human welfare in DEVELOPED countries. It is different for the DEVELOPING world, since in those growth has a very high degree of interplay with human welfare. Growth basically goes to support the portfolios of the wealthy, correlates with an increase in hours worked on the average, and has very little benefit to most people in the US.

Regarding David Brook's column Why Men Fail : Although I have been reading these arguments for a long time, and I am not interested in questioning them, one item irked me. It is that women who leave financial firms do better than men. I have read studies of this issue, and it partially stems from the fact that women rely on external networks, while men tend to have strong internal networks. As an aside, economic inequality has been increasing for as long as men have been becoming social/economic laggards, and like many social issues, I wonder how much is attributable to something larger than men themselves. As an example, people cite obesity causes and cures, without realizing that obesity correlates with inequality at about .7, a very large relationship. This correlation points to potential causes that are so large and beyond the control of individuals. It is possible that growing inequality more heavily impacts men, regardless of the causes attributed to individuals. Does...

In response to an article on the growth of China and India regarding education : The debate is often framed as a business choice; it is a quality of life and equality choice.  Many of the choices for a better America are obvious, but the people making the decisions are often the same people that benefit from the 'broken' system: Reduce inequality (taxation, change laws that favor the powerful and wealthy) Increase education, making it independent of financing Provide nationalized healthcare Rein in the healthcare industry Rein in corporate power over government and politics Reducing inequality goes a long way. Often, suggested solutions for problems are merely band-aids, since the underlying problem is often a matter of resources. Lower inequality means: Better health, reduced obesity Less crime, less violence Better educational outcomes Better economic performance for all, not just a few Correlation is not causation, but working toward a better life for...