Freakonomics » The True Story of the Gender Pay Gap: A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast: "The big question of the gender pay gap has to be broken down into a set of smaller questions. And then you have to find the data to answer them. When someone like Claudia Goldin does that, it’s pretty obvious that the statistic cited by everyone from Sarah Silverman to President Obama isn’t quite right. Because women aren’t getting paid twenty-some percent less than men for doing the same work. They are, however, often doing different work, or work that affords more flexibility — which tends to pay less.
Now, it may be that if you put a dollar value on the flexibility, it could offset a lot of the actual, salary dollars. In any case, there would seem to be kinda-sorta good news here, which is that discrimination doesn’t seem to be the main culprit in the gender pay gap. Or at least it’s hard to find a smoking gun...
It may be a natural impulse, when you hear that women earn less than men, to find someone to blame. One obvious villain is: men, presumably for being discriminatory. But as Claudia Goldin told us, there isn’t much evidence to support the discrimination argument."
The Fake “Because” | Scott Adams Blog: "In the book Influence, by Cialdini, we learn that any sentence that contains the word “because” will influence people no matter what follows that word.
Hypnotists already knew that.
That’s the sort of rule you don’t believe until you see it in action. Here’s an example:
“Don’t vote for Ted Cruz because he’s Canadian.”
You can also remove the word “because” and simply imply it.
“If you vote for Ted Cruz, he might end up tangled in lawsuits regarding his Canadian birth.”
Keep in mind that in the context of a close political race, you only have to influence 10% of the people to win. And 10% of the public will believe anything. You just need to give them a “because.” Trump cleverly did that with the Canadian gambit.
But that wasn’t the end of Trump’s technique. It goes a lot deeper.
Trump framed Cruz’ Canadian birth as a “risk” and not a fact. That’s a high-ground maneuver, and in my experience that move wins every time. You can argue in the weeds about presidential eligibility, or you can go to the high ground and acknowledge that the birther question will dog Cruz like it dogged Obama. The risk part sounds true to everyone. And humans are wired to see the avoidance of risk as more compelling than running toward something good. "
No, no drama, no, no, no, no drama. People can change, but that's not how the smart money bets.
Two Rules of Human Nature (Why You Must Move On): "Rule 1. People are who they are.
Rule 2. People will do what they do.
Add in for the rest of their lives.
Your family won’t change. If your parents are negative and toxic, they will always be negative and toxic...
The rules of being human are not a moral judgment.
Often we let people stick around in our lives longer than they should because “they aren’t bad people,” or they “mean well.”
Your life will be fundamentally better when you stop turning everything into a morality play.
I stopped questioning whether some behavior came from a “bad place” or a “good place.” I look only at outcomes.
My life satisfaction improved by at least 25% when motives became irrelevant.
These rules are important to remember because we are constantly changing and growing.
If you’re committed to excellence, you’re going to move on from a lot of people in your life. They’ll fight hard to keep you in their lives. They’ll beg, plead, and even create drama. They’ll email asking for advice.
But they won’t change, and you’re wasting your time expecting them to."