A vexing vortex

This test, passed to me by The Sage Scribe, is very brief with only one question. But it's a very important one, especially considering the news of the past month. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please read slowly and give due consideration to each line.

THE SITUATION:

You are in Ottawa. There is chaos all around you caused by a huge mid-December storm with severe flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions. You are a photo-journalist working for a major Canadian newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot career-making photos.

There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing into the water of the Ottawa River. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury.

THE TEST:

Suddenly, you see four men in the water. They are fighting for their lives, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer ... Somehow, the men look familiar ...

You suddenly realize who they are ... It's Stephen Harper, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe!

You notice that the raging waters are about to take them under forever. You have two options: You can save lives or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, documenting the death of the country's most powerful men at possibly one of Canada's most important historical moments!

THE QUESTION:

Here's the question, and please give an honest answer ...

Would you select high contrast colour film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white?

Tank Top Tuesday Poll

A couple of weeks ago, Skylark suggested that I conduct a poll between oatmeal and tank tops. Being that I am a great fan of his blog, I will oblige him...

Oatmeal

Tank Top

Do you prefer oatmeal or tank tops?
	Oatmeal
	Tank tops
Free polls from Pollhost.com

RNDP 19: Dating Schema and Spectacular Efforts

In my quest for the RNDP, I not only googled the search phrase "dating paradigm", I also googled "dating schema".

If you are unfamiliar with the academic term "schema", you are in luck because the first hit for "dating schema" is an article titled "Schema Theory (drawn from D’Andrade 1995)" that expains the term and includes an excerpt on dating to help explain it.

Dorothy Holland and Debra Skinner (1987) studied the US undergraduate dating schema. They describe the "taken-for-granted world of male/female relations" from the perspective of a female undergraduate as follows:

"… a male earns the admiration and affection of a female by treating her well. Intimacy is a result of this process. The female allows herself to become emotionally closer, perhaps as a friend, perhaps as a lover, perhaps as a fiancee, to those attractive males who make a sufficient effort to win her affection. Besides closeness and intimacy, the process of forming a relationship also has to do with prestige. When a male is attracted to a female and tries to earn her affection by good treatment, her attractiveness is validated and she gains prestige in her social group. For his part, the male gains prestige among his peers when he receives admiration and affection from and gains intimacy with females.

Normally, prestigious males are attracted to and establish close relations with prestigious females, and vice versa. Sometimes, however, a male can succeed in winning the affection of a female whose prestige is higher than his own. However, the more attractive she is, the more he must compensate for his lack of prestige by spectacular efforts to treat her well. Correspondingly, females sometimes do form close relationships with males who have higher prestige than they do. When the male is more attractive or has higher prestige than the female, she often must compensate by giving her affection to him without his doing anything to earn it." (1987:101-102)

Within this simplified and idealized world, one set of problematic males is termed jerks, nerds, turkeys, and asses. These are men who are undesirable and don’t know it. They are unattractive (physically or otherwise) and don’t or can’t make up for it with higher cost gifts and other exchange items. Furthermore, they are too dumb to "take a hint," and therefore have to be rejected in such direct ways that the women have to be repeatedly unpleasant, which is stressful for the women. To understand what one of these college women means when she calls a man a jerk we need to understand the (women’s) dating schema.

Experts

I have just spent several hours watching videos from Expert Village. If you are wanting to blow a couple of hours this evening, go ahead --- enjoy!!!
I have to admit, this "expert" freaked me out a bit.

Why are airports so boring?

IO's note: This was written Thursday but I had trouble posting it because I was, er, stuck in an airport.

I am stuck in an airport. That's a bad thing. Airports are like the bland yet evil automatons that populate sci-fi movies. Veritable zombies of the travel world. They are pretty much all alike: devoid of personality, soulless and vaguely annoying. (An exception is the colourful Morun airport in northern Mongolia, which features a billiard table, sandstorms and squat toilets.)

But it doesn't have to be so. Here are five ways to improve airports:

1. More comfortable seats. What is it with these bench-like things with stubby armrests and nowhere to put your beverage?

2. Cheaper prices. The airport is like some former Soviet republic where inflation is always running at 483 per cent.

3. An Internet cafe. What better place for one?

4. A craft co-op. Why not a spot where the vibrant, cool art and handmade goods produced in our city can be displayed and sold?

5. A giant aquarium. Travelling can be stressful. Watching seahorses cavort and tropical fish glide through the water is a good way to relax. They are the smart ones, choosing to swim rather than fly.