giovedì 11 dicembre 2008

Sex in the City

When you are about having sex, you shall protect your body and you MUST protect your spirit.
In my view, the physical act in itself may not particularly incisive, as it contains something phisiological which reduces it to a tender, endearing, sef-caring activity. I once experienced that, and the act passed through my mind innocently and rapidly. I heard someone saying that a man in its twenties shall have sex with the woman he dates, because it is somehow "natural".
However, sex acquires a superior human meaning when human brain is involved.
A friend of mine, a chemist, insists on saying that the particular conformation of female brain makes women less emotionally resilient and this is why they e.g. suffer more from breakups.
Well, I think this is bullshit. But I know what obsession is. I have lived my life having my boyfriends as my best friends ever, because the compassion and solidarity could pass through the words and through the hands at the same time. Therefore, I have always been uncapable to break ties with a male former partner.
While the counterparty cools down, I cannot disconnect at once the brainly part with the physical part, therefore I tend to consider it physically and socially at the same time, so that its desirability becomes outstanding.
Here sex becomes potentially very harmful.
The reason of that is that while I continue to conceive sex with the counterparty as a both physical and social encounter, the counterparty has regressed to the physiological motivation for sex. Therefore the illusion of finding each other again last just as the physical act lasts, but it panfully ruins after it is over.
Then, I begin to aperceive the discrepancy of views between the two of us and I feel humiliated and depressed. But I do not admit it is my fault, not because I "fell in temptation", but because I did not pose my mind to the fact that there was a misconception from the beginning of the act, because we considered it in a different way.
So what? You would ask.
Well, I took almost 3 years to realize that, as easy as it might seem, and I will be soon in a situation when I will risk to "repeat" the experiment. I will check if I learned something from experience...

mercoledì 3 dicembre 2008

Economics - basic

Intellectual vexation at work

I have seen today a so-called academic environment where sharpness intelligence and personality do not receive any kind of incentives in terms of academic reward (read MARK). With the terms above, I mean participation to the problem, interest, finding oneself inside the issue, putting some brain in speaking about it and some good human heart.It is useless to enter the merit of the intercourse i had there. But my emotional reaction to that attains its absolute worth because it deals with intellectual frustration.The student environment is poor at the beginning of the year, and this because the subject, The field is a kind of social science, is usually not the one that the most endowed individual choose: many go there because they wish to "have a degree" (with which advantages, besides fertility decline?).These perspective students, fortunately, have not so high survival instinct to think that they are anyway wonderful, excellent and bright (vs. Angloamericans. I bet this concurs in continental europeans causing some problems to themselves). So they are usually not very motivated: this is the worst and most realistic pictures that a teacher finds before his eyes. So, what shall a teacher do before some sprouts of enthusiasm?... well ... the very paradoxical thing is that in practice involvement is not recognized - not detected, not rewarded. They do not care if your eyes are bright for the subject: they punish you for "imperfections",they punish you for not being conformist to their way of thinking, to their political embedness, and in the worst cases they assert their superiority by arbitrariness - some sociological stuff is easily made illogic and when you abandon plain reasonment or common sense without entering philosophy or superior reasonment, this means you are in the dark. And when you are in the dark, the worst things happen: uncontrolled mass movements, loss of language, loss of right, (someone would say: "atomization").Universities are supposed to be there to combat these phaenomena and to preserve the possibility of infusion of rationality in modern society.If they become incubators of the contrary, then they are pervert by definition.The consequence of that is twofold: first of all, students come to believe that culture is that - universioty is that - a professor is that. This is a direct consequence of the principle of survival, and of the fact that our memory and general sense of things tends to readjust depending on our practical experience and limited realm of action. So they would not understand what closing a universioty means, and they do not have an idea of what studying and knowledge is. This is much worst of the simple farmers, because at least he is blank about such arguments - instead, these poor people substituted the content of the notion of knowledge with what they experienced as such.the second consequence is more socially relevant, and very sad and is a sort of poverty trap. The student who borns poor, at the dawn of university, is encouraged to stay poor. His/her poor ideas of himself/herself and of studies are corroborated empirically. ARGH! So the intellect of the student is working against his interest in this way. Moreover, the more humble possibilities you have (if you just "want a degree" you are probably not socially advantaged, yr parents are not professors or politicians, your income might not be exceptionally high), the less your eventual "original" and free beginning of passion and superiority is cultivated. Poor people are maintained in captivity, and upward honest communication becomes difficult.

How to sell a concert ticket

Imagine you are gifted with three tickets for a good-quality classical music concert taking place the next day. You take one for yourself, you have no family, no boyfriend, none you shall assume would be surely pleased to go. You start looking for people not to throw away the tickets. Hours passes.Then you try modern methods and use mailing lists. Miracle. Twenty people manifest their onterest for those tickets. You decide that the best way for candidates to selecte themelves is to set a price for the tickets, so that also your magnanimous action can generate a little income. You also know that the economic recipe for an excess in deman is highten the price. How do you set the price? If you have studied humanities and/or you do not really know trivial human nature you will be do like I did - you imagine how much you yourself would happily pay, in order to have that ticket. Then you add a markup from zero to nEuro depending on the risk of not being able to sell that you want to take upon yourself (probably then the less the time left, the lower the markup) and you annouce that price.That's a Mistake!If you are an economist or a hero of common sense (which is basically the same), you have in mind the notion of "reserve price", i.e. you know that there is a certain price level which makes the individual perceive that the benefir coming from that amount of money and the benefit coming from the concert are exactly the same. The "right price" is therefore not the price that YOU individually think is fair, plus a markup, but a price minimally lower than the reserve price of the potential BUYER of the ticket.This may sound pretty simple, however it is surprising that the right price for you as a seller is not equal to the right price for you as if you were a buyer - exactly because you are not the buyer. The right price for you as a seller is the price which permits you to make as much profit as possible just before the counterparty abandons you.In the example here given, you have to set that price which leaves just one buyer still willing to accept the deal.How do you guess the reserve price of the ticket?Well, we exclude that you can "feel" it or have an idea of it after many empirical experiences. Two methods are feasible. The first is the Diych auction: you write to everybody offering to sell at a quite high price. Then you rewrite lowering the price a bit till one of the competitors accept. Then you sell. This is the most direct method to make the buyers reveal the seller what their reserve price is. It involves some externalities though: your reputation. You reveal your game very soon, and can pass (mistakenly) for a not generous person. On the other hand, I think it is more difficult for participant to collude in a Ditch auction than in a normal auction, but this might not be theoretically true.The second method is a normal auction, where you set a minimum price and you say: well, now the one who offers more win. Some problem with timing are possible, because maybe the best offere is away from the pc (but this also stand in the Dutchm even if the path of the Dutch is more predictable than a normal auction). This is a bit more inefficient, not from a moral or image-point of view, but because you cannot arrive to extract the reserve price, if the participant with the higher reserve price is an outlier.That's it. But Whatever method you choose, do not do like the humanist. This does not mean that you are generous, this just means that you are ignorant.
Etterbeek, Brussels, 14 November 2008