I was just sitting here reading some abstracts and waiting for Sandroni to call me back when I found a paper that discredits prospect theory based on empirical and introspective evidence. I realized that for a paper to propose an alternative reference dependent model to prospect theory, then the field must have advanced far enough that it is no longer necessary to justify the use of a reference point. For those of you non-behavioral economists out there, the alternative hypothesis states that if the field did not accept reference points as standard then you would have to support prospect theory or else no one would listen to you.

So then I started thinking about how much trouble I'm having convincing professors that I have a new and interesting idea. I can imagine PB saying to me, "Well, if you think that that's a compelling argument, then I say to you why not just use prospect theory." Whenever he says something like this to me, I usually have a counter argument prepared (he's very predictable), but PB refuses to be wrong. Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that I counter spectacularly, PB's reply: Now tell me why classical theory isn't good enough, I just define the preferences so that that's the solution. Then, I provide a compelling argument. PB: "well, now we're back to prospect theory"

...And Jack thought "he'll kill me if I do, he'll kill me if I don't. There's only one way to get out of this..."

So it occurred to me just now that professors who don't let students win the argument ought to be pretty insecure in their own competence. After all, we're just students. It's easy to win an argument against a student. By design, the professor is smarter, better read and better prepared. He's (She's, in my case with undergrads) spent thousands of times more hours thinking about similar problems and so he's quicker to provide a counter argument that seems sound even if its full of holes -- because he knows that you don't know where the holes are.

How pathetic is it that these professors in their position of secure superiority can't just be honest.

Historically, economics has focused on the parsimonious notions of utility and expected utility. The axiomatizations of these notions are intuitive on a normative level. Utility is axiomatized in the following way. If an individual is able to completely rank the available alternatives so that they may be written in a list from first best to last, then an individual can be modeled has having a utility function which can be maximized to produce the best outcome for that individual. Expected utility, used when an individual faces some uncertainty about the outcome of his or her actions, adds to this characterization what is known as the independence axiom. When choosing between two alternatives which are uncertain, an individual should only compare the differences in the alternatives. For example, if two lottery tickets give a 50% chance to win a cuddly toy, but one ticket gives 50% chance to win a trip to Rome while the other ticket gives a 50% chance to win a trip to Disney World, the two tickets should be compared on the basis of whether Rome is preferable to Disney World. The cuddly toy should not be factored in to the decision.

In more recent research, the persistence of psychologists has moved economists to attempt to model the decisions of people more accurately. The theories that economists have been using are systematically violated such as in the following example of Machina's Mom: A mother of two children has a single lollipop. She loves her children equally, but does not want to give the lollipop to one child, neglecting the other. In a decision of great rationality, she tells her children that she will flip a coin to decide. It is not hard to see that this decision violates the independence axiom of choice and economists have tried to model this choice as being rational according to several different criteria, to varying success.

There are other exceptions. For example, in marketing, it is noted that the order in which options are presented will affect which one is chosen. Firms often put the most profitable selection immediately after a very undesirable selection so that the added contrast will increase the likelihood that it gets chosen. This, I claim, is outside of the realm of what economics should aim to represent. Economics should never forget that above all, it is a normative theory; certainly one should not select alternatives based on the order of their presentation. If one did this regularly, he would soon find himself very short of cash.

I propose two types of decision theory which should be explored by economic researchers. The first is the category of Machina's Mom. Here preferences are departing from the classical model, but they do so in a rational way. If one were to interview the mother and ask her why did she not simply give the lollipop to her first child she would respond that it is not fair to the second child and that the only fair way to distribute the lollipop was by a coin flip. In this case Mom cares about something which is outside of the current capabilities of economics and this should be addressed.

The second is the category of marketing. Here, if one were to explain the marketing strategy of the firm, many individuals would want to take a second look at the options and evaluate them more independently. To understand why the individual did not do this in the first place, economics should look to psychology to understand the mental constraints which prevented the individual from noticing the particular frame that the decision was presented in. Because this individual is clearly not maximizing his true preferences at the time of the decision, economics should not aim to change its notion of a preference, but rather to change its notion of a choice. Choice here should be modeled as boundedly rational in such a way that the relationship between the type of boundary and the type of choice are made clear.

It is important to address data and the protests of psychologists. But at the same time it is important to remember that economists are not psychologists and psychologists are not economists. Therefore the two worlds should have conversation, but should not be expected to agree. In that sense it is a red herring to criticize utility theories for not accounting for circumstantial anomalies of choice, but it is a handicap to ignore that they exist.

Today notes the tragic loss of my most beloved child, Alfredo Garcia. Now the three are together again under the 2nd tree in the lot.

I once referred to her as the "perfect woman." She was the kind of woman who made you feel ashamed of yourself in comparison. It's kind of trite, but she made me who I am. I could qualify that and say that she taught me to dance and through dance I feel most alive. I feel able to express myself through dance in a way that words have never quite been able to approach. I know she had hopes for me as a professional, but I chose a different path and I may never stop feeling as though I let her down. She never said anything to me, though. She even came to my wedding. The world may not know it but when she passed on it suffered a great loss. In the way she held respect and unwavering dedication to her art and her God she is singular. I truly believe that the world may never again know one so pure.

Psych PhD who got a job in marketing: "Blah blah blah... the effect of emotions on the quality of decision making"

Econ Student (me): What measure do you use for quality?

[at this moment, Psych PhD who got a job in marketing opens mouth and inserts foot]

Psych PhD who got a job in marketing: Well, you know, rationality, as in the economic sense.

Goodbye Paris. I hope very much that Miko and you can keep each other company. Steel your kisses now before 'Fredo arrives!

Beauty is something that everyone wants in some respect or other. That we all look different or adopt different styles is simply because our notion of beauty changes. I believe that everyone can be beautiful, but that sometimes because of their environment, or poor fashion decisions, that beauty doesn't show.

I am beautiful and I've never met with someone who disagrees with me. I will not say that my beauty is entirely my own doing, or that "beauty is only skin deep," but I would like to comment on how beauty manifests itself in different people.

To begin, I truly believe that Everyone can be beautiful and that it is simply a matter of understanding one's self and how that beauty is manifest. Surely some of us have an easier job than others. I happen to have the right proportions so that I don't have to think much about being beautiful. But at the same time, I understand that what enhances the beauty of one woman will not enhance my own.

Let me now be particular. Mascara. I never wear much mascara or very stark eye make-up in general. This is because I have very delicate features and a very delicate manner. The latter is the most important of the two. If I wore two milimeters of black outlining my eyes I would essentially be assuming a different personality than the one which suits me. I could not do this and at the same time flutter down the street in delicate heels or a flowing skirt. My training in ballet for so many years has endowed upon me a distinct preference for the light and airy flow of a trailing skirt as compared to the dense drama of two milimeters of eye liner. Thus I would be deceiving myself if I chose to portray myself so.

Likewise a woman with very chiseled features and a heavy step would not be beautiful in a lace skirt, unless perchance the lace was black, as was the skirt. It has nothing to do with her body, but rather understanding that what form she is endowed with carries with it certain aptitudes.

At this point I feel I must address the most certain protests of women believing that they are not born with either chiseled or delicated features, neither a strong nor a slim figure, but rather a mushy muddled mess somewhere outside this description. I will not accept the all encompassing view which designates both fat and sloppy as beautiful as well. I must say to any woman who finds herself described by these adjectives must seriously consider her priorities. However, while sloppy is unfixable, fat can most certainly be worked with. My sister, for one, is fat by any definition. But much to her praise I would like to say that she has mastered the art of being graceful in her girth. Relying largely on the use of corsets and judiciously placed (garish) accessories, she has achieved the state of beauty. My sister understands that spandex is not her friend, but that steel bone is. I venture to say that any woman displeased with herself would look on my sister and say "she has it so easy! look at her hair! and sure she's big, but unlike myself her figure is a lovely hourglass shape..." But this is not because she was endowed lucky that she has achieved this form. Indeed it is because after many years she has discovered what it is about her which is beautiful.

And so I would like to say to all women, understand what it is that makes you beautiful. Do not dispair if the world disagrees with you. After all the "world" is largely digitally altered. Once you have found where your beauty lies, make it a matter of personal pride to explore and develop that beauty. Make a statement to the world, or at least to your world, that beauty exists everywhere and need only be sought out. And above all, lay off the spandex. It never made anyone look better.

I live with a girl who has chronic self image issues. She also has a subscription to Cosmopolitan. This is a beauty magizine where each issue has advice on how to make "him" melt in your hands (mouth, other body part), how to awaken your inner wild girl, how to refurbish your outdated wardrobe into new and chic by altering your distress-washed jeans, how to fix your make-up after spending the day at the beach and on and on. These magazines are left in the most attractive location in the apartment -- on the back of the john. Thus when I'm in my most private of moments there is a voice coming from a publishing company in New York reaching out to me and telling me that there's a solution to all of my problems -- problems I never knew I had.

For example, I never owned distressed-washed jeans, and I didn't know they were out of style already. I don't wear make-up to the beach because everybody knows that one dip into the salty freshness of the ocean will melt it all into a gothic clown Mr. Eric Draben could appreciate. And most of all, I know EXACTLY how to melt my husband into putty if I need to!

It's been said that 20 minutes reading beauty magazines can leave a girl depressed for 2 hours. Sure I made these numbers up right now, but it makes the point. Someone who's never met me is trying to give me advice on the most personal and private aspects of my life without even asking me if I needed the advice. This someone is telling me that I have problems so that they can then be fixed by buying the magazine and following it's exhaustive list of tips and tricks.

Well, I have a different advice to women. Men, you could learn something from this, too, but I doubt reading a beauty magazine ever left you depressed. The first point I'd like to make is that the world is trying to sell us stuff and as such they're trying to prove to us that we have a problem that this or that product can fix. I didn't even know that I should feel self conscious about the amount of underbrush I have until I read an article telling me how I can minimize the pain of personal 'landscaping.' If it weren't for the fact that I'm entirely self-minded and comfortable with my body I might begin to feel that I had too much hair down there. But my husband certainly doesn't think I'm overgrown, so why should I? Because why would someone write an article giving advice how to trim pain-free if everyone wasn't doing it. My first advice to women is never expose yourself to media without being mentally bolstered against the fact that you will discover that someone out there is dissatisfied with her (or his girlfriend's) body and that media will try and tell you that you should be dissatisfied, too. If you have trouble fighting against the influx of innuendo littering the media, you might be interested in reading the article I will write next, which is the one I really meant to write before I felt I needed to criticize Cosmo.

There's really not much more I wanted to say on the subject. I used to feel inadequate quite often, thinking I needed to match up to some standard I subconsciously picked up. I used to think I had "bad hair" because I read seventeen magazine and it was full of tips on how to fix my bad hair. Then I found out that I have really good hair (ask my husband). It's apparently really silky and full of body. It also has a naturally unique color. I also used to think that I needed to be aloof and make boys chase after me, you know, play hard to get and all. Because I thought that girls who liked boys were easy. Turns out that girls who like boys are just girls. Furthermore it also turns out that girls who like sex are realy attractive. Should've just asked the boys, I suppose :).

ねぇ くるみ
nee kurumi
この街の景色は君の目にどう映るの?
kono mati no kesiki ha kimi no me ni dou uturu no?
今の僕はどう見えるの?
ima no boku ha dou mieru no?

ねぇ くるみ
nee kurumi
誰かの優しさも皮肉に聞こえてしまうんだ
dareka no yasasisamo hiniku ni kikoete simaunda
そんな時はどうしたらいい?
sonna toki ha dou sitara ii?

良かった事だけ思い出して
yokatta koto dake omoidasite
やけに年老いた気持ちになる
yake ni tosioita kimotini naru
とはいえ暮らしの中で
to ha ie kurasi no naka de
今 動き出そうとしている
ima ugokidasou to site iru
歯車のひとつにならなくてはなぁ
haguruma no hitotu ni naranakute ha naa
希望の数だけ失望は増える
kibou no kazu dake situbou ha fueru
それでも明日に胸は震える
sore demo asu ni mune ha furueru
「どんな事が起こるんだろう?」
donna koto ga okorundarou?
想像してみるんだよ
souzou site mirunda yo

ねぇ くるみ
nee kurumi
時間が何もかも洗い連れ去ってくれれば
zikann ga nanimo ka mo arai turesatte kurereba
生きる事は実に容易い
ikiru koto ha zitu ni tayasui

ねぇ くるみ
nee kurumi
あれからは一度も涙は流してないよ
are kara itido mo namida ha nagasiteinai yo
でも 本気で笑う事も少ない
demo honki de warau koto mo sukunai

どこかで掛け違えてきて
dokoka de kaketigaete kite
気が付けば一つ余ったボタン
ki ga tukeba hitotu amatta button
同じようにして誰かが 持て余したボタンホールに
onazi you ni site dareka ga mote amasita button hole ni
出会う事で意味が出来たならいい
deau koto de imi ga dekitara ii
出会いの数だけ別れは増える
deai no kazu dake wakare ha fueru
それでも希望に胸は震える
sore de mo kibou ni mune ha furueru
十字路に出くわすたび
zyuuziro ni dekuwasu tabi
迷いもするだろうけど
mayoi mo suru darou kedo

今以上をいつも欲しがるくせに
ima izyou wo itu mo hosigaru kuse ni
変わらない愛を求め歌う
kawaranai ai wo motome utau
そうして歯車は回る
sou site haguruma ha mawaru
この必要以上の負担に
kono hituyou izyou no futan ni
ギシギシ鈍い音をたてながら
gisigisi nibui oto wo tate nagara
希望の数だけ失望は増える
kibou no kazu dake situbou ha fueru
それでも明日に胸は震える
sore de mo asu ni mune ha furueru
「どんな事が起こるんだろう?」
donna koto ga okorun darou?
想像してみよう
souzou site miyou
出会いの数だけ別れは増える
deai no kazu dake wakare ha fueru
それでも希望に胸は震える
sore de mo kibou ni mune ha furueru
引き返しちゃいけないよね
hikikaesitya ikenai yo ne
進もう 君のいない道の上
susumou kimi no inai miti no ue

team

...

Yesterday I arrived home after spending 6 weeks in Japan. If you ignore the usual baseness of the American service personnel, the near 2 hours-wait to get through immigration, customs, and security and the deplorably unsanitary conditions of the George Bush International Airport in Houston, it was largely an uneventful trip.

But all of that pales in the face of the confusion that coming home from Japan always puts me in. This year, however, was especially tumultous. I met this year all 3 of my best friends from the 2004 ATW program. That would be Keita Yuki and Kazuro. I also met Kazuro's girlfriend. And this year, every one had a surprise for me.

Yuki turns out to be several months pregnant. Her baby is due in July, although she's not exactly sure the date. For my whole life I've looked on reproduction with disgust -- a shame to be a woman. But Yuki is really excited about her baby, which happened by accident only 4 months after she got married. She has to go to the doctor every 2 weeks for checkups and now to get sonogram images of the baby. She just found out a few weeks ago that in all likelihood she'll be having a baby boy. Apparently Shogo, her husband, goes with her to the doctor and they both have fun looking at the pictures. Her biggest complaint about being pregnant so far is that stairs have become quite difficult to climb due to the extra weight. She'll be taking off nearly 2 years of vacation from work to raise the baby and she plans to give birth in her hometown close to her family, even though her husband will remain in Tokyo for work. All this she seems to have worked out flawlessly and is quite happy with the arrangement. It was a stab in the heart, if you will, to see how much she is relaxed and enjoying this life-changing surprise of being pregnant at the young age of 25. I want to be happy and comfortable with myself and my life like Yuki is enough so that if I got pregnant, too, I would also be happy and having fun instead of fearful and insecure, the way I see myself now.

Then I met Kazuro. Now, Kazuro and I have a sort of interesting history together. He was the leader of the ATW tutors -- probably because he was the oldest, but certainly not because he was the most responsible. I've admired him since I met him, well, since I met him sober, that is. The first real interaction we had was the night before Yamakasa, a festival in Hakata, Japan, where men dress up in old-fashioned thongs and run through the streets at 5:30 in the morning. Trains usuallly start running at 5:30 so if you want to see the festival you need to be in the city overnight. Kazuro decided to drink the night through and by the morning he was being carried by Keita and I through Hakata to be left unconscious, wearing a green moustache and a helmet (courtesy of yours truly) and passed out on the side of the street, snoring a bit, if I might add. Since that time when we first met, Kazuro taught me syuuzi, Japanese calligraphy, and also showed me his oil paintings which he does as a hobby when he's not drinking or working in the engineering lab. After the Yamakasa incident, I was quite surprised at his skill at both arts. When I met him this year, I learned that he has a girlfriend (a first for me after 5 years of acquaintence) and a job, which he takes the annual maximum of 2 weeks vacation in full and a hobby of conducting engineering theory research for 1 hour a day in his room, after work, for the sole purpose of having it in case he wants to publish one day and add it to his resume.

I used to be shocked and confused at how such a fun-loving individual as Kazuro could at the same time work 50+ hours a week without taking vacation, have incredible art and calligraphy skills and still lead a content and fulfilled life. Now I'm even more confused as I learn that in his free time he works even harder, individually and without direction, to pursue the research which he finds interesting and which he may only ever use at some unknown and unforeseen junction in his life where he might leave his company. Kazuro also impressed me and I want to have the satisfaction that he has in his work and his life. I also want to be free in my heart and dedicated in my career. I want to have skills and hobbies which give me pleasure and which I am good at, but which I do because I want to and not because it is wise to do them, such as painting or personal research.

The last of the tutors whom I met was Keita. I've seen him the least of all since I left the ATW program. Mostly it was because I wasn't sure what our relationship was. See, Keita was not the leader of the tutors, but he was the one who made everyone feel welcome and comfortable. He was always going out of his way to smile and encourage the foreign students to try new things and to interact with each other. During ATW he starting dating this girl whom I call "hidoiko." It means "horrible child." I gave her this name because she would sit separate from the crowd, leaning against a wall, and cry. She would do this until Keita came to her to comfort her, which he would do for anyone in the group. She was clearly (at least it was clear to all the girls) doing this to get his attention and to separate him from the crowds. In my opinion it was hurtful to Keita and to many of the other (mostly girls, myself not included. ha ha) people who depended on him for guidance in the program. He apparently continued dating this girl for several years after the program ended. When I met him in tokyo 3 years ago, he brought her to dinner and she spend the evening hanging on his shoulder and whispering things which were clearly not intended for the remainder of the party. I felt as though I was a burden to him at that meeting, and, since I'm inclined to extrapolate, that I had been a burden during the ATW program as well. Not wanting to force insincerity on any one, after that meeting I did not contact him again until this summer, after I learned that he broke up with the girl. Kazuro, in fact, urged me to call him. Dima did as well. When I did I was so relieved at how eager he was to meet. He got a little wasted, too. I had no idea that he held our friendship in as high esteem as he in fact revealed. In this, I feel like I wasted many years.

He also has plans for improving his life and career. Apparently his company division has a program similar to the one which allowed Kei to get his PhD at Penn. In 2 years he will be eligible and plans to attend MIT (or Penn, maybe :) ) for an MBA. From there he is willing to consider the possibility of leaving his company for better things, things which he never foresaw himself doing when I first met him. I admire this fearlessness of the future and I too want to take risks in order to be happy. I want to be able to leave the security of academia and the PhD in order to find a career and a life that truly makes me happy.

So in all, it was a very emotional trip to Japan this year. I certainly plan to go back next summer as well, but in all honesty, I hope it will be in a different capacity!

Ever get annoyed at all those flash news reports telling you about how new and startling evidence says that as much as 98% of the population of the US isn't getting their Recommended Dietary Allowace of potassium? Then three days later you see a new startling discovery* that bananas cause heart attacks. Because of the extremely high levels of potassium in bananas it is recommended that normal adult individuals restrict their consumption of bananas to one half of a banana per day and eat 5 cups of broccoli instead.

Well I had my own "startling discovery" just a few moments ago.

NEWS FLASH!

The RDAs of most foods actually have nothing to do with what's good for you! The US government has created the database of Dietary Reference Intakes based on the average consumption of nutrients by the population!

Sources say** that the RDA for most nutrients is set to equal the mean consumption of the population plus 2 standard deviations -- this means that by the definition of the statistic, 98% of the population IS NOT GETTING THEIR RECOMMENDED DAILY INTAKE!

So what does this all mean? It means for one thing that all those annoying news reports about how you are not actually getting the recommended amount of nutrition are true. It also means that they aren't news, either, since the government defined the numbers so that they would be true. It also means that anyone who actually cares about using the information (usually healthy and educated individuals who understand the importance of good nutrition) actually isn't getting the information they need. Instead, the government's recommendations will rise and fall (usually rise given the trend) with the average American waistband. So that when I actually go and read the labels and discover that I'm only getting 1/2 the daily recommendation of potassium in my diet I shouldn't freak out because I'm about to have a heart attack from low blood pressure, instead I should freak out because that 300 lb man in the aisle next to me buying the hamburger helper with extra cheese sauce is actually controlling my diet!

On the one hand, as my husband pointed out, this information is in fact available to the public and it's lack of common awareness is due to the media and the way the information has been publicized. On the other hand, the damn government chose to call the number, which is really the Average Intake of the population, the Adequate Intake! I just wanna know, since when is the average intake of a chronically obese and disease prone population going to be adequate!?? And the government is primarily responsible for the dissemination of this information.

But I guess, in the hand, we have to chalk it all up to Democracy. Democracy is the government of the People. And the people are on average fat and stupid (not mean, here, just saying the facts) which means that the government of our country, the Great Democracy, is the government of the fat and stupid. Shame on me for relying on their recommendations.



*yes, australia, now i agree with your model that says that news isn't about getting information, but about being able to chat about it with your friends.
**i actually do have sources. check out the official 2005 documentation by the HHS & USDA. Reproduced here for your convenience:
<<
NOTE: This table (taken from the DRI reports, see www.nap.edu) presents Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) in bold type and Adequate Intakes (AIs) in ordinary type followed by an asterisk (*). RDAs and AIs may both be used as goals for individual intake. RDAs are set to meet the needs of almost all (97 to 98 percent) individuals in a group. For healthy breastfed infants, the AI is the mean intake. The AI for other life stage and gender groups is believed to cover needs of all individuals in the group, but lack of data or uncertainty in the data prevent being able to specify with confidence the percentage of individuals covered by this intake.
>>
Another source is the Q&A posted here by a nutritionist claiming 15 years experience.

Today my husband is teaching from 10:45 in the morning instead of the usual 1 in the afternoon because one of his students is Muslim and needs to pray on Fridays at 1pm. There's only 1 week of classes left and it ends on Thursday. I asked my husband, why is he making an exception based on religion which has, presumably, been a problem for the student since the start of the course. He told me that before there was no obvious solution to the problem and now there is because apparently someone has found a room at the alternate time.

There wasn't really a reason to go out of his way -- if the student has a religious conflict with a required course in the Master program, it's really an issue he should take up with the administration. But then again, there wasn't really a reason to make the student's life difficult. After all, nobody wants to chose between religion and a career and the request wasn't bothering anyone as the whole class (my husband included) seemed indifferent to the time change.

This reminded me of an incident at Yale when I was a junior (or maybe a senior?). The Muslim student association had written a letter to one of the Yale newspapers claiming religious discrimination by dining halls! As is common practice in Islam, these students were trying to fast for Ramadan, a ritual which takes something on the order of a month to complete. Yale requires all students who live on campus to participate in a meal plan which entitles students to at least 2 all-you-can-eat meals per day from any dining hall on campus. The most accessible is Commons which is open from 7:30 in the morning for breakfast until 9 at night. How were the dining halls discriminating you might ask, well, they were allowing the Jewish and the Christian students to satisfy their religious diet restrictions by making vegetarian dishes universally available and specifying if meals were kosher, but they were not catering to the Muslim religious diet restriction during Ramadan because the fast only allowed them to eat while the sun was down.

Now, I could go on for a long time about how it really isn't all that hard to swipe food from the dining halls (both legitimately and otherwise) and eat it at your leisure in the middle of the night, or how the winter in New Haven had so little daylight that the dining halls were incapable of not catering to the fast, but that's not my point. I would like to talk about the fast itself. Now, as it was pointed out recently in an economics paper by Ok and some other guy, fasting and starving are not the same activity. The whole idea of fasting is that you have food available, but you choose not to eat it. Now, why would somebody do that? Predominantly, at least among the monotheists, this activity is designed to demonstrate to yourself and your God that you are willing and able to make your own life intentionally difficult by giving up stuff that you like in order to please Her [Him -- take your pick]. So, that said, I would like to pose a question to all those Muslim students who participated in this formal complaint to the university: How can you complain that the university is NOT helping you to make your own life difficult ???

Of course I can't blame the students for this behavior. I can't even blame the Muslims for this behavior. In fact, the students were simply reacting to what they perceived (correctly) to be the equilibrium strategies of the United States with regards to religion. We have this clause in the constitution somewhere which says "blah blah blah inalienable human rights blah blah blah freedom of religion..." What the founding forefathers meant when they wrote this clause in was the following. "Gee, our daddies ran away from England because England was trying to force them to join the Church of England which we all think was a really nasty thing to do because we're Puritans and don't believe in Happiness and the Church of England was formed specifically to allow unhappily married men to become happy again...so let's say that the government can't do that." So they wrote in this clause, which they were pretty sure couldn't ever be misinterpreted, that said in fewer words that the government may never use the promotion or persecution of a particular religion as the motivation of a law. Now again in less words: you cannot be persecuted based on religion. However these days (surprise!) the government has managed to twist that nice clean and happy interpretation around into the following: you can always escape persecution if you have a religion. Now I'm pretty sure that's not what the Fathers meant (for those of you who know logic, this is a pretty clean example of an error of the contrapositive), but that's what "Freedom of Religion" means today.

As an economist I can never fault people for wanting to optimize given the boundaries and incentives which are laid out before them. So as for the Muslim student union, they wanted to be able to make their lives difficult without really suffering too much and the law of this country gave them a clear cut way to do that: "complain and complain until you get what you want" (that, btw, is Bill Clinton as portrayed in The Simpsons.). Hey, I'm all for it.

I'm in Japan again for I think my 5th time, although it could be my sixth. The first time was my summer abroad in July 2004. Then I went back in 2005 with Dima to visit people. Then I went again in 2006 to work at Yokogawa. 2007...how did I get here? I think I came for a visit again with Dima. I knew Mariko by then so it could have been to meet her. Then in 2008 Endohsan got dima a summer teaching position. Then I came back in October for Yuki's wedding. Now it's 2009 and I'm here again, also because of the teaching position. So altogether that's !!! 7 times??? Sheesh. This is becoming a habit!

Anyway, I've had the opportunity to get a good close-up look at Japanese society from the perspective of one who still can't quite eavesdrop but  knows enough about social norms to interpret relationships. It's important that I can't eavesdrop -- this way I can't be framed and attempt to rationalize what I see. It's also important to know at least a little bit about what I'm looking at or else my conclusions will all be framed from a Westerner's perspective.

This is what I see when I sit in the main campus of Keio University and wait for class to get out. Many students all meet at a big tree in the center of campus between their classes. Often they chat about work and stuff, but mostly it's just to hang out and get a break and perhaps a smoke before the next class. There's still a huge division of the sexes on campus. Students usually aren't alone, but the groups that they move in are largely (and I'd guess this is a 90% large, although that's just my guess) one of the following two kinds. There are groups of boys who are hanging out together and attempting to be seen doing nothing. Usually one or two of them talks a lot and kind of loudly and in small bursts. There's rarely less than three or more than five in a group. Often they lie back against the bench and look very relaxed. Then there are groups of girls. Often there will be 2 or so travelling together. Sometimes a large group of girls will meet eachother, but they don't usually sit down. They stand together and talk and then they break up and continue on their path. I can't be sure if they go together or split up because the crowd moves so quickly. The next largest group of groups is the boy/girl pair. Some times there are 3 in this mixed gender group and they also tend to be travelling, although sometimes they will sit down and look at some papers, I presume homework. Finally, the major exception is the boys-and-girl group. This is usually a group hanging out which behaves like a boy group but has one rather boyish girl in it. Boyish in Japan means kind of loud and outspoken. It doesn't have much to do with dress or looks, although often the boyish girl will be less frilly than the standard girl, but nonetheless clothes are less important than in the states for determining boyishness.

In thinking about my time as an undergrad and the "gay" ivy (Yale, for those who don't know), I have to say that society was much different. Sure you had a lot of all-boy groups and a lot of all-girl groups, but somehow it wasn't so drastic. I recall going to Yorkside Pizza (?) and there being a huge group of undergrads -- as in that was their defining characteristic. They were noisy and a bit rude and inconsiderate of others, but they were generally nonspecific about whether their genitals "dangled" or "were esthetically pleasing." Boys were just as likely to sit quietly as girls were to shout that everybody else was wrong.

To a certain extent, I believe this is due to a selection bias. Yale, and most ivies, aim to recruit students with high "leadership potential." The American definition of "leadership potential" is pretty standard across organizations. It requires an individual to contradict the majority frequently and with confidence. This is evidence of "individual thinking" or "critical thinking." Furthermore, one should be comfortable speaking in front of a group. A not well known quality, although certainly a boon to applicants, is a type A personality, as well. Type A is an old binary classification of individuals by their tendency to stress out, overbook and overachieve. Type B is everyone else. If you think about it, leadership potential by the American definition could be summed up as "boyish but with good grades and if not right, at least convincing." That would certainly explain the better mixing of the sexes at Yale than at Keio were the main criterion for admission is a passing score on the entrance exam. You would get a much lower percentage of "boyish" girls by this standard than by Yale's standard and thus you would see more equilibrium sexual segregation.

About the relative merits of the two societies, however, I cannot speak much. Japanese youth and American youth come from very different backgrounds and very different kinds of experiences. For one, Japanese youth, while less independent than their American counterparts, are much more responsible. Even as children Japanese are scolded less than Americans and are less supervised. Young children might walk home from school alone (a distance of a few blocks), be allowed to travel the city with only the supervision of their older siblings or even be expected to participate in household chores like grocery shopping. As a result Japanese children are much more able to manage their own lives by the time they reach college age. However, the strict educational system and difficult exams prevents a lot of the goofing around that American teens enjoy during their middle and high school years. In some sense while Japanese are learning how to be responsible, Americans are learning how to be stuipid. When they get to college, however, the roles are reversed. It is well accepted in Japanese society that college is not intended for students to learn, but rather for them to have a rest from the grueling years of grade school, make some friends and connections and get a job. Thus a little bit of stupidity on their part is tolerated whereas American college students are expected to learn how to live away from home, get the education that they didn't get in grade school and acquire some skills which might be valued on the labor market.

Regarding conclusions, I have none.

Ferret: Oh look a cat!
Cat: %@# off !!



Ferret: ...
Ferret: Oh look a cat!



PS: not my ferret

"Some notations are useful."

--Colin Camerer, 1995

Those which improve your fidelity

• If your lover meets your spouse, there is no more mystery -- he is a real person now
• If your lover and your spouse drink together and become friends, your lover might also feel guilty
• If you and your lover and spending time together with your husband, then you are less likely to accidentally have sex with him (for exceptions, see: SxePhil on youtube.)

Those which improve your love life

• If your lover is friends with your spouse, you can hide sex dates as "friend" dates
• Your spouse would never believe that one of his buds would be doing his wife
• When you and your spouse talk about that elusive "third" you've got one lined up

It's no secret that I'm not a fan of the American way of life. I take the overwhelming popularity of special "magic" diets like Atkins and Acai berry to be a sign that Americans have too much money to blow on food and so they blow more on avoiding that food. I cringe when I see people drinking budweiser beer since no amount of carbonated donkey urine can substitute for a good pint of rich malty triple fermented Belgian ale. SUVs? Americans have too much space and gas is too cheap; they never take them off road either. But above all, my heart flutters and sinks when I hear Americans talk about "freedom" and "independence" and "individuality" as if only our country knew what they were -- concepts the majority of Americans haven't given more than 15 minutes thought to since middle school English class.

But self loathing can be productive. In the library today (library.uncc.edu) I saw some stamps from the Soviet Union. One stamp had a picture of Lenin, another of an astronaut and yet another of a woman. I said to Dima, "who is this woman?" and he told me she was the first female astronaut! So not only did Russia put the first man in space, she also put the first woman in space! Dima told me that the Soviet Union was strongly in favor of equality of races and sexes.

...so I got to thinking. There have been 3 (or 4 if you count China, but they were only copycatting) major revolutions in the world all purporting to champion freedom over oppression. The American revolution championed freedom and the right to establish "a more Perfect Union" over British imperialism. The French were just drunk and the Russians wanted freedom from Capitalist Oppression. The interesting thing about these three revolutions is that only one of them, namely the Russian Revolution, actually took their philosophy to its moral conclusion -- at least close to it. The Americans and the French revolutions can actually be thought of more as a revolt -- one government establishing its independence from another. While they both claimed to champion freedom from oppression, both really only meant freedom for the relevant classes from the relevant classes. Most notably, the Americans wanted freedom for the "former British men who now were considered colonists" from the "current British men who are still considered British men." The key here is "men." Russians, on the other hand had some proletarians and some bourgeoisie and some aristocrats and some capitalists -- all people defined by their beliefs or actions, not by birth or family or geography. The Russian revolution realized that freedom from capitalist oppression meant freedom for everyone who suffered from the oppression, women and negrichanki alike.

But I guess you can't really blame the Americans (and the drunken French) -- to them government had always been defined as "the men in power" and they were replacing one government with another. The Russians, on the other hand, were throwing out a government and replacing it with ideals (this, of course, was the main reason for their failure. countries need governments. ideals don't pay the bills). To their credit, in defining these ideals, unlike the rest of the world, the Russians followed them to the end, not placing unjustified outside assumptions on their logic, but accepting the conclusions they arrived at. This is why when I talk to my husband about the oppression of women, he tells me that it's all in my head. This is because in his country women were treated like humans throughout relevant history and in my country women were treated, well, like women. Like "women are fragile" and like "women should be sheltered" and "equality for women" and "I talk about women because I'm a man and don't quite think of us both as human."

In many ways the Russian Revolutionaries were way ahead of their time. Way way ahead.