(English) The winning streak

(English)

There are a few things as hilariously funny as a narrowly averted disaster. There’s the laughter itself — and then there’s the release of tension, the slight hysterics, the golden feeling that yes, your guardian angel sneaked one past the karmic gods. Way to flip good ol’ fate the bird there, buddy!

No matter what you do afterwards, be it work or leisure, there’s always that sweet taste in your mouth. You can’t fail. You lead a charmed life. Once more for the home team! Properly managed, that feeling could carry you onwards like a wave, reinforced with each new success, rolling over small failures – just flukes, really, this here is my day, sonny. It feels so good it’s addictive, and I bet many a gambler are doing it just for that total glow they get when everything feels just right and, like Mel Gibson in Maverick, you don’t need to look at that last card. You know it’s the ace of spades.

The funny part? We narrowly avoid thousands of disasters daily. The misstep you recovered from and promptly forgot about. The tailgater that hit the brakes just before you did. The revolving door that missed your hand with a fraction of an inch to spare. The freshly infected H1N1 carrier that remembered to put his hand over his mouth when he sneezed next to you. But none of them count, because we notice none of them.

Sometimes I wonder if luck has anything at all to do with it. What if luck is genetic, is something we got from ancestors with a history of being in the right place at the right time for some of the time, and in the wrong place at the right time for the rest of the time? What if that fabled human intuition – of which women are supposed to have loads – is a genetic characteristic reinforced by the natural selection of the luckiest bastards of the bunch?

That might explain why we laugh at the narrow escape. It’s nice to know our luck still holds.

miercuri, 2 septembrie 2009 Ganduri

http://www.alsosprachzamolxis.com/ zamolxis

an English oasis smack in the middle of blogo.ro-oaie !

there was this study published on BBC (can’t remember more details). it found, if i remember correctly, that despite their intuition, women were less likely to determine when their spouse cheated on them than men were.

http://www.shadowscape.eu Laur

Could it be that they just don’t want to believe it?

I think the origin of this myth is deeply rooted in the patriarchal society of not too long ago, where men were forgiven their egocentrism, whereas women had to guess men’s intentions and take them into account if they were to live happier lives. I’m pretty sure Saudi women would score higher on the intuition scale than any post-feminist western females ever would. And I don’t think that’s necessarily bad for the later.

http://www.alsosprachzamolxis.com zamolxis

an English oasis smack in the middle of blogo.ro-oaie !

there was this study published on BBC (can’t remember more details). it found, if i remember correctly, that despite their intuition, women were less likely to determine when their spouse cheated on them than men were.

http://blog.loridani.net Laur

Could it be that they just don’t want to believe it?

I think the origin of this myth is deeply rooted in the patriarchal society of not too long ago, where men were forgiven their egocentrism, whereas women had to guess men’s intentions and take them into account if they were to live happier lives. I’m pretty sure Saudi women would score higher on the intuition scale than any post-feminist western females ever would. And I don’t think that’s necessarily bad for the later.

http://www.alsosprachzamolxis.com/ zamolxis

once again, i’m surprised by how well you argument! we should do this more often

“believing” is, methinks, an integral part of intuition. you can always say that someone who is not “intuitive” does not “believe” their intuition.

consider a more “objective” activity, like programming. does it really matter if I can program in 20 languages if I cannot produce functional code to solve a simple problem? of course not, it’s results that matter..

as the song goes, “cuz everybody knows, <> doesn’t count”

your second argument — that the modern woman does not need intuition to the same extent as the non-emancipated woman — is far more compelling, and I tend 2 agree with it.
http://www.alsosprachzamolxis.com zamolxis

once again, i’m surprised by how well you argument! we should do this more often

“believing” is, methinks, an integral part of intuition. you can always say that someone who is not “intuitive” does not “believe” their intuition.

consider a more “objective” activity, like programming. does it really matter if I can program in 20 languages if I cannot produce functional code to solve a simple problem? of course not, it’s results that matter..

as the song goes, “cuz everybody knows, <> doesn’t count”

your second argument — that the modern woman does not need intuition to the same extent as the non-emancipated woman — is far more compelling, and I tend 2 agree with it.