From Shaun Gallagher, author of "Experimenting With Babies: 50 Amazing Science Projects You Can Perform on Your Kid" and "Correlated: Surprising Connections Between Seemingly Unrelated Things."  by way of Reddit.

Tell me ...

• your sex
• whether you have any children
• whether you think pot should be legalized
• whether you think you're a good singer, and
• whether you like mayonnaise

... and I can predict a whole lot about you.
Your sex, Correlated's statistics suggest, can be used to predict your level of risk aversion (men, for instance, are more likely to want to skydive) and your capacity for empathy (women, for instance, are more likely to think we're too stingy with foreign aid).

Whether you have children tends to be a pretty good indicator when it comes to pop culture preferences (parents, for instance, like in-vogue artists such as Lady Gaga less than non-parents do) and, as you might imagine, youth issues (parents, for instance, approve of single-sex schools at a higher rate than non-parents).

Your opinion about marijuana legalization tends to be a good indicator of your political leanings and your opinion about a whole host of other social issues, from the death penalty to legalized prostitution to gay marriage, as well as your beliefs about religion and morality.

On average, people who describe themselves as good singers also tend to say they're good at a lot of other things, such as dancing or math or hula-hooping. On the flip side, people who say they're bad singers also tend to think they're bad at a lot of other things. So basically, this question tells us something about people's self-image and their perception of their abilities.

Similarly, people who like mayonnaise tend to also like a bunch of other foods, and people who dislike mayo tend to dislike a bunch of other foods. So this question tells us something about how picky a person is.

Given a person's answers to these five questions, I'd bet you could do a pretty decent job of guessing their responses to most of the other daily poll questions that have been asked on Correlated.
Still, day in and day out, Correlated is able to discover correlations that continue to surprise me — and I hope that they continue to entertain you.

Catch 22

Folklore has it that Cortez ordered his ships to be burnt so that his men would have no chance of retreat. They would be victorious, or they would die. Catch 22 argues there is an alternative... when then enemy is trying to kill you, when your leadership offers you no chance of retreat, then going crazy is a perfectly valid choice.

And what of our leaders? What if they can't lead us to victory? If they are no more than small pieces in a larger game, if they can do little more than achieve small tactical goals, then isn't it inevitable that they would focus on themselves and their careers, giving little care to the greater goals?

"Man was matter, that was Snowden’s secret. . . . Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. . . . Ripeness was all."

Brilliant Blunders

By Mario Livio

Mario digs deep into big mistakes made by big minds-- Darwin, Pauling, Einstein. He covers there theories, the times and speculates why they did, or didn't make a mistake. In Einstein's case the jury is still out on the Cosmological constant.

I'm surprised he didn't cover Pauling's obsession with Vitamin C.

Why are mistakes made? Ego, oversight, laziness, bad luck.

The Grapes Of Math...

An history of math, mathematicians, and they problems they were trying to solve.

David and Goliath...

By Malcom Gladwell

Gladwell is the master of collecting interesting stories, retelling them well, and stringing them together to support a bigger theme.

Between this book and 'Outliers' he's developed an interesting perspective on how we succeed or fail. I like that the two books support each other.

David & Goliath takes a look at the limitations of the powerful, and the advantages of the underdog.

Success makes you conservative. It makes organizations larger and slows them down.

The under dog is smaller, quicker, and doesn't have to play by the rules.
 

When you have nothing to loose, not even respect, there are many things you can do that the respected and successful can't. Guerrilla warfare is successful very often. Middle class parents are better at teaching there children the value of hard work and investing than the rich.

The book discusses the notion of the inverted U curve-- diminishing returns. It applies this idea to money and power.

David and Goliath also discusses "Desirable Difficulties" Difficulties that force people to learn skills that are very valuable. For example,,, someone with dyslexia who learns to compensate by being a great listener and by working very hard.

Debt. The first 5000 years.

The book is a good history on the history of debt and it's impact on society.

The book starts off with a rant against the world bank and the debt held by some third world nations. It never really completes that thought which is too bad.

In general the author has a fondness for raising complications and questions as a way of suggesting there is weakness in a system. I'm not fond of this rhetoric. Conflating personal confusion with greater causation…

The book does raise some good points about what debt is, and it's effect on us. Sometimes paying off a debt is a way of saying you'd rather not have anything to do with another person. So, some debts shouldn't be paid off.

Debt is an equalizer. The fact that a King can go into debt to someone else suggests that on some level the king is in the same class as that person. An aristocrat can be obligated to a commoner.