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.

Tiny...

Draft essay…

The Big Tiny by Dee Williams

The Small House Book by Jay Shafer

"I've found that even when you have your freedom-- when you've liberated yourself from your debit, and are happy enough living like a polar bear in winter-- even then you are still stuck with who you are.' Dee Williams. The Big Tiny.

 

You can live quite happily on far less than you own. Most of our stuff is not needed.

A movement is forming behind these thoughts. People building and living in tiny houses, shedding their possessions.

I sympathize with this.

Everynow and then I'll look around for a small, but high quality house. This is very hard to find. Small square feet most always equates with low quality-- poor neighborhoods, poor building quality. Big square feet equates with quality good neighborhoods, good build quality. Why is it so hard to find a small home, well built in a good neighborhood?

More space equates with more stuff, more maintenance, more debt, but not more happiness.

The environment is very high up on the list of concerns in the tiny house movement. Of course someone who lives in a 100 square foot house and who pays 20 dollars a month in utilities has an environmental impact that a tiny fraction of someone who lives in a 2000 square foot house. But what is the overall impact? I'm not a big fan of plans that depend on the moral high ground and declare "I'm doing my part to solve the problem. If everyone did like I'm doing then everything will be great." Unless that tiny house movement becomes broad, it's overall impact will be negligible. It risks becoming another niche with no broad impact.

I do like that they push the limits though. Maybe that's good enough. With enough pressure, then one day I could live in a high quality house, in a good neighborhood that's not 3000 square feet big.

Every now and then I'll run into someone who takes on the world, who proves they are tough, by adopting needlessly harsh goals. Want to prove have what it takes to survive in the wild? Build a cabin in the wild and subsistence farm there. It'll be tough. But it will give you comfort that you are tough enough.

Plus you don't have to deal with society. Engaging with society, with other people is hard work. For some it's very anxiety provoking. If society makes you anxious, why not rebel and leave?

That current is in the tiny house movement. Don't depend on society, it's bad. Do it all yourself. Society won't come face to face with its problems if more than a few people think that way.

People with tiny houses obsess over their house plans. A tiny house must be well planned and laid out or there will be trouble. I like this obsession. I only really use 600 square feet of my 2000 square foot house-- the bedroom, the bath room, the kitchen and living room. With a smarter layout I could easily get by on 400 or 500 without impacting the quality of my life. If I put effort into cutting back, how low could I go? 100 square feet? 200?

Where do families exist in this movement? The tiny house people all seem to be single. What does a family of 4 need?

Tiny houses let's you occupy your time with the minutia of how you live, rather than deal with your real problems. I worry this and Dee Williams. Dee has heart problems. Rather than dealing with these problems, she puts all of her energy into her friends and her tiny house. Anything that doesn't fit within those priorities is left out. Of course It simplifies her thoughts about her life, which helps with anxiety. But she still has big health issues. I think a world with Dee Williams in it, is better than a world without. I wish she would be more forward looking.

Of course the tiny house movement isn't a utopia that solves all our problems. But maybe it points to a better way to live.