读完了The Number 1 Lady's Detective Agency系列中的第五本. 在考虑把这套书买下来. 实在写得好. 有空详细地讲一讲.
正在读老板借给我的Peace Like a River. 已经吭吃吭吃地读了好几个月, 因为节奏慢而且不是我感兴趣的题材. 现在读到一半, 倒有点意思起来. 发现原来这是美国加基督教版的Kidnapped, 史帝文生的名著, 写给男孩子看的历险故事.
其他就是一些很corny的自我帮助的书, Idiot's Guide to Being a Cheapskate之类的.
[下面开始跑题, drum roll...]
刚刚借了一本Rick Edelman的书"Discover the Wealth in You." (我有同时看几本书的坏习惯.) Edelman个financial advisor, 有点名气, 在广播上有个关于理财的谈话节目, 出过好几本书. 这本书后半部分是讲共同基金的. 前半部分有意思, 讲的是建立目标--setting personal goals. 不是普通的千篇一律的买房子, 退休, 或送子女上大学之类的目标, 而是intimate and personal dreams. 例如改行去干自己热爱的工作, 到天涯海角旅行, 参加peace corps为人民服务一年, 学会跳伞, 等等. 他说, 我们成天被各种各样的社会和家庭的责任绑得紧紧的, 渐渐忘记了追求梦想和幸福. 他建议读者把这些愿望写下来, 先天马行空地写100个. 然后挑出几个特别想要的, 有可能实现的, 在后面加上实现它们的时间(年月日), 然后计算需要多少钱来实现第一个, 第二个, 第三个...
当然, 不是每个人都能实现每一个愿望的, 但是你多写下几个让自己幸福快乐的specific goals, 就会发现里面许多都并非不可能.
读到这里我忽然发现, 原来自己这么个特别能胡思乱想的人, 现在也在忙碌的生活里把那些梦想推到脑后了. 真要我写100个, 我还写不出来呢. 让我看看:
1. 每年到外国旅行两次 (可短可长), 至少一次是去欧洲.
2. 每年在北美大陆上旅行一次.
3. 参加一堂素食烹饪课.
4. 写一本fiction的书 (或长篇或短篇集).
5. 在剑桥大学读一堂课或者一学期.
6. 在翡冷翠住一个礼拜.
7. 在爱丁堡住一个礼拜.
8. 夏天开车在挪威乡下逛一逛.
9. 再去看一次花样滑冰世界锦标赛, 或者欧洲锦标赛也可以.
10. 到DC那个有名的日本餐馆(名字忘了, 在McArthur Blvd上) 吃一顿 $100(两人份) 的大餐.
11. 参观圣彼得堡的冬宫(?)The Hermitage Museum, 然后在白夜里漫步河边和吊桥.
... 暂时想不出, 等一会在回来加. 大家也说说你的梦想吧.
Pseudo 近期读书报告
到现在还是这个毛病，冬天非要把暖气温度开得奇高。
我成天在自己最大的两个愿望中间搞拉锯战，很受折磨：
一：赶快买间公寓，好住的舒服点。
二：房价怕是要跌，等一两年没准可以买个稍大点的。
完全不切实际的愿望就多了：
突然中头彩，买间正对Gramercy Park 的战前老公寓，家具却用Maurice Villency 风格。在Grammercy Park 的好馆子吃饭，晚餐后方便的去东村hang out。
和Billy Bob Thornton 约会。或者Ethan Hawke 。
Gay best friend 住隔壁，出门前可以去寻求穿衣建议，然后听他说：“你美极了。今晚Ethan Hawke 真是世界上最幸运的人。”
突然会说流利的法语，住巴黎。
突然会说流利的意大利语，住塔斯肯尼。
打一手好网球。
突然长高些，且都从腿上长。
一：赶快买间公寓，好住的舒服点。
二：房价怕是要跌，等一两年没准可以买个稍大点的。
完全不切实际的愿望就多了：
突然中头彩，买间正对Gramercy Park 的战前老公寓，家具却用Maurice Villency 风格。在Grammercy Park 的好馆子吃饭，晚餐后方便的去东村hang out。
和Billy Bob Thornton 约会。或者Ethan Hawke 。
Gay best friend 住隔壁，出门前可以去寻求穿衣建议，然后听他说：“你美极了。今晚Ethan Hawke 真是世界上最幸运的人。”
突然会说流利的法语，住巴黎。
突然会说流利的意大利语，住塔斯肯尼。
打一手好网球。
突然长高些，且都从腿上长。
Last edited by Knowing on 2004-09-10 9:44, edited 1 time in total.
有事找我请发站内消息
-
helenClaire
- Posts: 3159
- Joined: 2003-11-22 20:12
Geez, how quickly you guys sink into fantasies... 
Rick Edelman was suggesting dreams that you personally feel passionate about that have at least a remote chance of realizing. And things that are within your control. Not winning the lottery, but actually saving and investing $$$ to make it come true. That way you weed out dreams that are just day dreams and do not really mean that much to you. Things that sound romantic and whimsical but you would never lift a finger to try.
And he was adament about NOT including large vague nebulous goals like retirement or having children. What exactly do you want to do when you retire? He wrote that people work and use that time to fill up their wallet and most wouldn't know what to do with all the extra time when they retire.
The point of this exercise is to think about what really makes you happy or what *can* make you happy. If this is something you already have, great. If not, you can make it yours, for real.
I don't want to sleep with BB Thornton, but it would be interesting to interview him and do a psychological profile.
Rick Edelman was suggesting dreams that you personally feel passionate about that have at least a remote chance of realizing. And things that are within your control. Not winning the lottery, but actually saving and investing $$$ to make it come true. That way you weed out dreams that are just day dreams and do not really mean that much to you. Things that sound romantic and whimsical but you would never lift a finger to try. And he was adament about NOT including large vague nebulous goals like retirement or having children. What exactly do you want to do when you retire? He wrote that people work and use that time to fill up their wallet and most wouldn't know what to do with all the extra time when they retire.
The point of this exercise is to think about what really makes you happy or what *can* make you happy. If this is something you already have, great. If not, you can make it yours, for real.
I don't want to sleep with BB Thornton, but it would be interesting to interview him and do a psychological profile.
Billy Bob Thornton is a very interesting character. I admire him for his talent, wacky humor and strangely attractive earthiness. Also something he said on a talkshow once really striked me. He said he was always both happy and sad in life. " Hard to explain but when I see someone in the restaurant having dinner alone, I feel sad for him that he is eating alone with noone to share with, but I am also happy for him because he gets to enjoy a good dinner without being disturbed." He was born a loner craving for company, just like everyone else. But I love the way he put it. And his keen observation, which makes him a good actor, should make him a great lover too 
有事找我请发站内消息
He is an extraordinary talent. He would be a great screenwriter, but he is obviously more interested in acting, which he also excels in.
Thornton said, "I can never be happy without being sad at the same time."
His relationship with women are also fascinating. He is one of the few male geniuses who understand women, deeply. This makes him absolutely lethal to women, for understanding women does not mean he treats them better than men who do not understand women. On the contrary, he treats his women pretty badly. Yet his genius and empathy for women make him irresistable.
Sometimes I suspect James Cameron is the same way with women. These men are thinking women's dream. They are intelligent, sensitive, emotionally aware; they feel deeply; they understand women's psychology, and they love intelligent and spirited women. And they are even heterosexual!!!
Funny then, that they are also far more inconstant than your average joe. They switch from affair to affair, from women to women. They love each of them deeply and passionately and sincerely. Yet their women are destined to share these men with other women. None can possess them whole and forever. Each must settle for having had a piece of their lives.
Actually, I want to interview and psychologically profile 刘德华 as well, but that would be for an entirely different reason!
Thornton said, "I can never be happy without being sad at the same time."
His relationship with women are also fascinating. He is one of the few male geniuses who understand women, deeply. This makes him absolutely lethal to women, for understanding women does not mean he treats them better than men who do not understand women. On the contrary, he treats his women pretty badly. Yet his genius and empathy for women make him irresistable.
Sometimes I suspect James Cameron is the same way with women. These men are thinking women's dream. They are intelligent, sensitive, emotionally aware; they feel deeply; they understand women's psychology, and they love intelligent and spirited women. And they are even heterosexual!!!
Funny then, that they are also far more inconstant than your average joe. They switch from affair to affair, from women to women. They love each of them deeply and passionately and sincerely. Yet their women are destined to share these men with other women. None can possess them whole and forever. Each must settle for having had a piece of their lives.
Actually, I want to interview and psychologically profile 刘德华 as well, but that would be for an entirely different reason!
说的我手痒痒想写一篇小说，男主角以Thornton为原型，女主角以自己为原型，充分满足自己的饭特稀。中间基本用Angelina Jolie 的倒霉事儿做材料。
最后她费力的康复了，和Ethan Hawke 结婚，生两个漂亮的孩子，住在Gramercy Park 的公寓里。十二月雪后的清晨她出去溜狗，正用钥匙费力的开公园的铁门，他从身后握著她的手帮她打开。她转过头，他说：“你需要一杯热爱尔兰咖啡。”
她说不出话来。
两人深深凝望许久，他终于又说：“如果你想一直这样站着那儿都不去也没关系。我渴望你，比渴望一杯热爱尔兰咖啡更甚。”
她颤栗的回答：“我思念你，好比嗜酒者思念伏特加。但是正因为如此，一滴也不能沾。”没有拥抱他，就转身离去了。
Ethan Hawke 在窗口默默的看着，松了一口气。
最后她费力的康复了，和Ethan Hawke 结婚，生两个漂亮的孩子，住在Gramercy Park 的公寓里。十二月雪后的清晨她出去溜狗，正用钥匙费力的开公园的铁门，他从身后握著她的手帮她打开。她转过头，他说：“你需要一杯热爱尔兰咖啡。”
她说不出话来。
两人深深凝望许久，他终于又说：“如果你想一直这样站着那儿都不去也没关系。我渴望你，比渴望一杯热爱尔兰咖啡更甚。”
她颤栗的回答：“我思念你，好比嗜酒者思念伏特加。但是正因为如此，一滴也不能沾。”没有拥抱他，就转身离去了。
Ethan Hawke 在窗口默默的看着，松了一口气。
有事找我请发站内消息
Who hasn't? Compare to BB Thornton everyman is a good husband.gigi wrote:Ethan Hawke is not a perfect husband either. He betrayed Uma.Knowing wrote: Ethan Hawke 在窗口默默的看着，松了一口气。
可以把她写成一个艺术家。在自我摧毁的日子里画出了最狂野的作品。这批作品都被她封在地窖里不敢再看。后来的作品基本上是Georgia O'Keeffe 风格。她很老以后早期作品被发表，得到非常高的评价。
她的孩子问她是否后悔，她说：“不，我足够幸运如此疯狂，更庆幸自己终于免于疯狂。”
有事找我请发站内消息
我的和小伊差不多
1. 去Parma看一场球赛，最好是Parma和新欢Valencia之间的冠军杯比赛。 要是能顺道蹭进大名鼎鼎的Parma音乐学院瞅瞅就更爽了。
2. 参观埃尔米塔什博物馆和德累斯顿博物馆。
3. 上Toronto探望Glenn Gould，在他的坟墓前哼哼哥德堡变奏里的任何一支小曲子。
4. 上拜罗依特看指环，可惜Nilesson和Sir Solti已经不在了。
5. 在莫斯科看Bolshoi的泪泉，在圣彼得堡看Kirov的火鸟，在巴黎看POB的Giselle，在哥本哈根看丹麦皇家芭蕾舞团的花节，在米兰看La Scala的罗米欧与朱丽叶。
如果能加上梦想的，呵呵，让我和Thucydides说句话，一句就够了。
1. 去Parma看一场球赛，最好是Parma和新欢Valencia之间的冠军杯比赛。 要是能顺道蹭进大名鼎鼎的Parma音乐学院瞅瞅就更爽了。
2. 参观埃尔米塔什博物馆和德累斯顿博物馆。
3. 上Toronto探望Glenn Gould，在他的坟墓前哼哼哥德堡变奏里的任何一支小曲子。
4. 上拜罗依特看指环，可惜Nilesson和Sir Solti已经不在了。
5. 在莫斯科看Bolshoi的泪泉，在圣彼得堡看Kirov的火鸟，在巴黎看POB的Giselle，在哥本哈根看丹麦皇家芭蕾舞团的花节，在米兰看La Scala的罗米欧与朱丽叶。
如果能加上梦想的，呵呵，让我和Thucydides说句话，一句就够了。
-
helenClaire
- Posts: 3159
- Joined: 2003-11-22 20:12
其实这个问题有很大的成份是你真心想要什么, 什么才能让你开心和幸福. 但是这个问题越来越难回答. 下面转载的一篇文章和这有关. 很有趣.
Choice Is Overrated
By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, September 10, 2004; Page E01
Among economists, it is an axiom that choice is good and more choice is better. Giving buyers more choice means more -- and more intense -- competition, which lowers prices, raises quality and fosters innovation. In the end, workers are more productive, consumers are better off and the economy is bigger and more efficient.
It's a lovely theory, and one that is particularly attractive to conservatives, who use it to justify replacing government services -- Medicare, Social Security, public housing, public schools -- with market-based solutions.
Unfortunately, it turns out not to be true. Yes, up to a point, choice does enhance efficiency and consumer welfare. But at some point, there get to be so many options about what to buy or what career to go into or which mutual fund to invest in that many people make worse decisions than they would if they had fewer choices -- or simply put off making a decision at all. Even when people make what seems, objectively, to be the right choice, odds are they will be less happy about it as they second-guess themselves.
All this is laid out in wonderfully readable form by Swarthmore College professor Barry Schwartz in his recent book, "The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less." Schwartz, a psychologist by training, draws heavily on recent research by behavioral economists who have shown that humans are less rational than classical economic models assume. His insights have such important implications for the design and marketing of products and services that General Electric, American Express, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the British Cabinet have all called on Schwartz for advice.
Schwartz conjures up a wealth of examples to support his conclusions.
In one survey, 65 percent of respondents said they would want to choose their own treatment if they got cancer. But in another survey of those who actually have cancer, only 12 percent wanted to make the choice; the rest said they would rather leave it to their doctors.
Or consider the experiment in one upscale market, which offered $1-off coupons to customers who sampled a new line of jams and jellies. In one test, consumers could taste only six of the 24 varieties; in a second, all 24 varieties were made available. While 30 percent of those exposed to the smaller sample bought a jar, only 3 percent of those who sampled from the complete line did so.
Schwartz also cites the work of a researcher who analyzed the Vanguard Group's vast database of customers with 401(k) retirement accounts. The research found that for every 10 stock and bond funds added to the list of options, the amount invested in low-yielding money market accounts increased by 2 percent. Put another way, more options resulted in less choice, and a lower return.
If that seems like silly behavior, it is. If people are put off by having 12 choices rather than two, they could ignore the extra 10 and be just as well off. But people aren't rational, and they can't force themselves to ignore choices once they are presented.
While this de-linking of choice and happiness may be news to economists, all they had to do was look around. After all, why is it that in an era when people are less constrained by geography and social mores in their choice of spouse, they are marrying later and with less success than when choices were more limited by race, class and religion? And why is it that today's top college students, able to follow virtually any career path, increasingly arrive at graduation day without a clue of what they want to do? If one of the virtues of having more money is to have more choice, why is it that people in the United States don't report themselves any happier than people in Poland?
All this is fascinating grist for Schwartz, who in 58 years has had one job, one wife and three houses, and reports himself to be very happy, even if he still can't figure out whether to buy regular, easy-fit or relaxed jeans.
"All the really big decisions in my life didn't feel like decisions," Schwartz explained. "They seemed like pretty reasonable choices, so I made them. And I've never looked back."
Choice Is Overrated
By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, September 10, 2004; Page E01
Among economists, it is an axiom that choice is good and more choice is better. Giving buyers more choice means more -- and more intense -- competition, which lowers prices, raises quality and fosters innovation. In the end, workers are more productive, consumers are better off and the economy is bigger and more efficient.
It's a lovely theory, and one that is particularly attractive to conservatives, who use it to justify replacing government services -- Medicare, Social Security, public housing, public schools -- with market-based solutions.
Unfortunately, it turns out not to be true. Yes, up to a point, choice does enhance efficiency and consumer welfare. But at some point, there get to be so many options about what to buy or what career to go into or which mutual fund to invest in that many people make worse decisions than they would if they had fewer choices -- or simply put off making a decision at all. Even when people make what seems, objectively, to be the right choice, odds are they will be less happy about it as they second-guess themselves.
All this is laid out in wonderfully readable form by Swarthmore College professor Barry Schwartz in his recent book, "The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less." Schwartz, a psychologist by training, draws heavily on recent research by behavioral economists who have shown that humans are less rational than classical economic models assume. His insights have such important implications for the design and marketing of products and services that General Electric, American Express, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the British Cabinet have all called on Schwartz for advice.
Schwartz conjures up a wealth of examples to support his conclusions.
In one survey, 65 percent of respondents said they would want to choose their own treatment if they got cancer. But in another survey of those who actually have cancer, only 12 percent wanted to make the choice; the rest said they would rather leave it to their doctors.
Or consider the experiment in one upscale market, which offered $1-off coupons to customers who sampled a new line of jams and jellies. In one test, consumers could taste only six of the 24 varieties; in a second, all 24 varieties were made available. While 30 percent of those exposed to the smaller sample bought a jar, only 3 percent of those who sampled from the complete line did so.
Schwartz also cites the work of a researcher who analyzed the Vanguard Group's vast database of customers with 401(k) retirement accounts. The research found that for every 10 stock and bond funds added to the list of options, the amount invested in low-yielding money market accounts increased by 2 percent. Put another way, more options resulted in less choice, and a lower return.
If that seems like silly behavior, it is. If people are put off by having 12 choices rather than two, they could ignore the extra 10 and be just as well off. But people aren't rational, and they can't force themselves to ignore choices once they are presented.
While this de-linking of choice and happiness may be news to economists, all they had to do was look around. After all, why is it that in an era when people are less constrained by geography and social mores in their choice of spouse, they are marrying later and with less success than when choices were more limited by race, class and religion? And why is it that today's top college students, able to follow virtually any career path, increasingly arrive at graduation day without a clue of what they want to do? If one of the virtues of having more money is to have more choice, why is it that people in the United States don't report themselves any happier than people in Poland?
All this is fascinating grist for Schwartz, who in 58 years has had one job, one wife and three houses, and reports himself to be very happy, even if he still can't figure out whether to buy regular, easy-fit or relaxed jeans.
"All the really big decisions in my life didn't feel like decisions," Schwartz explained. "They seemed like pretty reasonable choices, so I made them. And I've never looked back."
此喵已死，有事烧纸
We don't need an economist to tell us that choice is overrated, just look at girls who date multiple fellas at the same time. Sure they got more options, but all those possibilities drive them witless and indecisive. And indecision breeds unhappiness, so they are not any happier than people with less options.
just look at girls who date multiple fellas at the same time. Sure they got more options, but all those possibilities drive them witless and indecisive. And indecision breeds unhappiness, so they are not any happier than people with less options.-
helenClaire
- Posts: 3159
- Joined: 2003-11-22 20:12
即便这是真的，我也不希望有人用它做理论依据，打着“为你好”的旗号，人为减少我的选择。Unfortunately, it turns out not to be true. Yes, up to a point, choice does enhance efficiency and consumer welfare. But at some point, there get to be so many options about what to buy or what career to go into or which mutual fund to invest in that many people make worse decisions than they would if they had fewer choices -- or simply put off making a decision at all. Even when people make what seems, objectively, to be the right choice, odds are they will be less happy about it as they second-guess themselves.