"We were gonna name our baby after you - but we didn't want to call him bitch"
Wendy was a bit of a netball player in her youth, so I reckon this sort of thing should be no problem for her.
Cat cam!
What does Mr Lee the German cat get up to all day? To find out, his owner hooked a digital camera to his collar.
Now that's compromise
Let it be hereby and duly noted that on the evening of Wednesday 16 May 2007, Wendy agreed that if we have a second child and I want it to carry my surname as its surname, that is my perogative and Wendy will acquiesce. This agreement was sealed with a handshake. (In unrelated news, Sevilla then proceeded to defeat Espanyol on penalties to retain the UEFA cup.)
(And the conversation sparked by this Guardian article. I have to say, thank god our relatives aren't so obstreporously - or vocally - conservative.)
What's in a name?
Quite a lot, writes Lionel Shriver.
Last weekend it was reported that, according to an American study, the names parents give their daughters could influence their future career paths. Apparently, girls whose names are rated as highly "feminine" are statistically less likely to study classically masculine subjects such as maths and science. Most of these feminine names end in a vowel: Jessica, Samantha, Sarah, Olivia, Hannah. Three of the top four are framed by vowels: Isabella, Anna, Emma. So if you want to raise a female Einstein, opt for consonants.
That's why we're naming our daughter Steve.
The Marshmallow Test
A fabulous experiment:
2) Could you teach a child (or an adult, for that matter) self-control this way - eg by saying 'you can have one treat now, or two if you wait until later'? Or would you end up with a very fat, very patient child?
3) Science + tormenting children + sugary goodness = The Perfect Experiment
4) I wonder what the social class makeup of this preschool group was. And I wonder if that would make a difference. (I suspect it would, but don't know for sure.)
1) How fun will it be to do this to li'l baby stinko? I hope she's a table licker.Mischel's famous longitudinal research study, "The Marshmallow Test," showed the importance of impulse control and delayed gratification for academic, emotional and social success. In the 1960s at the preschool on the Stanford University campus, Mischel put marshmallows in front of a room full of 4-year-olds. He told them they could have one marshmallow now, but if they could wait several minutes, they could have two. Some children eagerly grabbed a marshmallow and ate it. Others waited, some having to cover their eyes in order not to see the tempting treat and one child even licked the table around the marshmallow. Mischel followed the group and found that, 14 years later, the "grabbers" suffered low self-esteem and were viewed by others as stubborn, prone to envy and easily frustrated. The "waiters" were better copers, more socially competent and self-assertive, trustworthy, dependable and more academically successful. This group even scored about 210 points higher on their SATs.
2) Could you teach a child (or an adult, for that matter) self-control this way - eg by saying 'you can have one treat now, or two if you wait until later'? Or would you end up with a very fat, very patient child?
3) Science + tormenting children + sugary goodness = The Perfect Experiment
4) I wonder what the social class makeup of this preschool group was. And I wonder if that would make a difference. (I suspect it would, but don't know for sure.)
Recent Comments