Life Hack: How to Get the Last Little Drops of Liquid Laundry Detergent out of the Cup Most Easily
Just throw the entire cup into the washer. Just make sure to tip it so that it doesn't end up floating around like a little boat. Retrieve the cup when emptying the washer.
Memory Training Crash Course, Part I
A book I picked up on a whim, way back in high school, was Harry Lorayne's How to Develop a Superpower Memory. As you can see, I still own my original battered, faded, shriveled copy. Harry Lorayne is a stage performer who performs feats of memory--for example, a standard trick is to introduce himself to every member of an audience before a show and then be able to call each of them by name. Lorayne's book promises to vastly expand your ability to memorize names, dates, numbers, etc. This is one case where the extravagant claims are made good on. I have used these methods for decades--routinely now when I need to memorize a phone number or a shopping list (although, to be honest, I'm still a little weak on learning people's names).
The caveat is that you need to do some groundwork and practice, practice, practice, although you will see improvements from the very beginning. Here I want to show you just enough to whet your appetite. If you want to learn it for real, you should get the book and read it for yourself (although this particular book is out of print, Lorayne and Lucas's The Memory Book is still available).
In this post I will introduce the method of mental linking. This method will help you remember a list of items in forward or reverse order. It is easy to learn, and is also the foundation for some more sophisticated methods.
The method of mental linking is quite simple, but sometimes mildly undignified in practice. Fortunately the loss of dignity is all internal to your own mind. Get over it.
For demonstration purposes, we will memorize the following list of items:
paper, pencil, helicopter, shaving cream, screwdriver
The first two items on the list are "paper" and "pencil". We want to link these mentally by visualizing an illogical, absurd image combining both elements. You must resist the tendency to look for logical connection--it won't work for this purpose. For example, you could imagine yourself writing on paper with a pencil--this is far too prosaic to be useful.
Instead, visualize yourself trying to write with an oversized pencil that is made of cut and pasted paper. Perhaps it crumples in your hand as you try to write.
Visualize it. See it. The more vivid the image, the better. You have just linked "paper" and "pencil" together.
Next is "helicopter." Visualize an enormous pencil hovering overhead with rotors like a helicopter. See it vividly. Hear the sound effect: thwopthwopthwopthwop.... This links together "pencil" and "helicopter."
Next is "shaving cream." Visualize a helicopter with shaving cream spread over it as if it is prepared to be shaved. A giant razor approaches.... You may hesitate to imagine anything quite so ridiculous. This is where willingness to sacrifice your dignity is key.
This links together "helicopter" and "shaving cream."
Finally is "screwdriver." Imagine yourself attempting to drive a large screw, but using a can of shaving cream instead of a screwdriver. It is not going well--shaving cream keeps squirting out over your hands.
And there we have it. You have created a mental chain of links from each item on the list. Can you recall the list? Try it, starting with "paper."
Try it backwards, starting with "screwdriver."
To keep this post short, I limited the list to five items, but I hope you are convinced that you can now remember ten or fifty items in sequence if you want to. With practice, you can compose a suitable ridiculous mental image in less than a second. It helps that you don't need a logical connection.
To further impress yourself, try recalling the list again an hour from now, and then again tomorrow.
I use this method, for example, to memorize shopping lists. I remember the first item on the list by linking it to the front door of the supermarket.
Drawback to the mental linking method: it only works with things you can visualize concretely. In a future post, I will describe how to handle abstract objects--in particular, numbers and numerical sequences.
(N.B. While I learned this and other techniques from Lorayne's book, he did not invent all of them. See, for example, Wikipedia on the Method of loci.)
Stacy and Clinton versus Descartes
Used to be, one of my guilty pleasures was the TV show
What Not to Wear. In case you haven't seen the show, it features "fashion consultants" Stacy London and Clinton Kelly. They ambush some unsuspecting sloppy-dressing person (almost always female), who has been nominated by her so-called friends, who love her but just can't bear to look at her shabby clothes any more. After persuading the victim/guest of honor to sign on to the What Not to Wear program, they then go through her wardrobe item-by-item and throw everything into the trash. They crush her self-esteem (or at least her pride in her wardrobe), and then pay for an all-new wardrobe, which the victim buys in accordance with principles learned from Stacy and Clinton. Further, the guest gets a new hairdo from stylist Nick Arroyo, and make-up lessons from make-up artist Carmindy. (Fortunately, the make-over always requires shorter hair, not longer.) At the end of the show, the victim returns in triumph to her friends and family to reveal her new, stylish figure.
I say this "used to be" a guilty pleasure, not because I no longer take pleasure in it, but because I quit feeling guilty about it. I've decided Stacy and Clinton, while their fashion recommendations are a little too "safe" for my taste, are waging a battle over a deep philosophical principle (and, better yet, on the side of goodness and light, which is to say the same side as me). What is striking about What Not to Wear is how many of the guests, having undergone the process, say not, "Hey, look--I got some neat clothes," but rather, "I feel like a totally different person." This raises the question: what connection is there between the clothes a person wears and the state of his or her soul?
The philosophical position of mind-body dualism asserts that the mind and body are two distinct and separable entities. If you've ever seen a cartoon in which the mad scientists causes a cat and a mouse to switch personalities, an assumption underlying the story is that the personality can be separated from the body. It also is an important factor in theories of reincarnation and resurrection (although not necessarily--some who believe in resurrection insist that the body is resurrected along with the soul). One of the foremost proponents of mind-body dualism was Descartes.
There is some reason to think that mind-body dualism is an inborn belief. Think of the forementioned cartoon--very young children watch such stories and have no difficulty understanding what's going on. Moreover, if one thinks of the brain as a computer, then the personality would be like software, which can easily be transferred from one computer to another. But inborn beliefs often turn out to be false--consider how nonintuitive are the concepts of curved space-time, Schrodinger's cat, or even the motion of the Earth.
I personally don't hold with dualism; I believe the person is an integrated whole, and that one cannot make one part of the person stronger by making another part weaker. If you want the best for yourself, then demand the best of yourself in all aspects: mental, physical, moral--and yes, your clothes as well. Dressing well does not necessarily mean dressing formally; a T-shirt and jeans, depending on various subtle details, can either make you a slob, or project elegant, timeless simplicity.
Occasionally Stacy and Clinton get a guest who resists on the basis that clothes are merely superficiality, and people should be focusing on their inner beauty instead. I hope one day to hear them retort: "So you claim to be a philosophical dualist, do you?"
What Not to Wear. In case you haven't seen the show, it features "fashion consultants" Stacy London and Clinton Kelly. They ambush some unsuspecting sloppy-dressing person (almost always female), who has been nominated by her so-called friends, who love her but just can't bear to look at her shabby clothes any more. After persuading the victim/guest of honor to sign on to the What Not to Wear program, they then go through her wardrobe item-by-item and throw everything into the trash. They crush her self-esteem (or at least her pride in her wardrobe), and then pay for an all-new wardrobe, which the victim buys in accordance with principles learned from Stacy and Clinton. Further, the guest gets a new hairdo from stylist Nick Arroyo, and make-up lessons from make-up artist Carmindy. (Fortunately, the make-over always requires shorter hair, not longer.) At the end of the show, the victim returns in triumph to her friends and family to reveal her new, stylish figure.
I say this "used to be" a guilty pleasure, not because I no longer take pleasure in it, but because I quit feeling guilty about it. I've decided Stacy and Clinton, while their fashion recommendations are a little too "safe" for my taste, are waging a battle over a deep philosophical principle (and, better yet, on the side of goodness and light, which is to say the same side as me). What is striking about What Not to Wear is how many of the guests, having undergone the process, say not, "Hey, look--I got some neat clothes," but rather, "I feel like a totally different person." This raises the question: what connection is there between the clothes a person wears and the state of his or her soul?
The philosophical position of mind-body dualism asserts that the mind and body are two distinct and separable entities. If you've ever seen a cartoon in which the mad scientists causes a cat and a mouse to switch personalities, an assumption underlying the story is that the personality can be separated from the body. It also is an important factor in theories of reincarnation and resurrection (although not necessarily--some who believe in resurrection insist that the body is resurrected along with the soul). One of the foremost proponents of mind-body dualism was Descartes.
There is some reason to think that mind-body dualism is an inborn belief. Think of the forementioned cartoon--very young children watch such stories and have no difficulty understanding what's going on. Moreover, if one thinks of the brain as a computer, then the personality would be like software, which can easily be transferred from one computer to another. But inborn beliefs often turn out to be false--consider how nonintuitive are the concepts of curved space-time, Schrodinger's cat, or even the motion of the Earth.
I personally don't hold with dualism; I believe the person is an integrated whole, and that one cannot make one part of the person stronger by making another part weaker. If you want the best for yourself, then demand the best of yourself in all aspects: mental, physical, moral--and yes, your clothes as well. Dressing well does not necessarily mean dressing formally; a T-shirt and jeans, depending on various subtle details, can either make you a slob, or project elegant, timeless simplicity.
Occasionally Stacy and Clinton get a guest who resists on the basis that clothes are merely superficiality, and people should be focusing on their inner beauty instead. I hope one day to hear them retort: "So you claim to be a philosophical dualist, do you?"
Practical Joke #2
Photo by elasticcamel Step 1: Go into the woods and shoot a moose. Step 2: Take the carcass to a taxidermist and hire him or her to mount the head for wall display. Step 3: Pay the taxidermist an extra $20 to rig the eyes so that they blink once every five minutes. Step 4; Mount the head on the wall above your dining table. Step 5: Host an elegant dinner party and watch to see which guest will first notice the blinking.
The Strange Lure of the Ugly
It is interesting to note how the value placed on beauty varies from person to person, from region to region, and from time to time. If you were around during the late 60's and 70's, you might remember a distinct trend towards making things uglier. I can point out two independent areas where this is visible.
The first is architecture. Many office buildings erected during the period had the shape of plain cubical boxes, covered in mirrored glass, and with no ornament whatsoever. (As Ayn Rand has pointed out, progess in architecture demands that the ornament of a building should be appropriate to its purpose, not that the ornament should be missing entirely.) Does this "style" of architecture even have a name? Contrast this with the exuberance of the Googie style of the 50's and 60's.
The second, independent trend was in film studio logos. Look, for example, what happened to the MGM lion in 1966:
Similarly, Columbia, Warner Brothers, and Paramount all modified their logos to a sketchy joyless cartoon version.
The confluence of similar trends in such diverse areas makes me think these were a reflection of some broader spirit of pessimism in society.
This line of thought was provoked by a recent experience of putting some paper money in my wallet and being struck by the extreme ugliness of the new designs. The currency redesign was motivated by a desire to make our cash harder to counterfeit, which is sensible, but I see no reason why it can't be attractive and harder to counterfeit at the same time. Virtually every element of the design has been uglified: the old lovely ornate borders, which were unique to each denomination, have been replaced by austere boilerplate, the atmospheric perspective engravings of buildings on the back have been replaced by almost two-dimensional elevations, and that is not to mention the tiny little numerals scattered around by smallpox lesions.
Compare all this with a five-dollar bill from 1896:
Whatever else you might think about this note, it is clear that the designer wanted it to be pretty.
My point is not that our currency today ought to look like this. But there must be something appropriate to our era that could be pleasing or even inspiring to the eye.
The first is architecture. Many office buildings erected during the period had the shape of plain cubical boxes, covered in mirrored glass, and with no ornament whatsoever. (As Ayn Rand has pointed out, progess in architecture demands that the ornament of a building should be appropriate to its purpose, not that the ornament should be missing entirely.) Does this "style" of architecture even have a name? Contrast this with the exuberance of the Googie style of the 50's and 60's.
The second, independent trend was in film studio logos. Look, for example, what happened to the MGM lion in 1966:
Similarly, Columbia, Warner Brothers, and Paramount all modified their logos to a sketchy joyless cartoon version. The confluence of similar trends in such diverse areas makes me think these were a reflection of some broader spirit of pessimism in society.
This line of thought was provoked by a recent experience of putting some paper money in my wallet and being struck by the extreme ugliness of the new designs. The currency redesign was motivated by a desire to make our cash harder to counterfeit, which is sensible, but I see no reason why it can't be attractive and harder to counterfeit at the same time. Virtually every element of the design has been uglified: the old lovely ornate borders, which were unique to each denomination, have been replaced by austere boilerplate, the atmospheric perspective engravings of buildings on the back have been replaced by almost two-dimensional elevations, and that is not to mention the tiny little numerals scattered around by smallpox lesions.
Compare all this with a five-dollar bill from 1896:
Whatever else you might think about this note, it is clear that the designer wanted it to be pretty.
My point is not that our currency today ought to look like this. But there must be something appropriate to our era that could be pleasing or even inspiring to the eye.
Kyoto, PA
Photo by embleton_sIf you've seen a Rocky movie then most likely you've seen the Philadelphia Museum of Art. It figures promininently in the training montage when he runs up the steps leading to the museum and galumphs about at the top.
Guidebooks will tell you about the various collections: Asian art, Dutch masters, modern art, armor and weapons, as well as the impressive building that houses the museum. But my favorite musueum experience is not mentioned in any guidebook.
Some of the most interesting items in the museum collection are reonstructed buildings and rooms from a variety of cultures and time periods: a mediaeval French cloister, a Chinese scholar's study from the Qing dynasty,... and a 14th-century Buddhist temple from Japan. If you go there, be sure to seek out this last.
Now: before you leave, close your eyes and inhale deeply. What you smell is the aroma of incense that has seeped into the wood over hundreds of years. It's the atmosphere that surrounds you as soon as you enter the great hall of any temple in Japan. It's a wonderfully evocative experience, and as far as I know this is the only place you can taste it on this side of the Pacific.
Guidebooks will tell you about the various collections: Asian art, Dutch masters, modern art, armor and weapons, as well as the impressive building that houses the museum. But my favorite musueum experience is not mentioned in any guidebook.
Some of the most interesting items in the museum collection are reonstructed buildings and rooms from a variety of cultures and time periods: a mediaeval French cloister, a Chinese scholar's study from the Qing dynasty,... and a 14th-century Buddhist temple from Japan. If you go there, be sure to seek out this last.
Now: before you leave, close your eyes and inhale deeply. What you smell is the aroma of incense that has seeped into the wood over hundreds of years. It's the atmosphere that surrounds you as soon as you enter the great hall of any temple in Japan. It's a wonderfully evocative experience, and as far as I know this is the only place you can taste it on this side of the Pacific.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
