Asymmetrical Information

I once heard of a study:

They placed a 5 year old in a room and placed before him an amount of candy. The child was told that the observer was going to leave the room. If when she returned, the candy was still there; the child would receive twice as much candy. They eventually attempted to correlate over time the degree those who were willing to delay gratification showed higher levels of academic and economic success. As I understood it there was a high degree of correlation.

My theory would be that often people are poor because they are unwilling to endure the unpleasantness of education, starting a business, going “above and beyond” at work, that is often required to do well at some date - often in the far distant future.

I used to weigh 300lbs – very unhappy, few friends, and no sex. After loosing 120lbs and reaching a comfortable 6’2” 180 – I’m much happier, have far more friends, and plenty of sex. However, it took almost a year of starvation and countless hours at the gym to make it a reality. In short, it involved a huge amount of delayed gratification.

“I used to weigh 300lbs – very unhappy, few friends, and no sex. After loosing 120lbs and reaching a comfortable 6’2” 180 – I’m much happier, have far more friends, and plenty of sex.”

I now weigh 165 pounds on a 5’11 frame. However, I am more than willing to lose 120 pounds if it will also get me “plenty of sex.” Which diet should I choose?

David,

I always thought it was Nancy Reagan who said: "You never can be too rich or too thin."

The goal now is a body fat % in low single digits.

I now weigh 165 pounds on a 5’11 frame. However, I am more than willing to lose 120 pounds if it will also get me “plenty of sex.”

Only if you know someone who has a necrophelia urge to fulfill, since your vital condition at 45 pounds won't be good for much else.

Not really. As Arnold "The Terminator" (To lazy to figure out how to spell his last name) says in his Encylopedia of Bodybuilding--- 3% body fat might be ok--- for a cadaver, but not a healthy person.

"I always thought it was Nancy Reagan who said: "You never can be too rich or too thin."

Supposedly, that aphorism was first formulated (or at least popularized) by the Duchess of Windsor (and I've generally seen it referred to as "The Duchess of Windsor's Law."

What is the technical term for Crock of Shit?

It's craptacular.

This post performs two excellent services. First, the takedown of Polly Toynbee is well done and amusing. I enjoyed reading it. Second, this post also should lead more people to read Scott Burgess's excellent blog "The Daily Ablution," which has provided me with much enlightenment and amusement. I think that many readers of "Asymmetrical Information" will also enjoy "The Daily Ablution."

In fact, though -- I thought "David" made an excellent point. Of course the original argument is absurd if applied across all countries simultaneously. (Polynesians are clearly playing with a different genetic deck, for one thing.) But if you limit Toynbee's argument to industrialized democracies, it looks a lot better. (Obviously, he presents her point far better than she does.)

Also, as one person put it, "I'm amused at the way the Instalanche has brought unprecedented idiocy to this normally articulate corner of the web... in particular the sneering ad-hominems made against the only person on the thread (other than Scott, obviously) who's actually done any research or tried to consider what Toynbee might have meant."

At any rate, I stand by my original observation there. The rate of obesity among Arab women is startling (especially given the age distribution in Arab populations), and supports Toynbee's point, albeit not in a way she intended.

I was surprised to read that the world average GINI coefficient (the ordinary measure for income inequality) was 39.5. Jane or Mindles -- is there a weighted average GINI that takes the size of a nation's economy into account?

Comments are Closed.