Getting Angry

Even though I mostly expect this to end up in the "grievances" portion of our talk, I laughed too hard not to post it.

This is the worst hitpiece ever.

I mentioned this WSJ op-ed on transgender surgery.  I would be curious to hear a reasoned rebuttal from psychiatrists somewhere.  (I'm probably not going to look for it, though.)

Racial identification for multi-racial people is apparently very complicated.

Here is a heretical question.  In my view, the world is moving away from PCs anyway, mostly through the advent of tablets and such, and this might be inevitable.  But why not keep making the Mac Pro?  That thing is awesome!

Responses:

1. The insecurity point is interesting, but I'm not sure that I buy it as informing the political decisions made by the cited presidents.  It smacks of pop-psychology and confirmation bias (i.e. no mention of the other dozens of presidents throughout history), not to mention a focus on presidential personality over the circumstances and political realities surrounding the individuals in office.

2. The first one makes sense, though it would make more sense if we lived together (or at least in the same place).  The second one also makes sense in that anger is easier than the underlying feelings.  My therapist mentioned the fourth one (in connection with the second one) when I mentioned that we had some tension about our cancelled trip to Montreal.  I asked him to help me think about the conflict, and he said that it's about the feelings evoked, not the particular facts and circumstances (not at all obvious to me at first).  The third one also makes sense, but I always try to text you and respond to your texts when I'm working late - not just because I want to talk to you, but also because I want you to know that, when I'm at work, I'm still here for you.

3. No!  Also, I don't really buy this study because popping bubble wrap is fun regardless of your mood.

4. It's accurate for me.  Does yours seem accurate for you?  I wouldn't think so, or else you've just managed to avoid Ponzi scheme proposals.

5. Yawn... I want to know about a real trust fund baby!  But in all seriousness, it's an interesting perspective.  It's very hard for some people to feel sympathy for those who have more and struggle, but people forget that life is hard because of the decisions we have to make and the satisfaction we have to find from faith, productivity, good friends, and loved ones.  Also, the bit about the prefrontal cortex is also relevant to the Broke documentary and athletes.

R2R:

1. I think it's a good idea too, but it is hard to feel comfortable setting those kinds of boundaries if you are junior or new, or if your bosses or superiors continue to make unreasonable demands, with your job seemingly hanging in the balance.  For me, I've always thought that some number of years paying my dues would lead to the promised land of either job fulfillment or riches (or both).

4. Yes?  But we've already discussed it at length, so you don't have to. :)

5. It all has the sheen of people with political ends.  Take whatever story and spin it to your position.

R2R2R:

2. I think the best way to look at it is that she is getting a non-discretionary (with respect to her husband) share of the (possibly discretionary, with respect to her husband's boss) bonus her husband receives from his job.  This is probably yet another example of critics latching onto the appearance rather than the substance.  In every example that I read, she got a pre-determined cut of the bonus, and the only reason for variation was the performance of her husband's company.  It's only demeaning if it's discretionary from the perspective of her husband, i.e. if he decides at year end how much money she deserves.

5. Both?

B