It seems like the title of an onion article, but it’s actually very serious. A study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that hurricanes with feminine names killed significantly more people than hurricanes with masculine names. The authors looked at several decades of hurricane deaths (excluding extreme outliers like Katrina and Audrey) and posed a question:
Do people judge hurricane risks in the context of gender-based expectations?
According to their study, the answer is a big yes.
Laboratory experiments indicate that this is because hurricane names lead to gender-based expectations about severity and this, in turn, guides respondents’ preparedness to take protective action.
In other words, because of some deep-seated perceptions of gender, people are less afraid of hurricanes with feminine names. And that means they are less likely to evacuate.
A cartoon by Roz Chast. For more cartoons from this week’s issue of the magazine: http://nyr.kr/1kxUOii
these rule so hard.
Grand Central 2/3 (by Barry Yanowitz)
When I was a child, it was believed that animals became extinct because they were too specialized. My father used to tell us about the saber-tooth tiger’s teeth — how they got too big and the tiger couldn’t eat because he couldn’t take game anymore. And I remember my father saying, with my brother sitting there, ‘I wonder what it will be with the human beings that will be so overspecialized that they’ll kill themselves off?’
My father never found out that my brother was working on the bomb.
Richard Feynman’s sister, Joan (via historical-nonfiction)
cats + things
Thinking of the value of the humanities predominately in terms of earnings and employment is to miss the point. America should strive to be a society of free people deeply engaged in “the pursuit of happiness,” not simply one of decently compensated and well-behaved employees.
A true liberal-arts education furnishes the mind with great art and ideas, empowers us to think for ourselves and appreciate the world in all its complexity and grandeur. Is there anyone who doesn’t feel a pang of desire for a meaning that goes beyond work and politics, for a meaning that confronts the mysteries of life, love, suffering and death?
I once had a student, a factory worker, who read all of Schopenhauer just to find a few lines that I quoted in class. An ex-con wrote a searing essay for me about the injustice of mandatory minimum sentencing, arguing that it fails miserably to live up to either the retributive or utilitarian standards that he had studied in Introduction to Ethics. I watched a preschool music teacher light up at Plato’s “Republic,” a recovering alcoholic become obsessed by Stoicism, and a wayward vet fall in love with logic (he’s now finishing law school at Berkeley). A Sudanese refugee asked me, trembling, if we could study arguments concerning religious freedom. Never more has John Locke—or, for that matter, the liberal arts—seemed so vital to me.
I’m glad that students who major in disciplines like philosophy may eventually make as much as or more than a business major. But that’s far from the main reason I think we should invest in the humanities.
I’m giving this to my history teacher
From his magnum opus Das Crapital.
If women are permitted to take part in public debate only if they can cope with an onslaught of recreational misogyny, the assumption is that the digital commons — which are not, in fact, common, but a succession of private fiefdoms that function as public space — is the domain of men