OT: Stereotypes of Quiet Men, Chatty Women

Duh!! Anyone who has been in a social situation with a bunch of
couples, let's say, knows that the women can't get a word in edgewise.

JustGB
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components

Stereotypes of Quiet Men, Chatty Women Not Sound Science

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 6, 2007; A02

Across time and culture, the female predilection for chattiness and
the male penchant for taciturnity have approached the status of
unarguable facts. Now, two studies appear to bury these age-old
stereotypes.

One recorded nearly 400 college students for days and found that
members of each sex uttered virtually the same number of words.

"Wherever this really persistent stereotype comes from, we do not find
evidence to support it," said Matthias R. Mehl, a psychologist at the
University of Arizona whose paper is published today in Science.

The second, an analysis of 63 studies of gender differences in
talkativeness, found that men actually yakked slightly more than
women, especially when interacting with spouses or strangers, and when
the topic of conversation was non-personal.

Although, overall, "the magnitude of the difference was negligible,"
said Campbell Leaper, a psychologist at the University of California
at Santa Cruz, the findings suggest that " some men may be using
talkativeness to dominate the conversation."

His study will appear in a forthcoming issue of Personality and Social
Psychology Review.

Female garrulousness is ensconced in jokes, literature and even law.
In Colonial America when gossiping was punishable with the "ducking
stool," women were the more common victims. The idea appeared to gain
scientific authority with the publication last year of Louann
Brizendine's best-selling book "The Female Brain," which asserted --
without citing data -- that women utter about 20,000 words a day and
men about 7,000.

Despite the popular view, few studies have found significant
differences between the sexes in overall verbosity, although women and
men (and boys and girls) do diverge in some notable situations.

The studies that Mehl and his colleagues analyzed were done among six
groups of college students -- five in the United States, one in Mexico
-- who wore digital sound recorders during their waking hours for two
to 10 days.

Every 12 1/2 minutes, the machines turned on and recorded 30 seconds
of sound. The researchers counted the number of words captured and
extrapolated the sample to the whole day.

Women spoke an average of 16,215 words and men 15,669 words during an
average of 17 waking hours a day. The difference -- just under 550
words -- was not statistically significant.

The researchers checked to see if there was a trend for the most
loquacious individuals to be women. There was not. Of the most
talkative 15 percent, half were women and half men. In three of the
six samples, the single most talkative person was a man.

What was striking, Mehl said, was the great range of word use. The
most was 47,000 words in a day; the least was 700.

Because the talkers were all college students on roughly similar
schedules, their word use may not be the same as that of people in
other age groups. But the consistency of the results suggests that
there is no innate difference in verbosity between the sexes -- at any
age.

"If there are brain differences, you should see them in college
students," he said.

The 63 studies examined in the meta-analysis done by Leaper and
Melanie Ayers (also of UC-Santa Cruz) were different from Mehl's.

Most involved observing people in laboratory conditions -- talking in
pairs, in groups, sometimes with children and sometimes with only one
sex present -- for periods of up to two hours. The finding that men
talk more than women did not hold for total number of words (as in the
Mehl study) but for other measures of garrulousness, such as total
number of statements, duration of speaking and "mean utterance
length."

The situations in which men talked more than women were conversations
between spouses or partners; conversations that included people of
both sexes and when researchers were present; and situations in which
the topic involved disagreement or was of a non-personal nature.

The situations in which women talked more than men were those among
classmates, and between parents and children; those when the activity
was child-oriented; and those when the topic of conversation required
disclosure of feelings.

"This underscores how many gender differences can be situation-
specific," Leaper said.

However, an analysis of 73 studies of children's conversation found
the opposite result -- girls are more talkative than boys.

Leaper, who also authored that study, said that as with adults, the
difference was small and differed from situation to situation.

Girls were especially more talkative than boys when interacting with
adults. They also talked more during activities of their own choosing.
That may reflect a preference for games such as playing house, which
requires more communication, rather than construction projects and
sports, which boys tend to prefer, Leaper said. Assigned to the same
task, boys and girls are equally talkative.

That analysis, published in 2004, found that the biggest gender
differences in garrulousness was in toddlers -- which may reflect the
earlier acquisition of language by girls -- but that, by age 13, boys
have started to out-talk girls.

Brizendine, the psychiatrist at the University of California at San
Francisco who wrote "The Female Brain," said she got the 20,000 vs.
7,000 words statistic from a secondary source. She has concluded that
it is not accurate; it was removed from her book in the second
printing.

"The next question is: Why has this myth about women's talkativeness
persisted so tenaciously? Why has it been passed down through the ages
with such glee?" she said yesterday.

JustGB wrote:
> Duh!! Anyone who has been in a social situation with a bunch of
> couples, let's say, knows that the women can't get a word in edgewise.
>
> JustGB
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components
>
> Stereotypes of Quiet Men, Chatty Women Not Sound Science
>
> By David Brown
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, July 6, 2007; A02
>
> Across time and culture, the female predilection for chattiness and
> the male penchant for taciturnity have approached the status of
> unarguable facts. Now, two studies appear to bury these age-old
> stereotypes.
>

Working in an office where the male/female ratio is more or less equal
(probably the female numbers are slightly higher) I can confirm that the
men are just as talkative as the women - and louder too! And they
*gossip* far more!


--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

On Jul 6, 12:13 am, JustGB <gettingb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Duh!! Anyone who has been in a social situation with a bunch of
> couples, let's say, knows that the women can't get a word in edgewise.
>
> JustGB
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/07/05/AR200...
>
> Stereotypes of Quiet Men, Chatty Women Not Sound Science
>
> By David Brown
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, July 6, 2007; A02
>
> Across time and culture, the female predilection for chattiness and
> the male penchant for taciturnity have approached the status of
> unarguable facts. Now, two studies appear to bury these age-old
> stereotypes.
>
> One recorded nearly 400 college students for days and found that
> members of each sex uttered virtually the same number of words.
>
> "Wherever this really persistent stereotype comes from, we do not find
> evidence to support it," said Matthias R. Mehl, a psychologist at the
> University of Arizona whose paper is published today in Science.
>
> The second, an analysis of 63 studies of gender differences in
> talkativeness, found that men actually yakked slightly more than
> women, especially when interacting with spouses or strangers, and when
> the topic of conversation was non-personal.
>
> Although, overall, "the magnitude of the difference was negligible,"
> said Campbell Leaper, a psychologist at the University of California
> at Santa Cruz, the findings suggest that " some men may be using
> talkativeness to dominate the conversation."
>
> His study will appear in a forthcoming issue of Personality and Social
> Psychology Review.
>
> Female garrulousness is ensconced in jokes, literature and even law.
> In Colonial America when gossiping was punishable with the "ducking
> stool," women were the more common victims. The idea appeared to gain
> scientific authority with the publication last year of Louann
> Brizendine's best-selling book "The Female Brain," which asserted --
> without citing data -- that women utter about 20,000 words a day and
> men about 7,000.
>
> Despite the popular view, few studies have found significant
> differences between the sexes in overall verbosity, although women and
> men (and boys and girls) do diverge in some notable situations.
>
> The studies that Mehl and his colleagues analyzed were done among six
> groups of college students -- five in the United States, one in Mexico
> -- who wore digital sound recorders during their waking hours for two
> to 10 days.
>
> Every 12 1/2 minutes, the machines turned on and recorded 30 seconds
> of sound. The researchers counted the number of words captured and
> extrapolated the sample to the whole day.
>
> Women spoke an average of 16,215 words and men 15,669 words during an
> average of 17 waking hours a day. The difference -- just under 550
> words -- was not statistically significant.
>
> The researchers checked to see if there was a trend for the most
> loquacious individuals to be women. There was not. Of the most
> talkative 15 percent, half were women and half men. In three of the
> six samples, the single most talkative person was a man.
>
> What was striking, Mehl said, was the great range of word use. The
> most was 47,000 words in a day; the least was 700.
>
> Because the talkers were all college students on roughly similar
> schedules, their word use may not be the same as that of people in
> other age groups. But the consistency of the results suggests that
> there is no innate difference in verbosity between the sexes -- at any
> age.
>
> "If there are brain differences, you should see them in college
> students," he said.
>
> The 63 studies examined in the meta-analysis done by Leaper and
> Melanie Ayers (also of UC-Santa Cruz) were different from Mehl's.
>
> Most involved observing people in laboratory conditions -- talking in
> pairs, in groups, sometimes with children and sometimes with only one
> sex present -- for periods of up to two hours. The finding that men
> talk more than women did not hold for total number of words (as in the
> Mehl study) but for other measures of garrulousness, such as total
> number of statements, duration of speaking and "mean utterance
> length."
>
> The situations in which men talked more than women were conversations
> between spouses or partners; conversations that included people of
> both sexes and when researchers were present; and situations in which
> the topic involved disagreement or was of a non-personal nature.
>
> The situations in which women talked more than men were those among
> classmates, and between parents and children; those when the activity
> was child-oriented; and those when the topic of conversation required
> disclosure of feelings.
>
> "This underscores how many gender differences can be situation-
> specific," Leaper said.
>
> However, an analysis of 73 studies of children's conversation found
> the opposite result -- girls are more talkative than boys.
>
> Leaper, who also authored that study, said that as with adults, the
> difference was small and differed from situation to situation.
>
> Girls were especially more talkative than boys when interacting with
> adults. They also talked more during activities of their own choosing.
> That may reflect a preference for games such as playing house, which
> requires more communication, rather than construction projects and
> sports, which boys tend to prefer, Leaper said. Assigned to the same
> task, boys and girls are equally talkative.
>
> That analysis, published in 2004, found that the biggest gender
> differences in garrulousness was in toddlers -- which may reflect the
> earlier acquisition of language by girls -- but that, by age 13, boys
> have started to out-talk girls.
>
> Brizendine, the psychiatrist at the University of California at San
> Francisco who wrote "The Female Brain," said she got the 20,000 vs.
> 7,000 words statistic from a secondary source. She has concluded that
> it is not accurate; it was removed from her book in the second
> printing.
>
> "The next question is: Why has this myth about women's talkativeness
> persisted so tenaciously? Why has it been passed down through the ages
> with such glee?" she said yesterday.


hhhmmm. perhaps the myth of women's talkativeness was developed &
perpetuated by all those husbands, boyfriends, significant others, etc
who have been desperatedly evading all conversation of a personal &
emotional nature.

then again, i can't bear to be around my husband when he is with his
friends & the conversation takes on this uniquely male dialect &
competitiveness that i find as annoying as a 3 stooges movie marathon.

when i was younger i believed that much of human behavior was shaped
by the environment. while i still believe that to be true, i am much
more respectful & aware of the nature side of things. plus, i was
just at the zoo today & the male peacocks were beating each other up
for the females' attention.

ellen

ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1183752090.724638.21550
@g13g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

> hhhmmm. perhaps the myth of women's talkativeness was developed &
> perpetuated by all those husbands, boyfriends, significant others, etc
> who have been desperatedly evading all conversation of a personal &
> emotional nature.

nodnodnod I wondered when I saw the article if the nature of the
conversation had anything to do with it. Talk about feelings, the guys
shut up and disappear, but talk about most anything else, and the guys
are falling all over themselves trying to get in the last word. And most
of the ones in the middle, too.

> then again, i can't bear to be around my husband when he is with his
> friends & the conversation takes on this uniquely male dialect &
> competitiveness that i find as annoying as a 3 stooges movie marathon.

So do I. I often just sit back and observe them as if they were a
different species. (They're not, I checked. ;-p)

Chak


--
It is a paradoxical but profoundly true and important principle of life
that the most likely way to reach a goal is to be aiming not at that goal
itself but at some more ambitious goal beyond it.
--Arnold Toynbee

Chakolate wrote:
> ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1183752090.724638.21550
> @g13g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> hhhmmm. perhaps the myth of women's talkativeness was developed &
>> perpetuated by all those husbands, boyfriends, significant others, etc
>> who have been desperatedly evading all conversation of a personal &
>> emotional nature.

Like so many other stereotypes of men and women, the differences
within each group far exceed the "typical" differences between
the groups. Gosh, I even know some men who _do_ talk about their
emotions! (And sometimes I wish they'd refrain...)

> nodnodnod I wondered when I saw the article if the nature of the
> conversation had anything to do with it. Talk about feelings, the guys
> shut up and disappear, but talk about most anything else, and the guys
> are falling all over themselves trying to get in the last word. And most
> of the ones in the middle, too.
>
>> then again, i can't bear to be around my husband when he is with his
>> friends & the conversation takes on this uniquely male dialect &
>> competitiveness that i find as annoying as a 3 stooges movie marathon.

When we get together with another couple, very good friends, the
men do dominate the conversation. She and I usually wander off
when they get rolling on testosterone-fueled topics like guns or
cars or their drinking exploits in their teens and 20s. Oddly
enough - and mercifully! - neither of the men have even the
tiniest interest in sports.

> So do I. I often just sit back and observe them as if they were a
> different species. (They're not, I checked. ;-p)

They're not? Sometimes I think they should be... an interesting
species, but very different...

FurPaw
--
Terrorist - what the big army calls the little army.

To reply, unleash the dog.

"FurPaw" <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IfCdnVr9UbuQgRLbnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> --
> Terrorist - what the big army calls the little army.
----------------
Furry, your sig line really bothers me. I would have applauded it in the
days of the Viet Cong, but now? Were McVeigh and Nichols a "little army?"
Were the British citizens who blew up the subway two years ago a "little
army?" I'm not trying to get into a political argument here (of *course* we
never get into political arguments here) but I have to tell you it bothers
me.

Eva

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in
news:mlKji.238$qu5.39@trndny02:

>
> "FurPaw" <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:IfCdnVr9UbuQgRLbnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> --
>> Terrorist - what the big army calls the little army.
> ----------------
> Furry, your sig line really bothers me. I would have applauded it in
> the days of the Viet Cong, but now? Were McVeigh and Nichols a
> "little army?" Were the British citizens who blew up the subway two
> years ago a "little army?" I'm not trying to get into a political
> argument here (of *course* we never get into political arguments here)
> but I have to tell you it bothers me.

It doesn't bother me in an irritating way, but I agree that it's not very
accurate. If there were a similar statement about 'insurgents' and
'freedom fighters', I could go along with that. But a terrorist is a
terrorist, IMO.

Chak


--
It is a paradoxical but profoundly true and important principle of life
that the most likely way to reach a goal is to be aiming not at that goal
itself but at some more ambitious goal beyond it.
--Arnold Toynbee

Chakolate wrote:
> "Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in
> news:mlKji.238$qu5.39@trndny02:
>
>> "FurPaw" <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:IfCdnVr9UbuQgRLbnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> --
>>> Terrorist - what the big army calls the little army.
>> ----------------
>> Furry, your sig line really bothers me. I would have applauded it in
>> the days of the Viet Cong, but now? Were McVeigh and Nichols a
>> "little army?" Were the British citizens who blew up the subway two
>> years ago a "little army?" I'm not trying to get into a political
>> argument here (of *course* we never get into political arguments here)
>> but I have to tell you it bothers me.
>
> It doesn't bother me in an irritating way, but I agree that it's not very
> accurate. If there were a similar statement about 'insurgents' and
> 'freedom fighters', I could go along with that. But a terrorist is a
> terrorist, IMO.

I don't know who originated the quote; I use "terrorist" in the
sense defined here:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=terrorism

<quote>
1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during
the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr.
terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).

"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is
virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror --
virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror,
without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in
Fr. National Convention, 1794]

General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is
first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by
terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates
to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the
British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist
revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French
Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste. The tendency of one
party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was
noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war
in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least
retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in
World War II (e.g. in the "Spectator," Oct. 20, 1979).
</quote>

The word, had it been in existence in 1776, would surely have
been used by the Brits to describe the American rebels, whom we
in the US call "patriots."

I chose the sig line to provoke thought: who is the terrorist
and who is the law-enforcing army tends to be defined by one's
perspective, and by history: which side prevailed in the
conflict, which side is currently in power.

I appreciate the reasoned responses to this sig line by Eva and
Chak - on another newsgroup, the response I got was "Freakin'
Maroon!"

And so, after this post, I will replace it.

FurPaw
--
Terrorist - what the big army calls the little army.

To reply, unleash the dog.

On Jul 7, 12:05 pm, FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chakolate wrote:
> > "Eva" <EvaDStruction...@NOTverizon.net> wrote in
> >news:mlKji.238$qu5.39@trndny02:
>
> >> "FurPaw" <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:IfCdnVr9UbuQgRLbnZ2dnUVZ_q2pnZ2d@comcast.co m...
> >>> --
> >>> Terrorist - what the big army calls the little army.
> >> ----------------
> >> Furry, your sig line really bothers me. I would have applauded it in
> >> the days of the Viet Cong, but now? Were McVeigh and Nichols a
> >> "little army?" Were the British citizens who blew up the subway two
> >> years ago a "little army?" I'm not trying to get into a political
> >> argument here (of *course* we never get into political arguments here)
> >> but I have to tell you it bothers me.
>
> > It doesn't bother me in an irritating way, but I agree that it's not very
> > accurate. If there were a similar statement about 'insurgents' and
> > 'freedom fighters', I could go along with that. But a terrorist is a
> > terrorist, IMO.
>
> I don't know who originated the quote; I use "terrorist" in the
> sense defined here:http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=terrorism
>
> <quote>
> 1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during
> the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr.
> terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).
>
> "If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is
> virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror --
> virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror,
> without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in
> Fr. National Convention, 1794]
>
> General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is
> first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by
> terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates
> to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the
> British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist
> revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French
> Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste. The tendency of one
> party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was
> noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war
> in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least
> retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in
> World War II (e.g. in the "Spectator," Oct. 20, 1979).
> </quote>
>
> The word, had it been in existence in 1776, would surely have
> been used by the Brits to describe the American rebels, whom we
> in the US call "patriots."

Truly, many actions of the heroes of the Revolutionary War would be
called terrorist acts today. They engaged in guerrilla warfare,
refusing to attack the British in an orderly and "gentlemanly"
fashion. The oh-so-revered Boston Tea Party was an act of sabotage
which, under today's laws against anything that offends agriculture or
corporations, would result in a terrorist charge and a lengthy prison
term. Ronald Reagan referred to the Nicaraguan contras as freedom
fighters, even after they committed numerous massacres of peasant
villages. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Les



>
> I chose the sig line to provoke thought: who is the terrorist
> and who is the law-enforcing army tends to be defined by one's
> perspective, and by history: which side prevailed in the
> conflict, which side is currently in power.
>
> I appreciate the reasoned responses to this sig line by Eva and
> Chak - on another newsgroup, the response I got was "Freakin'
> Maroon!"
>
> And so, after this post, I will replace it.
>
> FurPaw
> --
> Terrorist - what the big army calls the little army.
>
> To reply, unleash the dog.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

FurPaw wrote the following on 7/7/2007 3:05 PM:

> I appreciate the reasoned responses to this sig line by Eva and
> Chak - on another newsgroup, the response I got was "Freakin'
> Maroon!"

I don't know. I always pictured you more as green...

Karen R.

On Jul 7, 6:16 pm, "Karen R." <kre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> FurPaw wrote the following on 7/7/2007 3:05 PM:
>
> > I appreciate the reasoned responses to this sig line by Eva and
> > Chak - on another newsgroup, the response I got was "Freakin'
> > Maroon!"
>
> I don't know. I always pictured you more as green...
>
> Karen R.


excellent discussion about the signature line. great freakin maroon
response (actually, 'great freakin maroon' sounds like something my
husband & his friends would use in their 'boneheaded flapping.')

then i suddenly realized (& i guess this is more curiousity, the other
perimenopausal stuff is much more pressing), will i ever be able to
spell again?

ellen

ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1183857106.876925.291610
@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> then i suddenly realized (& i guess this is more curiousity, the other
> perimenopausal stuff is much more pressing), will i ever be able to
> spell again?
>

That's like the joke about the guy whose doctor tells him he needs
surgery, and he says, 'But doc, after surgery, will I be able to play the
violin?' The doctor says 'Sure!' and the guy says, 'Hey, that's great!
I've always wanted to play the violin.'

Will you ever be able to spell? ;-) The probable answer is 'no, but
you'll stop caring about spelling'. 'Spelling??? We don't need no
steenkeeng spelling.'

Chak

--
It is a paradoxical but profoundly true and important principle of life
that the most likely way to reach a goal is to be aiming not at that goal
itself but at some more ambitious goal beyond it.
--Arnold Toynbee

Jette <bosslady@scotlandmail.com> wrote:

> JustGB wrote:
> > Duh!! Anyone who has been in a social situation with a bunch of
> > couples, let's say, knows that the women can't get a word in edgewise.
> >
> > JustGB
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...07/05/AR200707
0501503.html?nav=rss_email/components
> >
> > Stereotypes of Quiet Men, Chatty Women Not Sound Science
> >
> > By David Brown
> > Washington Post Staff Writer
> > Friday, July 6, 2007; A02
> >
> > Across time and culture, the female predilection for chattiness and
> > the male penchant for taciturnity have approached the status of
> > unarguable facts. Now, two studies appear to bury these age-old
> > stereotypes.
> >
>
> Working in an office where the male/female ratio is more or less equal
> (probably the female numbers are slightly higher) I can confirm that the
> men are just as talkative as the women - and louder too! And they
> *gossip* far more!

I work with 6 men, and what I know about the personal lives of other
co-workers, I learned from them. As for who talks the most, that depends
on personality and topic. If it's something I can join in on (i.e. it's
not football (soccer) or fishing or boat repairs), then I talk as much
as they do. One guy hardly ever talks in the group, but just chime in if
it's one on one.

--
Keera in Norway * Think big. Shrink to fit.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

ellen wrote:

> then i suddenly realized (& i guess this is more curiousity, the other
> perimenopausal stuff is much more pressing), will i ever be able to
> spell again?

I don't see the problem. IIRC, you spelled "again" correctly.

FurPaw (ducking and running)

--
It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they
need and the Army has to hold a bake sale to buy a tank.

To reply, unleash the dog.

Karen R. wrote:
> FurPaw wrote the following on 7/7/2007 3:05 PM:
>
>> I appreciate the reasoned responses to this sig line by Eva and Chak -
>> on another newsgroup, the response I got was "Freakin' Maroon!"
>
> I don't know. I always pictured you more as green...

'Tis my favorite color :-)

FurPaw

--
It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they
need and the Army has to hold a bake sale to buy a tank.

To reply, unleash the dog.

On Jul 7, 11:08 pm, Chakolate <chakolateDeathToSpamm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> ellen <epdps...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1183857106.876925.291610
> @w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > then i suddenly realized (& i guess this is more curiousity, the other
> > perimenopausal stuff is much more pressing), will i ever be able to
> > spell again?
>
> That's like the joke about the guy whose doctor tells him he needs
> surgery, and he says, 'But doc, after surgery, will I be able to play the
> violin?' The doctor says 'Sure!' and the guy says, 'Hey, that's great!
> I've always wanted to play the violin.'
>
> Will you ever be able to spell? ;-) The probable answer is 'no, but
> you'll stop caring about spelling'. 'Spelling??? We don't need no
> steenkeeng spelling.'
>
> Chak
>
> --
> It is a paradoxical but profoundly true and important principle of life
> that the most likely way to reach a goal is to be aiming not at that goal
> itself but at some more ambitious goal beyond it.
> --Arnold Toynbee


a man rushes into a dentist's office & starts running around the
waiting room, flapping his arms & yelling, "i'm a moth! i'm a moth!
help me! help me! i'm a moth!" the dentist says, "look, i just work
on teeth. why didn't you go next door to the psychiatrist's office?"
the man replied, "your light was on."

chak,
as i ponder this gradual development of english as a second language,
i realize that you are absolutely right! i have applied this
principle as well to my disappearing physical adeptness. at a recent
marital compromise outing, i managed to hit a golf ball behind me.
more than once.

ellen

On Jul 8, 9:26 am, FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ellen wrote:
> > then i suddenly realized (& i guess this is more curiousity, the other
> > perimenopausal stuff is much more pressing), will i ever be able to
> > spell again?
>
> I don't see the problem. IIRC, you spelled "again" correctly.
>
> FurPaw (ducking and running)
>
> --
> It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they
> need and the Army has to hold a bake sale to buy a tank.
>
> To reply, unleash the dog.


fur paw,
no need to duck & run, i raise my hands to applaud not eye poke.

ellen



"oh, another wise guy, eh? nyuck, nyuck, nyuck."
- larry, moe, or possibly curly

FurPaw wrote the following on 7/8/2007 9:27 AM:
> Karen R. wrote:
>> FurPaw wrote the following on 7/7/2007 3:05 PM:
>>
>>> I appreciate the reasoned responses to this sig line by Eva and Chak -
>>> on another newsgroup, the response I got was "Freakin' Maroon!"
>> I don't know. I always pictured you more as green...
>
> 'Tis my favorite color :-)

Wow! I must be psychic. :-) But you are probably not a freakin green...

Karen R.

ellen wrote the following on 7/8/2007 10:14 AM:

> as i ponder this gradual development of english as a second language,
> i realize that you are absolutely right! i have applied this
> principle as well to my disappearing physical adeptness. at a recent
> marital compromise outing, i managed to hit a golf ball behind me.
> more than once.

Having never been physically adept, I've found that some things are
getting worse, and others are getting better. I've always had a problem
with dropping things, but in recent years I have also developed the
ability to catch them before they hit the floor (years of practice) or
follow them with my eyes so I know where they have landed.

Has anyone else who has been in a fairly long (20+ years) relationship
noticed that you end up with each other's deficits? DH (an economist)
says that good traits drive bad traits out of circulation. :-)

Seriously, DH has always been very coordinated, and has a great sense of
direction, except in a shopping mall. He has many other wonderful traits,
but they don't apply to this discussion. :-) On the other hand, he has
ADD and is easily distracted, and is unable to retain more than two
instructions at once -- "Turn off the lights and turn down the heat" --
and often not even that many.

Me? No sense of direction. I can't even tell my left from my right. I can
find my way easily in malls because I rely on landmarks. Total klutz --
I'll trip over my own shadow. But, pre peri, I was extremely organized,
efficient, and the one who kept track of all of the family schedules and
appointments. All of those skills are now past history, and I have to
rely on regular alarms and do stuff as soon as I think of it or it will
be gone. And DH is losing his sense of direction, and getting lost
sometimes. He is also starting to drop things.

Now, why couldn't his sense of direction rubbed off on me, or my
organizational skills on him? :-)

Karen

ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1183904058.342319.290970
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> a man rushes into a dentist's office & starts running around the
> waiting room, flapping his arms & yelling, "i'm a moth! i'm a moth!
> help me! help me! i'm a moth!" the dentist says, "look, i just work
> on teeth. why didn't you go next door to the psychiatrist's office?"
> the man replied, "your light was on."

:-)

> chak,
> as i ponder this gradual development of english as a second language,
> i realize that you are absolutely right! i have applied this
> principle as well to my disappearing physical adeptness. at a recent
> marital compromise outing, i managed to hit a golf ball behind me.
> more than once.

"Marital compromise outing"! I love it. I also love that you hit it
behind you - that takes a certain amount of talent. Brava!

But English is your second language? I'm amazed - I never saw it. A
serious 'Brava!' for that. :-)

Chak



--
It is a paradoxical but profoundly true and important principle of life
that the most likely way to reach a goal is to be aiming not at that goal
itself but at some more ambitious goal beyond it.
--Arnold Toynbee

"Karen R." <krez56@gmail.com> wrote in news:Ga7ki.4866$rR.1937
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> Now, why couldn't his sense of direction rubbed off on me, or my
> organizational skills on him? :-)
>

Because entropy always increases? Because chaos is the true natural
order of things?

I'd say just enjoy the ride, but I know how hard it can be to let go of
being in any sort of control of your life. The good news is that it's
happening at a time when your children are no longer affected by it
(much). :-)

Chak

--
It is a paradoxical but profoundly true and important principle of life
that the most likely way to reach a goal is to be aiming not at that goal
itself but at some more ambitious goal beyond it.
--Arnold Toynbee

Chakolate wrote:
> "Karen R." <krez56@gmail.com> wrote in news:Ga7ki.4866$rR.1937
> @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>> Now, why couldn't his sense of direction rubbed off on me, or my
>> organizational skills on him? :-)
>>
>
> Because entropy always increases? Because chaos is the true natural
> order of things?
>
> I'd say just enjoy the ride, but I know how hard it can be to let go of
> being in any sort of control of your life. The good news is that it's
> happening at a time when your children are no longer affected by it
> (much). :-)

With one child with autism, and another with ADD, it does affect them.
They are used to being able to count on my remembering things for them.
However, one good thing that has come of this is my autistic daughter is
putting her amazing memory to use and realizing that she needs to remind
me of things that are on the schedule -- at least those things that
affect her. :-)

Karen R.

Karen R. wrote:

> Seriously, DH has always been very coordinated, and has a great sense of
> direction, except in a shopping mall. He has many other wonderful
> traits, but they don't apply to this discussion. :-) On the other hand,
> he has ADD and is easily distracted, and is unable to retain more than
> two instructions at once -- "Turn off the lights and turn down the heat"
> -- and often not even that many.
>

No, I'm pretty sure that's normal for men - no need for ADD :-D


--
Jette Goldie
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)

Jette wrote:
> Karen R. wrote:
>
>> Seriously, DH has always been very coordinated, and has a great sense
>> of direction, except in a shopping mall. He has many other wonderful
>> traits, but they don't apply to this discussion. :-) On the other
>> hand, he has ADD and is easily distracted, and is unable to retain
>> more than two instructions at once -- "Turn off the lights and turn
>> down the heat" -- and often not even that many.
>>
>
> No, I'm pretty sure that's normal for men - no need for ADD :-D

:-) I have heard it said that ADD is that sort of basic male behavior --
taken to extremes. In DH's case, it is extreme enough to warrant a dx,
and it does cause significant problems for him. YD is the same, and no
one would ever accuse her of being male. :-)

Karen R.

"Chakolate" <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9966E12C1654Bchakolatehotmailcom@207.115.3 3.102...
> ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1183857106.876925.291610
> @w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > then i suddenly realized (& i guess this is more curiousity, the other
> > perimenopausal stuff is much more pressing), will i ever be able to
> > spell again?
> >
>
> That's like the joke about the guy whose doctor tells him he needs
> surgery, and he says, 'But doc, after surgery, will I be able to play the
> violin?' The doctor says 'Sure!' and the guy says, 'Hey, that's great!
> I've always wanted to play the violin.'
>
> Will you ever be able to spell? ;-) The probable answer is 'no, but
> you'll stop caring about spelling'. 'Spelling??? We don't need no
> steenkeeng spelling.'
----------------
Being a good speller (like me) has sometimes been more of a curse than a
blessing. When I see a misspelled word, it distracts me to the point that I
can no longer focus on what the writer is trying to communicate. I actually
had to killfile someone in another newsgroup because his spelling was so
atrocious it gave me a headache. (Well, he's an idiot too, but that's
beside the point.)

Besides, as talents go, being a good speller is pretty damned pitiful. If
only I'd been given a good singing voice instead!

Eva

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in message
news:Fbgki.3305$qu5.541@trndny02...
>
> "Chakolate" <chakolateDeathToSpammers@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9966E12C1654Bchakolatehotmailcom@207.115.3 3.102...
>> ellen <epdpster@gmail.com> wrote in news:1183857106.876925.291610
>> @w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > then i suddenly realized (& i guess this is more curiousity, the other
>> > perimenopausal stuff is much more pressing), will i ever be able to
>> > spell again?
>> >
>>
>> That's like the joke about the guy whose doctor tells him he needs
>> surgery, and he says, 'But doc, after surgery, will I be able to play the
>> violin?' The doctor says 'Sure!' and the guy says, 'Hey, that's great!
>> I've always wanted to play the violin.'
>>
>> Will you ever be able to spell? ;-) The probable answer is 'no, but
>> you'll stop caring about spelling'. 'Spelling??? We don't need no
>> steenkeeng spelling.'
> ----------------
> Being a good speller (like me) has sometimes been more of a curse than a
> blessing. When I see a misspelled word, it distracts me to the point that
> I
> can no longer focus on what the writer is trying to communicate. I
> actually
> had to killfile someone in another newsgroup because his spelling was so
> atrocious it gave me a headache. (Well, he's an idiot too, but that's
> beside the point.)
>
> Besides, as talents go, being a good speller is pretty damned pitiful. If
> only I'd been given a good singing voice instead!

Sounds good to me, too! <g> I love music, but have *no* musical talent.
Zilch.

I can also spell well. And I came to the conclusion long ago that it most
likely is a talent - vs. necessarily being related to how well one does in
the other ELAs. I've known kids who were great readers, but couldn't spell
worth sh*t.

Cathy


> Eva
>
>

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in
news:Fbgki.3305$qu5.541@trndny02:

> Besides, as talents go, being a good speller is pretty damned pitiful.
> If only I'd been given a good singing voice instead!
>

But good spelling is not your biggest talent, it's a minor one. One of
your biggest ones is being able, consistently, to hit the nail on the
head.

Chak, who gets it right *sometimes*

--
It is a paradoxical but profoundly true and important principle of life
that the most likely way to reach a goal is to be aiming not at that goal
itself but at some more ambitious goal beyond it.
--Arnold Toynbee

On Jul 8, 11:13 am, "Karen R." <kre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ellen wrote the following on 7/8/2007 10:14 AM:
>
> > as i ponder this gradual development of english as a second language,
> > i realize that you are absolutely right! i have applied this
> > principle as well to my disappearing physical adeptness. at a recent
> > marital compromise outing, i managed to hit a golf ball behind me.
> > more than once.
>
> Having never been physically adept, I've found that some things are
> getting worse, and others are getting better. I've always had a problem
> with dropping things, but in recent years I have also developed the
> ability to catch them before they hit the floor (years of practice) or
> follow them with my eyes so I know where they have landed.
>
> Has anyone else who has been in a fairly long (20+ years) relationship
> noticed that you end up with each other's deficits? DH (an economist)
> says that good traits drive bad traits out of circulation. :-)
>
> Seriously, DH has always been very coordinated, and has a great sense of
> direction, except in a shopping mall. He has many other wonderful traits,
> but they don't apply to this discussion. :-) On the other hand, he has
> ADD and is easily distracted, and is unable to retain more than two
> instructions at once -- "Turn off the lights and turn down the heat" --
> and often not even that many.
>
> Me? No sense of direction. I can't even tell my left from my right. I can
> find my way easily in malls because I rely on landmarks. Total klutz --
> I'll trip over my own shadow. But, pre peri, I was extremely organized,
> efficient, and the one who kept track of all of the family schedules and
> appointments. All of those skills are now past history, and I have to
> rely on regular alarms and do stuff as soon as I think of it or it will
> be gone. And DH is losing his sense of direction, and getting lost
> sometimes. He is also starting to drop things.
>
> Now, why couldn't his sense of direction rubbed off on me, or my
> organizational skills on him? :-)
>
> Karen


karen,

i can say that my sense of direction is slightly better, but that my
husband has acquired no organizational skills. in addition to my
comments about the changes in my physical & verbal skills (plus i am
now dyslexic sometimes, which is also weirdly new), i have found that
my organizational skills have totally disappeared.

i read your posts after a fight with my husband & was reminded again
that alot of our problems may be related to ADD. it got brought up
during a brief romp through marital counseling several years ago & he
was upset at the mere suggestion. so we've never dealt with it well
(at all?) & i've tried everything to assert my needs & protect myself,
but frankly with all this other stuff now, i'm pretty tired of it. i
can't imagine navigating through the special needs that are present in
your household while perimenopause unfolds & yet it sounds like it's
going well. it's very cool that your daughter is able to key in on
some of the organizational assistance.

good luck,
ellen

On Jul 8, 11:48 am, Chakolate <chakolateDeathToSpamm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> ellen <epdps...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1183904058.342319.290970
> @n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > a man rushes into a dentist's office & starts running around the
> > waiting room, flapping his arms & yelling, "i'm a moth! i'm a moth!
> > help me! help me! i'm a moth!" the dentist says, "look, i just work
> > on teeth. why didn't you go next door to the psychiatrist's office?"
> > the man replied, "your light was on."
>
> :-)
>
> > chak,
> > as i ponder this gradual development of english as a second language,
> > i realize that you are absolutely right! i have applied this
> > principle as well to my disappearing physical adeptness. at a recent
> > marital compromise outing, i managed to hit a golf ball behind me.
> > more than once.
>
> "Marital compromise outing"! I love it. I also love that you hit it
> behind you - that takes a certain amount of talent. Brava!
>
> But English is your second language? I'm amazed - I never saw it. A
> serious 'Brava!' for that. :-)
>
> Chak
>
> --
> It is a paradoxical but profoundly true and important principle of life
> that the most likely way to reach a goal is to be aiming not at that goal
> itself but at some more ambitious goal beyond it.
> --Arnold Toynbee


alas, i deserve no accolades for anything. the english comment was a
failed sarcastic swipe at my diminishing communication skills, among
other growing cognitive deficits. but i guess it proved my point.

ellen