Phases of the Moon

“”—‘’
In my previous post, I made the error of assuming that most readers would know how the phases of the Moon work, which is by no means an understanding that can be taken for granted.  I wonder why this bit of information is presented to kids when they’re so young.  Understanding the geometry of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon, and the kinematics—which means the geometry in motion— is not easy for a young person who is still struggling with the thought that the Earth is not flat.

Anyone who understands the phases of the Moon perfectly well may feel free to skip this post; it is entirely educational, and doesn’t have all the opinions that people are accustomed to seeing here.

First of all, the phases of the moon are not things that really happen to the Moon in quite the same way as one might think.  Let’s try to visualize the phases of the Earth first.  We know perfectly well that half the Earth is lit up at any given time of day.  If we were flying around the Earth in a rocket or Space Shuttle, depending on where we’re looking from, we would see the Earth completely lit up by the Sun, partially lit up, or we might be looking at the night side, and the Earth would not be lit up at all.

To make things even clearer, suppose we’re in a room with a bright floodlight at the far end of the room, and someone is walking about the room holding a tennis ball.  At any time, exactly half the tennis ball will be illuminated.  Suppose we call the line that separates the lighted side from the dark side the Night/Day line, if we make the person holding the tennis ball to just stand still for a minute, and stand right opposite the Night/Day line (which is actually a circle that goes round the ball), we should see something that looks like a half-moon.  If we move by 45 degrees (centered at the tennis-ball, of course) away from the lamp, we would see a ‘quarter-moon;’ if we move 45 degrees towards the lamp, we would see a three-quarter moon.  If we look at the tennis ball from the side of the lamp (being careful not to let our shadow interfere with the scene), we would see a full moon, and so on.

Now, if we were to observe the Earth, the Moon and the Sun from outer space, ideally from up, way above the North Pole, what we would notice is that the relative positions of the Earth, the Moon and the Sun do not change very much.  In fact, you could watch for a couple of days, and not notice much motion.  But you will notice that the Earth is spinning.  That is by far the fastest thing that is happenning.  It will appear to go around one complete rotation in roughly 24 hours, not surprisingly.  This means that the point of view of the Moon from anyone on the Earth doesn’t change much for a day or two.  If we could keep running round the Earth to keep the Moon always in sight, it will appear to have the same phase for a day or two.  Actually, if we wait until the Moon is directly overhead, and then start running, it will be the same time of day wherever we are, because the Sun will also appear to be motionless.  (This happened to me on New Year’s Eve of 2000; I took a plane out from London, and when I arrived in New York, it was still New Year’s Eve.)

Let’s represent the Sun, the Earth and the Moon by points, and call them S, E, and M respectively.  Over a week, the angle SEM will change about 90 degrees, and in a little less than a month, the angle will be back where it was.  This period of time is called a Lunar Month for this very reason.  Whatever the phase of the moon was at any given moment, the phase is exactly the same one Lunar Month later.

If you’re comfortable with the idea that the phase of the Moon depends on only the angle SEM, which slowly goes from 0 to 360 degrees over a Lunar Month—which is about 28 days—we can now connect the dots.

If the Moon is exactly overhead at 6:00 PM, it has to be a half moon, because it is being illuminated squarely from one side.

If the Moon is exactly overhead at 12:00 Midnight, it has to be a full moon, because it will be illuminated from ‘behind our heads,’ the Sun being on the opposite side of the Earth from us (and the Moon), and the Sun is “looking” at the Moon in exactly the same direction as we are.  (This is why all eclipses of the Moon take place when there is a full moon.)

If the Moon is exactly overhead at, er, let’s see: at 9:00 PM, it will be a 3/4 -moon.

If the Moon is exactly overhead at Noon, it will be a new moon, which is a moon which is all black, or rather, in shadow.

If the Moon is exactly overhead at 3:00 AM, it is essentially the same as if it were overhead at 9:00 PM; if the Moon is exactly overhead at 3:00 PM, it is essentially the same as if it were exactly overhead at 9:00 AM: a quarter-moon.  The two phases are called First Quarter or Last Quarter, I’m not sure which is which.

The figures I’m providing are not as clear as I had planned, mostly because I’m squeezing in so much detail into each diagram, to save space.  (Ha ha; there is so much of it, it seems unnecessary...)

In the first diagram, the angle between the line to the Moon and the line to the Sun is about 90 degrees,

In the second diagram, the angle between the line to the Moon and the line to the Sun is about 135 degrees, which is about 3/4 of one hundred and eighty degrees.

In the last diagram, the angle is 180 degrees, which is when you get a Full Moon.  When the Sun is behind the Moon, you get a New Moon, which is a dark moon, illuminated from behind.  (We still see it, lit by Earthlight, light reflected out to the Moon from us, the Earth.  Astronauts say that Earthlight is very beautiful, and of a bluish cast.)

Arch

A strange progression, from understanding to puzzlement!

.“”—‘’
Here is an interesting phenomenon I have observed!  It takes place over several generations, so you have to take it for what it’s worth.

A teacher explains a certain phenomenon to her students.  She understands it perfectly, at least to whatever extent it is possible to understand a thing.  For the sake of clarity, suppose it is about the phases of the Moon.  “So, you see,” she says, “if the Moon happens to be exactly overhead at 6:00 PM, when you can assume the Sun is just setting, the line from the Moon to the Earth will be at 90 degrees to the line from the Sun to the Earth!”

The majority of the students, of course, will see where this is going, and while the Sun may not be just setting, in principle the Moon-Earth-Sun angle is going to be roughly a right angle, as close as makes no difference.  Now, since the line from the Sun to the Moon, and from the Sun to the Earth are nearly parallel (that’s probably a tough sell, too; some of the slower kids will get hung up on the fact that if the Sun lies on both lines, how can they be parallel?  They cannot understand that they’re never going to experience more parallel lines than these two, since the Sun is so far away.  (Oddly enough, kids will not have any problem regarding two sides of a street as being parallel, though in theory they’re actually little bits of enormous circles, and as such the term ‘parallel’ does not even apply to them.)

Anyway, the point is, that if it so happens that the Moon is dead overhead at 6:00 PM, it will have to be a half-moon.  Throughout the night, both the Sun and the Moon will drift Eastwards, but they will essentially maintain the right angle, since it is the Earth that is rotating, while the Sun and the Moon are moving far too slowly to make much of a difference to the angles.

You can imagine that the teacher explains the phases of the Moon in greater detail, and some of the students get it, but others will not.  However, if the teacher is to be considered a good teacher, by the standards that have come down to us, she will give the class some rules of thumb whereby even the students who have not understood the phenomenon can make predictions about the phases of the Moon.

Unfortunately for us, and for humanity at large, you can imagine that it is some of those kids who just didn’t get it, but who were able to use the rules of thumb effectively, who go on to take up the profession of teaching.  Many teachers teach for the love of it.  The rest do it because it is the most convenient thing to do.

Teachers, by and large, are a conscientious lot, and one can imagine that, in advance of having to teach about the phases of the Moon, a teacher will put in a fair attempt at trying to understand the whole business, and what eluded her as a student might easily be within her grasp as an adult, and her students may be so lucky as to have the opportunity to understand the geometry of the phenomenon.  But over several generations, it is quite possible that only the rule of thumb survives.

Years later, it is possible that the principles of a particular phenomenon still hold, but whatever condition allowed the creation of Rules of Thumb no longer applies.  For example, the rules of thumb governing health insurance are probably no longer valid, especially in light of the changed situation regarding pre-existing conditions.  Insurance analysts who relied on Rules of Thumb must make up a whole new set of RoT's to use when they’re not in a mood to really think, on a morning after a night of heavy drinking.  (Actuaries drink like fish.  I’ve seen them.  There’s a rule of thumb for you!)

So if the assumptions on which a Rule of Thumb is based change enough, people will be puzzled, and lose faith in the entire education they have received, which in most cases is just the entire body of Rules of Thumb on which they operate.  Kids these days actually think that the teacher’s entire responsibility is to pass along some rules of thumb (and some professors have bought into this idea), and are puzzled and frustrated when anyone tries to give them the Big Picture.  We have an entire population of kids saying: “Just the facts, Ma'am.”  They mean: Just the rules of thumb, please; I don’t have time for anything else.

The phenomenon of only the rule of thumb surviving is, of course, not by any means restricted to astronomy.  All around us we see examples of people relying on rules of thumb:

• Buy low, sell high.
• Charge whatever the Traffic Will Allow.
• Cheating the Government is OK, because it’s Our Money, Anyway.

Some of these are only Rules of Thumb if you’re not very moral, to begin with.

• Righty Tighty, Lefty Loosey.  (Unless you’re working with certain plumbing fixtures or bicycle pedals!)
• Red Sky In The Morning, Take Warning.
• Taxes are bad for Small Business.
• Government is bad for Health Care.

The rules of thumb for diet and nutrition are the most variable.  Some people avoid sugar, but eat tons of meat, unaware that protein is ultimately turned into either other proteins, or to sugars, especially if you eat a lot of protein.  And unless you eat only egg-white, protein carries along with it a lot of fat (no matter how hard you try to trim it away), and a teaspoon of fat has as much calories as a quarter cup of sugar.  (I’m not absolutely certain of the equivalence; I’ll have to check it and get back to you.  Another scary rule of thumb!!!)

Rules of Thumb for responding to Economic Conditions are pretty interesting, and suspicious, too.  Economists have a myriad ways of advising whether or not to raise taxes, whether or not to raise interest rates, whether or not the Fed should tighten the money supply, whether or not investors should buy stocks versus bonds.  The very fact that these superstitions are so widespread—and make no mistake: they’re superstitions—means that when something unexpected happens, all economists react the same way, just like panic-stricken people in a burning cinema, and of course all the nervous investors on Wall Street are watching each other, just so they can make the same lame-brain move as everyone else.

I used to have a rule of thumb, borrowed from a famous mathematician in Cambridge of the 1920's: give easy exams, but grade hard.  You quickly learn which students know what they’re doing, and which do not.

This really works, provided the kids do not do detailed postmortems of the final examinations for the benefit of their juniors.  Can you imagine the conversation?
“I got a B!  I sort of knew a little of what was going on, but I just didn’t have the time to put in much work all semester, but I must have nailed the final!  He gives easy finals, y’all!”
So of course the next class doesn’t do a stroke of work, anticipating an easy final.

So I give really difficult finals.  They certainly are harder to grade, but with a lot of work, it is possible to decide which students really know what they’re doing, and which ones are just applying Rules of Thumb.

[Added later:

I’ve seen much the same phenomenon even among my close friends, when we go to a seminar or an informational meeting.  It is almost the expected thing to do, to ignore almost everything except what is known as the Takeaway.  What is the Takeaway?  It is the whole event condensed into a Rule of Thumb.  Distilling everything into trivial niblets is a way of life, for those of us who just can’t bother to deal with, or can’t handle, the subtleties of modern life.  It is certainly true that people whose job is giving information have lost the knack of delivering the information tellingly and succinctly.  But even if the speaker was a genius, there is always that executive summary that everyone demands.  Executives are people who do not have a lot of brains, but have a lot of responsibility, and most of the time they work with rules of thumb (more’s the pity).  But once everybody wants to Takeaway only the Rule of Thumb, we are in deep trouble.]

Arch

Rationing the Educational Edge

.
Why do we educate everybody, in the USA, despite the fact that many of our citizens could not could afford a private education for their children?  (Why do we lavish any sort of education on the poor and downtrodden, if we don't even issue them a free automobile, that mark of citizenship?)  The long history of public education in the USA brings out the different view the Founding Fathers of the nation had of what would make an excellent republic, than the view we believe those who have grabbed the reins of power in modern America to have.  To those of us who are accused of being liberals, it seems clear that the Founding Fathers, even though they were by no means unanimous in their vision, wanted what was best for the general population, while at the same time protecting private property, which they saw as each person's right to keep what was his hard-earned wealth.  Modern oligarchs, in contrast, seem to take the position that no one deserves anything they can't afford.

As society evolved, and cynics were able to break down the philosophical bases of the American Republic into dollars and cents terms, what was written into the constitution and encoded in early laws was seen to be a very uneasy compromise between what was good for all, versus what could be afforded by each one.  Today, the few who own most of the wealth of the nation look with great skepticism at their financial obligations: Why, they ask, should those of us who have the greatest wealth, have to fund highways, hospitals, schools, the arts, and science and research?

In a recent Bill Moyer's interview, he discussed Diane Ravitch's book Reign of Error, in which she points out the dangers of permitting the continued migration of Education, which has been a part of the social contract, and a cooperative venture so far, into the private sector (and its exploitation for profit).

Let's look at the problem from the point of view of the Fiscal Conservative.  On the one hand, when we pay for public education with tax dollars, and hand over the monitoring of whether the dollars are spent effectively to government inspectors, the taxpayers are likely to see what goes on in schools as ongoing apparent ineptitude.  This is not how we do things in my sweatshop, says the Fiscal Conservative.  But lately, some of them have looked at education, and they see an opportunity to make money.

So far, thank goodness, not every entrepreneur sees education as a money-bin, but Diane Ravitch clearly sees an alarming trend, namely that consortiums of  hedge fund managers are taking over charter schools in certain cities, and removing public education entirely from the supervision of those who used to be responsible for educational quality control.

Public education is complex, and unfortunately the simple metrics that the private sector tends to advocate for the measurement of government "efficiency" cannot take into account all the parameters of what goes into the quality of what is called "Student Learning Outcomes."  But teachers, out of desperation, have taken it upon themselves to study the government data (and of course government is mostly helpless to resist the bottom-line that the most vociferous taxpayers put forward in the name of The Public,) and have noticed the very plausible trend that teachers who have students who live below the poverty line have classes that perform below average.

From the point of view of private enterprise and capitalist economics, it seems like a good idea to segregate students from below the poverty line, and students better able to afford quality education.  Though this seems the most "practical" solution to the problem, from a philosophical point of view, this sort of segregation goes against all the instincts of anyone who is even slightly liberal in his or her views.  But Diane Ravitch is noticing that there is not a strong stand against this tendency to privatize education within the Democrat Party.  Many Democrats have bought into the conservative line, and are eager to play along with the plan to privatize public education, and in some cities, completely replace public schools with Charter schools, which, Ms Ravitch asserts, do not have better results than public schools, as they claim in their marketing.

Unfortunately this question has many aspects: an educational aspect (what will work best for my kid's education?  Must I sacrifice my own children to my political philosophy?), a political significance (what is the right thing to do for the nation's children?  Can we save all the public schools, or focus on private schools, which seem to promise a bigger bang for the buck?), and an economic aspect (how is the nation's and the taxpayer's money best spent?  Is it worth putting good money after bad into the bottomless pit that public education has become?) and a social justice aspect --I'm struggling for a phrase here, and this is the closest I can get--(Is it right to make a child's education depend on the parent's ability to pay?)  So the privatizing forces have multiple ways of pushing forward their agenda.

Arch

Manipulatives for Everyone

.
Many years ago, it was discovered that far too many elementary students were being taught mathematics by giving them rules.  Some teachers motivated the rules with examples (See?  It really works!), others just insisted that the kids learn the rules, and use them.

Presently, it was decided by at least some authorities (and all backed up with research), that it was better for a child to learn a method slowly, using materials that worked like money, for instance, than to simply teach the child rules of addition.

In the case of place value, the big idea in representing numbers, this works as follows.  You first explain that all numbers must be represented by dollars, dimes, and pennies.  Ten pennies are worth one dime, and ten dimes are worth a dollar.  Okay; that certainly is a rule, but it is a definition, from the real world, so it isn't too illogical.

The next step is to convert every number of one, two, or three digits, into the least possible number of dollars, dimes and pennies; e.g. 123 = 1 dollar, 2 dimes, and 3 pennies.

Now you teach addition. 123 + 456 = 5 dollars, 7 dimes, and 9 pennies.

Next you teach carrying, which is merely trading 10 pennies for a dime, etc.

Base-Ten Blocks.  Units are represented
by the little cubes (yellow, in this set),
Tens by the rods (green, in this set),
and Hundreds by the slabs (blue, here),
and thousands by the big (red) block.

Teachers who are adept at this can diagnose which part of the procedure a kid has failed to get.  For instance, if a student gives a response to the problem 99+43=1312, you can tell that there is difficulty with the concept of carrying, but the actual addition is proceeding moderately well.

People outside the teaching profession take the concept of "Carrying" for granted.  A student taught with Base Ten Blocks, which is the classroom equivalent of money, knows exactly what carrying is.  It is more important for an elementary student to understand how what we call place-value notation works (an Arab invention, we believe), than to be able to use rules fast.

Calculators

Some "experts" are of the opinion that if kids can use calculators from the start, they will figure it all out someday.  I don't think this is either true or false; the big question is whether it will actually serve the child better in the long run.

What got me started on this harangue is a recent blog criticizing how students in some states were being tested for the so-called Common Core.  Some of the questions were undeniably bad, but a large part of the criticism was based on the critic completely missing the point of the question.  Unfortunately, some of the teachers inventing creative questions were also a little off the mark.

Arch

Bach's Birthday: March 21, 1685

.
For those who haven't read my previous years' posts about Bach's birthday: the short story is that in the part of Germany (Saxony, which was for some decades, behind the Iron Curtain) was so defiantly Protestant that they refused to reset their Calendar according to Pope Gregory's astronomers.  Over the years, because the Leap Year adjustments were not strong enough (or really too strong; they overcompensated) the seasons had crept, so that March 21st, for instance, was in late spring, early summer.  But poor Bach, and all his neighbors, were accustomed to this state of affairs: March was  early summer for all parts of the world that refused to reset their calendars in such a way that March 21st was the Spring Equinox.  Due to the intervention of various persons (notably one Ole Rømer, according to Wikipedia), the calendars in Prussia and, presumably Saxony (but I could be wrong) were adjusted to be in synchrony with the Gregorian Calendar in late 1700, when Johann Sebastian Bach would have been about 15 years old.  Apparently it involved a loss of only 11 days: October 4th was followed by October 15th.  I seem to remember reading somewhere that people got very upset over this; rents, for instance, were due eleven days earlier than expected.

I always celebrate Bach's birthday on March 21st, even if that day was really April 1st, or maybe even a different date, in Rome.  It is probable that Bach was aware that his birthdate would be different in other calendars, and he might even have known what it was.  But the baptismal registry in his church says March 21, 1685, so that's when I celebrate him.

I usually write about some work of Bach, and this year I have chosen the slow movement of the Concerto for Flute, Violin and Harpsichord, S. 1044 (or BWV 1044).

Bach wrote at least two triple concertos for this particular combination of instruments: Flute, Violin and Harpsichord: the most famous is probably Brandenburg Concerto No. 5, followed by this one: BWV 1044 in A minor.  Here is a clip on YouTube, played beautifully, in the pre-Original Instruments style, which I'm finding more attractive recently.

Here's a more recent, 'Original Instrument"-type performance, by I Barrochisti.

[To be continued]

Arch

Classic Dad-ly Advice

‘’—“”

This was amazing —well, mostly!  A post going round on Facebook is remarkable, at least to me, because some of these were actually said to me by various older men: my Dad, sundry uncles, and other great guys who pretty much had it together.

Some of these sorts of pieces of advice are sort of dogmatic, but I think I want to look behind them, to see whether there is some underlying principle that might be worth discovering.

[I checked up on Google, and found that there are at least 4 variations on this list, and it appears that it's in the form of an image just to make it harder to copy.  But remember, when you're talking about advice, or teaching materials: steal all you see, keep all you steal, use all you keep.]

First and foremost: these are intended to be "father-son" advice, so the items having to do with relationships with women are particularly poignant.  Inter-gender dynamics have evolved over the years, and these tips reveal a sensibility that could still make sense.

(A)  So let's look at Dad's advice on dealing with women:

1.    Go for women you perceive to be “out of your league.”  You’ll surprise yourself.
2.    Never have sex with anyone who doesn’t want it as much as you do.
5.    Never take her to the movies on the first date.
7.    Nothing looks more badass than a well-tailored suit.
17.    Compliment her shoes.
39.    Always go out into public dressed like you’re about to meet the love of your life.
43.    Women find confidence sexy as hell.

That first one is a gem.  Generally speaking, from a man's point of view, women tend to present themselves as if to intimidate men who might be interested.  But they get stuck in a rut, and continue to act distant or reserved indiscriminately.  It is probably a good idea to ignore class implications if you're looking for a relationship; a classy woman will be polite enough that you can have a fair shot at presenting yourself.  This whole business of presenting oneself as higher-class than one really is has to be dealt with each person for himself; there are pluses and minuses in faking how classy you really are.  Anyway, if your ambit fails after a while, well, move along.

Having sex with a reluctant partner is just silly; there's always time for sex on a later occasion.  There are too many problems with being the one who wants the sex more.

Movies?  That does kinda make sense; you want to talk on those early dates.  So: a meal, dancing, some sort of activity--a concert, a game, places where you can study each other without being too obvious.  In a dark movie theater, guys have all the wrong instincts ready to go!

Shoes?  That one doesn't compute; compliments are always welcome if they're sincere, but why shoes?  Perhaps other items of clothing are a little too ... dangerous?

Confidence is good.  Generally, presenting yourself as just as confident as you really are is a good plan, but when going out on a date, overstating your confidence makes it easier on your lady friend.  Imagine how awkward it is for her, if she has to be your Mom!  Be confident; never mind about being sexy.

The well-tailored suit: unfortunately, this is still true, in many cases, and this is not just an observation about inter-gender strategy.  Dressing in a suit for an important occasion is still a good plan: it says that you respect all the other parties involved, including waiters, performers, everyone, and not least your date.  And well-tailored is something not to be taken for granted.  As long as it is possible to get a tailored suit, this advice stands.

(B)  This set has to do with personal style, the things that young women will find strange, but more mature women, who have observed men with both approval and disapproval, will notice with interest.

4.    Every hat should serve a purpose.
6.    Learn to wet shave.
8.    Shave with the grain on the first go-around.
9.    Always look a person in the eye when you talk to them.
12.    Brush your teeth before you put on your tie.
14.    Call your parents every week.
15.    Never wear a clip-on tie.
16.    Give a firm handshake.
18.    Never leave a pint unfinished.
19.    If you aren’t confident, fake it.  It will come.
21.    Be conscious of your body language.
23.    Always stand to shake someone’s hand.
26.    Keep a change of clothes at the office.
30.    When you walk, look straight ahead, not at your feet.
31.    Nice guys don’t finish last.  Boring guys do.
34.    No matter their job or status in life, everyone deserves your respect.

Hats: I guess this advice was given at the point in time when hats were beginning to go out of fashion.  It says: don't wear a hat just for show.  You have to figure this one out for yourself.  Wet shaving; shaving with the grain: well, okay.  Maybe some folks have an opinion on this.  (Shaving against the direction of your beard results in scraped skin; it's something I only do on special occasions, and using as little force as possible.)

Some of these, such as not wearing clip-on ties are, as I said, matters of personal style.  A clip-on tie looks pretty silly, especially if it comes off, by accident.  I don't know about leaving a pint unfinished; there must be some deep meaning there that eludes me.

Standing to shake hands is something I stand behind.  It is very refreshing to anyone to be given this degree of automatic, minimal respect.  It goes with no. 34: give respect as a matter of principle.  As a young man, I was often rude, and now I regret having been that way.

(C)   Another group of these pieces of advice are about planning, thinking ahead.

3.    Never hit anyone unless they are an immediate threat.
10.    Buy a plunger before you need one.
11.    Exercise makes you happy.  Run, lift, and play sports.
13.    A small amount of your paycheck should go directly into your savings account every month.
22.    The only reason to ever point a gun at someone is if you intend to shoot them.
24.    Never lend anything you can’t afford to lose.
27.    Buy high quality tools, so you only have to buy them once.
29.    Go with the decision that will make for a good story.
32.    Find your passion and figure out how to get paid for it.
37.    Do what needs to be done without complaining.  Complaining won’t help speed things up.
38.    Never stop learning.
42.    Luck favors the prepared.
44.    Do whatever you want to do in life, but be the best at it.
45.    No one lies on their deathbed wishing they had spent more time at work.  Enjoy your life.

It's all about thinking ahead, and having some decisions made beforehand.  Buying a plunger; deciding to fight, keeping your body in shape.  Saving.  Carrying firearms.  Lending and borrowing.  Investing in quality tools and equipment.  Deciding on an occupation.  Education and training.  Keeping a balance between work and recreation.  Some of this advice is trivial, but easy to forget.  Other pieces are really priceless suggestions.
[Added later: No. 24 is particularly good advice.  An aunt of mine once said: never lend to a good friend.  Just give them whatever it is; otherwise, the loan will stand between you, and you will end up valuing the loan higher than your friendship.  Often, the friend will return the item--hopefully in fair shape.  If you never get it back, you have to weigh its value; if it is one of the most valuable things you own, politely ask for it back.  Your friends might have actually forgotten that they had borrowed it.]  

Finally, (D) we have several suggestions about personal attitude.  Attitude, those mental adjustments that really pave the way for quick thinking and decisions, are very important to have thought out beforehand, and kept ready.  It is a different sort of thinking ahead: these are patterns of thought that make decisions easier:

20.    You can tell the size of a man by the size of things that bother him.
25.    Ask more than you answer.  Everybody likes to talk about themselves.
28.    Manliness is not only being able to take care of yourself, but others as well.
33.    Don’t let the little head do the thinking for the big head.
35.    The most important thing you can learn is personal responsibility.  Bad things happen; it’s your job to overcome them.
36.    The first one to get angry loses.
40.    Don’t change yourself just to make someone happy, unless that someone is you.
41.    If you’re the smartest person in the room, you’re in the wrong room.

A big man isn't bothered by trivialities.  No. 20 makes you realize that being petty reveals more about you than you might want people to know.  25 is about trying to make yourself interested in whomever you're having a conversation with.  It is a priceless gift, to make yourself interested in someone.  On the face of it, the advice is just to make it appear as if you're interested.  But it is better to be interested.

The advice about responsibility, of not losing your temper, of not making decisions based on your libido, these are all difficult.  About changing yourself: to do it for someone else is a terrible thing.  Because, if you don't like how it goes, you would blame the other party.  Change must come from within, and you have to be on board with it, and do it for yourself.  (Don't expect change from your significant other; you've got to take them the way they come.)

Finally, another piece of advice about people who might be superior to you.  It is a companion exhortation to the very first one: don't be put off by smart people unduly.  I mean, it is pretty miserable to be surrounded by a bunch of snooty geniuses.  But it is just as silly to seek out the company of people of lower intellectual ability just for the sake of being comfortable with them.  It is not very different from pursuing a woman who might be your superior, at least in attitude, if not fact!

In conclusion, some of this advice is less than genius grade, but a lot of it is very good advice indeed.  Incidentally, going for women who are out of your league: you're not going to surprise yourself--after all, it is a deliberate plan.  But, I think the author meant that you just might be surprised at how the woman responds.

Arch

Mystery tune again!

Come on, check this out on YouTube!!!



[Added later:

For those who missed the Memo the first time: this is a tune that is stuck in my head; it sounds like Haydn, but as we know, lots of non-Haydn tunes sound very Haydnesque.   (We speak, of course, of Joseph Haydn, the composer of the Creation, which anyone who hasn't heard it must listen to very soon.  Haydn also wrote the National Anthem of Germany, arguably one of the most stirring entries in the National Anthem genre.)

I just happened to speed the playback up a little, and it sounded like a very convincing march.  Also, quite by accident, I tried fading the sounds that the MIDI player which produced the video (Music Animation Machine, by Stephen Malinowski, basically just a piano playing the notes,) into the orchestral MIDI sounds, and it came out brilliantly!  So here it is, with slightly improved graphics, if I may be permitted to use the word "improved" in connection with Mr Malinowski's wonderful piece of software!