Thesaurus Thursday: "Ameliorate" + Blog Notes.

Today's word is "ameliorate," a verb meaning to improve, make better, or amend.

Many people suggest eating chicken noodle soup to ameliorate the symptoms of a cold.

Just remember: Amelia Bedelia could ameliorate everything with pie.

Blog Notes:

I have some general updates about future posts. I bought my first corset slightly over a week ago, and I'm writing a post more about the process and body image issues when purchasing such specialty clothing items than a true "review" of the corset; it should be posted this weekend.

I also bought a Curvy Kate bikini, and I'm considering doing an actual review of that in a Bra Edition of Thesaurus Thursday next week, assuming it has arrived by then and is anywhere close to the correct size.  There are many great reviews of Curvy Kate swimwear out there- though none of this particular bikini that I could find- but I know how much I appreciate it when a full bust blogger posts a review of anything I'm considering shelling out a good chunk of money for online.*  I don't intend this to become a full bust/curvy clothing blog, because there are already so many wonderful ones at out there (see sidebar for just a few!), but how would everyone feel about the occasional** review?





*Yes, I know return policies exist.  I usually resell items instead of returning, because I dread returns.  I can deal with spiders better than I can deal with returns, and I really don't like spiders.  I know; I have issues.

**Probably no more than once every 3 months or so, if that.  I love clothes/bras/swimwear, but I just don't buy them that often, and as I mentioned, that will never be a main focus of this blog.  Unless someone comes out with full-bust-friendly versions of any of these.  

Thesaurus Thursday: "Quandary."

I remembered that Thursdays exist this week... I opened my laptop, prepared to write a Thesaurus Thursday post... and BOOM, no internet.  We don't know what happened to it; we have to have a technician come and look.  So a regular post might not be forthcoming this weekend, and that is why yet another Thesaurus Thursday is brought to you on Friday from a coffee shop.  A post definitely will be out the weekend after that.  I'm going to review my corset!  In the meantime, the word for today is "quandary," a noun meaning predicament, bind, or a perplexity about what to do in a difficult situation.

When we lost our internet connection, I was in a quandary, because I didn't know how to get a blog post done; luckily most places have free wi-fi!

:-)

Have a great weekend everyone!

A Rant (or Why The Internet Gets on My Nerves).

*Note: Please bear in mind that I use "she" and "her" throughout this post, but these can easily be exchanged with "he" and "him" (except perhaps in the last section).  Men can and do have body image issues.  Though I still think that the majority of the time, body hate, criticism, and snark in the media are directed at women.*

I think eating healthfully and exercising are great.  Teaching people about the effects of food and exercise on their bodies is perfectly fine- even laudable- as long as you do it in, say, a nutrition or fitness class, use positive language, and then don't judge them if they decide that following your advice is not a priority.  I do believe that any true concern that someone has for another person's health should be relayed face-to-face and not online, through e-mail, Facebook/social media, or texts; in other words, if you are not close to the person you are concerned about, you definitely should not say anything.  I admire anyone who feels unhealthy, wants to make a change, and goes for it, but that is a choice that needs to come from within that person.  I do, however, firmly believe that health and attractiveness can be separate.  If you do not agree, I would encourage you to examine why you place such a high value on the appearance of health in other people.  Why do you give a flying fish what other people look like?

You see, I am officially Fed Up with some of the stupidity on the internet. And so, without further ado, I give you my mini-rants to the writers of and people who comment on body, health, and food articles on the internet.

"She looks like she doesn't take care of herself.  Looking as if she takes care of herself makes a woman attractive."
"Looking as if she takes care of herself" can mean many different things for different people.  For some, that could include having super-defined muscles.  For others, that would mean always having neatly styled hair or having skin that isn't deeply tanned.  The list goes on.  And for some, looking well-groomed/put together/what-have-you actually isn't a factor in determining a woman's attractiveness at all; personality or sense of humor might be key.  So I'm taking a wild guess here: you define "taking care of herself" as doing the same things you do for your own health and happiness.  You're really saying that a woman who has a certain lifestyle appeals to you.  You know what?  That's fine.  Everyone has preferences.  But you're a grown up (hopefully) and should realize that not every woman needs to meet your standards. 

"This isn't about bullying.  It's a health issue. You can sugarcoat it all you want.  Her BMI is too high/low, and that is unhealthy."
Hi there, fat shaming bully!  Your comments are very predictable, you know.  You always insert attacks on other people for "skirting around the facts" or "sugarcoating" or "normalizing" so that you can get readers to subconsciously believe that you are just the Good 'Ole One Who Tells It Like It Is, when you are actually using that phraseology to skirt around the fact that you're being extremely rude and unnecessary.  Let's leave aside the fact that BMI is an unreliable measure of health and pretend like you just said "weight."  I could argue with you all day that weight and health aren't always related. But you probably wouldn't bother processing my words and likely have some ridiculous stock insult prepared for anyone who disagrees with your opinion ("Well you would say that- you're probably fat!" Fabulous argument, there.)  The real question is: Why do you give a flying fish?

"You should NEVER eat this.  Did you see how many calories/how much fat/how much BAD STUFF is in it?"
There is no way to say this politely: get off your high horse.  If you go to most large websites with recipes, I can almost guarantee you that there will be an easy-to-find section with healthy recipes advertised on the main page.  So why not relax and let people talk about the taste of the food instead of using the comment section as a platform to blame other people's (posited) health issues on the mere existence of junk food recipes. It's as if recipes for things like bacon cheeseburgers are magnets for people like you who would never eat them and feel that it is their moral duty to tell others to do the same.  You will say there are foods you simply shouldn't touch with a thirty-nine-and-a-half-foot pole and look down your nose at anyone who dares say that they enjoy those foods, even if they only eat them occasionally (by the way, eating better does not make you a better person).  You will say, "Yeah, until you have that heart attack/high cholesterol/BAD STUFF."  Which brings me to...

"Moderation is just an excuse for the lazy/weak-willed."
Please, please let me know about the scientific studies (plural) you've seen that take a group of people who exercise and eat healthfully the majority of the time who have a slice of cheesecake a week, or a McDonald's combo once in a while, or even a bit of ice cream every evening, that finds these (non-elderly, without preexisting conditions) people at a higher risk for health problems.  Or studies that find that these people often keel over from heart attacks after eating one high-calorie or high-fat meal.  I haven't found any yet, and I've looked.  I'm guessing there aren't any. And please don't use something like "Supersize Me" as proof of your point; that was not a documentary about moderation.  Even if some people using this Unholy Recipe actually eat like that, again the question arises:  Why do you give a flying fish?

"You can tell she has had children."

This could just be a simple statement, but you almost always say it derogatorily.  When did this crazy idea that women's bodies need to be exactly the same before and after kids come from?  I admittedly haven't had children yet, but I'm pretty sure pregnancy usually involves growing another freaking human being in your body.  Even the women who come out of the delivery room wearing their pre-pregnancy clothing or who live healthier lives than they did before kids will show some evidence that they had children.  That isn't wrong or ugly.  It just is.  Also...

"I don't want kids because it will ruin my body."

If you truly like your body as it is and don't want it to change; whatever.  I could even support you in that decision, as long as you don't look down on others for not doing likewise.  It is certainly your choice not to have children.  But why are you telling the entire world about it in this particular manner?  Are you looking for validation in your quest not to have stretch marks?  Applause because you won't go through nine months of weight gain?  OK, good for you!  Huzzah!  Better now?  And if you must tell the world about it, just say, "I'm happy with my body the way it is, so I'm not having kids," instead of saying pregnancy would "ruin" it.  You do realize that you're implying that your mother, and her mother before her, and all mothers around the world have bodies that are irreversibly screwed up after having children?  It is rather sickening if you actually believe that.  If other women have gone through pregnancy and labor and as a result have stretch marks, or cellulite, or their skin isn't taut, or they've gained weight, why do you care?

Really, if ANY woman has stretch marks, or cellulite, or her skin isn't taut, or she has gained weight...

Honestly, do I have to keep saying it?

Do you have any comments like these that drive you absolutely bonkers?

Thesaurus Thursday (Sort Of).

Hey everyone.  There is no real Thesaurus Thursday this week, because I was working on a post that has been very difficult to write just because I'm getting so emotionally involved in it, and I completely forgot to pick out a good word.  It is about the types of comments that I would prefer never, ever, ever to see again on internet threads.  And writing it, as you can imagine, makes me a bit frustrated.

I suppose a good word for the day, even if it isn't particularly interesting, should be "nice" as in "be nice on the internet, or I will slap you with a wet noodle!"

The post should be up this weekend.

<3
The Absurd Curvy Nerd

Edit:

The bad news: I haven't been feeling too well, so what with that and Father's Day and a lot of other stuff going on, the next post will probably be up closer to Tuesday.  Also, one day I might actually remember that Thursdays come between Wednesdays and Fridays.

The good news: I am finally going to purchase a steel-boned underbust corset-- I fall in love with corsets easily but have always gotten cold feet before buying-- and I might have to do a brief (gulp) review about the process and the actual corset when that happens.  I say (gulp) because it's new territory for me, and it might even make me come out of my shell and post a couple pictures!

I actually like my face but would probably leave it out on a public page.  You can just picture my face looking like this:

OK?

Bedknobs, Broomsticks, and How Many Bookshelves?

I'm not exactly a "neat freak."  I try to keep a clean house, but I do occasionally forget the laundry in the hamper or suddenly notice that dog hair has taken over our furniture.  But when I clean up, I like things organized in very specific ways.  Mr. Nerd once found me in the closet holding up two shirts and mumbling to myself.  When he asked what I was doing, I said that I was sorting my clothes according to ROYGBIV, of course, and which shirt did he think was closer to indigo?  Sorting kitchen supplies by purpose is all well and good, but I'd like them separated by frequency of use as well.  Spices?  Alphabetical order only goes so far; sweet and heat need to be apart from each other.

We had a bit of meltdown of order recently, so some of these things aren't "right," and I'm itching for the opportunity to fix them all.  The disorder makes me anxious, which in turn makes me less likely to do anything to correct it, which then makes me more anxious... it's a vicious cycle.  Whenever I feel panic rising, I turn to books.  Reading is my therapy.  Sometimes just looking at the books has a calming effect, because our books, being some of the few inanimate objects Mr. Nerd and I truly care about, are always well-organized.  And we have a lot of books.

Of course, it doesn't help when an entire shelf looks like this.

The next one down is all Terry Pratchett.

There are pluses and minuses to book hoarding.  The best things?  The first ones that come to mind are the feel and the smell.  I would purchase "Old Book" instead of "New Car" smell in a heartbeat.  And there is just something about the crinkles around the page edges and lines in the spine of a well-loved book that makes me nostalgic and about the crisp edges of a new book that gives me shivers of anticipation.  The memories are another wonderful aspect of books.  Picking up a book that I read or had read to me when I was younger and rereading it is like taking a bite of a chocolate and tasting hints of peppermint or cinnamon that I've never noticed before that make it just that much more delicious.  I feel like I'm in my room growing up, head and shoulders under the covers reading until late at night, hoping my mom won't peek in and start telling me that old wives' tale about how reading in the dark will damage my eyes just so that I will go to sleep.  But at the same time as the books bring memories of the past, I can pick up on nuances of humor, plot, and character development that I might not have noticed or been too immature or inexperienced to appreciate the first time around.

           "You can't get a cup of tea big enough 

               or a book long enough to suit me."
     -C. S. Lewis

There are more practical pros to book hoarding, like always having a copy of a classic when it is assigned at school.  I know some schools allow electronic books now, but not all do, and I've always been frustrated by those mouse-over comments in electronic formats.  Yes, I've written in many books, and yes, I know that is sacrilege to some.  But I always think it is entertaining to find my old comments when reading, especially if I'm having a completely different reaction to the book.  Another fun part of book hoarding is having interesting research material or completely random information that happens to be useful.  Want to know why your parents or older siblings keep referring to a country called Czechoslovakia?  We have geography books spanning three generations.  Curious about how the economy of the 80's compares to the one now?  We have various textbooks and nonfiction books by economists in both decades.  What did they add to this textbook that made it imperative to get the newest edition?  Look in the previous edition; we probably have it.

Of course there are problems with book hoarding.  Emotional attachment can make it hard to accept that certain books would be appreciated at new homes.  We try to donate/give away old books and also have a trade-in store nearby that will sell the books at very low prices.  But sometimes it can become difficult to let go.  And the most obvious problem that has to be mentioned: books take up space.  We don't mind much, as we would rather have them than most decorations, but when a well-meaning relative gives us a pretty vase and says, "Well, we could just make a little space on this shelf...," it's difficult to say, "No, no you can't.  The book stops here."  Also, when we get a new book, sometimes it is hard to put it where it belongs without moving another, and one book in a set on a different shelf than its counterparts always looks so sad and lonely.

And then I inevitably start singing "Carnival Town."

Books are wonderful in the old-fashioned sense of the word.  Don't get me wrong- I love my Kindle.  I remember a time when going on vacation meant one suitcase for clothes and another for books, so I do love the convenience (and the fact that I can store so many more books on it; I think if we had hard copies of all the books we own, we would be beyond eccentric and into pathological territory), but... I just can't imagine a world without printed books.

There was an old woman 

who lived in a library.

She sat in a corner

with too many books to carry.

She had grand adventures

going on in her head.

And she always wanted to read

one more chapter before going to bed.

 Yes, I'll be that woman.

Apparently Thursdays no longer exist in my world.

I actually didn't realize that yesterday was Thursday.  I thought it was Saturday.  Yes, I do sometimes get that scatterbrained!  The next post "Bedknobs, Broomsticks, and How Many Bookshelves?" will be up this weekend.  If anyone else is a book hoarder/serial nerd organizer, you might be able to relate...

*Edit*- So I thought I would be done with the next post, but it seems that it'll take another day or two.  Keep an eye out for it around mid-week. You see, I got distracted, because I am currently on a mission to...

Image from Hyperbole and a Half, who is awesome.

If you read that post, you'll see why my mission is probably doomed to fail. 

But a girl can dream, right?

A Dose of Skepticism (Can be a Coping Skill).

I debated whether to split this up into two parts but in the end decided against it, so this will be a lengthy post.  I hope everyone enjoys it enough to stick around!

Many of you, like me, will first come across scientific research findings in popular media.  I really don't like the hype that studies can get simply because they are about controversial, socially relevant, or otherwise important issues.  Then there's the way that researchers/media will, for publicity's sake, draw spectacular conclusions based on insubstantial evidence or using biased arguments.  Then there's how people take those conclusions and get ever more angry with one another as logical fallacies and peudoscience* supply the front for a perfect storm of anger, blame, smugness, egomania and all-around emotional chaos.

xkcd.com

Pictured: Everyone on the internet.

Here are some more conspicuous problems that I would like to point out:

Correlation does not imply causation.

Two things seem related, so one has to be caused by the other, doesn't it?  Well... no.  One might cause the other, but some other variable might actually be the cause of either or both.  It's why it is so difficult to say things like "video games cause real-life violence."  They might, or already violent people might gravitate toward certain video games.  Or they might be one factor among many.  Or they might not be a factor at all, but so many people play video games that it's unlikely to find a truly violent person who doesn't.  I'm not saying any of those are correct, but they're all possibilities.  Be critical if you see an article that doesn't at least account for those possibilities.

In certain circumstances, confusing correlation with causation can go beyond conveying misleading information and create harmful perceptions.   Think about it this way: a headline reads "People Under 6'5" More Intelligent."  The article says that on a certain graduate-level math exam, researchers found that exam takers over 6'5" didn't do as well as those under 6'5".  We can conclude that it must be all that extra height, can't we? It was researched, so it must have at least a grain of truth to it, right? ... And now a stereotype exists that taller people are unintelligent.  It was so easy to leave out or downplay the part where those over 6'5" who participated in the study were more likely to be on a professional sports team and have left college early.

The study also concluded that Einstein would be more likely 

to do well on the test than the general public.

Quotable does not mean unquestionable.

People love to quote others, especially if the quote comes from someone famous or influential.  It doesn't matter if the people they quote are/were actually kind or good or right or making any sense, because what they really love is quoting others who agree with them.  Yes, many quotes are hilarious or interesting or thought-provoking and deserve recognition, and some state facts or are almost universally acknowledged to be true, like a man in possession of great fortune being in want of a wife. However, your favorite public figure saying something doesn't make it true.

And according to the internet, these two men said everything.

Having a higher degree doesn't make someone right all the time.  Having done extensive research in a certain field doesn't bestow All The Knowledge.  Being well-known does not grant someone wisdom.  I am half convinced that if Benjamin Franklin had said, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy while drinking under the bright noonday olive green sky," people would be looking at you funny and calmly quoting Benjamin Franklin as you pointed to the sky screaming, "It's blue!  Blue, I tell you!"


I have an opinion, and studies will prove that I'm right.

Quoting only people who agree with an opinion is part of a larger issue known as the confirmation bias.    This occurs when researchers look for and use only data that supports their hypotheses.  Let's say that Jamie believes that dark-haired short women with small waists are most attractive.  Jamie googles "short dark hair small waist perfect" and finds tons of studies saying... you guessed it... that a short, dark-haired woman with a small waist is the "ideal" woman.  Jamie cites those studies and then gives friends and family a Y/N questionnaire that asks, "Do you think dark-haired women are attractive?" "Do you think women with small waists are attractive?" "Do you think shorter women are attractive?" Jamie sees that over half of participants answer Y, and suddenly we have:

STUDIES CONFIRM:

SHORT DARK-HAIRED WOMEN WITH SMALL WAISTS MOST BEAUTIFUL.

(Now I'm finally free to put down women who don't meet my standards, because science.)

... Only it's not good science.  Looking up preferred characteristics in conjunction with the word "perfect" skewed results in favor of Jamie's opinion from the start.  Then the questionnaire won't allow people to say whether they find other qualities more personally appealing.  Jamie also gave the questionnaire to a group of people who are more likely to hold similar opinions.  These are only a few of the problems.  While most research isn't this blatantly biased, the confirmation bias certainly exists.  That it's usually well-disguised only makes it more problematic.

Statistics and numbers can be manipulated.

Hark, a quote!  The one I referenced briefly in the post Intolerance Isn't Awesome, "There are three kinds of lies:  lies, d***ed lies, and statistics," was popularized by Mark Twain.  I'm going to show why I think this quote is relevant, even if it is perhaps hyperbolic.  First, I don't believe all statistics are really lies.  "Statistically significant" in research is important.  But it needs to be taken in context, because numbers can be used like this:

"I don't eat vegetables, because statistically many American women who eat vegetables aren't expected to live past age 80."
Would those be the same women who statistically aren't expected to live past 80 anyway?

Apple Juice: Made with 100% real fruit juice.  
It might be the juice of freshly picked apples with and nothing else, or it might be "100% real" juice from three different fruits and added sugar.

People who drink lemonade 12%** more likely to die in summer months.
People who drink lemonade might be outside more during summer and nearer to water sources, where they would naturally be more likely to drown than those who stay inside.  Death by Lemonade would be a misnomer unless the deaths were due to citrus allergies or choking on seeds.

Lemons don't kill people.  

Kindergartners trying to make an extra $5 on weekends in July kill people.

Remember that it matters who does the research and who pays for it as well.  A large painting company probably won't publish research that says fumes from their paint have caused a significant number of illnesses.

They'll spin you right 'round, baby. 

There are news channels and publications with obvious political leanings and agendas, and they can put "spin" on stories like nobody's business. Sometimes they're even forthright about it.  Unfortunately, most of the time reporters don't come out and say, "We are trying to get you to think in a particular way about this," but do just that.  If you ever see facts "floating" in articles that seem jarring in the flow of the writing, or if you don't see citations, or if you notice that a strangely high number of comments agree with what seem like extreme conclusions, proceed with caution.  In the media, not giving all the facts or giving some facts out of context isn't the same as lying... it's journalism. I don't see this kind of insidious reporting disappearing any time soon, so I believe that people need to be able to recognize it.

We <3 straw men and ad hominem attacks.

"How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?"

"Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?"
-The Wizard of Oz***

Mary says "I think we should raise the legal BAC to 0.09."

Dave can disagree with that statement if he wants.  He can talk about what a BAC of 0.09 does to a person physiologically.  He can discuss the probability of accidents occurring with a BAC of 0.09 or below.  What he does instead is say:

Wrong. Having no consequences for driving impaired will make people do it more often, and then it the roads will naturally become more dangerous.

This is a straw man argument.  It makes the other person's opinion open to or easier to attack by distorting it.  It builds up a straw man- a sort of scapegoat opinion- in order to burn it down.  Mary didn't say that there shouldn't be consequences for impaired driving or that the road wouldn't become more dangerous without those consequences.  All Mary said was that she thinks there ought to be a change in the legal definition of "drunk."  Dave is more interested in getting others on his side.  If Mary points this out, though, there is always the possibility of this occurring:

Why should people care what some stupid ugly troll thinks?

Ouch.  ... Wait.  Aside from "attractive" being subjective.... how are Mary's looks relevant?  And does using the label "troll" make her a troll?  (A: They aren't, and no).  This is an example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem (lit. "to the man argument").  It means avoiding the issue at hand and going straight for personal insults and character attacks to discredit someone.  Politics is infamous for these "smear campaigns."  Let's not talk about how to fix a problem or why a particular plan won't work.   Let's focus on the fact that the other guy is wealthy, or poor, or black, or white, or wears glasses, or is a loud breather, or has one foot larger than the other.  And then let's make it seem like that matters.  Instead of appealing to intelligence, logic, or common sense, we'll darn well appeal to peoples' prejudices.  It's easier and still effective.****

*************************

So when looking at new information, question what you read.  Do the legwork to see if there is more information out there.  Look at citations.  See whether research has been replicated; repetition seems boring, but it lends a lot more credibility.  Don't assume that numbers don't lie.  And if you're easily lured in by headlines or can't look away from the virtual train wrecks that are Public Comment Sections, keep the above in mind.  They've helped me stay afloat in a sea of professional manipulators, and I hope they can help you.


*Note: If you read Intolerance Isn't Awesome (link in post), you will realize that by "pseudoscience" I'm NOT referencing religion in any way, shape or form.  I do not equate fake science and faith.
**Yes, I pulled this number out of my magic hat.  I was looking for a rabbit, but I suppose you take what you can get.
***Help, I can't stop the quotes!  Depending on context, this could actually be an ad hominem attack by Scarecrow if he used that line in a debate...
****This is a call to everyone who uses ad hominem attacks or goes along with ones the media perpetuates (let's be honest; we all do it at times): Argumentum ad hominem is the lazy way out.  It is an indication that you don't have a better argument.  If you feel superior afterward, all it means is that you feel good about putting others down, not that you really are superior.  Think about what that says about smear tactics.  They- I'm going to use "they" for anyone who uses smear tactics- get you to fall for inferior arguments by appealing to that little part of your brain that says, "Of course I'm better than he is/she is/they are. That's a given."  They believe that you aren't savvy enough to think any further than that.  And if you go along with them, you're going along with those who either don't want to or can't come up with a good argument.  Do they sound like people you can trust?  Respect?  Admire?