h a l f b a k e r y"Not baked goods, Professor; baked bads!" -- The Tick
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Wife-Fi
Improve your ability to know what your wife is thinking | |
Your wife thinks you know what she's thinking. But you really haven't the foggiest idea what that knowing look that she's giving you is supposed to mean. Wife-Fi overcomes this difficulty by allowing her to transmit specific messages to a receiver that you wear like a watch. It would be up to product
designers to innovate the type of message that is sent. It could be an emoticon, a preset message, or a custom text message.
according to a researcher (Liberman - University of Pennsylvania)in this article men and women use an approx equal number of words per day...
http://www.newsobse...5/story/497214.html
... and if its true that women speak faster then we must be using fewer... [po, Oct 28 2006]
Please read whole article...
http://www.nytimes....&ei=5090&partner=rs
... before flaming. [pertinax, Oct 29 2006]
Overbaked
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/overbaked/
A great place to go on endlessly about how women are different because they, unlike you, go on endlessly. [jutta, Oct 30 2006]
[link]
|
| |
I found that a frying pan could convey most of my messages... |
|
| |
Yes! With a mute button.
<runs away from po> |
|
| |
...mine has just burst into flames... |
|
| |
//I think women evolved this trait because men kept cutting them off before they could make their point in an argument// |
|
| |
Typical machist argument. Otherwise, you would have admitted the well- known male tendency to keep all to themselves and, therefore, not developing a basic human trait that tells us apart from beasts: verbal communication. The fact that you consider it "normal" to cut women off before they can make their point makes me wonder if you have a female partner in your life. If you don't, I wouldn't be surprised. If you do... well, poor girl. |
|
| |
Ok, misunderstanding clarified. |
|
| |
//In todays world it's not necessary to cut women off but that doesn't mean old instincts don't linger// |
|
| |
This is exactly why I think ideas like this one only reinforce the stereotype where women are responsible of the lack of communication between couples. Talking a lot can't be worse than NOT talking. At least we're communicating. I think that the idea of improving your ability to know what your wife is thinking is a nice initiative, but the thought of using a device to spare you of the burden of actually communicating with women is almost offensive. |
|
| |
Oh, and congrats for the "poor girl"'s third book. [longshot]. |
|
| |
truly weird how the sexes seem to perceive the other as speaking a foreign language and I'm really dubious about longshot's statistics. |
|
| |
in my opinion, half the time in conversation with a man, women seem to find it difficult to get a word in edgeways. |
|
| |
My understanding is that the key gender difference here is in *non-verbal* communication (contra [Pericles]), women being better at it than men, for reasons to do with the 'wiring' of the brain. |
|
| |
I believe the other differences brought up here can be explained with reference to this difference. |
|
| |
For example, men cut women off partly because optimal conversational turn-taking depends on non-verbal signals which most men are not as good as women at sending and receiving. <fun factoid> Margaret Thatcher's spin doctors taught her to manipulate this phenomenon in TV interviews. </ff> |
|
| |
When women talk less than men, it's because they're conveying more of their meaning non-verbally. |
|
| |
When women talk more than men, it's because they're speaking 'phatically', in the sense that their speech is being used for social positioning or re-positioning, and the actual words are less important than the fact of speaking and the manner in which it is done. The connection of phatic speech with non-verbal communication is that proportionally more of its significance is non-verbal. |
|
| |
<sticks out neck>For example, I'm guessing that what Mrs [longshot] was doing was being friendly to the clerk by letting the clerk into her thought process.</son> |
|
| |
<sorry>Does my speech look phatic in this?</sorry> |
|
| |
[po], would you hand over that pan if I offered to make you a nice omelette in it, (after carefully washing off the bloodstains)? |
|
| |
[lingamish], I think the problem with the invention is that it wouldn't occur to a woman to use it: if she'd been *aware* that you weren't understanding her facial expression, and if it had been important, then she'd have used words; the fact is, they just keep forgetting how stupid we are about these things. |
|
| |
Oh, hang on, it might work if the communication were two-way, so that we could prompt for hints... but that might just annoy them. |
|
| |
//If you can't communicate with a person, I strongly suggest to not marry them.// |
|
| |
<fears imminent extinction of nerds and consequent sad losses to the half-bakery>Surely there are different degrees of communication, and perfect communication is not necessary?</fieonacsltth-b> |
|
| |
[Lt Frank] that's actually a benefit of this device...if your man doesn't do what you want or respond the way you want, any random dude in the neighborhood who picked up your signal could step in. |
|
| |
Isn't that the status quo? |
|
| |
Whatever you want
Whatever you like
Whatever you say
You pay your money
You take your choice
Whatever you need
Whatever you use
Whatever you win
Whatever you loose |
|
| |
I found that asking what she ment works pretty good. I must just be simple. |
|
| |
Forgetting this is an article and not a sexist argument perhaps? |
|
| |