Yeah - there's another study I recall reading about that measured people's reactions to smelling a given chemical, either from a bottle labeled "cheese" or a bottle labeled "vomit". IIRC they found that not only were people's reactions different, but different parts of their brain were used while forming the reactions.
I suspect that the truth is, humans simply aren't capable of filtering out our expectations in judgments like this. Seeing color is part of how we "taste" wine, the same way that looking at someone's lips is part of how we "hear" the difference between certain sounds.
I must shamefully admit: I don't recall the name. I have to go back to my tasting notes. This is based on memories from a few years ago.
I just remember being thunderstruck by the fact that something so cheap was (for my taste) better than Van Winkle. (Which I considered in general overpriced, but still pretty damn good.)
Of the very few bourbons I've bought, Buffalo Trace and Wild Turkey 101 have been excellent value to me. I keep hearing Rittenhouse Rye as well, so that might be my next one to try...
Rittenhouse was a delightful find for me a few years ago. A friend and I ordered Manhattans, he asked for his to be made with Rittenhouse. Funny thing is, it's the only bourbon or rye that I drink straight... it is smooth and delicious. The people here who've mentioned Rittenhouse are doing you the same favor that my buddy did a few years ago. And it's very affordable, usually $22-$25 a bottle. As many have said, although taste is a very subjective thing, cost and enjoyment aren't always correlated...
Being married to an optometrist and privy to some of the numbers of the business, I'm always a bit annoyed reading these articles. Yes, the margins on frames are high. Are the overall profits of the business high? Not particularly. The staffing costs are essentially subsidised by the products they sell. If you put 'reasonable' markups on the frames, then you have to make the costs of the eye tests a lot higher to pay for the time of your expensive staff and then fewer people are willing to get tested and their problems go unnoticed. Sometimes they are serious enough to be life-threatening or to cause total loss of vision. Your GP is not going to notice a bulging optic disc for example.
So while I appreciate the consumer sentiment of 'This looks like I'm being ripped off', I think the current pricing model is actually in the best interest of public health. Even SpecSavers model of 30min appointments is a bit suspect really.
Yeah, if you consider the actual cost of visits, the end product has to subsidize the entire business. It took 3 visits for me to get contacts. The contacts were about $200 for a year's supply, and each visit was about $60.00. Each of the people involved has to make a part of that as their pay, and on top of that they have to rent an office, maintain stock, lease equipment, etc.. All to sell me some squishy bits of hydrogel for less than what a cell phone costs. I'm really surprised if they broke even on me.
Contact lenses aren't always easy to fit. Especially if you are correcting for astigmatism. There's sizing, weighting, permeability and the unmeasured but distinct differences between brands. There's also the choice of changing the actual powers involved for different reasons. So people have to take them away, try them for comfort and such... Three visits is pretty normal. If you are a keratoconic then 3 visits would be a very easy case...
RGPs aren't nearly as gas-permeable as hydrogel lenses. They also break and they fall out, and they're not as hygienic because you're reusing them so much. A year's supply of monthly lenses is about $200, which is about what I would spend on glasses.
As another poster said, you have to try different brands and make sure the prescription works and that they're comfortable. For example I couldn't stand having any of the Acuvue lenses in my eyes for more than a couple of hours, but the Biofinity lenses I use now are comfortable all day.
When you go to LensCrafters (owned by Luxottica), the doctor is not always employed by LensCrafters, they can be an independent. The price of eye exams is also influenced by the insurance industry.
I don't know what the person you're responding to meant, but you might want to have a chat with your Chinese friends about different skin colors. Not only do many cultures have a thing about lighter skin shades, even the 1920s US backlash against immigration was mostly about 'swarthy' southern Europeans, who weren't as lily-white as northern Europeans.
Interestingly, in the non-predominantly-white countries I’ve lived in, lighter skin tones are desired heavily, and are often a class indicator. People will use creams with ingredients like mercury to attempt to lighten their skin colour.
Please, no. Schools have already ruined mathematics for the majority of several generations, the last thing we need is to Taylorize meta-cognition as well.
Could someone define it for a non-mathematician? Or would that be Taylorism?
EDIT:
The businessdictionry.com links explained it well enough. I think this has already been done with creativity, many times over. I imagine it is more harmful to a field like mathematics, though. This is not to say it isn’t a problem. The current state of art school is an atrocity. But, if I’m not mistaken, art has tendency to not only get distracted by the novelty of imitation but to get entirely lost in it, whereas the field of mathematics would have just enough concern for such uninterested forms of curiosity to account for them. This is a lazy account of what maybe Plato would say. Basically, art was screwed in this way from the onset and mathematics has a lot more at stake.
There can be different kinds of meta. Learning how to learn more efficiently and less painfully would be great for schoolchildren. Learning how thinking may go wrong (basic cognitive biases and faults) is also important to learn in e.g. high school.
Going into hardcore epistemology is probably not the right thing for a school.
I feel like that study is probably an example of the McGurk effect.