andrewducker: (Default)
[personal profile] andrewducker

Date: 2017-08-21 11:25 am (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
I also agree about the Royal Mile. I wish I could think of some way of controlling the quality of the retail offering on the Royal Mile without creating a local government Taste Police.

Date: 2017-08-23 08:54 am (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
I think the devil would be in the detail.

Assuming that you share my preference that the Royal Mile have far fewer generic shops selling cheap "tartan tat" which is made in China how does one come up with a set of rules that allows the council to exert some pressure towards that? Fewer Jimmy Hats and Princess Diana tartan.

The rules need to not rely too much on arbitrary or "I know it when I see" rules. They need to not be too widely cast so that all councils everywhere in Scotland can ban the sale of any thing they don't like. Something that nudges the business model of the Jimmy Hat retailers.

So we'd probably need something that referenced the World Heritage site.

A ban on external street displays.

A ban on piped music

Minimum space between aisles.

Some sort of rates penalty if you own more than one shop on the Royal Mile.

A price transparancy measure so that everyone knows that walking up or down the street is not going to get you a Jimmy Hat any cheaper.

The Tartan Tat shops are probably immune to a local citizen boycott because they don't sell stuff to locals.

i wonder if the rules on charities getting cheap rates would help them move in to the Tartan Tat market. If we're going to have Tartan Tat I'd rather the money was going to a good cause.

Date: 2017-08-25 09:13 am (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
It's more that the prices don't vary. Many of the Tartan Tat shops are owned by the same family. They give the illusion of there being lots of competition but in fact there isn't that much.

Date: 2017-08-21 11:31 am (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
The story about the reproductive rates is very interesting.

I spend quite a bit of time thinking about how evolution, culture, the adoption of farming and so on affected gender roles and how all that works. Not to any great effect.

I'm puzzled that what I think I'd expect to show up in terms of different attitudes to risk (and some other factors) between genders (or perhaps sexes) doesn't seem to show up when individuals are tested. Yet we seem to have a long-term culture that behaves how I'd expect it to behave.

So the fertility ratio article is a fascinating extra data point - but one that still leaves me more confused than before. Which was pretty confused.

Date: 2017-08-21 01:15 pm (UTC)
redbird: closeup of me drinking tea (Default)
From: [personal profile] redbird
scientific wild-ass guess: if the different attitudes to risk are entirely or mostly cultural, they might be (re)enforced in groups. So one person by themself isn't getting those immediate "come on, what are you, afraid?" or "don't take stupid chances" comments, and might or might not be thinking much of "what will other people think of me for doing this?"

Some risk-taking seems to be about display, and that's going to be less of an issue if there are no witnesses, or if the decider thinks there aren't any. You can go home and tell the story whether or not you actually took a chance, or exaggerate or downplay how risky something was. Or boast about "well, if it was me I would have done thus-and-such" without any actual risk.

Date: 2017-08-21 01:20 pm (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
That's an interesting suggestion. Many thanks for that. One clearly has to account for any genetic component in the context of the environment that the genes find themselves in which, in this case, might be a culture that is being slightly nudged by group psychology.

Still confused but now I have something else to chew over. Thank you.

Date: 2017-08-25 11:53 am (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
Mostly attitudes to risk and things that follow from attitude to risk.

Date: 2017-08-21 12:04 pm (UTC)
cmcmck: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cmcmck
How could they put his wife to death if the problem was not having a wife in the first place?

And I leave why they put his llamas to death to your own imagination! :o) (lamas? Tee hee :o)

Date: 2017-08-21 12:16 pm (UTC)
momentsmusicaux: (Default)
From: [personal profile] momentsmusicaux
> The only reason to go there is to get to fife

...and you must be desperate if you need to get to Fife!

Date: 2017-08-21 12:26 pm (UTC)
jack: (Default)
From: [personal profile] jack
I mean, I'm not judging, but how come nobody in these hypotheticals ever *leaves* fife? :)

Date: 2017-08-21 12:34 pm (UTC)
momentsmusicaux: (Default)
From: [personal profile] momentsmusicaux
Inbreeding. They're scared to cross running water.

Date: 2017-08-21 03:01 pm (UTC)
danieldwilliam: (Default)
From: [personal profile] danieldwilliam
The only reason to leave Fife is to go to Brechin.

September 2017

      1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 2223

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 23rd, 2017 09:24 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios