I remember reading an analysis of some of those studies that showed that boys test better on spacial skills than girls do. It was a pretty small sample size, but they tried giving the same test to Amish kids, and the boys and girls scored about the same. One theory was that Amish girls start sewing, and thus piecing patterns together, from a really young age, and so they learn how to do things like rotate shapes in their heads and figure out what something will look like when it's folded or unfolded. (I had a few issues with this analysis -- I think they needed way more data before a theory like that could be anything more than speculation -- but it was interesting.)

Wait ... someone in your line of work doesn't know the value of the non-reaction? I mean, there is a whole range of behaviors that fit in non-reaction that are very effective. Heck, at my old library I was one of the few that didn't get sworn at when I kicked kids out of the library. Because I wasn't mean or loud. If anything, I was cheerful as I told the kids goodbye and that I would see them tomorrow. Sorry the house manager won't learn.

{{javachik}}not fair

Wow. I've been reading about Sandra Samuel, the nanny who saved the toddler son of the rabbi and rebbetzin who were murdered at the Chabad House in Mumbai. [link] While the gunmen were still in the house and had already killed several people, and she was downstairs, she ran upstairs to get the baby before leaving. When she found him, he was crying over the bodies of his parents, and soaked in their blood.

vw, please tell me that awful woman had the decency to look sheepish or embarrassed.

{{javachik}}

Oh javachik, I'm so sorry. This is an awful time to be letting people go.

Likewise, Barb. I hope things settle out positively for you.

WindSparrow, is your manager person a parent? Because the behavior you're trying to model, which beth calls non-reaction, works on offspring, too. And if she had any, I'd think she'd have learned that. I sympathize--it's so damn hard to see where a superior is repeatedly, dedicatedly going wrong, determined to make the situation change to suit his/her standards and ideals, and won't deal with what is.

Actually, that's sort of true across the board. Stupid people make me tired, and it's so much worse when they're your "supervisors".

Cashmere, I'm glad for the good news.

I have no stake on the math stuff. I was in my mid-30s before I successfully managed my checkbook, and then a job handling thousands of dollars of other people's money. My elementary math was unrelentingly correct. A hard-learned skill, learned well and one I was constantly paranoid about messing up. I have no wish nor need for math more intimidating than that. Those of you who math for fun, who are charged up by it, find it fascinating and fun, I salute you. Thank heaven you do, so I don't have to!

I was in my mid-30s before I successfully managed my checkbook

I still haven't managed this. Most mathematicians I know haven't. Almost none of us are any good at arithmetic -- several of the grad students in my department, including me, were recommended to be tested for math disabilities as kids.

The worst group of people to figure out a check at a restaurant: a mix of professional physicists, astronomers and mathematicians. Their kingdom for an english or history major! (OK, so not really that bad but still. )

We usually use the method of everyone throwing money into a pile, someone counting it, and then everyone either throws in some more or takes some back until the total is right.

Perzactly. I'm used to tossing in extra when it comes up short. I usually figure how much I owe, rounded up roughly, and figure I'll get it back someday when someone else overestimates.

I just got a visit from the police. Apparently the house across the street was burglarized today.