<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Creative Reasoning</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/</link>
	<description>Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:42:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nabakov</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-113586</link>
		<dc:creator>Nabakov</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Oct 2005 01:36:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-113586</guid>
		<description>Having worked in the ad game myself I&#039;d agree with bellatrys. There&#039;s an old ad saying. Half an advertising budget is often wasted, and you can never tell which half.

Or as Australian ad man John Singleton once said, &quot;The public is this big blobby mass and all you can really do is stand in front of it and just throw things at it.&quot;

I knew some excellent female copywriters but it&#039;s true they never advanced into any top level positions - mainly I think because advertising is a very blokey, chest-beating and headbutting culture - where you&#039;re only as good as your last hit and where developing personas such as French&#039;s swashbuckling lad or hypertense and/or eccentric genius copywriter is seen as a way to cut through and get attention and promotion. And many of the women I worked with in advertising found this rather self-conscious emphasis on selling yourself as a &quot;character&quot; or&quot;personality&quot; pretty boring if not actually repellent.

It&#039;s basically an industry all about shouting. Shouting about products, shouting rounds, shouting about your talent and shouting down rivals.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Having worked in the ad game myself I&#8217;d agree with bellatrys. There&#8217;s an old ad saying. Half an advertising budget is often wasted, and you can never tell which half.</p>

	<p>Or as Australian ad man John Singleton once said, &#8220;The public is this big blobby mass and all you can really do is stand in front of it and just throw things at it.&#8221;</p>

	<p>I knew some excellent female copywriters but it&#8217;s true they never advanced into any top level positions &#8211; mainly I think because advertising is a very blokey, chest-beating and headbutting culture &#8211; where you&#8217;re only as good as your last hit and where developing personas such as French&#8217;s swashbuckling lad or hypertense and/or eccentric genius copywriter is seen as a way to cut through and get attention and promotion. And many of the women I worked with in advertising found this rather self-conscious emphasis on selling yourself as a &#8220;character&#8221; or&#8221;personality&#8221; pretty boring if not actually repellent.</p>

	<p>It&#8217;s basically an industry all about shouting. Shouting about products, shouting rounds, shouting about your talent and shouting down rivals.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bellatrys</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-113566</link>
		<dc:creator>bellatrys</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:57:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-113566</guid>
		<description>I tend not to take anything said by ad execs very seriously. 

Historically, there are little-to-no quality control checks done on their work - nobody knows why or how well most advertising campaigns succeed, or if they fail, why they fail - any idiot with half a brain would have realized that the disastrous campaign for McDonald&#039;s Arch Deluxe sandwich was foredoomed, and why - you&#039;d have thought, but obviously plenty of them didn&#039;t. --Or realize that multiple variables in a rollout campaign were going to corrupt the results.

Moreover, ad agencies are notoriously sloppy and careless in their work, because after all it&#039;s not their money they&#039;re burning. They really do believe that throwing money at problems is the best solution, rather than &quot;measure twice, cut once,&quot; or the prepress/proofreading equivalent thereof.

--I say this as a 10+ year veteran of the printing industry, and ergo someone who has put in her time and then some, fixing the mistakes of ad agencies...not to mention the stories I&#039;ve heard from my colleagues and peers in the field!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I tend not to take anything said by ad execs very seriously.</p>

	<p>Historically, there are little-to-no quality control checks done on their work &#8211; nobody knows why or how well most advertising campaigns succeed, or if they fail, why they fail &#8211; any idiot with half a brain would have realized that the disastrous campaign for McDonald&#8217;s Arch Deluxe sandwich was foredoomed, and why &#8211; you&#8217;d have thought, but obviously plenty of them didn&#8217;t.&#8212;Or realize that multiple variables in a rollout campaign were going to corrupt the results.</p>

	<p>Moreover, ad agencies are notoriously sloppy and careless in their work, because after all it&#8217;s not their money they&#8217;re burning. They really do believe that throwing money at problems is the best solution, rather than &#8220;measure twice, cut once,&#8221; or the prepress/proofreading equivalent thereof.<br />
&#8212;I say this as a 10+ year veteran of the printing industry, and ergo someone who has put in her time and then some, fixing the mistakes of ad agencies&#8230;not to mention the stories I&#8217;ve heard from my colleagues and peers in the field!</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-113541</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-113541</guid>
		<description>I have never trusted anyone with the hubris to use the word &quot;creative&quot; as part of his job title. Let&#039;s call him a wordsmith and call his views what they are: egomania.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I have never trusted anyone with the hubris to use the word &#8220;creative&#8221; as part of his job title. Let&#8217;s call him a wordsmith and call his views what they are: egomania.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-113314</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Oct 2005 02:42:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-113314</guid>
		<description>But according to &quot;What Women Want,&quot; he would get much further if he slipped on some pantyhose and electrocuted himself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>But according to &#8220;What Women Want,&#8221; he would get much further if he slipped on some pantyhose and electrocuted himself.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-113220</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:17:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-113220</guid>
		<description>Isaac said (post 3):

&lt;i&gt;&quot;Topology is just about collections of open sets which doesn’t really require geometrical intuition &quot;&lt;/i&gt;

&lt;i&gt;Point-set topology&lt;/i&gt; is about collections of open sets, but algebraic topology isn&#039;t.  A geometric intuition is a great help in algebraic topology, and indeed -- contrary to what you say -- in most other parts of pure mathematics.   One view of 20th century pure mathematics is that it is all about shape and structure -- ie, a qualitative, not quantitative discipline -- for which a geometric intuition is probably essential. 


&lt;i&gt;&quot;But then, apparently, one of the major figures in early twentieth century statistics (Fisher, I think), supposedly relied entirely on geometrical intuition.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;


Not only Fisher, but also Poincare, Hilbert, Kolmogorov, Eilenberg, Grothendieck, Nash, Smale,  . . .  Pick pretty much any leading mathematician!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Isaac said (post 3):</p>

	<p><i>&#8220;Topology is just about collections of open sets which doesn&#8217;t really require geometrical intuition &#8220;</i></p>

	<p><i>Point-set topology</i> is about collections of open sets, but algebraic topology isn&#8217;t.  A geometric intuition is a great help in algebraic topology, and indeed&#8212;contrary to what you say&#8212;in most other parts of pure mathematics.   One view of 20th century pure mathematics is that it is all about shape and structure&#8212;ie, a qualitative, not quantitative discipline&#8212;for which a geometric intuition is probably essential.</p>


	<p><i>&#8220;But then, apparently, one of the major figures in early twentieth century statistics (Fisher, I think), supposedly relied entirely on geometrical intuition.&#8221;</i></p>


	<p>Not only Fisher, but also Poincare, Hilbert, Kolmogorov, Eilenberg, Grothendieck, Nash, Smale,  . . .  Pick pretty much any leading mathematician!</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-113045</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:59:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-113045</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Psychmetricians&lt;/i&gt;

I&#039;ll take &quot;made up sciences&quot; for $50, please.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>Psychmetricians</i></p>

	<p>I&#8217;ll take &#8220;made up sciences&#8221; for $50, please.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alison</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-113024</link>
		<dc:creator>Alison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:35:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-113024</guid>
		<description>for sure, French didn&#039;t, it&#039;s just carolus took the argument in a different direction, which I was mildly ridiculing</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>for sure, French didn&#8217;t, it&#8217;s just carolus took the argument in a different direction, which I was mildly ridiculing</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nik</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-112906</link>
		<dc:creator>nik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-112906</guid>
		<description>He&#039;s not said anything suspect about the reasons for the absence of women in top jobs - that I can see - his analysis is pretty much the same as the feminist one. He&#039;s had to resign because didn&#039;t think allowances should be made for childcare and so on. I don&#039;t completely agree with this, but it&#039;s not the same as saying women are biologically inferior.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>He&#8217;s not said anything suspect about the reasons for the absence of women in top jobs &#8211; that I can see &#8211; his analysis is pretty much the same as the feminist one. He&#8217;s had to resign because didn&#8217;t think allowances should be made for childcare and so on. I don&#8217;t completely agree with this, but it&#8217;s not the same as saying women are biologically inferior.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sebastian Holsclaw</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-112869</link>
		<dc:creator>Sebastian Holsclaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:17:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-112869</guid>
		<description>Its clearly the same reason why conservatives aren&#039;t successful the US academic world--because they are stupid, or discriminated against, or something like that....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Its clearly the same reason why conservatives aren&#8217;t successful the US academic world&#8212;because they are stupid, or discriminated against, or something like that&#8230;.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alison</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-112840</link>
		<dc:creator>Alison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:01:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-112840</guid>
		<description>Carolus explains that &lt;i&gt;women are more ‘bunched’ around the mean — fewer retards, fewer geniuses.&lt;/i&gt;

And which of these categories do you have to be in to make it to the top in advertising?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Carolus explains that <i>women are more &#8216;bunched&#8217; around the mean &#8212; fewer retards, fewer geniuses.</i></p>

	<p>And which of these categories do you have to be in to make it to the top in advertising?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: washerdreyer</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-112828</link>
		<dc:creator>washerdreyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:48:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-112828</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Whenever both partners in a relationship work...one of the partners has a joke job.&lt;/i&gt;
This is easily the most asinine thing I&#039;ve read today, but I guess it&#039;s only 9:45 AM.  Whenever?  Apparently, there are no families (poor ones trying to scrape by, for instance) where both partners work extremely hard.  And no families where both partners have the same job.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>Whenever both partners in a relationship work&#8230;one of the partners has a joke job.</i><br />
This is easily the most asinine thing I&#8217;ve read today, but I guess it&#8217;s only 9:45 AM.  Whenever?  Apparently, there are no families (poor ones trying to scrape by, for instance) where both partners work extremely hard.  And no families where both partners have the same job.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-112742</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:54:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-112742</guid>
		<description>I actually profoundly hope that he is right.  I have always liked to believe that women were not capable of producing meretricious crap like &quot;fcuk&quot; and 99% of other ad copy, and would be really depressed if it turned out that they were.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I actually profoundly hope that he is right.  I have always liked to believe that women were not capable of producing meretricious crap like &#8220;fcuk&#8221; and 99% of other ad copy, and would be really depressed if it turned out that they were.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carolus Obscurus</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-112739</link>
		<dc:creator>Carolus Obscurus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-112739</guid>
		<description>I thought the reason so few women make it to the top is due to a combination of nature and nurture -- though French possibly underestimates the former and overestimates the latter.
 
Psychmetricians argue that for biological reasons women are more &#039;bunched&#039; around the mean -- fewer retards, fewer geniuses. 

Of course, if French had said THAT he would not only have had to resign -- he would probably have been eaten alive!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I thought the reason so few women make it to the top is due to a combination of nature and nurture&#8212;though French possibly underestimates the former and overestimates the latter.</p>

	<p>Psychmetricians argue that for biological reasons women are more &#8216;bunched&#8217; around the mean&#8212;fewer retards, fewer geniuses.</p>

	<p>Of course, if French had said <span class="caps">THAT</span> he would not only have had to resign&#8212;he would probably have been eaten alive!</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom T.</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-112691</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom T.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:20:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-112691</guid>
		<description>&quot;… His reputation is built in part on his knack for streamlining print advertising copy. …&quot;

Yes, he famously shortened Apple&#039;s original &quot;Think Differently&quot; campaign.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;&#8230; His reputation is built in part on his knack for streamlining print advertising copy. &#8230;&#8221;</p>

	<p>Yes, he famously shortened Apple&#8217;s original &#8220;Think Differently&#8221; campaign.</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darren</title>
		<link>http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/comment-page-1/#comment-112686</link>
		<dc:creator>Darren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:17:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crookedtimber.org/2005/10/20/creative-reasoning/#comment-112686</guid>
		<description>&quot;&lt;i&gt;They don’t work hard enough. It’s not a &lt;b&gt;joke job&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt;.&quot;

Interesting that someone else seems to have noticed the idea of a joke job.  Whenever both partners in a relationship work, especially if they have children, one of the partners has a joke job.  It need not necessarily be the woman in the relationship who has the joke job.  The clown (as it were) is the one who can &lt;i&gt;most take the piss&lt;/i&gt; at work.  Hiding behind gender, disability etc seems to be one of the methods of enabling this latent theft.  If you want to know who has the joke job in your relationship ... if the child is ill which of you drops everything at work and takes him to see a general practioner?  Who does the internet shopping at work?  Anyone else want to add to the indicators ...

Of course, if you work for the state it may be difficult (impossible, even) for you realize this ... what was Godel on about again?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;<i>They don&#8217;t work hard enough. It&#8217;s not a <b>joke job</b></i>.&#8221;</p>

	<p>Interesting that someone else seems to have noticed the idea of a joke job.  Whenever both partners in a relationship work, especially if they have children, one of the partners has a joke job.  It need not necessarily be the woman in the relationship who has the joke job.  The clown (as it were) is the one who can <i>most take the piss</i> at work.  Hiding behind gender, disability etc seems to be one of the methods of enabling this latent theft.  If you want to know who has the joke job in your relationship &#8230; if the child is ill which of you drops everything at work and takes him to see a general practioner?  Who does the internet shopping at work?  Anyone else want to add to the indicators &#8230;</p>

	<p>Of course, if you work for the state it may be difficult (impossible, even) for you realize this &#8230; what was Godel on about again?</p>
 ]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
