Just collecting here some things I’ve been learning lately:

  • A book: Internal Time, on chronotypes and the effects of chronotype diversity in populations and cohorts.
  • From that book, get this: “We are only beginning to understand the potentially detrimental consequences of social jet lag. One of these has already been worked out with frightening certainty: the more severe the social jet lag that people suffer, the more likely it is that they are smokers. Tis is not a question of quantity (number of cigarettes per day) but simple whether they are smokers or not … Statistically, we experience the worst social jet lag as teenagers, when our body clocks are drastically delayed for biological reasons, but we still have to get up at the same traditional times for school. This coincides with the age when most individuals start smoking. …”
  • It’s about light! : “Even a well-lit workplace exposes us to no more than 100 Lux, which translates to 1,200 Lux-hours over the course of a 12-hour workday. Meanwhile, on a cloudy day, the intensity of outside light is about 120,000 Lux, which means even a short 20-minute walk outdoors would expose us to 40,000 Lux-hours, or more than thirty-fold the exposure of that entire indoor workday.”
  • Another gem: entrepreneurs and inventors are more likely to be late chronotypes, perhaps “because they were more challenged in school than early types, and always had to invent clever strategies to help them perform despite not being on top of things.”
  • All this from this post on Brainpickings.
  • Another good collection of information, including a study showing that early rising is not correlated with health, wisdom, or wealth, B Franklin be damned.
  • NY Times column that uses the fantastic terms “euchronia” and “dyschronia”.
  • Random peripherally related article on a guy who was an owl, and who did really interesting research on the mathematical relationship between the physical world and its mental image.


This chick is bad-A. She’s a combat engineer who builds patrol bases. As in, she’s “sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later.” In the meantime she’s in charge of base defense and leading 30 marines.

So I’m surprised she’s against further efforts to put women into combat roles. Given your intense interest in this issue, her argument is a must-read, even if (actually especially if) you disagree with it in the end. Because it’s the best argument I’ve heard on the negative side. Plus it’s just amazing to read about what she’s done and been through. The crux of her view is this:

In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?…I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan…that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

And here’s some rebuttal, a lawsuit, and some further discussion.

I’m not sure why, but this really, really moved me just now.

Jerry Seinfeld: “My favorite form of motion is the car. I love cars. It’s the greatest physical object I’ve ever seen. I don’t know why, really. My only theory is: When you’re driving, you’re outside and inside, moving and completely still, all at the same time. I think that’s something.”

This cat really gets it.

But this seemed so right for today.