Filtering by Tag: comedy

Moody's Impressive Disclaimer

Added on by C. Maoxian.

This disclaimer gave me a laugh:

“CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. AND ITS RATINGS AFFILIATES (“MIS”) ARE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS MAY INCLUDE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES.

MOODY'S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL, FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT.

CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY.

CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT.

MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S ANALYTICS, INC.

CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES.

NEITHER CREDIT RATINGS NOR MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR.

MOODY'S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS AND PUBLISHES MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.

MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS AND MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS OR MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION.

IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY'S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable.

Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind.

MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources.

However, MOODY'S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing the Moody's publications.

To the extent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY'S.

To the extent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information.

NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.

Moody's Investors Service, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Corporation (“MCO”), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to Moody's Investors Service, Inc. for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,500 to approximately $2,500,000.

MCO and MIS also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of MIS's ratings and rating processes.

Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold ratings from MIS and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading “Investor Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.”

Additional terms for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY'S affiliate, Moody's Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody's Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable).

This document is intended to be provided only to “wholesale clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001.

By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY'S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to “retail clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001.

MOODY'S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors.

It would be reckless and inappropriate for retail investors to use MOODY'S credit ratings or publications when making an investment decision.

If in doubt you should contact your financial or other professional adviser.

Additional terms for Japan only: Moody's Japan K.K. (“MJKK”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody's Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO.

Moody's SF Japan K.K. (“MSFJ”) is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (“NRSRO”). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings.

Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S. laws.

MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively.

MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to assignment of any rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for appraisal and rating services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY200,000 to approximately JPY350,000,000.

MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements.”

Understanding Myself

Added on by C. Maoxian.

I took the personality assessment at Understand Myself … these were my results:

  • Agreeableness: Low (11th percentile)

    • Compassion: Very Low (10th percentile)

    • Politeness: Low (21st percentile)

  • Conscientiousness: Low (15th percentile)

    • Industriousness: Very Low (8th percentile)

    • Orderliness: Moderately Low (36th percentile)

  • Extraversion: Very Low (7th percentile)

    • Enthusiasm: Low (10th percentile)

    • Assertiveness: Low (12th percentile)

  • Neuroticism: Moderately Low (34th percentile)

    • Withdrawal: Moderately Low (23rd percentile)

    • Volatility: Typical or Average (48th percentile)

  • Openness to Experience: Low (18th percentile)

    • Intellect: Exceptionally Low (2nd percentile)

    • Openness: Moderately High (63rd percentile)

Explanatory blurbs:

“People low in agreeableness are not so nice: stubborn, dominant, harsh, skeptical, competitive and, in the extreme, even predatory. However, they tend to be straightforward, even blunt, so you know where they stand.

People with low levels of agreeableness are seen by others as competitive, colder, tougher and less empathic. They are less likely to look for the best in others, and are not particularly tolerant (an attitude that is much valued by agreeable people). They are less concerned about the emotional state of others, are willing to engage in conflict, and will sacrifice peace and harmony to make a point or (if conscientious) to get things done. People find them straightforward, even blunt. They strongly tend towards dominance rather than submission (particularly if also below average in neuroticism).

People with low levels of agreeableness are not forgiving, accepting, flexible, gentle or patient. They don’t easily feel pity for those who are excluded, punished or defeated. It is also difficult for them to be taken advantage of by disagreeable, manipulative or otherwise troublesome people, or those with criminal or predatory intent. Their skepticism plays a protective role, although it can sometimes interfere with their ability to cooperate with or trust others whose intentions are genuinely good. They also be less likely to reward good behavior or to give credit where it is due. They can cooperate, when cooperation is in their interest, but very much appreciate competition, with its clear losers and winners. They will not easily lose arguments (or avoid discussions) with less agreeable people, and can enjoy the battle. They are generally good at bargaining for themselves, or at negotiating for more recognition or power and are likely to have higher salaries and to earn more money, in consequence. People low in agreeableness are therefore less likely to suffer from resentment or to harbour invisible anger. In addition, because of their tendency to engage in conflict, when necessary, people low in agreeableness people tend not to sacrifice medium- to long-term stability and function for the sake of short-term peace. This means that problems that should be solved in the present are often solved, and do not accumulate counterproductively across time, although people close to those low in agreeableness may experience them as overbearing.“

“Very much less compassionate people are not oriented towards the problems of other people or other living things. They are not swayed by helplessness or cuteness. They are very willing to make other people experience negative emotion by engaging in conflict and competition. They want to win, and will engage in the confrontation necessary to do so. They are very much less concerned about helping other people. They make certain their own needs and interests are attended to, and are markedly unwilling to sacrifice for the sake of other people’s comfort. This can make them both harsh and unsympathetic. People might turn to them for the cold, hard truth, but not for a soft, patient, eternally-listening ear. They are very much less empathetic and caring. However, because they are not primarily other-oriented, they negotiate very effectively on their own behalf, and are likely to get at least what they deserve and perhaps more (for their hard work, for example). In consequence, they are unlikely to harbor feelings of resentment or hidden anger.“

“People who are low in politeness are not deferential to authority – nor are they obedient. They can be respectful, but only to people who clearly deserve and demand it, and they are markedly willing to push back when challenged. They are not particularly uncomfortable confronting other people. People low in politeness are not motivated to avoid conflict, or to steer clear of conflict or fights. They may find themselves quite frequently in trouble with authority. Their skepticism may make it difficult for them to find a place in the middle or lower in hierarchies of power and dominance. They tend strongly to be dominant, rather than submissive (particularly if they are also low in neuroticism).“

“People low in conscientiousness do not regard duty as particularly important, and they don’t like to slog away at their tasks. They will only work hard if pushed, generally by outside forces (supervisors, spouses, friends, parents) and don’t mind wasting time. They are highly likely to procrastinate (particularly if they are also above average in neuroticism). Even when people with low levels of conscientiousness commit to doing something, there is a good chance they will be late, or delayed, even when there is no real reason for it. They tend to formulate and deliver excuses for their failure under such circumstances, typically blaming the situation for the problem. They are not decisive, neat, organized, future-oriented, or reliable, and they find themselves too-easily distracted.

People with low levels of conscientiousness are much less likely to obtain higher grades in academic settings (particularly if they are also less intelligent), and generally require substantial supervision to stay on task. For this reason, they make sub-optimal managers and administrators. They do not feel compelled to do things by the book, however. This can perhaps be an advantage, if they are engaged in creative tasks, where rules must be broken for advancement to take place. They will rarely make career accomplishment a primary goal, turning instead to pursuit of safety and security (if high in neuroticism), creative accomplishment (if high in openness), establishment of intimate relationships and friendships (if highly agreeable), or social success, excitement and fun (if extraverted). Such people are by no means achievement-oriented.

People low in conscientiousness tend to relatively be free of guilt, shame, self-disgust and self-contempt. Other people, however, are likely to react negatively to their tendency to slack off and avoid responsibility (particularly if those other people are disagreeable and conscientious).

Individuals who are low in conscientious tend not to be concerned by failure. They are not judgmental, to themselves or others, and find and formulate situational explanations for disappointment, frustration or lack of success. They can handle periods of inactivity and unemployment with comparative ease. They downplay the relationship between hard work, diligence and success, assuming instead that chance factors and luck in life play a determining role. They live, in large part, for leisure and very much look forward to time off. They can be very good at relaxing, and living in the moment (particularly when low in neuroticism). They are much less concerned than average with cleaning, moral purity and achievement. It’s far more fun to be at the beach or at a party with a person low in conscientiousness – but you might not want to invite them over on moving day.“

“People who are very low in industriousness are very much less likely to be successful in school and in administrative and managerial positions (particularly if they are also less intelligent). If they are highly intelligent, they will be regarded as underachievers. They focus very much less on work than others and are far more likely to procrastinate, miss deadlines, or fail to complete assignments or projects completely. They put off all responsibility, concentrating on fun, worry, relationships, excitement or creative endeavour. They aren’t at all concerned with schedules, timelines or efficiency, and will have to be supervised excessively before their tasks will be completed. They lack focus and are far too-easily distracted.

People low in industriousness are not at all judgmental to themselves or others. They continually and habitually let people, including themselves, off the hook. They believe that people fail not because they don’t apply themselves or work hard but because chance and luck play the only determining roles. They are very resistant to guilt, self-disgust or self-contempt, and have a completely laissez-faire, whatever-will-be-will-be attitude toward life.“

“People moderately low in orderliness are neither disturbed nor disgusted by mess and chaos. They tend simply not to notice such things. They see the world in shades of grey, rather than black and white, and are non-judgmental in their attitudes toward themselves and others. They rarely use schedules, list, or routines and, even if they plan, tend not to implement those plans, preferring to take things as they come, and let chance determine the outcome. They are not oriented toward detail and take neither rules nor procedures too seriously.

People who are moderately low in orderliness care less than average for routine and predictability. Their schedules are loose and disruption doesn’t bother them. They require almost constant reminder and supervision to maintain attention and focus, and are easily distracted. They can, however, tolerate the mess, disruption and intervening periods of chaos that may accompany creative endeavour.“

“People with very low levels of extraversion are strikingly less enthusiastic, talkative, assertive in social situations, or gregarious. They find social contact rapidly draining and tiring, and crave time alone to recharge. They are very much less likely to plan parties, tell jokes, make people laugh, or volunteer for community activities. They are much more likely to be depressed and to have lower levels of self-esteem (particularly if they are high in neuroticism). They tend to be somewhat pessimistic about the past, present and future.

People very low in extraversion keep things to themselves, feeling no compulsion to share their general thoughts with other people. They are not self-disclosing, either, and warm up slowly to other people. They are uncomfortable with group-oriented situations, much preferring one-to-one interactions. They are very much less likely to speak up in meetings, will rarely speak first, and generally must be prodded for an opinion. They are strikingly less likely to captivate and convince, especially in groups, and will very rarely be the first to act in an ambiguous situation.

Those very low in extraversion are uncommonly suited to occupations that require work alone or with a few other well-known individuals (such as computer programming or accounting). Jobs involving sales, persuasion, work in groups and public speaking do not appeal to them, and they are likely to be unsuccessful at such things (particularly if they are also high in neuroticism and/or low in conscientiousness).

People very low in extraversion are rarely impulsive, even when offered the opportunity to do something particularly exciting or fun. They are not at all likely, therefore, to sacrifice the future to the present, when something social or group-oriented beckons. They would much rather be alone to study and work. They do not find opportunities to chat, joke and socialize distracting. This is particularly the case if they are also high in conscientiousness. However, when people are very introverted and conscientious, they are less productive than when extraverted and conscientiousness, perhaps because they have lower levels of energy. When very introverted and comparatively unconscientiousness, however, they are more productive than when extraverted and unconscientious.

People very low in extraversion are much less dominant in social situations, particularly when they are also low in agreeableness. Less agreeable extraverts tend to be self-centered – something that can be made worse if they are also low in conscientiousness. Uncommonly introverted people are protected against such tendencies.“

“Individuals who are low in enthusiasm are not excitable. They are also much less easy to get to know, as they are not chatty or bubbly. When they do talk, it tends to be about things in which they find particular interest. They open up to other people with some difficulty, particularly in larger social gatherings or parties. They laugh much more rarely than others. They prefer solitude and, although they can enjoy themselves around other people, it has to be in small doses. They are much more private people, and are not markedly positive or optimistic. They avoid the spotlight and, if creative, may find performing much less desirable and draining. They rarely seek out stimulation, excitement, activity or fun (and, if they do so, prefer quieter activities). People low in enthusiasm are not gregarious or people-loving, and find it more difficult to generate a felt sense of excitement when offered the opportunity to engage in something that others might find engaging or entertaining.“

“People low in assertiveness are not known to be “take charge” types. They put their own opinions forward rarely and with reservation, and do not typically attempt to dominate and control social situations. Such people tend not to be or captivating in social groups. They manifest much less of the communication style that is often associated with leadership. This can be a handicap when they are knowledgeable, competent and able, but causes less trouble when they aren’t. Those low in assertiveness are much less likely to be people of spontaneous action. They don’t leap in heedlessly and, in consequence, tend to allow others to lead the way. They are much less impulsive, in consequence, and hardly ever act without thinking.“

“People with moderately low levels of neuroticism tend not to focus on the negative elements, anxieties and uncertainties of the past, present and future. They can have periods of time where they are unhappy, anxious and irritable, particularly when facing a serious, sustained problem, but they generally cope well, don’t worry too much, and recover comparatively quickly when stressed. They’re pretty good at keeping their head in a storm, and they tend not to mountains out of molehills.

They tend to have higher than average levels of self-esteem, particularly when they are also average or above average in extraversion. They are at relatively low risk for developing anxiety disorders and depression (again, particularly if average or above in extraversion).

When good things happen to them, people with moderately low levels of neuroticism can accept it, without wondering if they deserved it. They generally tend to be satisfied with their relationships and careers. Overall, they are quite tolerant of stress, and can accept failure and setbacks as part of life. Moderately low levels of neuroticism are associated with less concern about mental and physical health, fewer physician and emergency room visits, and a lower than average degree of absenteeism at work and at school (unless accompanied by very low levels of conscientiousness).

People with moderately low levels of neuroticism can handle risk better without becoming unduly concerned. They are less concerned with security, and can handle recreational, career, financial and social situations where the possibility of loss is higher. This makes it easier for them to consider as well as implement career changes and other transformations that could enhance their lives.“

“Individuals moderately low in withdrawal tend not to suffer from nor be impeded by anticipatory anxiety. They can handle new, uncertain, unexpected, threatening or complex situations quite well. They are not more likely to avoid or withdraw in the face of the unknown and unexpected.

People with moderately low levels of withdrawal occasionally feel sad, lonesome, disappointed and grief-stricken, but not too deeply, and not for too long. They experience lower than normal levels of doubt and worry, embarrassment, self-consciousness and discouragement in the face of threat and punishment. They are not particularly sensitive nor worried about social rejection, and don’t easily feel hurt or threatened. Even when hurt, frightened, or anxious, they recover with relative ease and speed. People with moderately low levels of withdrawal are not particularly concerned that something bad is going to happen. Technically, withdrawal has been associated with activity in the brain systems that regulate passive avoidance.“

“Individuals average in volatility tend to not to vary abnormally in their mood. They are not particularly irritable, and feel no more than typical levels of disappointment, frustration, pain and social isolation. They express their frustration, disappointment and irritability reasonably and not excessively often. Even when stirred up and upset or angry or irritated, they calm down relatively quickly. They are no more argumentative than average and infrequently lose their composure.

If provoked in a dispute, a person of average volatility may react in kind (particularly if also low in agreeableness). However, such people generally remain calm and unperturbed, even when stressed. Volatile people tend to get upset if something bad does happen, while people high in withdrawal (the other aspect of neuroticism) tend to be concerned that something bad might happen. Technically, volatility has been associated with activity in the brain systems that regulate fight, flight or freeze.“

“People with low levels of openness to experience are more conventional, conservative people. They are not known for their curiosity or interest in novelty or change. They are comparatively disinterested in learning, particularly for its own sake, and generally stick with what they know.

They rarely engage in prolonged abstract thinking, and seldom consider philosophical issues, such as the meaning of belief systems and ideologies. They do not find it necessary to attend cultural events such as movies, concerts, dance recitals, plays, poetry readings, gallery openings and art shows, failing to find them meaningful or engaging. They don’t typically enjoy writing, and stay away from complex problems and abstract ideas.

They read less than the typical person, and stick to more mainstream material when they do so. They have a narrow range of interests, and a conventional vocabulary. They have some difficulty with abstract thinking and learn less quickly, as well as being less intrinsically interested in doing so. They come up with new ideas infrequently, and have some difficulty getting their thoughts across to others (particularly if they are average or below in extraversion). People lower in openness to experience like to stay on the beaten path, and find satisfaction in the tried-and-true (particularly if they are average or above in orderliness). They avoid difficult intellectual problems or challenges.

People low in openness to experience can often adapt well to situations or occupations that are more routinized and predictable. Because of this, they have little trouble fitting in at the bottom of hierarchies. They are better suited than those who are more open to entry-level, repetitive, rote positions, because they are rarely compelled to think up new ways to do things. They are infrequently creative or revolutionary thinkers. Thus, they shake things up much less than average, particularly if they are also agreeable and less assertive.

Individuals low in openness to experience are less entrepreneurial in spirit and more appreciative of conventional employment (particularly if average or above in conscientiousness). They have little interest in creating new ventures, whether for profit, curiosity, or personal transformation. At least moderately high levels of openness to experience appear necessary to the formation and leadership of business and other forms of complex organization, although conscientiousness appears required for the attention to detail and process management that such organizations also always need.

People lower in openness to experience have a narrower, more focused range of interests. This makes it easier for them to settle on a single path in life, to specialize to a necessary degree, and to create an integrated identity (unless they are very high or above in neuroticism and/or very low or below in conscientiousness). People lower in openness also rarely undermine their own convictions or beliefs by excessive questioning (particularly if they are average or below in neuroticism). They are generally not intellectual rebels, revolutionaries or protestors.“

“People exceptionally low in intellect are rarely interested in or concerned with ideas and abstract concepts. People exceptionally low in intellect are not at all interested in learning philosophical concepts. They hate too much information. They are not intellectually curious, and do not enjoy tackling or solving complex abstract problems. They are extremely unlikely to engage in issue-oriented discussions, and avoid idea-centered books. They can be quite inarticulate (particularly if average or lower in extraversion), and experience some genuine trouble formulating and communicating their ideas. They have a vocabulary of far less than normal breadth and depth, and are strikingly likely to stick with the tried-and-true, rather than learning new ideas and skills. They are resistant to novel concepts and uninterested in adapting to new situations.

People exceptionally low in intellect find complex, rapidly changing occupations untenable and avoid them (unless exceptionally high in conscientiousness and exceptionally low in neuroticism). They are far better suited to stable, straightforward and more traditional occupations, where the rules for success are well-defined and do not change.“

“The closest synonym for openness (rather than openness to experience, which encompasses openness and intellect) is creativity. Moderately open, creative people find beauty important. Without an outlet for their creative ability they may have some difficulty thriving. They like art or beautiful crafts. They are more sensitive to color and architectural form. They often enjoy collecting. They are comparatively imaginative, and may daydream and reflect on many things. They tend to enjoy music, perhaps of more than one genre, and may be somewhat musical or artistic themselves (both of these are rare in the general population). They can find themselves immersed in a book, or a movie, or in their own thoughts, and become somewhat oblivious to the outside world. They respond well to beauty, creativity and art.

Moderately open, creative people tend not to be impractical or flighty, however, despite their creative openness (unless they are particularly low in conscientiousness). At least moderate levels of openness appear necessary for entrepreneurial success, and prove comparatively useful at the top of hierarchies, even in very conservative occupations such as banking, accounting and law, which need creative people in leadership positions to provide new vision and direction.“

The Sideshow Is Now the Audience

Added on by C. Maoxian.

There’s a new season of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. I watched the episode with Melissa Villaseñor, whom I’ve never heard of, but thought was funny (despite her annoying laugh, and the false hilarity that fills most episodes). Anyway, Jerry said the following, which I loved:

"People in the circus sideshow, huge, fat, tattooed ... these are the people in the audience now. What used to be the sideshow is just regular people now."

Here’s a YouTube thing that Villaseñor did called “Bjork’s Vlog,” which made me fall off my chair laughing:

Bjork does her first vlog and shares with you sensations and things that bring her joy. Also, a new song she created from the sound of a toilet seat cover and shower curtain. ________________________________________________________ Facebook: facebook.com/melissacomedy Twitter: twitter.com/melissavcomedy Tumblr: merrylittleblog.tumblr.com Instagram: melissavcomedy Podcast: soundcloud.com/melissashow www.melissavillasenor.com

Margaret Smith -- Just Say Yes

Added on by C. Maoxian.

Love this bit from Margaret Smith, the comedian:

Parents are drugging their kids now too. You've heard about this drug Ritalin? They give it to kids for hyperactivity. And the teacher recommends it. They send the note home, "just say yes!" Hyperactivity? When I was growing up, we were all hyperactive. We lived on wax lips and pixie sticks. Difference was to cope our parents did the drugs, as it should be. Now it's like, "Here honey, you take this, Mommy's sober. C'mon, down the hatch."

You Can't Make Comedy a Rubber Doll

Added on by C. Maoxian.

From an AP story in May 1981:

An interview with Jonathan Winters is an odyssey, a tour through a strange and childlike region peopled by the many facets of this pot-bellied original.
His Reds cap perched squarely on his head, his ample belly sparring with the edge of the formica table in the NBC publicity conference room, the characters living in Winters' head interrupt incessantly, turning the interview into a performance.
You don't interview Winters, you become an audience.
''You know, you get labels in this business, a wild person, 'Jonathan Winters is a wild person. How do you get a net over him? Was he really in a crazy house?'
''But I enjoy my insanity. And I say 'insanity' because when people say to me, 'There's nothing the matter with me,' that's the person who puts the telescopic sight here (he levels an imaginary rifle out the window, aiming into the NBC parking lot) and says, 'Let's see how many we can get before we lose light. There's one (he pulls the trigger).' That's the sort of person who says there's nothing wrong with him.''
That kind of craziness, that senselessness, alienation and blind brutality of modern life, crashes into the conversation relentlessly. There's reason for this. Winters has said that it's the child in him that's funny, and it's the child in us that laughs. The times are tough for all his children.
''It's harder to reach that little boy now. When I was growing up, the little boy saw six cars in the high school lot. Now, in some cases, there's no high school, just cars. We were confused, too, but we were confused in a wonderful way.
''That was the world of imagination. Now, times have changed. It was one thing to live when there was no atomic bomb, another thing to live with the atomic bomb. And a completely different thing to live in a time when you wonder whether there will be total holocaust by Friday at 12:30."
''We've got used to assassinations, we've got used to guys in the Dallas towers, we've got used to guys taking shots at our leaders. I think the hardest thing, for the little boy in me to break through to the little boy out there, is this terrible paranoia we're all in. My little boy has to work 200 per cent harder.''
Another character, 8-year-old Tommy Brichton, comes forth to demonstrate the point.
Man: ''You're little Tommy Brichton.''
''Yes I am.''
''Tommy, how are you doing in school?''
''Well, it's difficult to know what's going on from one day to the next. I watched a man on television who said the school situation is going to turn around by July. But we're going to be out of school by July, so what does he mean?''
''You're talking about busing . . ."
''Yes. I'd like to ride a bus.''
''Why not walk to school?''
''No waaaay. Eddie Terrell was stabbed to death by a 91-year-old man. He couldn't see. Thought it was a dog, that's what he said. C'mon, he killed him.
''That's terrible. How did you feel?
''Eddie was bad. He would have died before he got to high school because he was bad news. He passed out gum balls with stuff in them.''
Point taken. It's kind of strange to find so much grim in a fellow so thoroughly comic. Maybe not so strange, come to think of it.
Winters shrugs and says: ''These are the things that are happening, in Atlanta, everywhere. It's tough to take. But you can't make comedy a rubber doll. Then you've got nothing. You have to go with a piece of reality."
''The key is, somehow we've got to slip in a little more truth and still keep the world a fantasy.''
If such is possible, Winters can work it.

JW a fascinating guy ... an American original.

Performing Open-soul Surgery

Added on by C. Maoxian.

From a David Kleinberg profile of Robin Williams in September 1985 (SF Chronicle):

Williams ... was born in Chicago in 1951. He grew up in the suburbs of Detroit, and he moved to Marin county with his family when he was 16. He doesn't think it's that unusual to be a comedian coming from what he defines as ``the middle-upper class.'' His father was an executive for Ford Motor Co. who retired to Tiburon.
Though he had older stepbrothers, Williams considered himself an only child, and spent a lot of time playing ventriloquist to hundreds of toy soldiers in his bedroom.
In Marin, he attended Redwood High School in Larkspur, Claremont Men's College in Southern California for a year, returned for a brief period to College of Marin, and spent three very important years at the Theater Center of New York's prestigious Juilliard School. ``My father said, `Do whatever you want, but be ready to have a second profession.' ''
In 1976, the first profession started to pan out. In San Francisco's first Comedy Competition, Williams finished second to Bill Farley, a man who unfortunately will have to live with the stigma of being the answer to the ultimate San Francisco comedy trivia question, ``Who finished first the year Robin Williams finished second in the comedy competition?''
Williams feels it was no surprise that he came in as runner-up. He wasn't a good comedian then. In fact, he referred to a 1976 review of his work by the late Chronicle critic John Wasserman, who stated that Williams' material had yet to reach curb level. ``John was right. It was all pee-pee, ca-ca. Everyone starts off at a certain level . . . Usually you imitate someone's style that you admire . . . Then you break away.''
Jonathan Winters' style is the one that Williams' initially grabbed; he and Richard Pryor are the two names Williams mentions as his favorite comics. ``Jonathan . . . just because he's a gentle soul with a madness and wild, out-there vision. It comes from a very sensitive man who talks about things that are very painful but makes them funny.
``As whimsical as Jonathan is, Pryor is deep. He's not afraid to perform open-soul surgery at any moment. Deep, deep stuff.''
As far as new comics go, Williams likes Steven Wright, whom he compares with Woody Allen. And, as he told GQ magazine recently, ``Bob Goldthwait, very high energy, does a kind of nervous breakdown on stage. Wow, there's Whoopi Goldberg! There's Paula Poundstone, Sandra Bernhard, Elayne Boosler. There's Jay Leno . . . Rick Overton, Charlie Fleischer, A. Whitney Brown, a young guy named Dana Carvey - all of them doing different things.''

George Carlin's Thing To Watch Out For

Added on by C. Maoxian.


anal rape
quicksand
body lice
evil spirits
gridlock
acid rain
continental drift
labor violence
flash floods
rabies
torture
bad luck
calcium deficiency
falling rocks
cattle stampedes
bank failure
evil neighbors
killer bees
organ rejection
lynching
toxic waste
unstable dynamite
religious fanatics
prickly heat
price fixing
moral decay
hotel fires
loss of face
stink bombs
bubonic plague
neo-Nazis 
friction
cereal weevils
failure of will
chain reactions
soil erosion
mail fraud
dry rot
voodoo curses
broken glass
snake bites
parasites
white slavery
public ridicule
faithless friends
random violence
breach of contract
family scandals
charlatans
transverse myelitis
structural defects
race riots
sun spots
rogue elephants
wax buildup
killer frost
jealous coworkers
root canals
metal fatigue
corporal punishment
sneak attacks
peer pressure 
vigilantes
birth defects
false advertising
ungrateful children
financial ruin
mildew
loss of privileges
bad drugs
ill-fitting shoes
widespread chaos
Lou Gehrig's Disease
stray bullets
runaway trains
chemical spills
locusts
airline food
shipwrecks
prowlers
bathtub accidents
faulty merchandise
terrorism
discrimination
wrongful cremation
carbon deposits
beef tapeworm
taxation without representation
escaped maniacs
sunburn
abandonment
threatening letters
entropy
nine-mile fever 
poor workmanship
absentee landlords
solitary confinement
depletion of the ozone layer
unworthiness
intestinal bleeding
defrocked priests
loss of equilibrium
disgruntled employees
global warming
card sharps
poisoned meat
nuclear accidents
broken promises
contamination of the water supply
obscene phone calls
nuclear winter
wayward girls
mutually assured destruction
rampaging moose
the greenhouse effect
cluster headaches
social isolation
Dutch elm disease
the contraction of the universe
paper cuts
eternal damnation
the wrath of God and

PARANOIA! 


Additional suggestions:

detached corneas

prolapsed rectums

high-frequency traders