After reading a NYT article today on how rising gas prices have curbed teenage cruising, I realized that my high school experience in suburban DE would have been completely different if gas had been more expensive. In addition to the daily 40 minute drives to high school, I spent much of my leisure time driving to visit friends, many of whom lived 30 minutes away in Chadds Ford or West Chester, PA. Our favorite weekend activity, however, during junior year of high school (1998-1999) was cruising the "Conc" or Concord Pike in Wilmington. This was your typical strip with a Dunkin Donuts, TCBY, Borders, fast food chains, etc. and one DE hotspot, the Charcoal Pit. We spent hours driving from one parking lot to the next to see who was there and who we could chat with. On more low key nights, we'd just drive to Acme, the local grocery store 5 minutes from my house, and just loiter in their parking lot. What a stimulating adolescent lifestyle I led.
In any case, my point is that at the height of my cruising days (probably Fall 1998), gas only cost about $.98 per gallon!!! By the time I graduated in May 2000, the price had risen to about $1.40. If you're curious to see the data yourself, click here. At $4.00+ per gallon in 2008, I would not have been able to afford cruising. Maybe that would have been better for me developmentally if I lived near a city which provided actual cultural opportunities. But what was a teenager in Delaware supposed to do! Philly is close (a little under an hour drive), but you still have to drive there, and it just seemed farther than it was. This is why I won't be rearing any children I have in DE.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
True or False?
I definitely remember learning at Yale in some class about how when we recall a story or fact, we're just as likely to remember the story backwards or remember the opposite of the fact. I often think about this because I am notorious for spreading "facts" for which I cannot recall a source. The NYT just had an op-ed about this today: click here to see the story.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Staying in touch with exes
I have a poor track record of remaining friends with ex-boyfriends that I've dated seriously. After intertwining my life so closely with theirs, I just can't figure out how to make them a casual part of my life after the breakup. And I think this is the saddest part about breakups. I haven't seen many of my friends remain good friends with their exes, and I am very impressed by the ones who do. I usually attribute it to some high level of maturity that I'll never attain, but it's at least something to contemplate trying. If the ex has done something horrible to me, then I think it's fair to just leave them behind. As long as I don't foresee some serious psychological ramification for this, then why bother with the trouble of trying to rebuild trust and being friends after that sort of betrayal.
As for exes that result from mutual breakups, it's more complicated. I am easily overwhelmed by nostalgia, so being friends with my former best friend seems a lot to ask. On the other hand, turning your back on someone who was so strongly associated with years of your life seems extreme and unnecessary. This kind of denial of your past must be unhealthy. But is it necessarily better to push yourself to do something that is easier to avoid? In the past, I think I'd just avoid away, but now, I think I'm too old for that.
I think the idea of seeing your ex is worse than actually seeing him. Face-to-face, I find it to be no big deal. But am I fine enough to be real friends? If I was fully invested in the old relationship, I'm not sure that I'll ever be fully over it and its failure. Luckily, the passage of time is like gravity - you can always count on it. I'll probably always still feel nostalgia or a twinge of sadness that my hopes with this person were never fulfilled, but it passes more and more quickly. We're very good at replacing those old hopes with new hopes and new people. I suppose time is what helps the new friendship with the ex develop too. Or maybe we won't become good friends and part ways, but at least I'll have faced my past instead of trying to bury it.
As for exes that result from mutual breakups, it's more complicated. I am easily overwhelmed by nostalgia, so being friends with my former best friend seems a lot to ask. On the other hand, turning your back on someone who was so strongly associated with years of your life seems extreme and unnecessary. This kind of denial of your past must be unhealthy. But is it necessarily better to push yourself to do something that is easier to avoid? In the past, I think I'd just avoid away, but now, I think I'm too old for that.
I think the idea of seeing your ex is worse than actually seeing him. Face-to-face, I find it to be no big deal. But am I fine enough to be real friends? If I was fully invested in the old relationship, I'm not sure that I'll ever be fully over it and its failure. Luckily, the passage of time is like gravity - you can always count on it. I'll probably always still feel nostalgia or a twinge of sadness that my hopes with this person were never fulfilled, but it passes more and more quickly. We're very good at replacing those old hopes with new hopes and new people. I suppose time is what helps the new friendship with the ex develop too. Or maybe we won't become good friends and part ways, but at least I'll have faced my past instead of trying to bury it.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Materialism - Is it material?
One of the main criticisms of the Sex and the City movie is that it is overly materialistic. When the movie opens, Carrie says that women move to New York for two reasons: love and labels. No one I've talked to actually "buys" into that statement. However, it does raise the important issue of unhealthy materialism in our society today and particularly in New York, where every other woman is a walking model with an enviable outfit.
I think it's pretty unreasonable to eschew all desire for nice things, but I also don't need my handbag to be screaming "DESIGNER" all over it (especially in a trite canvas pattern which we've all considered purchasing). Although the brand of an item surely has a strong subconscious (and conscious - who am I kidding) pull on my decisionmaking, the design and quality of the product is the most important factor to me. When those factors coincide with a low price, it's a thrill. Unfortunately, they are generally made by a fancy designer and are more expensive. (see here for a NY Times article on how much luxury goods prices have jumped in the last decade and which clothing item prices have dropped.)
This discussion of cost raises another question - does the price of the stuff you buy make you more or less materialistic? I'm assuming the answer is yes because buying inexpensive stuff is less wasteful of resources that can be dedicated to something more productive in society. Is it possible to not judge someone who spends $200 on a tshirt? But the psychological underpinnings that we look down upon are the same for all forms of materialism, so bargain hunters shouldn't be completely off the hook. I must note with pride that during my 3.5 months in Europe, I only purchased one item for myself - a pair of shoes. That was an anomaly. As someone who loves shopping (although limited mostly to good bargains during the past 3 years as a student), I can't decide how harshly to judge myself.
I think it's pretty unreasonable to eschew all desire for nice things, but I also don't need my handbag to be screaming "DESIGNER" all over it (especially in a trite canvas pattern which we've all considered purchasing). Although the brand of an item surely has a strong subconscious (and conscious - who am I kidding) pull on my decisionmaking, the design and quality of the product is the most important factor to me. When those factors coincide with a low price, it's a thrill. Unfortunately, they are generally made by a fancy designer and are more expensive. (see here for a NY Times article on how much luxury goods prices have jumped in the last decade and which clothing item prices have dropped.)
This discussion of cost raises another question - does the price of the stuff you buy make you more or less materialistic? I'm assuming the answer is yes because buying inexpensive stuff is less wasteful of resources that can be dedicated to something more productive in society. Is it possible to not judge someone who spends $200 on a tshirt? But the psychological underpinnings that we look down upon are the same for all forms of materialism, so bargain hunters shouldn't be completely off the hook. I must note with pride that during my 3.5 months in Europe, I only purchased one item for myself - a pair of shoes. That was an anomaly. As someone who loves shopping (although limited mostly to good bargains during the past 3 years as a student), I can't decide how harshly to judge myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)