This layering technique was like, Hmm. A purple top, an olive jacket, and a fuzzy vest. How can that work at all and yet, it kind of does, doesn't it?
 |
| From designthisdayblog.com |
I decided to try something similar (knocking out a couple of items for the Work the Wardrobe Challenge in the process) but I had little hope that it wouldn't be utterly ridiculous. But it turned out okay, I think. And it was warm enough so I declare victory.
Olive cable knit cardigan (thrifted, Eddie Bauer), $2.50/wear+
Purple quilted-shoulder top (Daisy Fuentes/Kohls), $3.40/wear+
Black quilted vest (Mountain Lake/Stage), $2.00/wear
Skinny jeans (JCP), $1.15/wear
Tall cognac boots by Sam Edelman, $11.51/wear
Purple gumdrop necklace (Target), $3.12/wear
Outfit total: $23.68/wear
In other news...One of the academic psychologist's go-to idea-generators is: Take something that has been shown in the literature to have a certain effect--e.g., to be generally "bad" or "good"--and show that it can go the other way. This article refers to a couple recent studies showing that high levels of self-control--a generally positive trait--can have downsides in the workplace because colleagues will pile the work on your shoulders and not give you full credit for it, possibly because they perceive that it takes you less effort. This can lead to burn-out in high-achieving, high self-control employees.
This article made me think of Tam's grad school friend who has a seemingly dysfunctionally high level of conscientiousness. In her case, it feels like a combination of high conscientiousness, a strongly internalized sense of duty/need to please/martyrdom/women doing all the emotional work/etc., and a hint of perfectionism.
In any case, I welcome more research into the downsides of high self-control. In 2009, Roy Baumeister (the ego depletion guy) wrote an article "Is there a downside to good self-control?" that found only one study reporting a negative aspect of high trait self-control: reduced emotional sensitivity (which he points out can be both good and bad). This more recent research speaks to a downside that every conscientious person knows--other people will totally take advantage of you if you let them.
Speaking of self-control, I intentionally did not regulate very strongly my desire to buy ALL THE RABBITS at Target this afternoon. You know how it is, you go to Target to buy Sudafed from the pharmacy and you come home with everything in the store. In addition to a bunch of stuff like conditioner, lotion, toothpaste, etc., and the bunny things that I helped the Easter Bunny select (which for the record was not literally every single thing), I also finally got a new pillow! Going into the store, I saw a guy carrying a pillow out, which reminded me that I've been wanting a new pillow. I got a nice-feeling memory foam one that I hope will work better and hold up better than the previous (inexpensive) pillows I've bought at Target.
7 comments:
I observed this week that, because my grad school friend will do what she is supposed to do regardless of how she feels, she doesn't "have to" practice good self-care, and thus she often doesn't. For instance, she will go weeks or months being sleep-deprived despite not having a baby (hi Jen!) or any absolute reason for not sleeping. I, on the other hand, will simply drop the ball on even quite important things if I'm very underslept, which forces me to take care of myself a bit.
I'm almost scared to go to Target sometimes. We laugh about how many things we suddenly remember we "need" once we get there. But I don't think Amazon is any better in that regard... especially with Prime shipping.
Tam, that's an interesting observation re: self-care. I have never been so conscientious that I will go weeks with sleep-deprivation, but I am also pretty good about establishing a healthy habit around sleep and I am completely willing to cut social obligations to the bone. (I mean, zero social obligations is basically my default, actually.)
Jen, yep Amazon prime shipping can make it as bad. The only upside is that you do have to enter something like "rabbit salt and pepper shakers" into the search engine while Target puts them out where they're easy to see. (In this particular case I was THRILLED the Target made it easy to see their seasonal rabbit stuff. But as a general rule, it's better not to get attracted to so many random cute things.)
Amazon can get you into a lot of 'paradox of choice' situations. I agree it's great for impulse buying, but if you want a toaster, it's much nicer to just pick one from a few that are in front of you than to start reading reviews and considering whether a slightly awkward cord is better or worse than a toaster that seems to be broken more often or one where the lower left corner of the front piece of toast is habitually undercooked or [whatever you conclude after reading 2000 toaster reviews]. Argh.
Good point, Tam.
Of course, if you're Robert, you find out the very best options from reading a bazillion reviews and then find that the exact recommended models are not available in any of the first 6 stores you go to. I believe that is an only slightly exaggerated description of our blender shopping experience (of quite a few years ago, prior to Amazon having all these kinds of products). So for that kind of situation, it's definitely helpful if at least you are starting from a consideration set of choices that are actually currently available to you.
Or you could use the Mosch Method - go to six stores, buy every model available, and then return all but one after careful consideration at home.
Post a Comment