So that?s how she got the gig. Ha! We kid, we kid.
But seriously,�Lindsay Lohan�and designer�Philipp Plein�were caught kissing in Milan this week and we?re not talking about the double cheek thing the Europeans do.
In addition to the not so secretive smooch, the two rumored lovebirds constantly held hands when they were out and about.
What do U think? Are they an item or not???
[Image via�XposurePhotos.com.]
Sigh. If only all golfers looked like�Justin Timberlake.
He looks so cute in that hat!
JT spent some time playing in the�Justin Timberlake Shriners Hospitals For Children Open Championship Pro-Am�for charity. We mean, it?s got his name on it, so why wouldn?t he play? Ha!
And that title is�absurdly�long! Even JTSHFCOCPA is just ridiculous! LOLz!
But, title or not, it?s for a good cause ? and we get to see JT out and about!
Check out the pics!
[Image via�WENN.]
Anne Marie Kortright April Scott Arielle Kebbel Ashanti Ashlee Simpson
?You Only Live Twice?
1965
Bond: Sean Connery
Classic, Cheese, or Crap?: CLASSIC
When looking back on ?You Only Live Twice? as a modern viewer, it suffers greatly from one factor completely beyond its control.
Austin Powers.
Yes, Austin Powers. Mike Myers? uber-popular spoof of Spy movies, and the James Bond series in particular. While the titular character bears little to no resemblance to Bond ? in fact in many ways being the anti-Bond ? the chief�villain�of the series is unmistakably Blofeld, circa ?You Only Live Twice?. While he borrows from many elements of the Bond villains throughout the ?Powers? series, Dr. Evil is firmly rooted in the bald, scarred, kitty loving, henchman killing Blofeld who first appears in full here. So many elements that ?Powers? mocks are on full display here, and it?s honestly difficult not to recognize them as ridiculous when seen in such a light.
There are numerous, numerous factors that add ?cheese? flavoring to this movie. Bond?s ?Japenese disguise?, Little Nelly, the SPECTRE rocket capable of eating other space vessels ? which by the way, seem to be getting launched on a daily basis in this movie, the helicopter equipped with the super magnet, why doesn?t Blofeld just�KILL bond? LOL I mean, if someone were looking to, they could really tear into this flick.
But &%$# all that. ?YOLT? is classic.
C?Mon!! Blofeld is at his best. I mean ? Donald Pleasance only played him once, and this was the undeniable apex of the character. He?s arrogant and cold, and he?s got an incredible look. There?s a ninja training school that mobilizes to assault the volcano base in the coolest large-scale�sequence of the Bond movies ever. Bond proves that his ?way with women? translates into Japanese as well. Tons of gadgets and cool cars, I mean, this is the Bond formula in high gear. It?s big budget, high production value, large-scale 007 goodness.
The biggest complaint I have with this movie is actually Connery himself.
It?s well known that after ?Thunderball?, Sean Connery began to ask out of his role as James Bond. They were CRANKING these movies out (5 in 5 years), the parts were physically demanding, and he didn?t have time to do many other roles. Although I don?t see the wisdom in biting the hand that feeds ? especially given the quality of his filmography for about 20 years after being released from Bond ? I do understand where he was coming from. But he wasn?t able to get out of the role for this movie. He was given a salary increase and production commenced. Unfortunately, you can almost feel his resentment throughout. The spark, the enjoyment in the role? it?s just noticeably missing to me. This is easily his weakest performance of the series (not the worst movie, mind you, but at least in DAF he seemed like he was trying again).
Regardless, this movie remains a Classic to me. It?s a cold war confrontation featuring a secret volcano base, an army of ninjas with machine guns, a mini helicopter, the beauty of Japan, and the coolest major villain the Bond series has ever seen. It?s got the primary ingredient I look for in a Bond movie ? FUN ? in spades.
YOU may only live twice, but this movie will live on forever.
. Bookmark the
.
Gabrielle Union Garcelle Beauvais Genelle Frenoy Georgianna Robertson Georgina Grenville
The ever-busy Steven Spielberg is about to start shooting 'Lincoln,' and, as he tells Empire magazine, the prospect has him very "excited." "[The film] feels very much like a procedural," Spielberg said. "It shows Lincoln at work, not just Lincoln standing around posing for the history books. [It's] arguably the greatest working president in American history doing some of the greatest work for the world."'Lincoln' will film in Richmond, Virginia, with Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role.
Meanwhile, he's already got his post-'Lincoln' film lined up, the awesomely titled 'Robopocalypse,' an adaptation of a recent bestseller. "It reminded me of Michael Crichton," Spielberg says of the futuristic flick about a robot rebellion. "I'm in pre-production on it right now. I'm hoping to start shooting the picture some time in '12. I don't exactly know when, hopefully sometime this summer, for a '13 release."
[via Empire]
Photo courtesy Kevin Winter/Getty Images
Erica Leerhsen Erika Christensen Estella Warren Esther Caсadas Eva Green
I?m amazed by how much advertising we?re seeing for ?Immortals,? which is still two months away from its release date. �As I?ve said in previous posts, ?Immortals? impressed me at Comic Con, and I think that director Tarsem Singh has the right vision for a film of this magnitude. �I may be overstepping and being a bit presumptuous here, but I have a feeling that ?Immortals? may be a better film than ?300.? �Only time will tell I guess, so what do you think? �Will this soar, or sink?
-David Griffin (Follow @griffinde on Twitter)
Carmen Electra Carol Grow Carrie Underwood Cat Power Catherine Bell
For ?LOST? fans, Season Six was the promised land. All would be revealed.
Over the years we had been taken on a journey that included two survivable plane crashes, a fake plane crash, a crashed plane full of heroin, polar bears, baby kidnappers, ghosts, visions, world saving buttons, a cloud of noisy smoke that kills people, cursed numbers, miraculous healing, a phantom ?sickness?, a real sickness that kills pregnant women, impossibly linked people, ageless people, a crazy French woman, an ancient four toed statue foot, torture, an inescapable island, a brainwashing chamber, time travel, an ancient wheel device that teleports the island and/or causes time space disruptions, a seeming resurrection, a couple of real resurrections, a magic cabin, a magic temple, this weird device that pinpoints the island with a pendulum, nukes, nerve gas, mysterious jungle gypsies, mysterious science organizations, you %$&#ing name it, this show threw all kinds of crazy shit at us. My list doesn?t even cover everything.
And now it had 18 episodes to explain itself once and for all.
We had been promised answers, and I wanted nothing less.
Now, I wasn?t being unreasonable. I knew that over the years, ?LOST? had thrown a lot of shit up against the wall, seeing if it would stick. I wasn?t expecting an answer to every single loose strand and every minor detail like some obsessive fans seemed to be. When they showed a preview scene at Comic-Con in 2009 where Hurley (always the voice of the fan on the show) asks what happened to Shannon?s inhaler, a bit of minutiae leftover from season 1, I realized what they were trying to say. Listen. We?re not going to go over the previous seasons with a fine tooth comb in order to ensure there are no questions that could possibly be asked which we haven?t answered.
There are some things that are so small, they don?t deserve revisiting.
Yet I expected, and not unfairly, the answers to the five biggest questions they had remaining. It wasn?t unreasonable. This show rose to prominence and enjoyed its lofty place in the pop culture echelon based on these questions. It was only right that they resolve them. On top of which, I expected them to resolve outstanding character issues and put the characters in places where we ?knew what happened to them?, but I expect that of every TV show series finale. Answering the five big questions was something unique to ?LOST?.
Each of these questions had been a prominent aspect of ?LOST? for years (Well, except for ?Jacob and the Man in Black?, who were revealed in later seasons, but were obviously crucial to the story). These were NOT nit picking. These were not fan service. These were integral elements to the ongoing narrative that fans deserved resolution to. NOT answering them would be akin to having a murder mystery movie without revealing the killer. AMC?s ?The Killing? did that earlier this year and angry mobs with pitchforks and torches almost formed.
Having these questions impending made watching Season Six was one of the most unique experiences in TV history, and not necessarily in a good way. I?ve watched plenty of shows now where I?ve known it was the show?s final season, and I wondered where they would leave the characters, what would happen at the end, etc. But ?LOST? was different. It was like having a pile of work on your desk that you know about how long it will take you. Except here, the work was all of ?LOST??s unanswered questions. At a certain point, you?re looking at the pile and thinking. ?Uh oh, I don?t have enough time to do all this work. Some of it isn?t going to get done?? Panic starts to set in, but the work doesn?t go away. In fact, even this late in the game you?re getting NEW work. (Even as late as the beginning of Season 6, Lost was introducing new characters and new mysteries). Then there?s that dreaded moment where you realize? ?I?m gonna have to work OT.?
Except, with ?LOST?, there was no OT.
So what did you do? You had to lower your expectations. They weren?t going to get it done in time.
If you don?t believe me that ?LOST? left about a thousand unanswered questions, watch this priceless video. ?LOST? fans ? if you haven?t seen this yet, this is MUST SEE stuff.
But I didn?t care about the zillions of minute details anymore. Like watching a football team that?s three touchdowns behind in the 4th quarter, yet refuses to go into the hurry up offense, I knew that there was no way ?LOST? was going to have enough time. The only questions I cared about now were the Big Five. I felt they were part of the core of the show, and it was impossible that the show would NOT answer them.
Here?s how ?LOST? fared in resolving the biggest questions it had set out for itself.
WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS?
Was it Answered? NO.
The ?Numbers? had been alluded to ever since season one. I find it ridiculous that they were entered into without an exit plan ? That no one knew how to explain them before they began to use them prominently. In the end, the furthest the numbers were ?explained? was they were shown to be ?compass bearings?, if you will, for Jacob?s magic spyglass. Turn to one of the numbers, and it would show you a Lostie. In turn, he scrawled that number down on a cave wall, presumably to be able to keep track of which compas bearing showed which candidate. And to use that list of candidates as ?to do list? of sorts ? crossing off candidates once they failed to prove themselves worthy. One could argue though, that that was just an extension of ?the Curse?? they did go through quite a bit of suffering as a result of being ?selected?. Also, it certainly doesn?t ?explain? anything.
How does that trigger events in the real world when the numbers are used in sequence?
Grrrr.
WHAT WAS THE SMOKE MONSTER?
Was it answered? Not really.
In the final season we learned that ?Smokey? could shape change into human form, that it used to be Jacob?s brother, and that it was evil. So evil in fact that it could never ever get off of the island or it would be the end of the world (Although it had been living on the island for centuries and it wasn?t the end of the island, so?). The ?Man In Black? was changed into the smoke monster when his brother beat him down and tossed him into the glowing cave. The big billowing noisy cloud came rushing out right after.
But WHY? HOW? What were its limitations? How did it happen? WHY did it happen? This ANSWER wasn?t even an answer at all? it was just another mystery. We learned its ?origin story?, but it left so many questions behind that it felt as if we never learned anything at all.
HOW WERE THESE CASTAWAYS RELATED/CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER? HOW ARE THEY CONNECTED TO THE ISLAND?
Was it answered? YES.
Of all the questions I had going in, season six probably addressed this one the most fully. The Losties had been selected by Jacob in order to be candidates for his replacement as protector of the island. They were each personally selected by him at one point in time in their lives. Whatever magic mojo he has manifested itself in their lives in order to lead each�of them to flight Oceanic 815, and eventually, the Island. It makes sense that this would cause their paths to cross, or nearly cross in a variety of ways.
If the show had done a better job (a much better job) of answering ?What was the Island?, and the sub question ?Why does it need protecting?, I?d have been fine with this answer.
WHO WERE JACOB AND ?THE MAN IN BLACK?? WHAT WERE THEY DOING?
Was it answered? Poorly.
This question was answered, but the answers we got were just plain silly. The main answer was that they were brothers who had lived on the island for centuries. They were kept alive by the unexplained magic of the Island. One was the Island?s ?protector,? the other was the black smoke monster. Neither one of them actually really knew what the Island was. So eventually even once all the curtains were pulled back, once all the layers were peeled, NO ONE knew what the ultimate answer to this show was. Meanwhile these two were locked in a poorly defined struggle ? with unexplained rules ? in order to keep the Smoke Monster/Man in Black from leaving the Island. Because he/it was evil and it would spread.
How? Why? What would the result be?
*SIGH*
WHAT WAS THE ISLAND? WHY WAS IT SO? SPECIAL?
Was it answered? In the most ridiculous way imaginable.
You could argue that this question was NOT answered, as the mysterious glowing stream in the cave was never explained or conjectured upon or guessed at or anything of that of that nature whatsoever. What we were given was the fact that the island was home to a cave�containing a glowing pool, which a stream poured into.
The source of all life? The gateway to Hell? A tear in the universe? A cesspool filled with luminescent bio-organisms? Who knows? No one said anything.
All we do know is that there?s a ?plug?�in the�middle of�this pool within the cave. If you unplug the plug and the water goes into the ground, the island starts to have earthquakes and things are BAD. Kind of like a naturally occuring reactor core. Lose the coolant, and you get a meltdown. Plus if you get in the water, you will be turned into a black noisy cloud of smoke that can take the form of other people, but will be evil? Oh, but not in all cases. If you have unique electromagnetic properties, or if you?re Jack, you?ll just die ? no smoke monster transformation necessary.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I was pissed.
Of the five big questions I had of ?LOST?, only one was answered well. Of the remaining four, three were answered poorly ? if I were a Creative Writing professor, I?d have flunked them ? and one wasn?t answered at all. In other words, they didn?t just fail to stick the landing, they faceplanted worse than the gymnast chick in ?Final Destination 5?.
I wasn?t alone in my opinion. The internet exploded with discontent. It was comparable to the backlash surrounding the final episode of ?The Sopranos?. ?LOST? fans seemed to divide into two camps like the Hatfields and McCoys. On the one hand were folks like me, who were livid that after so many years of giving us television blue balls, ?LOST??s final payoff was dogshit. The other camp bought wholeheartedly into the Kool-Aid that Lindeloff and Cuse were passing out, and were satisfied with their explanation that ?LOST? was never about the mysteries anyways. It wasn?t about the Island, it was about the characters.
Listen.
Sure. Lost had cool characters. Some of them they completely wrecked (How they screwed the pooch with a character as strong as John Locke should be its own column), but others they did a great, great job with. Over the course of the shows run, they managed to cast some excellent actors and actresses and they all did fantastic work.
But character resolution is a basic, minimum requirement for ANY show that ends on its own terms. Saying something to the effect of ?Our series conclusion was a success because we wrapped up all our character arcs? is like saying ?We had a good baseball season because we played 162 games? or ?My car is a good car because I keep filling it with gas.?
You wrapped up your character arcs? Congratu-%$#&ing-lations!
?LOST? rose to the heights it hit because of the mysteries. The imagination triggering premise. The bizarre, colorful, intriguing details that filled almost every episode. Not its characters! Even the things that WERE cool about its characters were the MYSTERIES about the characters! To leave the major mysteries of the show unresolved, poorly addressed and weakly answered was downright unconscionable. It would be like ?Battlestar Gallactica? ending without revealing if they ever reached Earth. Or ?The Shield? not resolving whether or not Vic Mackey got away with his crimes. Or ?The Sopranos? not showing whether Tony Soprano lived or died. Ok, scratch that last one, but you get the point.
Listen, anybody could write a great murder mystery if you never have to reveal who the killer is or how the crime was committed.
The failure of this show is still being referenced. Just last week, the slash filmcast was using it as an example of why a revisit to the Blade Runner universe might be a bad idea (saying some questions are better left unanswered). George RR Martin took some heat recently for guaranteeing Game of Thrones would wrap up satisfactorily by saying he didn?t want the show to ?pull a LOST?.
?LOST? has become synonymous with screwing up the ending.
But it didn?t have to be this way. In fact? I think they embarked on this journey with a entirely different endgame in mind, and at some point along the way, chickened out. At least, that?s what I like to believe, because the alternatives are either they had no plans at all and winged this shit up at the last minute, or they had this in mind all along and couldn?t come up with anything better over the course of six whole years. Either way it kind of sucks.
You know what I think though? I think the Losties were dead the whole time, and they just didn?t have the balls to follow through with it.
. Bookmark the
.
Jennifer Morrison Jennifer ODell Jennifer Scholle Jennifer Sky Jenny McCarthy
Our current Jessica Chastain era snuck up on me. Chastain's meteoric rise happened so fast that I just kind of went along with it. In other words: I was ill prepared for Chastain's dominance over the last few months. Who is this person and how did she manage to sneak up on an unsuspecting world? It might seem like Chastain -- star of 'The Help,' 'The Debt,' 'Tree of Life' and this weekend's limited release, 'Take Shelter,' plus the upcoming 'Texas Killing Fields' and 'Coriolanus' -- came out of nowhere, but that's not exactly true. Every actor has an origin, even the ones who are currently in the midst of their breakout year. So let's take a look at five early roles from Chastain, including her first on a show called 'ER.'
'ER' (2004)
In her first credited role, Chastain plays the friend of a person being operated on by Dr. Corday in the ER -- which I suppose describes about 50 percent of the guest stars on 'ER.' It's hard to get a sense of the future Oscar contender's talents from this clip, though -- for what it's worth -- when Chastain is asked to leave and expalains that she wants to stay with her friend, I did believe that she wants to stay with her friend. So, sure, why not?
'Law & Order: Trial By Jury' (2005) (2:10)
Remember this show? One of the few members of the 'Law & Order' family that didn't find success of some kind. Lasting only 13 episodes, 'Trial by Jury' focused on the trial process and was a bit more liberal in displaying the personal lives of its characters as opposed to the other shows in this series. Chastain played the recurring role of Assistant District Attorney Sigrun Borg and even had the opportunity to speak some lines -- like she does at the 2:10 mark in the video below.
'Blackbeard' (2006)
Chastain showed her range by playing the notorious pirate Edward Teach in this made for television movie. What's that? She didn't play Blackbeard? She played a character named Charlotte Ormond? Ah. Sorry. I had just assumed from looking through the cast list that Chastain would be given the lead role. OK, then! Chastain plays Charlotte Ormond, who has some sort of relationship with Blackbeard, or has a relationship with someone who knows Blackbeard. Regardless, Chastain shows up at the 1:10 mark.
'Close to Home' (2006)
Chastain plays a rape victim in a 2006 episode of this crime-drama. Until I just checked, I had no idea if 'Close to Home' was still on the air or not. The title is just nondescript enough to sound like something that could currently be on the air. I feel shows like this do well! But, alas, 'Close to Home' was canceled after its second season. Oh, also, thankfully for Chastain's character, her attacker is captured and convicted.
'Jolene' (2008)
Chastain's first film role is that of a young woman who we follow over a ten-year period -- a woman who is sexually abused by her uncle-in-law and eventually winds up in juvenile detention. Chastain won a few film festival awards for her performance and showed a range that would hint at her breakthrough that will come three years later.
You can contact Mike Ryan directly on Twitter.
Follow Moviefone on Twitter.
Angela Marcello Angelina Jolie Anna Faris Anna Friel Anna Kournikova
Finally, after years of waiting, TNG is finally being released on Blu-Ray. �This will be a slow process, with a season or two being released per year starting in 2012. �I?m excited to see what the transformation will look like, and in January we?ll have that opportunity with ?The Next Level,? which will contain some of TNG?s classic episodes. �This may seem a bit gimmicky, and it actually is, but I?m sure I?ll still drop the $22 to see what TNG will look like in HD. �There is still no official release date for season one, but be at ease, because ?Make it so number 1? will be in your Blu-Ray player some time next year. �What do you think? �Which Star Trek show was your favorite? �I?d have to go with ?DS9.?
-David Griffin (Follow @griffinde on Twitter)
Alexis Bledel Ali Campoverdi Ali Larter Alice Dodd Alicia Keys
(Photo by FPG/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
A new study by Vanderbilt economist William J. Collins and Ph.D. candidate Katharine L. Shester looks at the long-term economic impact of the ambitious (and highly controversial) Housing Act of 1949, which used federal subsidies and the powers of eminent domain to ?revitalize? American cities, i.e., to clear out the slums. By the time the program ended in 1974, 2,100 distinct urban renewal projects had been completed using grants that totaled about $53 billion (in 2009 dollars).
In one of the rare papers to collect and analyze data related to the program, Collins and Shester come up with a positive picture of its effects ? at least in some ways. The authors are clear that the ugliness involved with pushing people out of low-income housing was the reason the program was shut down, and that their results do not ?imply that the dislocation costs for displaced residents and businesses were unimportant.? From the abstract:
We use an instrumental variable strategy to estimate the program?s effects on city-level measures of median income, property values, employment and poverty rates, and population. The estimates are generally positive and economically significant, and they are not driven by differential changes in cities? demographic composition. The results are consistent with a model of spatial equilibrium in which local productivity is enhanced.
Cities that did the most slum-clearing or ?urban renewal? had a higher increase in property values, income and population compared to non-participating cities. The results also show that these cities maintained roughly the same demographics, and did not push low-income residents out of cities, but rather redistributed the population.
The results suggest a far less dismal legacy for the U.S. urban renewal program than is commonly portrayed. It appears that cities that were allowed to engage more actively in urban renewal posted better outcomes in 1980 than they otherwise would have in terms of property value, income, and population growth. Moreover, these results were not achieved by merely pushing residents with low human capital levels out of the city.
Though that?s surely cold comfort to those low-income residents turned out of their apartments, and the neighborhoods destroyed for civic centers and right-of-way.
Here are some highlights from the data:
Esther Caсadas Eva Green Eva Longoria Eva Mendes Evangeline Lilly
Per the Salt Lake Tribune:
Scenes that ran afoul of Utah's liquor laws show full female, male and transvestite nudity. Other culpable scenes show the photo of a sex act in the movie's credits, and a monkey chewing on a plastic water bottle strategically placed beneath a monk's robes, state officials said.
Unfortunately for Brewvies (great bar name), the violation arose because a local strip club -- which repeatedly violated Utah liquor laws regarding sexual images on film -- tattled on the bar to the Utah Highway Patrol's liquor control team. Of course, since the film was shown in Utah theaters all summer, this does feel a bit hypocritical -- at least to newly appointed commissioner Constance White: "I'm struggling with the concept that an adult beverage may be served but an adult movie cannot be shown at the same time."
This is the first alcohol violation for Brewvies.
[via Salt Lake Tribune]
Ana Ivanovi Ana Paula Lemes Ananda Lewis Angela Marcello Angelina Jolie
I get it ? people are angry. Very, very angry. I?m angry too. And Wall Street sure makes a great scapegoat, hence the Occupy Wall Street protest. Wall Street is a symbol of the ?greed and corruption? that took over America and caused this whole mess.
But let?s take a minute to examine the facts and see if we can?t find some better scapegoats:
But how about this: You?re to blame too. That?s right, you. Why? Because you?re not investing in America! You?re irrationally scared. Why have there been 25 months in a row of redemptions from mutual funds? Why are P/E ratios relative to yields at their lowest levels ever? The stock market right now is irrationally low. Bond yields are at 1% (give or take) and the S&P 500 is yielding 2.3%. That wide a spread has never happened before. So please, get your money out from under the mattress, and stop un-investing in America.
And finally, people are saying the problem in the euro zone is a ?repeat? of Lehman. On CNBC this week, I had to explain that Greece is a country, and that Lehman Brothers was a bank. You can?t liquidate a country, not very easily at least. The euro zone has problems but let?s put them in perspective:
So, I?m confused, whose fault is it? And where do I go ?occupy? if I want to vent my anger? The choices: FASB, Governor Cuomo?s office, the Federal Reserve, hedge funds, and mortgage lenders (who were thrilled with the new Fannie Mae lending standards so they loaned out as much as possible).
What about Germany? What about Greece? What about the White House? President Obama has so confused the healthcare system, and created such confusion around mandatory payments from corporations that everyone is now afraid to hire. Two trillion dollars in stimulus and we?ve lost millions of jobs. How can that be? Guess what: there?s also $2 trillion in cash sitting in reserves at the banks. It never hit the money supply!
There are millions of private businesses out there that aren?t hiring because banks aren?t lending. Why aren?t they lending? Because they?re afraid of political uncertainty. If a bank is going to be politically targeted it needs all the money it can get. Plus, the Federal Reserve is paying banks to hold money. Why? Because we asked for it! We wanted the banks to stop being so greedy so we decided to encourage them to hold onto more money and not lose it all. The Fed does that by paying them.
Deep breath. There?s no scapegoat here. We?re all in this together, and we?re all (somewhat) at fault. So rather than planning an occupation, let?s focus on solutions:
Meanwhile, please stop being so angry. Stop ?occupying? places. Let?s be friendly and focus on solutions. Let?s be creative and focus on how we can use that energy for invention, innovation, and ultimately jobs.
Bianca Kajlich Bijou Phillips Blake Lively Blu Cantrell Bonnie Jill Laflin
Ghostly drama has its moments, but it needs more Margo Martindale.
Friday, Sept. 23, 8 p.m. (CBS)
Patrick Wilson, Jennifer Ehle, Margo Martindale
Could it be that someone at CBS has been spoken to by a dead person? They do love those kinds of shows at CBS. Which is why A Gifted Man (Sept. 23, 8 p.m.) is on the air (on Fridays). There is a recipe at work here that tastes pretty good every time CBS cooks it up. This time, a super skilled, emotionally cold, super focused surgeon named Michael Holt (Patrick Wilson) has made a lot of money being a Type A guy. CBS kind of paints his life -? which seems super efficient, filled with a nice car and a cool place to live, as some sort of bad thing. One day out running -? Dr. Holt is in very good condition -- Michael hears a car crash and sees a kids ball rolling by him. Only problem? No crash. Later he meets a woman who we find out, kind of unbelievably, to be his ex-wife Anna (Jennifer Ehle). She smiles a lot and seems very happy (which will become kind of annoying soon enough). Anna also seems older than Michael and there?s almost no chemistry.
This could be because she?s dead.
PHOTOS: CBS' New Season Shows: 'Person of Interest,' 'A Gifted Man' and More
He gives himself an MRI just to make sure he?s not insane. It?s clean. Anna tells Michael not to freak out, that he?s not hallucinating. She?s just a sweet memory of a dead person who wants to mop up some unfinished business. Namely -- taking care of the non-profit she was working at. (He was always a capitalist, she was always a do-gooder). Now, if you can?t predict what happens next, you?re not watching enough TV.
A Gifted Man has its moments. Wilson?s icy perfection is well done. He?s the best -- so the rich come to him. Getting him to have a heart and help the disadvantaged seems not something he?s interested in, hence the smiling nudges from dead Anna (who, by the end of the pilot, is appearing and talking all too frequently, which hurts the appeal of the show).
STORY: Q&A With Margo Martindale
Do you know who?s not appearing or talking enough? Emmy winner Margo Martindale, whose small role here better be tripled in size in quite a hurry. She?s holding an Emmy, playing an assistant. She?s way better than that. How about less ghost, more Margo? That might help A Gifted Man become better than very average.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
Aubrey ODay Audrina Patridge Autumn Reeser Avril Lavigne Bali Rodriguez
"30 Minutes or Less? is the latest action comedy film to come out from Hollywood. Nick (Jesse Eisenberg) is a small town pizza delivery guy whose mundane life collides with the big plans of two wannabe criminal masterminds (Danny McBride and Nick Swardson). The lowlifes kidnap Nick and strap a time bomb to him with the threat that they will blow him up unless he robs a bank. With only a few hours to pull off the robbery, Nick enlists the help of his ex-best friend, Chet (Aziz Ansari). As the clock ticks closer to explosion time, the two must deal with the police, hired assassins, flamethrowers and their own tumultuous relationship.Opening soon across the Philippines, ?30 Minutes or Less? is distributed by Columbia Pictures, local office of Sony Pictures Releasing International.
Emmanuelle Chriqui Emmanuelle Vaugier Emmy Rossum Erica Leerhsen Erika Christensen
So! Football Season is underway, the Baseball playoffs are fast approaching, the NBA is�in a lockout�wait, that doesn?t help me here? Anyways, Sports seem like they?re in full swing around here.
Which made me think it?d be a good topic for this week?s ?Tossin? It Out There?, because there are 18,759,412 Movies about sports, and Friday with the release of ?Moneyball? that�number will be 18,759,413!
Eight Men Out, Slapshot, North Dallas Forty, Blue Chips, Invictus, Victory, Rocky, Warrior, Vision Quest? it seems as if if there?s a sport, there?s been a movie about it. Even if you?re not a sports fan, I?m willing to bet there?s SOME sports movie you love.
So, let the Games begin! What?s YOUR favorite movie revolving around sports??
. Bookmark the
.
Heidi Klum Heidi Montag Hilarie Burton Hilary Duff Hilary Swank
Morgan Freeman -- whose inspirational new movie 'Dolphin Tale' is sure to have audiences weeping on both sides of the aisles -- is making waves by denouncing the Tea Party as racists. As Freeman told host Piers Morgan in an interview that aired Friday night on CNN, he's upset that their objective seems to be, "Screw the country. We're going to whatever we do to get this black man outta here.'" He disagreed with Morgan's contention that it's simply partisan politics as usual, and that the underlying sentiment "is a racist thing." See the interview ahead.Freeman, who's played both the American president as well as South African president Nelson Mandela onscreen, says that the election of Barack Obama has actually worsened racism in this country.
The Oscar winner believes that the right-wing group's targeting of Obama "just shows the weak, dark, underside of America. We're supposed to be better than that. We really are."
The actor said he understood why President Obama hasn't fought back, but predicted that he will soon. "He's gonna do it," he told Morgan.
As for Freeman's own politics, he endorsed Obama during his run for the presidency, but did not actively campaign for him, saying that he was an actor, not a politician.
[via Huffington Post]
Photo: Getty Images
Anna Paquin AnnaLynne McCord Anne Marie Kortright April Scott Arielle Kebbel
Patrick Wilson is one of those actors who could be easy to hate: He's almost too handsome, totally charming and crazy talented. But he's also so darn nice that you can't help but root for him and seek out his work, the latest of which is his new CBS drama, "A Gifted Man."
In the show Wilson plays world-renowned neurosurgeon Michael Holt, whose meticulously organized, privileged life is thrown upside down when he starts seeing and interacting with his recently deceased ex-wife, who for some reason can't move into the afterlife and spends her time trying to teach Michael that life is about more than neurosurgery.
MTV News recently caught up with Wilson to get some insight into what to expect from the show, how he's handling all that medical jargon, and if he's ready for people to treat him like a real-life doctor.
"Each week we're dealing with some type of case," Wilson explained of the show's format. "As the medical side is concerned, you have my office, where the more high-tech, neurosurgery is going on there, head issues. Then a few blocks down where I end up going into work, that is something you see that we can tease because in the pilot I figure out my ex was running this free clinic and eventually I start spending more time there."
Wilson went on to say that he is supported by a great group of actors, and that season one will be about his character's emotional journey.
"We have Jennifer Ehle (Anna Linberg, Michael's ex-wife) and the Emmy award-winning Margo Martindale, there's great group of actors on the show. We'll be able to have a great journey emotionally and as I also learned doing these first six episodes, you dole it out in small doses, how much we're getting into personal lives. My relationship with Margo's character is really special and funny, she sort of keeps me on my toes."
When asked about mastering the complex medical jargon a neurosurgeon uses in his speech on a daily basis, Wilson admitted that it's not easy.
"It is challenging, I'm not going to lie to you. I like to understand what I'm saying, the first part, 'How do I say this word?' Then the second part, what it means. You're rolling through so much medical jargon you have to make a through line, and try to understand what you're doing. It?s been really fun, it?s always been fascinating to me, the small amount of time I've spent in operating rooms, thankfully as a visitor."
And finally, we asked Wilson if he is ready for people to believe he is a doctor and approach him about it in real life.
"[Laughs]. If I can get my suturing better then I'll at least feel pretty good if somebody cuts themselves and we can't get anywhere," he said. "I'll feel like, 'Okay, I've got to do it! Give me a needle and thread.' I'd love to [be able to do it]. I'm working on it."
"A Gifted Man" premieres tonight, September 23 on CBS at 8 p.m.
Will you be watching Wilson on "A Gifted Man?" Tell us in the comments or on Twitter!
(Stockbyte)
Last spring, we posted on Phil Tetlock?s massive prediction tournament: Good Judgment.� You might remember Tetlock from our latest Freakonomics Radio podcast, ?The Folly of Prediction.?� (You can download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, or read the transcript here.)
Tetlock is a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, well-known for his book Expert Political Judgment, in which he tracked 80,000 predictions over the course of 20 years. Turns out that humans are not great at predicting the future, and experts do just a bit better than a random guessing strategy.
Good Judgment is Tetlock?s latest project, an ambitious plan to put 2,500 volunteers to the test in a forecasting tournament sponsored by the U.S. government. The Good Judgment� research team includes Barb Mellers and Don Moore, with an advisory board of Daniel Kahneman, Robert Jervis, Scott Armstrong, Michael Mauboussin, Carl Spetzler and Justin Wolfers. The criteria for selection is for those ?who have a serious interest in and knowledge about world affairs, politics, and global economic matters and are interested in testing their own forecasting and reasoning skills.?
Considering myself someone who fits this description, I signed up to represent Team Freakonomics in the tournament. I have an econ degree from the University of Chicago (and consider myself a decent tarot card reader) so, why not? Plus it pays $150 a year to answer some questions online, and at worst I could use a ?random guessing strategy? that would give me pretty good odds in this game.
The entry process started innocently enough, with a survey designed to gauge one?s interest in forecasting. Then came a test of world knowledge, which was hard for a couple of reasons. First, Google searching isn?t allowed; additionally, the test is timed, so you?d barely have time for Google in any case. Second, the test questions asked for a range of how true a given statement might be. For instance: a certain country?s GDP is $X in a given year; how true is that claim? This made the exercise incredibly difficult, as I have enough knowledge to give an extreme answer ? true or false ? but not enough to give a more subtle one.
I also knew about ?anchoring? (which Richard Thaler speaks about in our ?Mouse in the Salad? podcast). My mind was probably playing tricks on me with answers that seemed right, but probably weren?t.
This whole process did a number on my self-esteem: if I didn?t know about the world here and now, how could I possibly predict the future? I ended up completing the survey in segments; luckily there were some LSAT-type logic questions at the end and a fun IQ-shapes game.
I know what I was thinking by the end: boy, this should definitely pay more than $150! And I?m not even in the tournament yet!
Thankfully, I got notice yesterday that I?ve been accepted into the tournament (phew!). So let the games begin! Now all that?s left is for me to decide on a strategy: random guessing or actually trying to predict the future. Given what Tetlock?s research shows, that?s a tough call.
Hilarie Burton Hilary Duff Hilary Swank Isla Fisher Ivana Bozilovic
Welcome to THG's Week in Review! Below, our staff takes a look back at the stories, stars and scandals that made these past seven days so memorable.
If you don't already, you can FOLLOW THG on Twitter and Facebook for 24/7/365 news. Day in and day out, let us be your entertainment news source!
Now, a rundown of the week that was at The Hollywood Gossip:
Chaz Bono and Lacey Schwimmer - Cha Cha (DWTS Week 1)
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo: Extended Trailer
Bristol Palin Responds to Heckler With Gay Comment
Cheryl Burke China Chow Chloл Sevigny Christina Aguilera Christina Applegate
I?m back from my favorite conference of the year?the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.� It was a terrific line-up of papers.� And to call the discussion lively would be an understatement. (Full disclosure: David Romer and I are the co-editors.)
While a close reading of technical research papers is my idea of a good time, I?m told not everyone is wired this way.� So I went into the studio to record a very simple summary of my thoughts on the papers.� You won?t quite get the whole two days of economic policy wonk-ery, but this video is a start:
If you are interested in the full line-up, click on through, below:
Dominique Swain Donna Feldman Drea de Matteo Drew Barrymore Ehrinn Cummings
From EntertainmentWeekly, here's the first official look at Dark Shadows' main case, which includes Helena Bonham Carter, Eva Green, Chloe Moretz, Michelle Pfeiffer, and, of course, J. Depp, still paying off his life debt to Tim Burton. If that...
Emmy Rossum Erica Leerhsen Erika Christensen Estella Warren Esther Caсadas
Reader Philip sent in this FREAK shot. No one said you have to be a math whiz to be a bartender ? but, is there any logic in this from the bar?s perspective? Do they just assume patrons can?t or won?t do the simple math, and instead choose the bigger 32 ounce beer for $3?
Do you have a FREAK shot? Send it to editor@freakonomics.com
Izabella Miko Izabella Scorupco Jaime King Jaime Pressly Jamie Chung
Our latest Freakonomics Radio podcast, ?The Folly of Prediction,? is built around the premise that humans love to predict the future, but are generally terrible at it. (You can download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, or read the transcript here.) But predictions about world politics and the economy are hard ? there are so many moving parts. What about something with less variables, like football for example?
In the podcast, you?ll hear from Freakonomics researcher Hayes Davenport, who ran the numbers for us on how accurate expert NFL pickings have been for the last 3 years. He put together a guest post for us on football predictions.
Picking the NFL Playoffs: How the Experts Fumble the Snap
As careers in journalism go, making preseason NFL predictions is about as safe as they come these days. The picks you make in August can?t be reviewed for four months, and by that time almost nobody remembers or cares what any individual picker predicted. So when Freakonomics asked me to look at the success rate of NFL experts in predicting division winners at the beginning of the season, I was excited to look back at the last few years of picks and help offer this industry one of its first brushes with accountability.
For my sample data, I looked at a total of 101 sets of predictions over the course of three seasons from pundits representing the three major sports journalism outlets: ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and USA Today. Overall, I found that NFL pickers chose the division winner correctly about 36% of the time. If they were picking at random, they?d get it right 25% of the time, so they?re certainly performing above the level of pure chance. Some years were better than others, of course: in 2010, the pickers actually did predict division winners with 25% accuracy, exactly as well as they?d do with a blindfold and a dartboard.
But how good is that 36% overall figure, really? Think of it this way: if the pickers were allowed to rule out one team from every division and then choose at random, they?d pick winners 33% of the time. So if you consider that most NFL divisions include at least one team with no hope of finishing first (this year?s Bengals, Chiefs, Dolphins, Panthers, Broncos, Vikings, and Manning-less Colts, for example), the pickers only need a minimum of NFL knowledge before essentially guessing in the dark.
How is it possible, then, that paid experts pick at about the same level of accuracy as any armchair prognosticator? Looking deeper into the predictions, one statistically derived explanation stands out: widespread risk aversion. See, football pickers tend to rely rather heavily on the previous year?s playoff picture when making their predictions: on average, they include 8.13 teams that made the playoffs the year before, and only 3.83 new teams. You can see the appeal of a strategy like that: if a team was good last season, shouldn?t they be good again?
But compared to any other major professional sport, NFL standings are the most volatile from year to year, and picking eight-plus teams to return to the playoffs just doesn?t make sense in a league with such parity. Over the last fifteen seasons, the NFL has averaged exactly six new teams in the playoffs every year, meaning that half of the playoff picture is completely different from the year before. The turnover is pretty consistent from year to year: not once in that decade-and-a-half have there been fewer than five new playoff teams from the season before.
Given that information, a savvy picker relying on statistical precedent would choose six new teams when predicting the playoffs. But in the 105 sets of picks we looked at over the last three years, pickers chose six or more new teams only 11 times. Some pickers actually predicted that there would be only one new team in the playoffs, which has never happened in the modern NFL.
There are plenty of individual cases that demonstrate how picking based on the previous season has led predictors astray. The Dallas Cowboys, for example, were a ?hot? team in 2008. They?d won the hugely competitive NFC East the season before, and were selected by 29 of 35 pundits to repeat this. They ended up finishing third. So the next season, the pundits turned their back on the Cowboys, reluctant to get burned again. Only six of the 35 chose the Cowboys to win the division?which, of course, they did. In 2010, the pundits leapt back onto the bandwagon, with 26 of the 35 picking the Cowboys to take the NFC East. Once again, they were a year behind the trend: the Cowboys finished third again.
There is, of course, an obvious reason why pickers are inclined to play it safe: if you go with the crowd and pick a team that was successful last year, you?re unlikely to get completely embarrassed. Fans won?t remember if you picked the failed 10-6 Giants to make the playoffs, but they might remember the guy who picked the 2-14 Panthers to take their division. And if you do miss on all your picks for a season, you?ve got an easy out if everyone else was picking the same way you did. The football prediction industry, like the game it covers, is a lot easier when all the players are working together.
Hayes Davenport is a writer for Allen Gregory, which premieres in October on Fox. He also blogs about basketball at CelticsHub.com.
Ashlee Simpson Ashley Greene Ashley Olsen Ashley Scott Ashley Tappin
From EntertainmentWeekly, here's the first official look at Dark Shadows' main case, which includes Helena Bonham Carter, Eva Green, Chloe Moretz, Michelle Pfeiffer, and, of course, J. Depp, still paying off his life debt to Tim Burton. If that...
Ana Hickmann Ana Ivanovi Ana Paula Lemes Ananda Lewis Angela Marcello
?Glee? has successfully captured the world not only by its music but by actually tackling teenage problems via its ensemble of perfectly flawed characters. ?Glee? became a staple show because it is so realistic with the way it showcases issues faced by teenagers like outward appearance, sexual orientation and even disability. The cast is diverse, the storylines are strong and the show is infused with humor and wit. "Glee the 3D Concert" tries to capture the hit television show on a live audience. People will not only see the characters for real but feel and hear the songs that made the show so famous. Filmed during the recently concluded stadium-filled tours, Glee fans who missed out can expect to be bowled over by the big screen experience.Foxy Brown Freida Pinto FSU Cowgirls Gabrielle Union Garcelle Beauvais
Chelsea Handler Cheryl Burke China Chow Chloл Sevigny Christina Aguilera
Clive Owen is convinced his character in "Killer Elite" isn't the bad guy in this spy-thriller-meets-popcorn-action-flick production. Jason Statham's hero, as he gets his face bloodily pounded in by Owen's menacing presence, might argue otherwise, but we're certainly not going to argue with either of these gentleman.
"Whenever I play a part in a film, I never think he is the bad guy," Owen told MTV News. "You have to always find a reason and understand why he's doing what he's doing."
Fair enough. And sure, Owen (Oscar nominee that he is) did his big-screen due diligence, taking what might have been a villain on the page and transforming him into, at the very least, a bad guy certain of his noble intentions. But the actor also admitted, perhaps with less than a shred of truth, that his conception of Spike (the leader of a team of hit men targeting Statham and other ex-special ops agents), began and ended with facial hair.
"Listen, some people do a lot of research ? they spend a lot of time," Owen laughed. "I just pinned everything on that mustache. I'll stand by it. If it fails, I go down."
His lip fuzz got the heave-ho as soon as the production wrapped, and Owen certainly wasn't missing the 'stache as he chatted with MTV News at the Toronto International Film Festival recently. He was, however, quite proud of "Killer Elite," which hits theaters on Friday (September 23). Press play on the video to hear him wax (on and off) poetically about his facial hair and how the flick is a very cool genre mashup.
Tell us what you think in the comments section and on Twitter!
Emmanuelle Vaugier Emmy Rossum Erica Leerhsen Erika Christensen Estella Warren
Jennie Finch Jennifer Aniston Jennifer Gareis Jennifer Garner Jennifer Gimenez
Last week, we solicited your questions for John Tierney and Roy Baumeister, authors of the new book Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength. You responded with a variety of interesting questions, and now Tierney and Baumeister return with some in-depth answers.
Thanks to everyone for participating.
Q. Is willpower a single commodity (so to speak), or is there, as I suspect, a one type of willpower for, say, dieting, another one for academic study, another for this, another for that? -AaronS
A. No, there?s just one single resource (or commodity). There?s one source of mental energy for resisting temptation and performing other acts of self-control, and this willpower is also depleted by making decisions. What you experience may reflect the fact that willpower is limited and so people have to allocate it: they use it at the office to work effectively and diligently, but have messy homes and are short-tempered in the evening. Or people who show wonderful self-control at dealing with personal relationships but can?t seem to meet their deadlines.
Q. A question about something that has always bothered me about willpower. I consider myself a very disciplined, strong willpower?ed, self-controlled man. I?ve never had troubles with productivity at work, failing to study or do homework at school, devotion to my significant other, financial discipline or failing to save, procrastinating on things I need to do, or managing my free time to maximize my happiness.
But I do have one self-control issue, I?m fat. I can?t stay on a diet or exercise regimen for more than 3-4 months before simply giving up. If there is a single thing that is willpower, how can I have such high willpower on most of my life, but such horrible willpower on a single aspect of it? -Michael
A. You?re hardly alone, and you shouldn?t beat yourself up. Plenty of people with strong willpower have trouble with weight (like Oprah Winfrey, whom we discuss in the book). Although weight-control is often the first thing people associate with willpower, the connection is actually much weaker than in other activities. Willpower has a much bigger effect on other parts of your life (school, work, personal relationships, etc.). People with strong willpower are a little better than average at controlling their weight, but only a little. Weight control is singularly difficult in part because willpower is fueled by glucose in the bloodstream, which comes from food. Hence there?s what we call the dieter?s Catch 22: In order not to eat, a dieter needs willpower. But in order to have willpower, a dieter needs to eat.
Q. Your book suggests glucose plays an important role in regulating self-control and endurance and points out the paradox of dieting. Are you aware of any related experiments involving ketogenic dieters ? or other alternate nutritional lifestyles ? and how do you think this might impact willpower? -Jacob
A. We don?t know of any experiments yet. This may be a promising area for further research.
Q. Jonathon Haidt uses the metaphor of a rider on an elephant to describe the mind in his book The Happiness Hypothesis. The idea is that our rational conscious self is the rider and our unconscious self is the elephant, which has two important implications:
? Our unconscious is a surprisingly powerful driver of our actions (by definition we are not aware of it)
? Force alone cannot control our unconscious automatic reactions.
He argues that the only way to control our will is to tame the elephant through meditation, cognitive behavioral therapy and medication. Do you agree that those three activities are powerful interventions, and do you believe they are the most effective interventions? -vimspot
A. We agree that these can be powerful interventions, but they?re hardly the only ways to exercise self-control. We discuss many more strategies in the book. Haidt?s elephant metaphor is vivid and useful, but it?s sometimes been used by his fans to exaggerate the power of the unconscious mind. We think a better metaphor is another bit of animal imagery used by Haidt in introducing his notions of the unconscious. He recalled a panicked moment from his youth while riding a pony. As the pony walked toward the edge of a cliff, the young boy got scared and felt clueless and powerless to force it to turn. And then ? surprise! ? the pony turned of its own accord and plodded safely along the path, easing the boy?s fear and providing a metaphor of how the unconscious mind acts without help or guidance by conscious thought.
Now, it?s true that no pony would let a boy direct it off a cliff, but that doesn?t mean that the pony operated without conscious human guidance. The pony would never have taken the boy for a ride unless some human with large frontal lobes had trained it to tolerate a saddle and a rider. Just as the pony had to be systematically taught to take children along predictable paths and return them safely to the barn, so does the human unconscious have to be trained by the conscious. Ultimately, the pony does what it?s told.
Q. How does hypnosis short circuit self control? -frankenduf
A. Hypnosis works largely with unconscious processes. People who are susceptible to hypnosis are good at letting their conscious control relax. In a sense, it is less a matter of short-circuiting (i.e., overcoming or rendering ineffective) self-control than of deliberately relaxing it, so that these unconscious processes can operate. Just exactly how hypnosis works, and why some people are so much more susceptible than others, remain mysterious.
Q. People assume that strong willpower is a necessary condition for success. Does evidence indicate that most people we would call ?successful? also exhibit a high degree of willpower? How necessary is strong willpower to ?success?? -Patrick
A. There?s extensive evidence that successful people have strong willpower. People with high self-control get better grades, make more money and save more money. They?re happier and healthier. They do better at marriage and other personal relationships. Some recent work shows that they?re also more generous and fair when dealing with others ? self-control isn?t just about selfishness. It evolved because we?re a social species and need self-control to get along with one another.
Psychologists consistently find that ?positive outcomes? in life tend to be accompanied by two qualities: intelligence and self-control. Researchers haven?t managed, despite lots of efforts, to figure out how to permanently increase intelligence. But they have found ways to improve self-control. That?s why we think it?s psychology?s best hope for helping people and improving society. Your willpower is a lot easier to increase than your I.Q.
Q. Is there a genetic component to willpower? Or does the fact that dedicated kids come from dedicated parents just a result of a good family diet and will power practice? -Joe Z
A. There?s probably some genetic component, but that?s hardly the only reason that self-disciplined parents tend to have self-disciplined children. Their own self-control enables them to develop self-control in their children. It takes willpower to continually monitor children and enforce rules instead of letting things slide. This can be especially difficult for single parents, because they have to run the home and handle all the responsibilities themselves. When their willpower gets depleted, they can?t hand off to a partner with a back-up supply.
Q. Are there any good strategies to teach young children ways to rein in their impulses? Also, are there any studies that provide evidence that teaching young children impulse control strategies might lead to social/academic success later in life? -Candy
A. There hasn?t been a good controlled study teaching impulse control to some children (and not to a randomly assigned control group) and then following them over many years to assess whether they do better in adult life. But there are studies with shorter time spans that show improved performance as a result of teaching self-control. And there?s an abundance of data showing that children with good self-control are more likely to succeed in adulthood.
We agree with the British nannies (one is featured in the book) who think it?s quite possible to teach children to control themselves ? and that this is the greatest gift parents can give their children. Too many parents seem to reward their children for losing control, such as when parents initially say no but then relent when the child throws a tantrum. The child soon learns that losing control is an effective strategy, precisely the wrong lesson.
Parents should set clear goals and rules along with rewards and punishments. The punishments don?t need to be severe; what?s more important is that they?re administered quickly and consistently. Older children should participate in the process of setting the rules. Disciplined activities, such as regular homework and piano practice, do plenty of good toward building self-control ? especially if parents recognize and reward children for improvements in self-control.
Q. Can willpower be quantified? If not, how would I know I?m improving? -adora
A. During lab experiments, willpower is quantified by measuring how long someone can work at a task, or squeeze a hand-grip exerciser, or hold a hand in ice-cold water. That enables researchers to see how a person?s willpower at the start of an experiment compares with the level at the end of the experiment. But that?s generally not a practical or useful method for you to use in tracking your willpower over a long period of time. Your level of willpower will fluctuate depending on various factors ? the time of day, what you?ve eaten, and how much it?s been depleted by the challenges you?ve had to confront during the day.
But you?re right: it?s essential to measure yourself so you can see if you?re improving. You can?t easily make a direct measurement of your overall level of willpower, but you can do it indirectly by setting goals and monitoring your progress. A simple way to strengthen willpower is to pick small things that you would like to change. It might be something like cleaning up the dishes right after dinner instead of letting them sit around. Once you succeed at that (and it becomes a habit that doesn?t require much conscious exertion anymore), pick something else. Don?t worry about it when you are coping with severe demands elsewhere in life, but during relatively peaceful lulls in your life, make these changes. As you gradually succeed at more important and difficult ones, that would indicate that you?ve made progress.
Q. Can willpower be marketed? Weight-loss is a billion dollar a year industry and yet the best solution to obesity, heart disease, and cancer is healthy living. How can one make money with that? -Jeff Remson
A. Well, let?s see. Could one perhaps make money marketing willpower by selling a book about it?
But you?re right, so far marketers have done a much job selling sin than self-control. There are obvious profits from junk food and cigarettes; self-control is a way of acting and a psychological trait, so it cannot be bottled and sold in a literal sense. But savvy investors like Esther Dyson are betting on a new wave of entrepreneurs selling digital tools for improving self-control. We talked with Aaron Patzer, the founder of Mint.com, which is continuously tracking the financial transactions of more than 6 million people, helping them set goals and warning them when they go over their budgets. Not only is this helping customers, it?s generating astounding amounts of real-world data about the best ways to improve self-control. When we asked the analysts at Mint.com to measure some trends for us, they were able to look at more than 2 billion transactions.
And Mint.com is just one example of what?s called the Quantified Self movement, which is providing gadgets and apps and software for monitoring just about everything you do: how many calories you burn walking and running, what you eat, how long you sleep, precisely how you spend your time on the computer. These tools help you conserve willpower by outsourcing part of the job to computer chips and social networks. We used some of these tools and strategies in writing the Willpower ? and managed to get the manuscript done two months early, an unprecedented feat for Tierney, a chronic procrastinator (as Dubner, his former editor, will attest).
Elena Lyons Elisabeth Rцhm Elisha Cuthbert Eliza Dushku Emilie de Ravin
