A very useful book on the Science of Cleaning by Italian chemistry professor Dario Bressanini

 

 

 

There is a very useful 2024 book by Dario Bressanini titled The Science of Cleaning: Use the power of chemistry to clean smarter, easier, and safer. A  preview is at Google Books. He discusses what works (a lot), what is useless, and what is dangerous. His twelve chapters and their starting page numbers are:

 

 1] Clean and Dirty, 6

 2] Acids and Bases, 14

 3] Limescale, 30

 4] Soaps, 50

 5] Detergents, 68

 6] Chlorine-Based Bleach, 92

 7] Oxygen-Based Bleach, 110

 8] Laundry, 120

 9] Dishes, 150

10] Disinfectants, 174

11] Baking Soda, 206

12] Household Surfaces, 224  

 

One useless mixture is described in his detailed section on pages 24 to 26 titled Baking Soda and Vinegar: a mixture that makes no sense. The reaction is shown above. He says:

 

“Every time someone suggests mixing vinegar and baking soda to remove a stain or unblock a drain, a chemist somewhere combusts. I couldn’t say precisely when this particular craze began, but it’s definitely popular. Pick any online cleaning forum or Facebook group, then look for a video on how to unblock the sink, clean the carpet, or degrease a frying pan – or follow a few influencers or pick through the hand hints section of a modern home magazine – and it won’t be long before you begin to hear the inexorable chant in your head ‘Vinegar and baking soda, vinegar and baking soda, mix them quickly and watch the magic.’

 

It's a pity that not only does mixing them not work, it can even be counterproductive. I know many of you are thinking, ‘But everyone is saying it!’ Well, I’m afraid that everyone is wrong. No matter how many times we repeat something false, it doesn’t become true. As I explained above, baking soda is basic while vinegar is acidic. When mixed, they react instantly to produce water, carbon dioxide, and sodium acetate, a mildly basic substance with absolutely no cleaning properties. Likewise if you mix – in the correct quantities – two highly corrosive substances like lye and hydrochloric acid. The result is an innocuous water and sodium chloride mixture: salt water, in other words. This happens because in chemical reactions, the properties of the original substances disappear as the substances themselves no longer exist, having chemically transformed. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to mix substances that react with each other.

 

I realize, however, that it might be too flippant to dismiss vinegar and baking soda in this way. As a chemist. I’ve often wondered how such an inaccurate piece of advice could have become so popular. It wouldn’t be the first time a wholly incorrect or ineffective home or traditional remedy has propagated at such speed and with such fervor. Kitchen and cooking tips are an excellent case in point, and some of the popular claims about how to clean or keep our kitchens hygienic are so wildly inaccurate that they shouldn’t be given the time of day. Why would throwing coffee grounds down the sink help unclog it?

 

 Anyway, the habit of mixing vinegar and baking soda is so common, and its promoters are so convinced of its effectiveness, that I decided to take a closer look. I spent a long time thinking about it until I eventually identified three reasons this urban legend has taken such a strong hold.

 

The first is psychological: When vinegar (or lemon juice) touches baking soda, it instantly fizzes, producing a very impressive cloud of foam and bubbles. It may look like something special is happening, but it’s still just carbon dioxide with no detergent properties. It you put it in the kitchen sink, the bubbles may drag up some of the dirt from the pipes and you may interpret this as a cleaning miracle. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news: It isn’t.

 

The second reason is the comforting knowledge that both vinegar and baking soda are edible, so they must be completely harmless. Everywhere we turn, we’re bombarded with warnings and ads fueling concerns for our health and the environment, suggesting – incorrectly and often dishonestly – that normal cleaning products, the ones ‘made of stuff with complicated names we don’t understand,’ are hazardous for our health. Conversely, there’s no denying that if you buy a product to unlock the kitchen sink, it will have a warning symbol blazoned across the label. For example, as I said earlier, lye should be used with caution, but it’s precisely its corrosiveness that enables it to unclog your sink. So if you pick up a magazine or follow an influencer and both tell you to use a much safer mix of vinegar and baking soda instead of the more dangerous lye, the temptation to believe is difficult to resist, especially if you’ve forgotten the chemistry you learned in school.

 

I’ve no doubt that many of you reading this will be ready to swear that your mixture ‘worked’ – that the last time you used it, it really did clean the thing you set out to clean.

 

This brings me to my third reason for this phenomenon, which is strictly chemical. I said earlier that vinegar and baking soda (just like lye and hydrochloric acid) cancel each other out, but only if you use the correct quantities of the two reactants. I’ll save you the calculations, but a liter of ordinary 6-percent vinegar requires exactly 84 grams of baking soda to react fully and produce a solution of water, carbon dioxide, and sodium acetate. Or, if you prefer, 100 ml of vinegar reacts fully with 8.4 grams of baking soda. After the reaction, both the baking soda and the acetic acid originally present in the vinegar no longer exist. I’m pretty certain none of the concoctions touted as the remedy of all cleaning ills contain exactly these quantities, which is the key to understanding why this mixture is believed to work miracles. If you mix less than 8.4 grams of baking soda with 100 ml of vinegar, the baking soda completely disappears when the two substances finish reacting, and all that is left is the excess acetic acid that didn’t react. Vice versa, if you add more baking soda, the acetic acid disappears and excess baking soda is left. It is the addition of the leftover, unused reactants that makes the mixture look like it is working.

 

There are generally two types of recipes for mixing vinegar with baking soda: hose with an overabundance of vinegar, which create a watery solution, and those with an overabundance of baking soda, where the latter is barely wetted by the vinegar to form a paste. When the leftover reactant is acetic acid, it is still active to a degree against any limescale crusting up faucets, lining pipes, or stopping water from draining properly. This is why the mixture seems to work, even if you’re only using what was left after the reaction and not the full 100 ml you started out with. You’re wasting vinegar and baking soda to create a liquid that is much less effective.

 

Some people even recommend making the mixture in advance and keeping it in a bottle. I hope you’re beginning to see why this makes absolutely no sense: As soon as baking soda and vinegar touch, at least one of them ceases to exist. If any cleaning is being done, it is coming from the leftover vinegar.

 

In the other recipes, the cleaning power comes from the abrasive properties of the baking soda, which is useful for scrubbing a crusted frying pan or removing buildup from an oven tray. Here, the amount of vinegar recommended leaves a portion of the baking soda unreacted and lightly moistened, so it can be used to scrape off the dirt. Once again, you’d be better off not wasting vinegar at all and just dampening a small amount of baking soda with water.”   

 

Recent magazine articles also discuss why to not mix baking soda and vinegar. One by Ashley Abramson and Barbara Bellesi Zito at Apartment Therapy on July 31, 2024 is titled Why You Shouldn’t Mix Baking Soda and Vinegar for Cleaning, According to a Chemist. Another by Caroline Mullen in the New York Times – Wirecutter on September 15, 2025 is titled Please stop mixing baking soda and vinegar to make cleaning paste.

 

Regarding what is dangerous there is a box all about bleach on page 98  in white lettering on a dark gray background with a heading of WARNING!:

 

"Never, ever, EVER mix bleach with another substance unless you are 100 percent sure what will happen. You should especially avoid combining bleach with acids.

 

Every year, hundreds of people end up in the hospital after intentionally mixing acidic cleaning products with bleach. When bleach comes in contact with an acid, it liberates poisonous chlorine gas, which was used as a chemical weapon in WWI due to its toxicity. Unfortunately, there are a host of toilet cleaners out there that are identical in everything but color, except that some contain bleach and some contain hydrochloric acid. While cleaning the house one busy morning, you could easily finish one bottle and start using another without thinking – but the new bottle happens to contain a hydrochloric acid-based cleaner, and before you know it, you’re choking on chlorine gas.

 

Separating bleach and acids also means avoiding using a toilet that you’ve just poured a bleach-based product into. Urine is acidic, so if it hits the bleach, don’t be surprised when you get a whiff of gas. And don’t forget that vinegar and lemon juice are acids too. Ammonia and bleach are both frequently used around the house. While they’re equally effective cleaners on their own, when combined (which I beg you never to do), they can create a very unwelcome – not to mention highly irritating and toxic – substance called chloramine.

 

Bleach mixed with hydrogen peroxide (which is a weaker oxygen-based bleach) produces an instant whoosh of oxygen bubbles. On its own, oxygen is not toxic, but the fizz is so vigorous that it can easily send splashes of liquid onto your skin and eyes. Please also steer clear of bleach and ethyl alcohol mixtures, which can create a number of organic compounds – from chloroform to acetaldehyde – in varying concentrations.

 

So I’ll say it again: Don’t mix bleach with any cleaning product, really. Ever!”

 

 

Clip art of meshed or locked gears

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On November 17, 2020 I blogged about Smoothly meshing gears or jammed gears. Meshed gears describe graphically how individuals or parts of an organization can work together smoothly (as is shown above via an image modified from OpenClipArt).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jammed gears describe the opposite. At OpenClipArt there is a set of three gears locked together, shown above.

 

There is a long article by Bartoz Ciechanowski on February 12, 2020 titled Gears with discussions, animations, multiple gears, and three jammed ones at the very end.

 

 

A fraudulent email asking for a Bitcoin payment of $600, and a fraudulent text message

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I go through the junk mail folder of the email account for this blog about once a week. One time I did in Mid-March there was an email from March 12 claiming to have all of my personal information. And, as shown above in a colorized version, he gave me just a day to respond. But more than a day already had passed, and NOTHING bad had happened. Furthermore, the same email had been sent to me on March 5. I concluded that the ONLY personal information he really had was my email address, since he didn’t even include my first or last name. That same email had been discussed by Brian Roche at WGAL8 on March 2, 2026 in an article titled Protect yourself | Email scam threatens to sell personal information online.

 

A few days ago I got a fraudulent text message claiming that I needed to pay the State of Idaho a fine for a vehicle infraction. Fortunately my iPhone displayed the country code for the message was a +66 (Thailand) rather than +1 (United States). 

  

To be in this speaking contest you also need to be a cowboy or cowgirl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an article by Kanzie Johnson at FortWorth on March 9, 2026 titled Debunking the myth of the quiet cowboy, and subtitled There aren’t many public speaking competitions that require being a cowboy as a prerequisite, but we know of at least one that happened right here in Fort Worth.

 

It is called the Bridles and Brains Collegiate Ranch Horse Competition. Each rider competes in two-partner ranch penning, ranch roping, ranch trail, ranch reining, public speaking, and a media interview. Those horse-related events are as follows:

 

“The ranch roping event is built upon the practicalities of working on a farm. At least 10 numbered cattle and a handful of unnumbered ones fill the pen, with two cows assigned to each number. When the rider enters, a number is called and they’re free to rope either cow wearing it.

Two-partner team penning is the only on-horse event done in pairs, where riders work together to move a herd of numbered cattle from one pen to another. When a number is called, the team must separate that cow and drive it into the catch pen as quickly as possible. 

Ranch trail replicates challenges riders might encounter during a day on a ranch, such as crossing ground poles, dragging an object by rope or opening a mailbox from horseback.

Ranch reining, meanwhile, is a higher-energy display where contestants follow a pattern with maneuvers like sliding stops and spins to showcase the horse’s responsiveness.”

The 1907 theater poster came from the Library of Congress.

Tourons and the Disneyland Syndrome

 

 

 

 

 

Touron is a portmanteau word combining the first four letters from tourist with the last two from moron, as shown above. There is an article by Gig Morris at TheTravel on February 19, 2025 titled “Tourons” on the loose: Travelers are behaving so badly that they’ve earned their own nickname. For example, at Yellowstone National Park, they get injured after they come 11 feet from a bison rather than the recommended minimum of 75 feet. She said of touron:

 

“It sounds new, but the word can be traced to the mid-1970s within the National Park System.”

 

Another article by Katie Jackson at the New York Post on October 3, 2024 is titled Moronic tourists are ruining travel – how not to be one on your next vacation. I found the word discussed in a very profane four-minute YouTube video from Lewis Black on March 27, 2026 titled Tourists, Morons, & Lava | Lewis Black’s Rantcast Clips.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I was aware of the concept long ago. In the mid-1980s my brother Tom and I had visited the Smoky Mountain National Park. We wanted to get a great view by climbing to the highest point in Tennessee, Clingman’s Dome (Kuwohi). There is a mile-long paved trail leading to the concrete observation tower (shown above) via a spiral ramp.

 

That morning the sky already was medium to dark gray, so it was not a matter of if it would rain, just when. Both of us wore jackets. I got a big golf umbrella out from my car and used it as a walking stick on the way up from the parking lot.

 

Lots of tourists on the trail were without umbrellas or even hooded windbreakers. Just as we began heading back down it began to pour. We stayed dry, but most tourists got thoroughly soaked. I later referred to their behavior as the Disneyland Syndrome – behaving as if they just were in an amusement park rather than a national park.  

 

 

Telling someone just to “be yourself” might be terrible advice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The F Minus cartoon by Tony Carrillo on February 1, 2026 has a caption that says:

 

“For too long, we’ve ignored the devastating effects that ‘be yourself’ messaging can have on those people who happen to have rotten selves.”

 

Back on March 19, 2010 I blogged about Just be yourself (act naturally)? and I asked:

 

“Well, which self would you like to see: best or worst, relaxed or scared, et cetera?”

 

And there is a LinkedIn Pulse article on April 2, 2024 by Laura Bergells titled The Trouble with ‘Just Be Yourself’: A Deeper Look into Public Speaking Anxiety. A Mathew Hussey blog post on September 22, 2013 titled ‘Be Yourself’ – Bad Advice says:

 

“When someone says ‘be yourself’ all it does is give us validation for staying the same and not taking risks.”

 

My cartoon was adapted from a tee shirt and dragon at OpenClipArt.

 

 

A fraudulent letter asking me to renew a Home Warranty - that I don’t have

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

In today’s mail I received an undated letter titled Final Notice to create urgency. Its heading only says Home Warranty Division, Private & Confidential and does not identify either the organization or their mailing address. (And there was no return address on the envelope, which was mailed from St. Louis, Missouri).

 

The message is:

 

“RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE REQUESTED

 

Attention: Richard Garber

 

It is important you contact our office at 1-888-413-5452 upon receiving this notice to avoid any unnecessary delays in your coverage before 4/10/2026. This notice is to inform you that the Home Warranty for your property in Boise, ID may be expiring or has already expired. Our records indicate that you have not contacted us yet to get your Home Warranty up to date. Please call immediately as this will be our final attempt to notify you about activating your Home Warranty. 

 

Failure to call and prevent a potential lapse in coverage could result in you being liable for all costs associated with any home repairs. However, you may still have time to activate a warranty on your home before it’s too late. No inspection will be required and final acceptance is subject to your ability to meet eligibility requirements. We reserve the right to revoke your eligibility for service coverage after the Expiration Date of 4/10/2026. Please respond immediately by calling 1-888-413-5452.

 

Sincerely, Vicky Mercer – Program Director”

 

Of course, I did NOT call her and give out any payment information. This message had previously been reported to the BBB [Better Business Bureau] Scam Tracker today, on March 19, 2026, and January 21, 2026, and at least five times in 2025.

 

My red letter cartoon was modifed from one at OpenClipArt.

 

 

Can jokes liven up scientific conferences?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a serious article by Stefano Mammola et al. in the Royal Society Proceedings B for March 2026 (Volume 293, Number 2067) titled Statistically significant chuckles: who is using humor at scientific conferences? The abstract says that:

 

“We’ve all been there: 11.47, swamped by a long stretch of dense scientific talks at a conference. Six slides into a hyper-technical presentation, the speaker suddenly cracks a joke. The room erupts. Shoulders relax. Minds re-engage. Humour is a powerful but underused tool in scientific communication, often sidelined by academic norms that view levity as unprofessional. Social biases can further shape who feels safe joking without risking credibility. 

 

At 14 biology-related conferences, we collected data on humour use across 531 talks. Jokes clustered at the beginnings and ends of talks, with an extra bump in successful jokes midway through. Most jokes (66%) earned only polite chuckles. Humour success was unrelated to the type of joke or form of delivery; however, male speakers told about 0.35 more jokes per talk, and both male and native speakers had a 10% higher probability of eliciting laughter. 

 

This suggests how social dynamics influence who feels comfortable using humour and whose jokes resonate with the audience. Until academia reckons with these biases, humour will remain a privilege. Still, for those brave enough or granted the social licence, a well-placed zinger can turn a forgettable talk into one people actually remember—and perhaps even enjoy.”

 

There were only 870 unique jokes, with 223 speakers telling none. 367 jokes were about situational hiccups, 161 were about subject matter, only 52 were about popular culture unrelated to academia, and 30 were inside jokes about the academic community or conference. 707 were delivered orally, 133 relied on visuals, and just 30 used physical comedy.

 

I found out about this article from another by Phie Jacobs at Science on March 17, 2026 titled Scientific conferences can be a bore. Can jokes liven them up? Yet another is by Nicola James at Nature on March 18, 2026 titled Knock knock, no one’s there. Study finds scientists’ jokes mostly fall flat.

 

The cartoon audience was modified from a couple and another couple at OpenClipArt.

 

 

Stupidity can explain a lot of behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wikipedia says that:

 

“In philosophy, Occam’s razor is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony.”

 

There is a mores specific principle called Hanlon’s razor that instead says:   

 

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”

 

It is discussed an article by Garson O’Toole at Quote Investigator on December 30, 2016 titled Quote Origin: Never Attribute to Malice That Which Is Adequately Explained by Stupidity. He attributes it to being from 1980 by computer programmer Robert J. Hanlon. But he points to similar statements as far back as 1757 by philosopher David Hume.

 

Jono Hey has a cartoon about it at his Sketchplanations. And there is a serious discussion by Nathan Ballantyne and Peter H. Ditto at Midwest Studies in Philosophy for August 2021 in an article simply titled Hanlon’s Razor.

 

The straight razor in my cartoon was adapted from one at OpenClipArt.

 

 

Living in the Present with John Prine is a memoir by Tom Piazza

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On April 14, 2020 I blogged about Remembering John Prine – a great storyteller. There is an article by Tom Piazza in the Oxford American on October 8, 2018 about that singer-songwriter titled Living in the Present with John Prine. John selected Tom to write a memoir with the same title – a 2025 book Living in the Present with John Prine. Near the end, on pages 157 to 160 his lead guitarist Jason Wilber described John’s combination of abilities:

 

“John loved performing, for sure. He had a really …I want to say he had a natural talent for it, but that, I think, underplays what I’m trying to communicate. I’ve said this before, to other people, but I feel like I stood there with John onstage for twenty-four years, and watched him do a magic trick over and over … and over. It always worked, he pulled it off every time, and I still don’t know how he did it. He had this ability to communicate on an emotional level through his writing. ‘How in hell can a person go to work in the morning, come home in the evening and have nothing to say?’ I don’t think there was a time I heard him sing that line onstage that at least one person in the audience didn’t cry out, and go ‘Whooo!’ or respond in some way, and usually lots of people. Think about that. That’s not, like, a normal thing. You know what I mean? That line is not asking you to comment in some way. It’s not saying, like, ‘Hey, everybody put your hands in the air…’ It’s a spontaneous reaction to a line that communicates something of such emotional depth and resonance that people are prompted to spontaneously cry out. And I heard that happen over and over. Almost every night.

 

So that’s just the writing part. But he also had the ability to do that as a performer, as a live in-person communicator. He just had this emotional intelligence that was off the charts. He was a genius in his way. And I know that’s not news to you. Or anyone! But that is really what struck me about being onstage with him. It’s not just that he could do a good show, and in fact, if you reduce this to technical execution of music, he was not that ‘good.’ And I mean that with complete respect. But, like, if you just wanted to measure this with scientific instruments, John’s show wasn’t good because his vocal intonation was perfect, or his guitar technique was perfect, or his guitar was perfectly in tune, or because he was making no mistakes … Quite the contrary! But it didn’t matter. Because his ability to deliver the rest of it – the emotional part – was so in the stratosphere that none of that shit mattered.   

 

And for me, as someone who spent their whole life practicing, and trying to learn how to do things exactly the way I was trying to do … It took me a long time to understand that, like, wow, John is actually doing the things that I thought … I thought I was on the path to what he was doing, but now I see he’s doing it with none of those things. It didn’t matter if he made mistakes on the guitar, or he was out of tune. In fact, when he messed up people loved him more. He would make a mistake and people would cheer! Because of a look he would make, or the way he would react to it.

 

But here’s the other part – it wasn’t only onstage. He just had this ability to communicate with people. If you only knew John superficially, you could say, ‘He’s a regular guy. Just a nice guy.’ And he was. But he was also … his emotional intelligence extended into the interpersonal. The same way he could connect with a whole room full of people, he could sit across the table from you – not that he was always connected, because sometimes he would be off in Archie comics land – but when he was there with you he could be really tuned in to you and know a lot about where you were, even maybe more than you knew.

 

He had a pretty good read on almost everybody and every situation. I think that allowed him to trust people … He could read people quickly. He had an idea of who you were and what you were about. He wouldn’t say it, he didn’t talk about it, but he knew. He was super, super smart, in his own way. Not like he knew the atomic weight of water, or whatever, but he was smart in all these other ways that really mattered. I think his talent was in some ways a mystery to him as well. He knew that he had this talent, that he was off-the-charts good at this one thing, but he didn’t necessarily understand why he was. But he knew it. And he knew he could trust it. 

 

I used to think if you work hard at something you can get as good as anybody else. But those things I just talked about, about John – writing, performing, communicating, reading people – communicating with people based on his reading of what’s happening – I could work on them until the end of time and never be nearly as good as him.”

 

A good way to get to know John is to watch ten Youtube videos of his live performances from Sessions at West 54th:

 

Sam Stone

Hello In There

Spanish Pipedream

Lake Marie

Souvenirs

All the Best

Far From Me

Six O’Clock News

In Spite of Ourselves (duet with Iris Dement)

The Jet Set (duet with Iris Dement)

 

There is another article at Country and Midwestern titled John Prine Explains the Origin of “Lake Marie”. And still another article by Clayton Edwards at American Songwriter on October 28, 2024 titled “Midwestern Mindtrips”; Why Bob Dylan Names John Prine Among His Favorite Songwriters Ever said Bob liked Lake Marie best.

 

The 2016 image of John Prine is from Wikimedia Commons.

 

 

Mayor of Nampa, Idaho dies while speaking in public

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An article by Michael Davis at Medium on January 4, 2023 titled Why Public Speaking ISN’T Your Number One Fear claimed:

 

“No one has ever died from giving a speech.”

 

But on May 31, 2017 I blogged about thirty examples in a post titled Spouting Nonsense – Nobody ever died from public speaking. Sadly, we just had another local example.

 

There is another article by Chris Bradford at the New York Post on March 19, 2026 titled Newly elected Idaho mayor Rick Hogaboam, 47, dies after collapsing mid-speech during town hall. And there is yet another article by Becca Longmire at People also on March 19, 2026 titled Idaho Mayor Rick Hogaboam, 47, Dies After Experiencing Medical Emergency While Speaking at Town Hall Meeting. There is a brief biography of Rick at the Office of the Mayor.

 

 

A thoughtful book by Ellen Hendriksen on How to Be Enough

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a thoughtful 2024 book by Ellen Hendriksen titled How to Be Enough: Self-acceptance for self-critics and perfectionists. At Google Books there is a preview through the end of Chapter 2 on page 34.

 

She divides the book into two parts, with fifteen chapters and an epilogue:

 

Part I: Introducing Perfectionism

 1] How We See Ourselves

 2] The Many Salads of Perfectionism

 3] The Beginning of Things

 

Part II: The Seven Shifts

 Shift 1: From (Self-) Criticism to Kindness

  4] Beyond the Inner Critic

 5] The Outer Critic: Us and Them

Shift 2: Coming Home to Your Life

 6] From Labels to Values

 7] Our Forgotten Baskets

Shift 3: From Rules to Flexibility

 8] Rewriting the Inner Rulebook

 9] Why We Turn Fun into a Chore

Shift 4: Mistakes: From Holding On to Letting Go

10] From ‘Failure’ to the Human Condition: Releasing Past Mistakes

11] From Exam to Experiment: Compassion for Future Mistakes

Shift 5: From Procrastination to Productivity

12] It’s Not About Time Management

Shift 6: From Comparison to Contentment

13] Hardwired but Not Haywire

Shift 7: From Control to Authenticity

14] Rolling Back Emotional Perfectionism: Being Real on the Inside

15] Rolling Back Perfectionistic Self-Preservation: Being Real on the Outside

 

Epilogue: Self-Acceptance for Self-Critics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On page 29 there is a flowchart describing self-evaluation by a perfectionist, which I have redone in color as shown above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And on page 88 in Chapter 5 on The Outer Critics there is a table contrasting what we say, what we really mean, and what they hear, – which I have rearranged in a color version, as is shown above.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Chapter 11 there are two tables showing Heart to Head Experiments, which I have shown above in color.

 

 

Excellent conversations have topics hanging from many doorknobs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is an interesting article by Adam Mastroianni at Experimental History on February 22, 2022 titled Good conversations have lots of doorknobs. He says:

 

“Why did some conversations unfurl and others wilt? One answer. I realized may be the clash of take–and–take vs. give-and-take.

 

Givers think that conversations unfold as a series of invitations; takers think conversations unfold as a series of declarations. When giver meets giver or taker meets taker all is well. When giver meets taker, however, giver gives, taker takes, and giver gets resentful (‘Why won’t he ask me a single question?’) while taker has a lovely time (‘She must really think I’m interesting!’) or gets annoyed (‘My job is boring, why does she keep asking me about it?). 

 

….When done well, both giving and taking create what psychologists call affordances: features of the environment that allow you to do something. Physical affordances are things like stairs and handles and benches. Conversational affordances are things like digressions and confessions and bold claims that beg for a rejoinder. Talking to another person is like rock climbing, except you are my rock wall and I am yours. If you reach up, I can grab onto your hand, and we can both hoist ourselves skyward. Maybe that’s why a really good conversation feels a bit like floating.

 

What matters most then, is not how much we give or take, but whether we offer and accept affordances. Takers can present big, graspable doorknobs (‘I kinda get creeped out when couples treat their dogs like babies’) or not (Let me tell you about the plot of the movie Must Love Dogs...). Good taking makes the other side want to take too (‘I know! My friends asked me to be the godparent to their Schnauzer, it’s so crazy’ ‘What?? Was there a ceremony?’). Similarly, some questions have doorknobs (‘Why do you think you and your brother turned out so different?’) and some don’t (‘How many of your grandparents are still living?’). But even affordance-less giving can be met with affordance-ful taking (‘I have one grandma still alive, and I think a lot about all this knowledge she has – how to raise a family, how to cope with tragedy, how to make chocolate zucchini bread – and I feel anxious about learning from her while I still can.’).”

 

I found my way to this article from page 252 in a 2024 book by Ellen Hendricksen titled How to Be Enough: Self-acceptance for self-critics and perfectionists. And there is another more recent article by Minda Zetlin at Inc. on March 23, 2025 titled People who excel at starting a conversation always do this, according to a clinical psychologist and subtitled ‘Conversational doorknobs’ can help you build the connections you need for success. She says to do these three things:

 

1) Ask an open-ended question. Then listen.

2) Choose a conversational doorknob.

3) Mention your connection, but don’t overdo it.

 

 

Elliott Kalan’s 2025 book - Joke Farming: How to Write Comedy and Other Nonsense

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a useful 2025 book by Elliott Kalan titled Joke Farming: How to Write Comedy and Other Nonsense. Google Books has a preview with the first 35 pages. Among other things, Elliot was head writer for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

 

Starting on page 19 he summarizes his eight steps of voice, point, premise, structure, twist, tone, wording, and audience:

 

“Here is my process, as simply as I can state it:

 

1] Identify the absurdity I’ve recognized in a subject: the seed of what’s funny about it. Then consider how this absurdity would be viewed from the perspective and frame of reference of the comedic voice for which I’m writing.  

 

2] State that absurdity in plain language in order to clarify the purpose of the joke: in other words, the point I hope the audience will take away from it.

 

3] Select a humorous way to communicate that purpose: the conceptual premise that will lead the audience toward seeing the point.

 

4] Apply a concrete structure to that premise in a first draft. Joke structures tap into familiar patterns that help to bring out the humor of the premise.

 

5] Think ‘oppositely’ to find a twist in the structure that yields another, even funnier layer to the joke. (I know, I know … structure gets two points in the process. It’s that important, though it only gets one chapter to itself.)

 

6] Finesse the joke’s tone, making sure its emotional attitude gives the audience the proper cues for how to feel about it.

 

7] Put a final polish on the wording with an eye toward brevity, clarity, and specificity, as well as capturing the voice of whoever is telling the joke.

 

8] Deliver the joke for an audience that laughs so hard you become instantly rich and famous. (Results may vary.)”

  

In his Conclusion on page 775 Elliott reiterates via questions:

 

“Structure: What part of this joke is meant to be funny?

 

Premise: What is this joke saying? How is it communicating that?

 

Voice: Who is telling this joke? Where do they come from? What do they think?

 

Tone: How does the joke feel? How sincerely does it mean what it’s saying?

 

Wording: What’s the best way to use the format tools at your disposal to make your joke as clear and funny as possible?

 

Audience: Who is the joke being told to, and how do they feel about it?”

 

And then he continues:

 

“Those elements are best utilized to answer those questions by following three basic principles:

 

Brevity: Your joke should take as little time, verbiage, or imagery as possible to be told.

 

Clarity: Your joke should be clearly understandable to your audience, and the first step toward that is making it clearly understandable to yourself.

 

Specificity: Your joke gets closer to universality the farther it gets from generality.”

 

You can listen to a 34-minutes interview with Jesse Thorn at npr Bullseye on January 30, 2026 titled Writer and Daily Show alum Elliot Kalan on the secret to writing great jokes.

 

The farming cartoon was adapted from this one at OpenClipArt.

 

 

The role of signposts in public speaking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a brief article by Diane Windingland on pages 28 and 29 in the November 2020 issue of Toastmaster magazine titled Ditch the Notecards. She says:

 

“….Transitions bridge the gap between concepts, helping your speech flow smoothly from one part to the next. A transition also can be a simple signpost such as ‘first…second…third.’ Better signposting echoes previous material in your speech. So, instead of just saying, ‘Second…” it is better to say, ‘The second reason is…’ “

 

Another article by John Zimmer at Manner of Speaking on April 16, 2025 titled Signpost Your Presentation adds:

 

“Immediately after hooking your audience’s attention with a strong opening – something about which I have written in the past – tell them where you are going with the speech or presentation.

 

It is not hard to do. In fact, your signpost need only be one or two sentences.”

 

A third 5-page pdf article from the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas titled Outlining Your Speech further explains that:

 

“The transition from the body of the speech to the conclusion requires a signpost, or a signal, to indicate to the audience that the speech is ending. The signpost is important, and must be clear without being cliché, so try to avoid overused phrases such as ‘In conclusion’ to signal the end of your speech.”

 

A fourth article by Antoni Lacinai on July 5, 2023 titled Signposts in Speech | A Comprehensive Guide describes how there are three types of signposts: transition, enumeration, and summary.

 

A fifth detailed article at SlideModel.com on February 16, 2026 titled Presentation Techniques You Didn’t Know Existed (Until Now) describes how:

 

“….Signposting is the practice of guiding the audience’s attention by indicating where the presentation is headed and why each segment matters. Most presentations fail not because the content is weak but because listeners cannot map new information on what came before. Signposting solves this by creating orientation points throughout the session.   

 

Effective signposting uses short verbal cues rather than long explanations. Phrases like ‘Now that we’ve established the context’ or ‘This leads us to the next factor’ serve as transitions that mentally prepare the audience. These cues reduce uncertainty; they signal continuity and prevent listeners from wondering whether the topic has shifted or expanded without warning.

 

The strength of signposting lies in its subtlety. When overused, it becomes repetitive. When used sparingly, it reinforces logical order. Signposting is particularly important in technical presentations, financial reviews, and educational settings where concepts build upon one another. It also supports oral presentation techniques in practice: clear speech is not only about pronunciation but also about keeping listeners oriented.”

 

There is a 1-1/2 minute YouTube video at T. J. Walker Success on March 14, 2019 titled What is a signpost in public speaking? A second ten-minute video from Patricia Jenkinson on June 23, 2016 is titled Signposting: Making It Easy for your Audience to Follow Your Speech.