I don't really know why I'm sharing this but I hate the letter M. When I start sentences, I tend to avoid it on a whim, to the detriment of being expressive.
I realize starting sentences with "my" or "maybe" would be much more expressive, but I irrationally refrain from it.
It's certainly not bad grammar, but starting a lot of sentences with the word I is often considered bad style (both for the repetition and for the emphasis it places on yourself), and it's something a lot of kids do naturally; I assume that's what they meant to say.
No, I was taught almost no grammar, but whilst you can couch it as stylistic I was taught it was wrong to start a sentence with "I" (as a word). And also never to start a sentence with a preposition ...
Google give very very few results. Feels like someone wanted to invent something and put it on a phobia-wiki then it became referenced from there. Could be wrong though.
More likely, I would think, is that people rarely need to refer to muphobia, especially specifically muphobia, but that it is acceptable to refer to 'fear of the letter ~' by '≈phobia', where ≈ is the anglicised name of the Greek letter from which ~ is derived.
I looked this up by the way, Collin's Concise Plus says it's a 'combining form', and may be used generally (without even saying the prefix should be Greek as I guessed above) to indicate a phobia of what precedes it.
Probably better to stick to Greek prefixes though - there can't be many words you could choose that wouldn't have an already in use or at least more sensible sounding Greek alternative. 'Internet', perhaps.
..consumerism? Also thought of "horror vacui", then found "kenophobia", fear of the empty. (This is assuming that "mu" is meant as in Japanese for emptiness.)
I don't think there should be any correlation, unless it's a text composed by thinking of letters for some reason. Usually we think in concepts, sentences and words, not letters when formulating ourselves.
An associate (personal, professional, business, etc.) of yours knows your HN handle and has read your post, above.
At some point, that associate is with you when you are using your computer. You briefly leave your machine unattended and unlocked for whatever reason (e.g. restroom).
Your associate now may be able to compromise your security.
Extending the above scenario: what happens when the above post draws the attention of people who decide to become an associate of yours after the fact (aka "spearphishing")?
You’re right, I’m going to track him down and befriend him in person now that I know his passcode. That’s worth my time and money instead of, I don’t know, just beating him with a shovel until he tells me his password. Or picking a victim I already know. Or any other number of far more likely and easily executed schemes.
Why would I choose something I can’t remember? There are a couple of scenarios: either someone has all the time in the world to crack the password, in which case it doesn’t matter how complex it is. Or they don’t have a lot of time and are typing it in by hand, in which case guessing 1223334 is fairly unlikely.
How much you like the letters in your name is used as an indirect method for measuring self esteem. If I really don't like the letters e,o,a,s,r, and d... then I probably don't like myself either.
Some letters are hard to write. That seems like a good reason to dislike them.
Some letters look better than others. The Japanese word ryuu ("dragon", for Japanese values of dragons) is written 竜. The alternate form 龍 is Chinese and not Japanese, but is specifically allowed in Japanese names, and is very popular there because it looks cooler.
Some letters are useless. The English letter C can be etymologically informative, but it has negative value in terms of indicating the pronunciation of a word, and the English alphabet already provides letters which unambiguously indicate the sounds that C commonly makes.
Some letters are obviously awkward. The English letter CH, unlike C, doesn't really have substitutes. But it's not a huge aesthetic success, and people get confused over whether to think of it as one thing or two things.
I was wondering that as well, then I realized that I am mildly more interested in the letter 'Q' than other letters. And yes, there is a 'Q' in my name.
A few years ago someone told me that for anything other than within a especially formal garden design, most people prefer the visual of odd numbers of similar plants grouped together - from small bulbs planted at the scale of several centimetres, up to large trees planted at ten metres or more apart.
Of course, how you identify what most people 'prefer' is challenging - it may be more a reflection of what looks natural or random.
But, like how red cars are often spotted in groups of three, once I started noticing numbers of like plants clumped together, at various scales, it does seem to hold true.
Your preference may be more deep-seated than at a purely integer level. :)
>A few years ago someone told me that for anything other than within a especially formal garden design, most people prefer the visual of odd numbers of similar plants grouped together -
Perhaps people seeing groups of items with a single middle element?
When composing mock api data, I do notice I tend to avoid arrays with an even number of elements
Apparently this 'odd numbers look better' stands regardless of proximity between each item. Keep an eye out for occurrences - it's a pretty subjective interpretation, I'm sure.
I've also found I prefer odds over evens; I'm not entirely sure why, but at least in terms of when there are an odd number of objects or visual markers in a row, I find it inherently satisfying that one of them is exactly halfway between the endpoints, and it slightly bothers me that with even numbers there isn't one.
In a similar vein, research has found a positive correlation between the number of right letter QWERTY keys in a word and the positivity felt towards those words.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3348452/
The study method seems to be "rate the letters by how much you like them".
While it looks like the study has been repeated enough to not be total quackery, there is still the question of what's the point. Does your preference for a particular letter has an effect on your choices?
I doubt the research about people preferring brands with the names in their letters has properly ruled out other variables, or would prove to be significant.
How many people actually give thought about what letters they like the most?
I'm guessing the study was the first time the subjects were ever exposed to the thought of liking a letter. As such, ot seems reasonable to go for some point of reference that is simple and available, auch as your own name.
One application of this is measuring implicit self-esteem. From the article, people who do not like themselves do not exhibit name letter preference. Also, people doing the name letter preference task do not realize they are choosing letters from their own name. As a result, this task can be used to measure how much implicit self-esteem or self-like one has
Skimming the article for that study, I don't find anything wrong with it superficially, but while the effect might be statistically significant, they are tiny - I.E. from 4.2% of donors to 5.5% had K initial in Katrina, and 10% to 12% in Hurrican Mitch (though the data might be bad, since the actual data did not contain the exact information they needed).
Also the effect was apparently not noticeable in Hurrican Rita.
There is also no mention of the percent of people starting with the letter from the given population - since the dataset for before the hurricane was much smaller (Katrina- ~300 before, ~4000 after), it's very likely that the proportions of named individuals drifted to the average, as what happens in larger datasets.
The number of hurricanes tested was also small - I.E. 3 , I'm not sure an effect can be inferred from such small numbers.
> Crucially, subjects are not aware that they are choosing letters from their name.
That is asinine. By what mechanism can a researcher make someone forget how to spell their name?
This is simply a theory that says "People are most comfortable and familiar with things which they are comfortable and familiar with." It's an essentially meaningless psychological observation.
It addresses name change by marriage; I'd be curious to know if it holds where the reason for the change was to expressly disavow the old name (e.g. changing away from the family name of an abusive parent).
I asked somebody to give me three letters, they picked ABC. So much for that theory, I thought. Then I read a bit more and it said that it doesn't work on people who don't like themselves. It sounds like pop psychology, actually.
Not if it's actually studied psychology and has been verified again and again in experiments.
Besides, it doesn't work that way "gimme 3 letters", where ABC is a very easy and probable answer. And one random exchange with a sample of one and no controls ("I asked somebody") is not how you disqualify a theory ("so much for that theory").
Sure, I wasn't entirely serious. I wonder how the test should be done. If somebody asked me for a few random letters, I'd have to ponder for some time about how to generate letters randomly. It would be easier if there was some (semi?)random input available, such as cars going past with various number plates.
Whether subjects are asked to rank all letters of the alphabet, rate each of the letters, choose the letter they prefer out of a set of two, or pick a small set of letters they most prefer, on average people consistently like the letters in their own name the most.
If so, an interesting proof of concept might be to reconstruct a person's full birth name from a corpus of their writing.