In jobs from the retail floor to the developers’ office, workers are losing the race against machines. Who can still compete against androids — and for how long?

615 robot.jpg

Although computers are encroaching into territory that used to be occupied by people alone, like advanced pattern recognition and complex communication, for now humans still hold the high ground in each of these areas. Experienced doctors, for example, make diagnoses by comparing the body of medical knowledge they’ve accumulated against patients’ lab results and descriptions of symptoms, and also by employing the advanced subconscious pattern recognition abilities we label “intuition.” (Does this patient seem like they’re holding something back? Do they look healthy, or is something off about their skin tone or energy level?) Similarly, the best therapists, managers, and salespeople excel at interacting and communicating with others, and their strategies for gathering information and influencing behavior can be amazingly complex.

But it’s also true that as we move deeper into the second half of the chessboard, computers are rapidly getting better at both of these skills. We’re starting to see evidence that this digital progress is affecting the business world. A March 2011 story by John Markoff in the New York Times highlighted how heavily computers’ pattern recognition abilities are already being exploited by the legal industry where, according to one estimate, moving from human to digital labor during the discovery process could let one lawyer do the work of 500. Machinery

In January, for example, Blackstone Discovery of Palo Alto, Calif., helped analyze 1.5 million documents for less than $100,000. …

“From a legal staffing viewpoint, it means that a lot of people who used to be allocated to conduct document review are no longer able to be billed out,” said Bill Herr, who as a lawyer at a major chemical company used to muster auditoriums of lawyers to read documents for weeks on end. “People get bored, people get headaches. Computers don’t.”

The computers seem to be good at their new jobs. … Herr … used e-discovery software to reanalyze work his company’s lawyers did in the 1980s and ’90s. His human colleagues had been only 60 percent accurate, he found. “Think about how much money had been spent to be slightly better than a coin toss,” he said.

And an article the same month in the Los Angeles Times by Alena Semuels highlighted that despite the fact that closing a sale often requires complex communication, the retail industry has been automating rapidly.

In an industry that employs nearly 1 in 10 Americans and has long been a reliable job generator, companies increasingly are looking to peddle more products with fewer employees. … Virtual assistants are taking the place of customer service representatives. Kiosks and self-service machines are reducing the need for checkout clerks.

Vending machines now sell iPods, bathing suits, gold coins, sunglasses and razors; some will even dispense prescription drugs and medical marijuana to consumers willing to submit to a fingerprint scan. And shoppers are finding information on touch screen kiosks, rather than talking to attendants. …

The [machines] cost a fraction of brick-and-mortar stores. They also reflect changing consumer buying habits. Online shopping has made Americans comfortable with the idea of buying all manner of products without the help of a salesman or clerk.

During the Great Recession, nearly 1 in 12 people working in sales in America lost their job, accelerating a trend that had begun long before. In 1995, for example, 2.08 people were employed in “sales and related” occupations for every $1 million of real GDP generated that year. By 2002 (the last year for which consistent data are available), that number had fallen to 1.79, a decline of nearly 14 percent.

If, as these examples indicate, both pattern recognition and complex communication are now so amenable to automation, are any human skills immune? Do people have any sustainable comparative advantage as we head ever deeper into the second half of the chessboard? In the physical domain, it seems that we do for the time being. Humanoid robots are still quite primitive, with poor fine motor skills and a habit of falling down stairs. So it doesn’t appear that gardeners and restaurant busboys are in danger of being replaced by machines any time soon.

And many physical jobs also require advanced mental abilities; plumbers and nurses engage in a great deal of pattern recognition and problem solving throughout the day, and nurses also do a lot of complex communication with colleagues and patients. The difficulty of automating their work reminds us of a quote attributed to a 1965 NASA report advocating manned space flight: “Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.”

Even in the domain of pure knowledge work–jobs that don’t have a physical component–there’s a lot of important territory that computers haven’t yet started to cover. In his 2005 book The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology, Ray Kurzweil predicts that future computers will “encompass … the pattern-recognition powers, problem-solving skills, and emotional and moral intelligence of the human brain itself,” but so far only the first of these abilities has been demonstrated. Computers so far have proved to be great pattern recognizers but lousy general problem solvers; IBM’s supercomputers, for example, couldn’t take what they’d learned about chess and apply it to Jeopardy! or any other challenge until they were redesigned, reprogrammed, and fed different data by their human creators.

And for all their power and speed, today’s digital machines have shown little creative ability. They can’t compose very good songs, write great novels, or generate good ideas for new businesses. Apparent exceptions here only prove the rule. A prankster used an online generator of abstracts for computer science papers to create a submission that was accepted for a technical conference (in fact, the organizers invited the “author” to chair a panel), but the abstract was simply a series of somewhat-related technical terms strung together with a few standard verbal connectors.

Similarly, software that automatically generates summaries of baseball games works well, but this is because much sports writing is highly formulaic and thus amenable to pattern matching and simpler communication. Here’s a sample from a program called StatsMonkey:

UNIVERSITY PARK — An outstanding effort by Willie Argo carried the Illini to an 11-5 victory over the Nittany Lions on Saturday at Medlar Field.

Argo blasted two home runs for Illinois. He went 3-4 in the game with five RBIs and two runs scored.

Illini starter Will Strack struggled, allowing five runs in six innings, but the bullpen allowed only no runs and the offense banged out 17 hits to pick up the slack and secure the victory for the Illini.

The difference between the automatic generation of formulaic prose and genuine insight is still significant, as the history of a 60-year-old test makes clear. The mathematician and computer science pioneer Alan Turing considered the question of whether machines could think “too meaningless to deserve discussion,” but in 1950 he proposed a test to determine how humanlike a machine could become. The “Turing test” involves a test group of people having online chats with two entities, a human and a computer. If the members of the test group can’t in general tell which entity is the machine, then the machine passes the test.

Turing himself predicted that by 2000 computers would be indistinguishable from people 70% of the time in his test. However, at the Loebner Prize, an annual Turing test competition held since 1990, the $25,000 prize for a chat program that can persuade half the judges of its humanity has yet to be awarded. Whatever else computers may be at present, they are not yet convincingly human.


What’s Your Halloween Candy Personality?

Halloween looms and with it the annual candy-buying frenzy. While dieters stock up on candy they don’t like so they won’t be tempted by leftovers, the rest of us buy the stuff we do like and hope that only one or two of those pesky little costumed punks comes a-knocking. (And even then, we smack their grabby hands if they dig too deep: “Hey, pal, you’re only 5 years old. One Butterfinger for you!”)

If you haven’t bought your supply yet, the chart below might help you decide what kind of candy to pass out. We not only provide the history and calorie count for 10 brands, we also asked an expert to tell us what the candy you give out says about you. Steve Almond, the author of “Candyfreak: A Journey Through the Chocolate Underbelly of America” (Harvest, 2005), e-mailed us his analysis of the personality types who might offer these tasty sweets to trick-or-treaters.

“There’s something incredibly liberating about a holiday that encourages children to take candy from strangers,” Almond writes of Halloween in his book. Indeed. For some reason, Almond asked that we make clear that he is a “professional candyfreak, not a therapist.” Well, that’s good enough for us.


3 Musketeers

Does well in groups but is somewhat pompous. Prone to fancy costumes and arcane weapons. Wears hats in public that are ill-advised. Created in 1932 by Mars, the candy bar got its name because it originally had three pieces in one packet: vanilla, strawberry and chocolate. The Fun Size (15 grams) has 63 calories.

Almond Joy

I’m going to put aside my aversion to coconut in praising these folks as happy-go-lucky. Introduced in 1946 by the Peter Paul Candy Manufacturing Co. in New Haven, Conn. It’s a companion to the Mounds bar, which arrived in 1920. The snack size (17 grams) has 80 calories.


They have contradictory personalities, hoping to express generosity but also having the passive-aggressive desire to damage the fillings of trick-or-treaters. The honey-flavored taffy was first manufactured in 1924 by the Schutter-Johnson Co. of Chicago. It is now made by Nestle. One piece (7 grams) has 26 calories.


Evasive, slippery, not necessarily to be trusted. Invented in 1923 by the Curtiss Candy Co. of Chicago. The crunchy bar wrapped in chocolate is now made by Nestle. The Fun Size (18.5 grams) has 85 calories.

Candy Corn

Purely deluded people. They don’t get that candy shouldn’t attempt to imitate other food groups, particularly corn. Invented in the 1880s, it was first manufactured commercially by the Wunderle Candy Co. in Philadelphia and by the turn of the century at the Herman Goelitz Candy Co. in Cincinnati. A serving of 22 pieces (40 grams) has 140 calories, or 6.4 calories per piece.

Good & Plenty

Optimistic, perhaps overly so. A little bit of Weimar energy. Strong advocate of gay rights; acquainted with the bitterness at the center of most lives. The licorice candy was first produced in 1893 by the Quaker City Confectionery Co. in Philadelphia and is considered the oldest branded candy in the country. A serving of 33 pieces (39 grams) has 140 calories, or 4.2 calories per piece.

Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups

Generous souls. Those who understand the salty in life, as well as the sweet. Created by Harry Burnett Reese in the 1920s. Reese was a former dairy employee of Milton Hershey, founder of the Hershey Co. In 1963, the Reese candy company was sold to Hershey for $23.5 million. A one-cup package (21 grams) has 110 calories.


Just going with the crowd, the safe candy choice, guaranteed to please the masses. Not ambitious, but dependable. Created in 1930 by Mars, Snickers bars sold for a nickel. The Fun Size was introduced in 1968. The Fun Size (17 grams) has 80 calories.


Both brittle and supple in social situations; sort of trapped between personality types. A Mars product, caramel-and-cookie Twix bars were created in the United Kingdom in 1967 but weren’t sold in the United States until 1979. The Fun Size (16 grams) has 80 calories.


Sickos. Truly demented. Plastic people living plastic lives. The Twizzlers brand was introduced in 1929. The red licorice strips are manufactured by Y&S Candies, a company established in 1845 that is now a Hershey subsidiary. The snack size (14 grams) has 37 calories.

If God Is ALL KNOWING why do I get trapped in situations I dont want?

Only one road to success exists.

Hello, my name is Kelcey and I am a Christian, however I have recently been experiencing some major doubts and questions about the Christian faith. This is only one of many questions that I have, but I think it is the question that is consuming my thoughts the majority of the time so I’ll just ask this one.

It seems to me that God was incredibly unfair in His creation! God created Satan, and since he is omniscient, he knew that Satan would fall from grace and tempt man. Doesn’t this seem like a bear trap to you? God puts all the elements for sin together, and then waits and gets the expected result: mankind’s sinful nature. Following that logic, isn’t it slightly irrational for God to demand punishment for creating us the way we are?
I would really really appreciate an answer to this question. It’s been on my mind for quite some time and I can’t find a reasonable explanation for it! Thank you very much.

Kelcey, nice question…

God didn’t create us (or Satan) with the intent to sin  that would be unjust.  But rather, he did give us a choice.  So why did he give us choice?  Because God didn’t want to create robots.

If we had no choice, we would be like plants and rocks.  Plants and rocks can’t love, because they have no choice to love or not to love – they just exist.  If you program a computer to print out “I love you,” the computer doesn’t love you, you merely told it to do that. So since God wanted to create beings that could love, He gave them a choice – to love or not to love.

Did you fail or did God Fail you? Place blame in the right hands..

These aren’t the “elements for sin”, these are the “elements for love”.  The possibility of sin is the byproduct of the elements for love.  There is no trap.  There simply is a way for us to love God.

God created us perfect, without sin.  God would be unjust only if he programmed us to sin and punished us anyway.  But we were originally created without sin.  So He is fair and just to punish us if we sin.

But you bring up God’s foreknowledge of all of this.

Foreknowledge does not make one responsible for someone else’s actions.  Lawmakers know if they set the speed limit to 75 miles per hour on a section of road that people will break that law.  Just because the lawmakers knew that the law would be broken doesn’t make the lawmakers guilty in anyway.  The speeder gets the ticket  not the lawmaker.

So even if God is not responsible for our sins in anyway – if He knew we would sin, how come He let it happen anyway?    Because he had a plan to save sinners.  And that plan is Christ.  Through Christ, God’s love is shown to the universe.


If that doesn’t answer your question then you will need to research your own answers and speak to people you trust.

I think there is a reason for our failures and if you never fail you never learn to succeed.

Is all music evil or is it just the people who dont like it

The ever burning question in many Christians’ hearts is, “Can I listen to secular music?” There is something already wrong with this question. The problem that is inherent in a statement like this is separating music into Sacred and Secular, Spiritual and Non-Spiritual.

Music is as evil as you make it

I’ll start from the beginning  literally. Only God existed. He made stuff like heaven, angels, the world and cows. He also created music. God created everything to glorify himself . There is not one thing that was created that did not glorify God. Can God make something that does not glorify himself? No. God did not make a sacred and a secular, everything to God was God’s. In God’s universe there is no such separation, all is unified as glorifying to God.

So if I wrote a song about cows and sausages, there would be nothing wrong with that. As a Christian I can write songs about algebra and the circulatory system and meeting girls. God created all those things.  I am singing about God’s wonderful creation, and at the same time using a God created medium  music.

So why do so many Christians get so upset about a band of Christians not preaching in their lyrics or from stage? Why do Christians say, “They’re just singing about bikes and food, they’re not ministering, therefore its not glorifying to God?” When one thinks like this its shows that they don’t understand that God created one universe – one universe glorifying to God. In this universe both spiritual and physical things all glorify God. But this other view creates a false dichotomy, a false separation. In this separation comes the view of – God is in the spiritual and not in the non-spiritual (the secular). If its not spiritual then it is non-spiritual, that is secular, and secular is evil. And the only things that are spiritual are things like Jesus, the Bible, evangelism, and discipleship. In the secular there are things like bikes, food, physics and cows. Therefore, in this thinking, you cannot sing about the secular and still glorify God.

But if that were the case then that would mean that if other God created things are “non-spiritual” then they are not glorifying to God, and therefore evil. That would mean a “secular” job like accounting is not glorifying to God and therefore useless or evil. That would mean Adam’s God-given task of farming was useless, and Christ’s carpentry was useless. Christ has now been reduced to doing things not glorifying to himself.

You see the evil in splitting God’s world into a sacred and secular? Believing that non-spiritual is useless leads us into thinking that God does useless things. It leads us to think our jobs are useless to God, and that we must trudge through our jobs just so we can get to Sundays, the only spiritual day and therefore the only useful day. Very destructive thinking.

You do not have to justify music and art and cows and food. God made it, its good, its justified.

All Music is not created evil

But that is not to say that music cannot be used for evil.

Can one separate the music from the band and evil lyrics? The best way to answer this question is with a few examples.

Example #1:
Food is good. But can be used for evil, such as gluttony. The food is not evil, the sin is.

Example #2:
Money is not evil. But idolizing money is. The idolization is evil, not the money.

Music by bands singing about evil things, does not make the musical notes evil, but this is where the example takes a turn. Food and money cannot sin, but bands can. So is it wrong to listen to someone sinning? No. We read in the Bible examples on people sinning throughout; we watch the news and they report on sins (murders, etc.) all the time – and we don’t consider watching that a sin. But with Food and Money, if it makes you sin, you can then fix that part of your life. If music by bad bands causes you to sin, then don’t listen to it. You really can’t do the same with Food or Money (if they make you sin) since you need them to live. But that’s what makes this music thing easier than those, you can live without music, so dealing with this type of sin is easier.

A more extreme example: Satan has said a lot of evil stuff in the Bible. It is not wrong to read his words. Satan’s words in the Bible does not make literature medium or the Bible wrong. Certainly his words are a lot worse than cuss words and anything anyone has ever sung about. Merely listening to evil music (like reading Satan’s evil words) is not a sin. Sin enters when the music causes you to sin.

If it causes you to sin. Stop listening to it.
And one type of sin is not obeying “Honor thy father and mother,” if your parents have a big problem with it (even if they are theologically wrong about it) you still must honor their wishes. I mean, so what if you can’t listen to some bands, its not like they’re telling you to stop eating.

Causing Others to Stumble

It was previously stated that things like music and food can be used for good – or can make us sin. Although it might not be a sin to merely hear music not intended for the Christian market, listening to it can cause some to sin in other ways. Disobeying your parents by listening to certain music when you’ve been told not to is a common example of music causing sin. Another example is when listening to music causes others to stumble.

First, I will go over what “causing others to stumble” is not. It is not merely offending someone, or doing something they don’t like. If you hate smoking and your friend comes up and smokes around you, you might be offended and annoyed, but you are not being tempted to smoke. Stumbling involves sin.

The example that the Bible uses is in Romans 14: eating meat sacrificed to idols. The Romans, along with much of the world back then, thought that there were many gods. People would sacrifice meat to these gods, who were represented by idols. But sometimes these people converted to Christianity. Many of these new converts would not know some basic Christian doctrines. In their minds, if they bought meat from the market that the seller had “blessed” to some pagan god, this would make the meat sinful to eat.

Of course, the meat was not evil. God made the meat. Meat is good. But the new convert in the above example did not realize that. He or she thought it would be evil to eat this particular meat. He or she therefore believed it would be a sin to eat it. So, would it be a sin if he or she ate it? Yes. Not because the meat was now sinful to eat, but because the motivation for eating it was sinful. It would be like saying, “God I think it’s a sin to eat this, but I’m going to eat it (and sin) anyway.” That is a sin of rebellion, and not of eating.


How does causing others to stumble come into this? It comes in when you, a stronger Christian who knows that eating meat sacrificed to idols is okay, cause the weaker Christian to sin by eating that meat in front of them, tempting them. If they eat it, you are causing them to sin, and by causing them to sin, you are making them stumble.

Music, movies, alcohol, etc., are things that could make other Christians stumble. What is Paul’s command in cases like those? It is to refrain from eating (listening, watching, drinking) in front of the weaker Christian.

Conclusion: We have to be cautious with our motivations and actions. Even the best of things can make us sin (e.g., reading the Bible might make us prideful). We must be careful not only for ourselves, but also for those around us. As it says in Romans 14: 15, we must act in love. So, don’t just go around making weaker Christians listen to your music simply because you think it’s okay – because it is now you who is sinning by not acting in love.

So for all the Christians out there who judge my music remember it has a positive message and it never demeans anyone. I don’t force anyone to hear it and I chose not to sell it most of the time.  Not to mention everyone knows WE ALL SIN AND FALL SHORT SO JUDGE ME NOT LEAST YOU BE JUDGED LATER BUT IT WONT BE BY ME>>>>

Now you can download my latest  mixes here for free..

Just do a search for: DJ STATIX

How can I relieve stress? Six simple ideas.

How To De-Stress

stress busting tips

Everyone experiences stress occasionally.  Unfortunately, a growing number of people are struggling to cope with stress that is chronic.  Be proactive!  Unaddressed, the symptoms of stress can affect your health and emotional well-being.  Put yourself at the top of your to-do list and incorporate these natural stress relievers into your daily life.


At the end of a stressful day it can be hard to force yourself to go to the gym.  Your need to find something you will do on a consistent basis.  How about a walk around the neighborhood before dinner?  Spend 30 minutes on an exercise bike, treadmill or rebounder while you watch a program on TV or listen to some of your favorite feel good music.  .  Once you’ve formed the habit it will be easier to continue.


(I’m sorry did you say SEX!)

Sex is one of nature’s best stress relievers.  It can also be considered a form of exercise for those of you who are looking for an alternative to suggestion #1.  Do yourself and your partner a favor and make sure you’re including sex in your weekly activities.  A decreased sex drive is one of the symptoms of stress. However lower your stress by manually increasing your sex.


Make sure you’re getting enough sleep.  It’s common to develop trouble sleeping when we’re under stress.  Make sure you take time to relax for 30 minutes before heading to bed.  Listening to soothing music or sounds of nature is helpful as well.


Muscle tension, pain and headaches are all classic symptoms of stress.  Massage can relieve the muscle tension thus easing the pain and headaches it causes.  Consider it health care of the most basic kind.  Make room in your schedule for a massage ASAP!  Remember your partner may want to give you that massage it will help them relieve their stress and may even lead to another stress reliever (see #2).


Meditation is about learning to empty your mind and shifting your focus from stress to tranquility.  These are many types of meditation so do a little research and find what will work for you.


A study by the University of Minnesota found that the chemicals that emotional stress builds up in your body can be removed through your tears.  Another recent study puts the number of those who experience stress relief and improved mood after a good cry at just below 90%.  You may not be able to let go in the midst of the stressful situation but don’t fight the urge to give in to those tears later.  They can be healing.


How do you relieve stress? let me know in a comment below.

Biggest Dress Up Don’ts

If you’re still looking for the perfect Halloween costume, we urge you to stay away from the following options. For every amazing, clever costume choice, there is one glaringly offensive costume that should best be avoided at all costs. We’re sure there are countless offensive ways to dress up on Halloween, but we listed some of the ideas that really caught our attention.


Sorry, but this one is never going to be appropriate. Dressing up as a Nazi or sporting an Adolf Hitler moustache and swastika-emblazoned outfit might seem hilarious, but it actually errs more on the side of offensive. The Holocaust is no laughing matter and to model your costume after someone who committed so many atrocities is not acceptable, even if it’s supposed to be just for fun.

Note: “Sexy” Nazi is an even worse choice.

Sexy Nazi

2Any recently deceased public figure

While you may think you’re merely paying your respects to a celebrity or pop culture icon you loved, there is a certain amount of time that needs to pass before you turn that person into a Halloween costume. We know people do it — they think it’s funny — but dressing up as someone who only just recently passed away is not only inappropriate, it’s also disrespectful. We’ve all heard the saying “too soon” when it comes to making jokes about something tragic — the same applies to Halloween costumes.

Amy Winehouse

3Anna Rexia

We recently laid eyes on a costume made to resemble a woman suffering from an eating disorder. It was a black, body-hugging mini dress featuring bones painted on the front and a tape measure around the waist. Needless to say, we were speechless that something like that could exist and even more shocked that someone thought it was a good idea to wear it. Eating disorders aren’t funny; they are actually a serious medical issue that shouldn’t be relegated to an off-color Halloween costume.

Anna Rexia

4Pregnant nun

This one speaks for itself and definitely has the potential to rub a few people the wrong way. We once saw a woman dressed up as a Jack Daniels-toting, heavily pregnant nun. While not offensive to everyone, it still has an air of inappropriateness about it. If you are going this route, maybe keep it amongst friends, versus trying it out at the office or work Halloween party.

Pregnant nun

5Any “sexy” stereotypes

The first one that comes to mind is a “sexy” Native American, which is really just in poor taste. Dressing up as any racial stereotype is bad enough and offensive to many, but adding in the “sexy” factor (as mentioned earlier in association with the Nazi costume) simply amps up the inappropriate factor, or maybe even doubles it. Even if something seems funny, think about whether it might be disrespectful to those around you before you wear it.

Sexy Native American



A friend of mine, we will call her Betty, an attractive brunette in her late twenties, was telling me of this incident. A week ago she happened to run into Jim, a cute guy she’d dated in college. They’d dated for a couple of years, but then things didn’t work out. They’d ended the relationship on a friendly note and were happy to run into each other now. They decided to catch up over a drink and talk about old times. They spent a fun evening together, during which time Betty learnt that Jim was in a committed, live-in relationship with his girlfriend of five years, Sarah, and was planning to get engaged soon. At some point in the evening, he said he’d call his girlfriend to let her know he’d be late and Betty happened to overhear their conversation.


“Hey,” Jim said. “How was your day? Just called to tell you I’ll be home a little late today. Had to discuss some plans with a client and thought we’d do it over a drink. See you in a bit.”


Is he Guilty?

While Betty didn’t want to act like she’d been eavesdropping, she couldn’t help but ask Jim why he’d deliberately lied. Jim was unrepentant about it. His explanation, “Sarah has an active imagination and if I tell her the truth, she’ll think there’s something going on. Both you and I know that we’re just having a harmless evening of catching up, but if I tell her like it is, she won’t buy it. It’s just easier to lie, it’s less complicated that way.”

The way Jim sees it isn’t an isolated incident. Men lie for different reasons and with different motivations. Why do men lie? Most often, the reasons for which they lie to their partners/lovers/spouses/girlfriends follow a set pattern. Men lie…

1. For the heck of it

Men often have a great sense of the absurd and enjoy telling the occasional lie just for a lark. They find they get a few laughs out of suckering the party concerned and pulling the wool over their eyes successfully.

2. As a matter of course

Sometimes men just lie because they can’t be bothered to tell the truth. It’s just a habit that comes naturally and can be used as a defense mechanism, rather than go through the awkward motions of telling it like it is.

3. Because it’s less complicated

If the truth requires long explanations and supporting facts, men figure it’s just easier to tell a lie. Rather than get into long-winded stories to their spouse, which expend a lot of time and effort and may still result in disgruntled looks and dissatisfied expressions and take more convincing to be believable, men prefer to lie.

4. If the reason is innocuous

If the lie isn’t a major one, men justify it as being harmless. And if it’s harmless, what’s wrong in it? They figure they’re not hurting anyone with a simple little white lie, and they don’t lose any sleep over it.

5. Because they get themselves into trouble when they tell the truth

Some men find they have an uncanny knack for getting themselves into trouble when they try telling the truth. And that it never works for them. They try being straightforward, like a sailor friend who told his girlfriend how he enjoyed visiting strip bars, when ashore, to unwind after a particularly tough voyage, and how she blew a fuse over it. He thought being honest was a great thing, until he discovered it was better to have lied or simply evaded telling the truth.

Like Jim, some men feel that if they tell their partner the truth like it is, they will read more into the situation than there actually is, and blow it out of proportion. Not only will this cause trouble for the relationship, but it will also lead to a lot of discomfort and tension, which was unnecessary and uncalled for in the first place. By lying about it, men eliminate the possibility of stress and anxiety over their partner’s reaction and rest easy knowing they’ve averted a possible mishap.