the most important thing a man has to tell you — 5/28/15

Today’s encore selection — Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson III by Robert A. Caro. Robert Caro describes Lyndon B. Johnson’s genius at “reading” others:

“While Lyndon Johnson was not, as his two assistants knew, a reader of books, he was they knew a reader of men — a great reader of men. He had a genius for studying a man and learning his strengths and weaknesses and hopes and fears, his deepest strengths and weaknesses: what it was that the man wanted — not what he said he wanted, but what he really wanted — and what it was that the man feared, really feared.

“He tried to teach his young assistants to read men — ‘Watch their hands, watch their eyes,’ he told them. ‘Read eyes. No matter what a man is saying to you, it’s not as important as what you can read in his eyes’ — and to read between the lines: more interested in men’s weaknesses than in their strengths because it was weakness that could be exploited, he tried to teach his assistants how to learn a man’s weakness. ‘The most important thing a man has to tell you is what he isn’t telling you’, he said. ‘The most important thing a man has to say is what he’s trying not to say.’ For that reason, he told them, it was important to keep the man talking; the longer he talked, the more likely he was to let slip a hint of that vulnerability he was so anxious to conceal. ‘That’s why he wouldn’t let a conversation end,’ Busby explains. ‘If he saw the other fellow was trying not to say something, he wouldn’t let it (the conversation) end until he got it out of him.’

“And Lyndon Johnson himself read with a genius that couldn’t be taught, with a gift that was so instinctive that a close observer of his reading habits Robert G. (Bobby) Baker calls it a ‘sense’; ‘He seemed to sense each man’s individual price and the commodity he preferred as coin.’ He read with a novelist’s sensitivity, with an insight that was unerring, with an ability, shocking in the depth of its penetration and perception, to look into a man’s heart and know his innermost worries and desires.”

Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson III

Author: Robert A. Caro
Publisher: Knopf
Copyright 2002 by Robert A. Caro, Inc.
Page: 136

If you wish to read further: Buy Now

If you use the above link to purchase a book, delanceyplace proceeds from your purchase will benefit a children’s literacy project. All delanceyplace profits are donated to charity.



You fascinate me

Who do you think you are?

You’re sick. You’re beautiful.

You were the light at the end of my tunnel

I condemn that!

That train derailed and killed a thousand souls

I was each aboard

You were the engineer of my destruction

You switched tracks

You fool! You traitor!

Too weak to try, you tried so hard

So hard to hammer the nail

Thor and John Henry still speak of it

I hear they kept on talking until last May

You know, you hear them all the time

Some ghost on the road

Some hobo with a cardboard sign

The poor shall always be with you!

The wretched knock on your door

What else can I say?

Who in the depths of the underworld would know?

To the heights of heaven, no answer came to me

I am another prophet without honor

Let me take notes

These will be read a thousand years or more from now

Each line another recitation

Of another soul waiting for its triumph

The Definition Of Hell For Each Myers-Briggs Personality Type

It’s eerie how they all sort of seem to be connected to the others or happen as the result of one. INFJ here.

Thought Catalog

Screen Shot 2015-05-13 at 3.04.19 PMESTJ – An incredibly impractical person is put in charge of all of your major life decisions. You have to do whatever they say and are powerless to argue or reason with them.

INFP – Your deepest thoughts and feelings are exposed to a large audience and everyone thinks that you’re pathetic and unoriginal.

INTJ – Every time you open your mouth to say something intelligent, something entirely idiotic comes out instead.

ESFJ – Someone you love is in dire need of practical help and you can’t give it to them. Worse yet, they think you’re refusing to help them out of pettiness and they’re mad at you.

ESFP – You are stuck in a room by yourself for the rest of eternity.

ISTP – The Zombie apocalypse happens but you’re suddenly the world’s weakest fighter and must depend solely on your loved ones to keep you alive.


View original post 304 more words

How Hitler Controlled People Using Hypnosis Techniques

There is a rising interest in hypnosis and trance, both for therapeutic and entertainment purposes. There are other audiences as well, and new methods are being researched frequently. There is legitimate use of hypnosis, but it can be abused. Here’s some insight into a truly despicable use of hypnotic deception.

Who is the greatest hypnotist of all time?

“Without in any way straining language we can truthfully say that he (Hitler) was one of the great hypnotists of all time,” says George H. Estabrooks in Hypnotism.

Below, you will learn how Hitler used covert hypnosis and mind control techniques to hypnotize and control the whole nation.

1908: Hitler Discoveres The Power of Mass Hypnosis

So, how Hitler discovered the mass hypnosis and mind control secrets.

Well, the main source that made Hitler believe in the power of mass hypnosis is the book “Psychologie des Foules” (Psychology of the Masses) written by French social psychologist Gustave Le Bon. The book was translated into German in 1908 under the title “Psychologie der Massen”, so Hitler had a chance to read it, too.

Le Bon’s book clearly describes the psychology of crowd and how to control them using mass hypnosis. Lets discuss what covert mass hypnosis techniques Hitler used.

Covert Hypnosis and Mind Control Techniques Used by Hitler

Le Bon’s book describes his theories on crowds and their behaviour. He had identified that group behaviour could be manipulated by hypnotic suggestions and that only few individuals in a crowd possess a sufficiently strong personality to resist such suggestions.

Hitler used all the characteristics of covert mass hypnosis. The main way to control people and command them were films as they reached millions of readers.

Especially, in 1930s and 1940s there were not nearly any media companies to produce different ideas than Hitler.

You only need to see a newsreel of Hitler presenting to a rally to recognise that he is using mass suggestion. It is notable how the delivery is made in a positive and confident manner. Notable too is his use of repetition.

Hitler’s Use of Repetition Hypnosis: “Jew, Jew, Jew”

“The influence of repetition on crowds is comprehensible when the power is seen which it exercises on the most enlightened minds. This power is due to the fact that the repeated statement is embedded in the long run in those profound regions of our unconscious selves in which the motives of our actions are forged.” So said Gustave Le Bon in The Crowd, his seminal study of political hypnosis, published in 1897.

Hitler describes in his writings: “What you say to the people collectively in that receptive state of fanatical abandonment remains in their mind like an order given to someone under hypnosis, which can not be wiped out and resists all logical argument“.

He uses the very same words again and again in his speeches. Consider why he repeatedly says “Jew, Jew, Jew”. Hitler had learnt that repeating a word three times had an identifiable effect on the crowd. Include and repeat, “blame, blame, blame” and you have mass hypnosis being used for evil purposes.

One answer is provided by Hitler in Mein Kampf: “In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people. . . will more easily fall victim to a great lie than to a small one.” Thus was born the concept of the “Big Lie,” Hitler’s another crowd manipulation tool.

Hypnosis Techniques Used by Hitler

Hitler used different hypnosis and persuasion techniques. He successfully used the techniques such as pacing and leading, anchoring, verbal confusion, repetition and so on. Unemployment and food shortages in those times helped him to manipulate people easily. He could successfully by pass the critical factor in minds of people and turn off the rational thinking.

Work by other psychologists such as Moscovici shows how crowds initially watch and listen to a speaker. By using certain words and behaviour a speaker can very quickly establish a rapport with an audience. Repeated exposure to the same speaker can result in them being viewed with admiration bordering on worship. Every word uttered is accepted as the complete truth.

Unfortunately, deceptive mass hypnosis techniques are still being used by presidents and politicans.

finding things with crowds — 5/5/15

Today’s selection –from The Organized Mind by Daniel J. Levitin. Accomplishing the impossible through crowdsourcing:
“Crowdsourcing — outsourcing to a crowd — [is] the technique by which thousands or even millions of people help to solve problems that would be difficult or impossible to solve any other way. Crowdsourcing has been used for all kinds of things, including wildlife and bird counts, providing usage examples and quotes to the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, and helping to decipher ambiguous text. …

“In December 2009, DARPA offered $40,000 to anyone who could locate ten balloons that they had placed in plain sight around the continental United States. DARPA is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, an organization under the U.S. Department of Defense. DARPA created the Internet (more precisely, they designed and built the first computer network, ARPANET, on which the current World Wide Web is modeled). At issue was how the United States might solve large-scale problems of national security and defense, and to test the country’s capacity for mobilization during times of urgent crisis. Replace ‘balloons’ with ‘dirty bombs’ or other explosives, and the relevance of the problem is clear.

“On a predesignated day, DARPA hid ten large, red weather balloons, eight feet in diameter, in various places around the country. The $40,000 prize would be awarded to the first person or team anywhere in the world who could correctly identify the precise location of all ten balloons. When the contest was first announced, experts pointed out that the problem would be impossible to solve using traditional intelligence-gathering techniques.

“There was great speculation in the scientific community about how the problem would be solved — for weeks, it filled up lunchroom chatter at universities and research labs around the world. Most assumed the winning team would use satellite imagery, but that’s where the problem gets tricky. How would they divide up the United States into surveillable sections with a high-enough resolution to spot the balloons, but still be able to navigate the enormous number of photographs quickly? Would the satellite images be analyzed by rooms full of humans, or would the winning team perfect a computer-vision algorithm for distinguishing the red balloons from other balloons and from other round, red objects that were not the target? (Effectively solving the Where’s Waldo? problem, something that computer programs couldn’t do until 2011.)

“Further speculation revolved around the use of reconnaissance planes, telescopes, sonar, and radar. And what about spectrograms, chemical sensors, lasers? Tom Tombrello, physics professor at Caltech, favored a sneaky approach: ‘I would have figured out a way to get to the balloons before they were launched, and planted GPS tracking devices on them. Then finding them is trivial’.

“The contest was entered by 53 teams totaling 4,300 volunteers. The winning team, a group of researchers from MIT, solved the problem in just under nine hours. How did they do it? Not via the kinds of high-tech satellite imaging or reconnaissance that many imagined, but — as you may have guessed — by constructing a massive, ad hoc social network of collaborators and spotters — in short, by crowdsourcing. The MIT team allocated $4,000 to finding each balloon. If you happened to spot the balloon in your neighborhood and provided them with the correct location, you’d get $2,000. If a friend of yours whom you recruited found it, your friend would get the $2,000 and you’d get $1,000 simply for encouraging your friend to join the effort. If a friend of your friend found the balloon, you’d get $500 for this third-level referral, and so on. The likelihood of anyone person spotting a balloon is infinitesimally small. But if everyone you know recruits everyone they know, and each of them recruits everyone they know, you build a network of eyes on the ground that theoretically can cover the entire country. One of the interesting questions that social networking engineers and Department of Defense workers had wondered about is how many people it would take to cover the entire country in the event of a real national emergency, such as searching for an errant nuclear weapon. In the case of the DARPA balloons, it required only 4,665 people and fewer than nine hours.”

The Organized Mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload

Author: Daniel J. Levitin
Publisher: Penguin Group
Copyright 2014 by Daniel J. Levin
Pages 114-116

If you wish to read further: Buy Now

If you use the above link to purchase a book, delanceyplace proceeds from your purchase will benefit a children’s literacy project. All delanceyplace profits are donated to charity.

stalin’s forced famine killed seven million — 5/4/15

Today’s selection —  from Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore. In the early 1930s, Soviet leader Josef Stalin extracted as much grain as possible from the farmers of the Soviet Union, especially those in the Ukraine, resulting in a forced famine with an estimated 7,000,000 deaths. The main purpose was to fund his country’s rapid industrialization projects, but he also wanted to force the “kulaks” (formerly wealthy farmers that had owned 24 or more acres) into submission and bring about the “collectivization” of privately held lands. In the Ukraine, he also wanted to stave off the stirrings of an independence movement:

“[Stalin and his] small group of idealistic, ruthless magnates, mainly in their thirties, was the engine of a vast and awesome Revolution: they would build socialism immediately and abolish capitalism. Their industrial programme, the Five-Year Plan, would make Russia a great power never again to be humiliated by the West. Their war on the countryside would forever exterminate the internal enemy, the kulaks, and return the Party to the values of 1917. It was Lenin who said, ‘Merciless mass terror against the kulaks … Death to them!’ Thousands of young people shared their idealism. The Plan demanded a 110 percent rise in productivity which Stalin, Kuibyshev and Sergo insisted was possible because everything was possible. ‘To lower the tempo means to lag behind,’ explained Stalin in 1931. ‘And laggards are beaten! But we don’t want to be beaten … The history of old Russia consisted … in her being beaten … for her backwardness.’ …

A dispossessed kulak and his family in front of their home

“In November 1929, … Stalin returned refreshed from his holidays and immediately intensified the war on the peasantry, demanding ‘an offensive against the kulaks … to get ready for action and to deal the kulak class such a blow that it will no longer rise to its feet.’ But the peasants refused to sow their crops, declaring war on the regime. …

“[Stalin and the Politburo] realized they had to escalate their war on the countryside and literally ‘liquidate the kulaks as a class.’ They unleashed a secret police war in which organized brutality, vicious pillage and fanatical ideology vied with one another to destroy the lives of millions. …

“In January 1930, [Premier Vyacheslav] Molotov planned the destruction of the kulaks, who were divided into three categories: ‘First category: … to be immediately eliminated’; the second, to be imprisoned in camps; the third, 150,000 households, to be deported. Molotov oversaw the death squads, the railway carriages, the concentration camps like a military commander. Between five and seven million people ultimately fitted into the three categories. There was no way to select a kulak: Stalin himself agonized: scribbling in his notes: ‘What does kulak mean?’

“Away with private peasants!”

“During 1930-31, about 1.68 million people were deported to the east and north. Within months, Stalin and Molotov’s plan had led to 2,200 rebellions involving more than 800,000 people. Kaganovich and Mikoyan led expeditions into the countryside with brigades of OGPU troopers and armoured trains like warlords. The magnates’ handwritten letters to Stalin ring with the fraternal thrill of their war for human betterment against unarmed peasants: ‘Taking all measures about food and grain,’ Mikoyan reported to Stalin, citing the need to dismiss ‘wreckers’: ‘We face big resistance … We need to destroy the resistance.’ In Kaganovich’s photograph album, we find him heading out into Siberia with his armed posse of leather-jacketed ruffians, interrogating peasants, poking around in their haystacks, finding the grain, deporting the culprits and moving on again, exhausted, falling asleep between stops. ‘Molotov works really hard and is very tired,’ Mikoyan told Stalin. ‘The mass of work is so vast it needs horsepower … ‘ …

“The peasants believed they could force the government to stop by destroying their own livestock: the despair that could lead a peasant to kill his own animals, the equivalent in our world of burning down our own house, gives a hint of the scale of desperation: 26.6 million head of cattle were slaughtered, 15.3 million horses. On 16 January 1930, the government decreed that kulak property could be confiscated if they destroyed livestock. If the peasants thought the Bolsheviks would be obliged to feed them, they were mistaken. As the crisis worsened, even Stalin’s staunchest lieutenants struggled to squeeze the grain out of the peasantry, especially in the Ukraine and North Caucasus. …
“By the summer of 1931, a serious shortage in the countryside was beginning to develop into a famine. While the Politburo softened its campaign against industrial specialists in mid-July, the rural struggle continued. The GPU and the 180,000 Party workers sent from cities used the gun, the lynch mob and the Gulag camp system to break the villages. Over two million were deported to Siberia or Kazakhstan; in 1930, there were 179,000 slaving in the Gulags; almost a million by 1935. Terror and forced labour became the essence of Politburo business.”

Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar

Author: Simon Sebag Montefiore
Publisher: Vintage Books a division of Random House
Copyright 2003 by Simon Sebag Montefiore
Pages: 44-47, 64-65

If you wish to read further: Buy Now

If you use the above link to purchase a book, delanceyplace proceeds from your purchase will benefit a children’s literacy project. All profits are donated to charity.

Three Mistakes Women Make When Dealing With Men

3 Mistakes Women Make When Dealing With Men

I’ve wanted to write this column for quite some time, but I was afraid of coming off as some sort of spokesman for angry dudes everywhere. I’m not. Frankly, I’m not a big fan of most men, and I think women have every reason not to trust us, especially when it comes to sex. After all, most guys would cut their own dick off to get laid.

Here’s a visual to help with the sound you just heard in your head.

So yes, ladies, you’re right. When it comes to sexual interactions, men are mostly awful. But now what? You think you’ll avoid all the problems that come from interacting with half the human race just because you know we’re not to be trusted? Clearly, that’s not enough, because everyone knows that, and yet you keep stepping in it. Here are three of the biggest mistakes women make when it comes to men.

#3. Playing Hard to Get Is a Good Idea

This technique is as old as it is pointless, but before we see why, let’s get the terminology right. This entry is about playing hard to get. That doesn’t mean being hard to get. Women of the world: Please go out and be every bit as picky as you think you deserve. No one –not even an incredibly sexy older man writing for a successful website — has the right to tell you who you should be dating. Standards are great, and kudos to you for having them. What I’m talking about is women who are actually in the market for a specific man. They know who they want, they got him all picked out and their strategy for landing him is simply “playing hard to get.” What a boring, useless waste of time.

Some of you disagree. “Bullshit,” you say, while wearing your incredibly tight top of indifference and pretending to have no peripheral vision. “I’ll play hard to get and distinguish myself!”

This is you.

Distinguishing yourself. That’s the whole point of playing hard to get. Instead of being like the other needy girls, you act super cool and uninterested to stand out. You know what else would distinguish you? Giving better head than everyone else.

Now, before you string me up for being crass, just hear me out. I’m proving a point (via an oral sex joke the way the good Lord intended). It makes sense to want to stand out from the crowd — to do something to distinguish yourself. But why not actually do something? Be funnier, smarter, kinder, or, yes (even though it was a joke), better in bed. At least those are skills. Something tangible.

What’s playing hard to get? The talent to do nothing: “Oh, I won’t look at him. I won’t laugh at his jokes. I won’t tell him his video series is amazing.”

But let’s say I’m wrong. We’ll pretend playing hard to get is like the most super way to get a guy ever. We’ll pretend you did your trick and instead of finding you tedious and bland, your dude asked you out. (And you eventually accepted.) Just do me a favor and fast forward a little bit. Two weeks from now, what do you want your boyfriend to tell his friends about the relationship? “Oh, the way she just sat there and did nothing was amazing. I just had to have her. There she was, not talking to me too much and not making too much eye contact, and I was all, man, I would love to have a girlfriend that might not actually dig me.”

Wouldn’t you rather overhear him say, “I met this girl the other night and she was so funny I laughed the whole night.” Or “This new girl, she gets things that no other woman gets. I can talk to her.” Or lastly, wouldn’t even praise for your sexual performance be more gratifying than how awesome you are at hiding your feelings and true desires?

“And you know what she said? Nothing! Isn’t that great?”

But there’s a bigger problem. Which guys are most susceptible to the “playing hard to get” trick? Only the kind of dude who wants what he can’t have. Exactly. If your trick gets you a prize, then congratulations, you just won a dick. Your new man doesn’t actually want you. How could he? You didn’t even show him you. You were too busy being cool. He just wanted a toy he didn’t own yet. And guess what? Once he has you, you lose your only distinguishing characteristic. But I’m sure he won’t resent you for it. After all, you just went fishing with super-smart bait — the kind that only attracts assholes and disappears completely the moment they bite. Well played.

#2. Guys Are All About “Negging”

Lately, I’ve been hearing a lot of women talk about “negging.” Do you know about this? Supposedly it’s a flirting technique where a guy insults a woman to lower her self-esteem, thereby making her more susceptible to being hit on. Some quick research tells me it’s a technique championed by that d-bag “Mystery” who you might recall from the VH1 show The Pickup Artist. I didn’t watch the show, and I assume you didn’t either, unless you’re having a smarter friend read this aloud for you while you stumble toward literacy.

“Hi. My name’s Mystery. My mother is petitioning Webster’s to come up with a stronger word for ‘shame.'”

I tend to think this negging phenomenon is complete bullshit. Most guys I know aren’t exactly sexual Hannibal Lecters, capable of deconstructing and rebuilding a woman’s psyche for sex. It’s hard enough for us to keep the little things straight: “Smile, don’t stare at her tits, don’t stare at her tits, say she’s pretty, smile, don’t stare at her tits, you stared at her tits, stop staring at her tits, smile …” And yet, I keep hearing about this and seeing it in Facebook statuses and Tweets, and I don’t think it’s because men won’t stop negging. I think it’s because women like the idea of negging.

You can understand why it’s attractive. Now a man can’t criticize a woman without being accused of wanting to have sex with her. Look, maybe some sad, misguided men are negging, but ladies, let me ask you this: Have you ever considered that perhaps some of you just suck? Like for real? I mean, I can’t give you exact statistics, but there’s got to be a fairly large percentage of women going on about negging who are just legitimately awful. And now they’re bulletproof in their little negging sanctuaries.

Man: You white supremacist bitch. You just set fire to that black Baptist church!

Woman: … Are you negging? You’re so negging.

Man: My God, no! I just hate you.


Man: No seriously. I don’t even understand how you exist. It’s like the ghost of Josef Mengele raped Pol Pot’s stem cells. You’re just evil.

Woman: Maybe, but you’d still fuck me.

Man: Well, yeah?

Most men want to have sex with women, but you can’t disqualify an opinion just because it has a penis attached to it. Personally, if I weren’t allowed to critique women I wanted to jump, I never would have made it through my 18th Century Feminist Theory class. (Mary Wollstonecraft FTW!)

Yes, I’m still wildly attracted to you, but your prose is a little stilted, baby.

#1. Being Slutty Is Empowering

Although it might upset some commenters, I still believe it’s harder to be a woman than a man, and, even today, women are legitimately oppressed in many ways. So enter feminism to address those inequities. The dictionary will tell you that feminism is a doctrine advocating social, political and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Women will tell you feminism is … well, it depends on the decade, because like all important things, feminism is always evolving. But with all of feminism’s changes, there seems to be two constants: 1) it confuses the hell out of women who don’t have a strong sense of themselves, and 2) it pisses off asshole men.

I went to college in the ’90s. That was the height of Naomi Wolf Beauty Myth feminism. My peers were women who liked Ani DiFranco and wanted to run with the wolves. The ’90s were fun, but they were filled with lots and lots of awful sex. I can’t tell you how many women I met whose idea of whether or not they were empowered was all tied up in how they liked to screw. And “tied up” could not be a more inappropriate phrase, because restraining a woman in bed only happened on liberal arts campuses in the ’90s during an exorcism.

Mayce Hodges
Please get possessed soon.

It saddened me, because I thought feminism was the freedom to have sex any dirty, filthy way you wanted without worrying about the psycho-sociological ramifications of being on your knees or having “property of Gladstone” written on your ass in lipstick. Personally, I never felt like any less of a man because of any particular kind of sex I was having, so why should a woman? Regardless of the sexual act, I was still a man, fully capable of driving a stick, hitting a baseball or getting into a fistfight. (Unless I was wearing that thing that did the thing to my thing, but that was just physics.) I thought women should have the same freedom and the same right to degrade and be degraded in any way that got them hot without having Naomi Wolf’s babble filling their heads, ruining their orgasms.

In time, however, the 21st century happened, and a new era of Sex and the City feminism entered. Suddenly, women were saying, yeah, we can be slutty, just like guys. After all, guys go out and try to get laid and brag about it, and society encourages them to do so. I’m going to do that too! Suddenly, you had college girls tweeting about blowjobs and wearing their sexuality on their sleeves, thinking that they were supposed to go out and ride the world for the sisters or they were somehow being oppressed. And though I would imagine this brand of feminism is a lot better for guys looking to get laid, it still makes me sad. It’s still putting a pressure on women that shouldn’t be there.

Aww, you’re better than this, ma’am. Also, what bar?

The whole premise is wrong. Yes, men are jealous of guys who get a lot of women, but women are wrong to think it’s a trait that garners much respect. No one says, “We need to calm corporate unrest — be sure to tell the shareholders how much tang our new CEO is getting.” It might surprise women, but do you know what we call guys who go out and try to screw everything? Whores. Know what we call the guy who’s always going on and on about all the women he’s landed? An asshole. And in my experience, even guys who are legitimately good at having a bunch of promiscuous sex wouldn’t make a big show of it.

It’s a subtle distinction. Yes, feminism is about women having the same right as men to be irresponsible, brash and slutty, I’ll agree. But being brash, irresponsible and slutty doesn’t make you a feminist. It doesn’t make you empowered. It just makes you as irresponsible, brash and slutty as some of the dudes we don’t like. Think of it this way: It was completely unjust to deny black citizens the right to vote, but having gained that right, would a black man be empowering his race by voting for a segregationist?

For more of Gladstone’s insight, check out The Trials of Gladstone (as told by Franz Kafka) and The 6 Best College Majors (For Filling You With Regret).