Science Digestive

Ambiguous new year!

2011-12-31T03:40:00.000-08:00

Today, I shall be hearing the phrase 'Happy new year' a lot. I don't like it.

I appreciate the sentiment behind it, when it is said to mean 'I hope you have a happy new year', often shortened to just 'happy new year', which is less specific but you can usually tell what is meant by it.

Ironically, saying 'happy new year' before the new year has actually started is one way of telling that it's intended to mean 'I hope the new year is a happy one for you'. Obviously as the old year is still currently happening, by default it requires a forward-looking, predictive element to the statement. Ergo, it obviously means the person saying it wants you to experience happiness in the new year. A cynic might suggest that this will inevitably happen at some point, as given the length of a year it's highly likely that some parts of it will be happy ones. It's possible to have an entirely miserable year, but in Western society by and large this is statistically unlikely.

So, when someone says 'happy new year' to me before midnight on new year's eve, I interpret that as them saying 'I hope the new year is a happy one for you to an extent that is beyond that anticipated by normal statistical likelihood'. Hypocritically of me though, if someone did actually say that in full, I'd be quite alarmed.

However, I do take issue with the phrase 'Happy new year' when used on Midnight on new years eve, and on most of new year's day. Because it's not a prediction then, it's a statement. And it's an inaccurate one, to say the least. As soon as the clock hits 12 on NYE, everyone starts saying happy new year as if it's an established fact. It isn't.

If you say 'happy new year' as the clock hits 12, what you are saying is 'the new year is here, and it's a happy one'. This, based on about 11 seconds of the year having actually passed. Undoubtedly, as you're probably at a party with friends and in a cheerful, inebriated state, they probably have been 11 happy seconds. But that's nowhere near a big enough sample to base such a firm conclusion on. A year is 31,557,600 seconds long. So, based on the initial 11 seconds, you've decided that the remaining 31,557,589 seconds will are definitely going to be happy ones? More fool you, that's not how things work at all. That's like declaring the winner of a marathon before most of the runners have even crossed the starting line, or crowning the winner of Masterchef before they've even got to the kitchen, based on the fact that you've spotted that one of the contestants is using an ingredient that you like. Such blasé attitudes annoy me, they aren't helpful.

Officially, if you're going to be declaring whether a year is happy or not, you should at least base your decision on the data provided by how half of the year has been. So the phrase 'Happy new year', in order to be a valid one, should be used around mid-June at the earliest, because then you have a decent body of data to go on, but you may also have noticed trends in the years progress and have an awareness of upcoming events.

However, stating it in mid-June means that the 'new' element of 'Happy new year' is now redundant and completely inaccurate. So, overall, there is now point where 'Happy new year' used as a statement rather than a prediction can be accurate. And as a scientist, I try to discourage inaccuracy wherever I can.

"Ah, but Dean", you may say, "you say you don't like inaccuracy, but earlier you said a year is 31,557,600 seconds long, when 60 secs x 60 (mins) x 24 (hours) x 365 (days) is actually 31,536,000 seconds, so surely your own accuracy needs more work?"

And I'd say yes, surprisingly observant and pedantic commenter, your maths is impeccable, but you have also overlooked the fact that, in astrological terms, the Earth orbits the sun every 365.25 days, this is why we have leap years. And even if you ignore the astronomical element, you have to take into account that every 4th year is 366 days long, so overall the average year is 365.25 days long, which is 31,557,600 seconds long. So, my accuracy is even more extreme than you realised, not less. But thanks for your concern.

So bear all this in mind, and when you're at a party and midnight rolls around, and someone says 'Happy new year' to you, you can tell them in detail why their statement is flawed, and I'm sure they'll thank you for it.

That's what I would do. But I don't get invited to new year's eve parties any more, for some reason.

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 20th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:23:00.001-08:00

December 20th: Sprouts

There are lots of really good things about Christmas, but then there are many parts that nobody likes at all. Namely; Sprouts! Everyone hates sprouts. Even the people who claim to like sprouts secretly hate them, seeing as everybody hates sprouts, apparently.

They sit there, on your plate, being rubbish and awful, spoiling the dinner for you with their small, green, evil, spherical presence. Why do we even have them? It's 'traditional', they say. Like having a tangerine in your stocking or having to endure the critical and racist proclamations of increasingly inebriated elderly relatives. It's the done thing, so you've got to do it.

Thing is, unlike the majority of other things on the Christmas dinner plate, sprouts are green. Why is that? Obviously, being a plant, they contain chlorophyll. You might not know chlorophyll, but it's the pigment that allows photosynthesis to happen, a process which is essential for pretty much all life on Earth. So that's nice.

Unlike all the other bone idle vegetables like potatoes, who just sit there underground, not doing anything apart from getting fat and sprouting feelers to spawn more greedy, useless offspring, sprouts are up and about, storing nutrients and also generating oxygen for us to breathe, essentially pulling double duty as both a source if vital gas and mass for us non-photosynthesising life forms.

And how do we repay them? We boil them to death, devour them en-masse, and complain about how crap they are the whole time. Is that was Christmas means to you people?

Ungrateful gits

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 19th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:22:00.001-08:00

December 19th: Uranium-235

Christmas can be described as a time of year where there is great deal of anticipation and work towards it. Then when it's finally arrived, it requires a lot of work to keep it under control, because if you don't keep an eye on it then it will get out of hand, and possibly cause devastating carnage in the brief space of time where it occurs.

Also, the presents. There's usually one thing you want. Possibly two. There are many things you'd like, but few things you actively want. And sometimes you get them, or you get something that gives more than you were expecting. That's always nice

Encapsulating both of these things is uranium-235, an isotope of Uranium that is the one we use to generate nuclear power. Uranium-235 has an odd atomic structure that means the nucleus can be split relatively easily, by the addition of another neutron. This releases a lot of energy, as there is a net loss of mass when the nucleus splits. This mass becomes energy.

Thing is, when the uranium-235 nucleus splits, it releases neutrons. These could feasibly hit another atomic nucleus and cause it to split, releasing energy and more neutrons, which could feasibly and so on and so on.

In the enriched form of Uranium, there pretty much always another atom within neutron-spitting distance, hence the chain reaction used to give us nuclear power, or nuclear weaponry.

Bright lights, followed by uncontrolled carnage. Isn't that just like Christmas?

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 18th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:21:00.001-08:00

December 18th: The Necker Cube

The build up of exciting, chunky presents under the tree is synonymous with Christmas. The soft, edgeless presents are fine, but everyone knows they're just socks. And since where were socks exciting?

No, it's the boxy, cubic/rectangular ones that really stoke the imagination. It could be anything? Anything that fits in a box. It might even be an Xbox, in a box. Like some sort of 'box squared'. Which, considering that squared is one step below cubed, which is what a box is, then a 'box squared' might suggest some sort of sub-box? It's a mathematical-philosophical minefield.

But one fun thing you can do with basic, transparent boxes is look at them. Yes, I said look at them. What's fun about that?

Well, if you look at a Necker cube, it's an image that can be perceived as both angled downwards, or upwards. There is nothing to distiguish the two states, so people either see it as pointing 'up', or pointing 'down'. Then, if you look at it long enough, it switches from one to the other. Then back again. Then back again. And so on.

It's just a good example of how the brain's perception system doesn't deal with ambiguity, so it tries to impose order on a visual stimulus when perhaps there is none.

So there you go, an example of how, in response to the most basic stimulus, your brain overshoots and gets things all messed up. So it's important, at such a hectic time as Christmas, to load up on as much stimulation as you can to keep it quiet, or maybe just obliterate it with excessive booze

Your choice, but either way, the doctor recommends!

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 17th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:19:00.001-08:00

December 17th: Coal

The traditional Santa mythology emphasises how he discernsbetween naughty and nice children. Nice children, they get toys. But what donaughty children get? It could be anything; reindeer dung, wood shavings, beardclippings, unwashed Santa pants, anything that the big man can get his hands onthat he and a child are unlikely to want.

But apparently, he gives them coal. This makes a superficial amountof sense. Coal is ‘dirty’. Coal can’t beplayed with. Coal is mundane.

That is, unless you’re a science fan, of course. If you are,what Santa Clause is essentially saying to you is; “you’ve been very bad, sowhat you’re getting is a mass that is essentially the compacted remains of dinosaurs andprehistoric plants, that is millions of years oldand has been processed by the incredible heat and pressure applied by the veryEarth itself, and extracted from the ground in conditions that areextremely dangerous and regularlykill people”.

Any bad kid worthy of the title should be very happy withcoal. But maybe they’re not? Maybe I just don’t understand kids. It’s an oldtradition, of course. But imagine the consequences of it all.

Bad kids get threatened with coal, don’t heed the warnings, andthen actually do receive coal. Children arguably don’t really have enough appreciationof the consequences of their actions to completely alter their behaviour to appeasesome omnipresent magic bearded man (whatever the Pope may tell you), so thereceiving of coal convinces them that life isn’t fair, and you have to lookafter number 1 in this world, every man/woman for himself etc. All other kids would have the cool toys theyso desire, but can’t have. This would be compounded further by the revelationthat there was never any Santa in the first place, so you can’t even trust yourfamily.

What you’d eventually end up with a large proportion of theadult population who had no real grasp of ethical behaviour, a fierce sense ofself interest, a covetous desire for the possessions of others and access to alot of coal.

What could possiblyhappen there...

(Short one today, and probably tomorrow, v busy of late)

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 16th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:18:00.003-08:00

December 16th: Ducks

There is one group for whom Christmas is not exactly ajoyful time of year. It’s the exact opposite if anything. I refer, of course tothe fowls. That’s ‘fowls’, no ‘Fowlers’,the desperately unlucky Eastenders family, although it works for them too, as itprobably does for any British soap opera family at Christmas.

But even more than unfortunate fictional families, fowls (Galleiforms, if youprefer) have good reason to fear Christmas, as it pretty much translates to ‘massslaughter’ for them. Something about Christmas makes humans, in the west, atleast, want to consume the flesh of a deceased relatively-obese bird. Not thatwe don’t do that at other times of year of course, but it becomes a bit moreintense at Christmas time.

Turkey has to bear the brunt of the festive lust for flesh,although chickens come in for it too, but then when do they not? This is likelyto be a result of Christmas occurring in the past when meat was somewhat moreof a luxury, rather than something that you can find discardedin gutters the morning after the day people beak up for work. If thequantity of meat was the priority, rather than the quality, then it’s no wonderTurkey came to theforefront of holiday foodstuffs, usually being the biggest, chunkiest of thefowls. Although given Christmases pagan roots, it does make you wonder wherethis whole ‘kill something big and consume its flesh’ ritual originally came from.

If that’s a bit of a dark way of thinking of things, I haveprecedent. Coming from a small Welsh village, by family growing up were part ofa small rural community where ovens large enough to cook whole turkeys werevery rare. I’m told that, on Christmas eve, it was normal for groups of thewomen to travel with their Turkeys en-masse to the local crematorium, whichwasn’t in use at that time of year. You can figure the rest out for yourself.

I have no evidence to back this up, it’s purely anecdotal.But still, put’s sprouts into perspective, doesn’t it?

But apparently, before Turkey (in the UK at least), it wasgoose. This makes sense; goose can be obtained in Britain, whereas Turkey isindigenous to America. And it’s a fairly hefty bird which, like turkey, doesn’treally get a lot of sympathy from people, as they’re believed to be nasty,unpleasant creatures. But this does draw up the fowl/waterfowl disparity.

One bird that seems to get off relatively lightly atChristmas (but notcompletely) is the humble duck. People have a bit of a soft spot for ducks,with their comical waddles and lust for bread. It’s possible to interact withducks in a pleasing, slaughter-free environment, so they are relativelyinnocuous.

Although maybe that’s not it? Maybe ducks are largelyavoided, and goose was replaced so readily, as festive food, because waterfowl (anseriformes, if youlike) are relatively very fatty. Cooking and eating them is, therefore, more ofa chore. Goose fat,which is smokeless, is still used to roast things, but it’s been separated fromthe goose long beforehand.

Evolution-wise, this makes perfect sense. If you end upspending a lot of time in the water, being made up of substances that increasebuoyancy/insulation is obviously going to be an advantage. So ducks and geeseare packed with fat, which is made up of a variety of fatty acids, which are hydrophobic and insulating.

Interesting chemistry anecdote, apparently fatty acids wereoriginally called aliphatic acids, but during the preparation of a paper in theearly days there was some dictation issues and the person typing it up thought,reasonably enough, that they were called ‘fatty acids’. The name stuck, forobvious reasons. (My chemistry teacher told me this, I don’t have a reference)

Also, did you know a ducksquack doesn’t echo? Well you shouldn’t, because it does.

So, ducks are like the new expensive toy that children wantfor Christmas. Looks cool, should be fun, but a lot more complicated and fiddlywhen you realise how many bits are involved, and it never does exactly what youthink it should

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 15th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:18:00.001-08:00

December 15th: Susan Greenfield

You get a lot of fictional pop culture stories aboutChristmas. Some are good,some are crap, some are surprisingly violent, but thecommon factor that unites a lot of them is that there is often a character orsome sort of body that, whether by design or by consequence, seems hell-bent onruining Christmas for everyone involved.

Scrooge,the Grinch, KingHerod, all fictional characters (apart from Herod) who's selfish desiresmean they are at best nonplussed, at worst pleased about the fact that theiractions ruin Christmas for innocent people. King Herod could, arguably, pleadignorance given the context, and also given the fact that it's unlikely that hedid any of that stuff in the Bible, but that's by the by.

Of course, in the real world, we don't have people who wouldbe so honest about their festive-cheer-destroying actions. Ruining Christmas isfrowned upon. But then, some people still do their best.

We can't eattoo many of those treaty things, that's bad for you. Don't undercook theTurkey, that's probably poisonous. Drinking too much? Don't do that, you'll probably die. Have you notspent enough on gifts? then you're ruiningthe economy. Have you spent too much on gifts? Then you're stupid fornot having enough money saved for the months ahead. Are you a Christian?Then how dare you not appreciate Jesus enough at this time of year. Are you nota Christian? Then how dare you not appreciateJesus enough at this time of year. And on it goes.

But at least, once all the health and morality concerns haveweighed down on you with their guilty burdens, you can enjoy some time playingwith your gifts (if you're a child), or playing with the children's gifts (ifyou're not). Nothing wrong with that, surely? With all the other guilt-inducinghealth-destroying elements of Christmas, a bit of harmless play is fine, right?

No. It's not. So say's Baroness Susan Greenfield,previously celebrated Neuroscientist, tabloid darling and apparent nemesis ofall things technological and fun. Inthis society, most entertainment items are a lot more high tech than they usedto be. But that's bad! Anything that over stimulates you, anything that mightbe enjoyable that comes with a plug or battery (within reason, pervs) is badfor young minds, because it might corrupt them in someill-defined way.

Susan Greenfield is seemingly opposed to anything whichneeds a screen to work. Be it videogames (except the onesshe makes money from, presumably), the internet,or even porch doors (possibly). That last one might seem like a wild accusationbased on nothing, but that seems to be the way she does business. I've made myopinions on Greenfield's views quiteclear before now, so please see that if you want a thorough critique of whyher views are so much hot air. But it bears repeating here as it's a Christmas,and you might possibly end up letting kids enjoy their new games worry free,and we can't have that now can we?

So keep it in mind, if you see a child enjoying themselveswith something electronic this Christmas, be sure to wrench it from their gasp,berate them for befouling their young minds with too much stimulation, and kickthem outdoors to play, where it's clearly just as stimulating, but colder andwith more dog crap, so it doesn't count for some reason.

Next time, Andrew Wakefield explains to us how colouredfairy lights lead to diabetes and premature balding (in men and women)

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 14th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:17:00.003-08:00

December 14th: Quantum Entanglement

All this talk of Father Christmas travelling around theworld in one night, visiting every child and delivering at least one gift foreach of them (or something unpleasant for the ones who have not met his ill-definedbut thoroughly checked criteria for being 'nice', but either way, mass is donated to each child), it's all welland good. But how could he do this? It's all very well saying that he's'magic', but that's not really an explanation, that's hand waving and invokingthe mythical Macguffin.

In this day of instant internet access and Children beingbetter at computers than their parents, it's harder and harder to fob children offwith blaze non-explanations. They'll just go and look it up if you don'tprovide a satisfactory answer, and then they'll realise the whole 'FatherChristmas is real' thing is just an elaborate con told to kids for ill-definedreasons. Their ignorance will be shattered by finding out the harsh truth attoo-young an age, they will lose all trust of their parents and become acynical and ill-disciplined child, eventually becoming an authority-buckingteenager who will have no qualms in experimenting with drugs and casual sex,eventually dropping out of the education system and becoming a homelessderelict who survives thanks to petty theft and small-scale drug dealing. Allbecause you couldn't think of a good explanation for the activities of SantaClause. Is that what you want?

So, here's an idea. Is it possible that the Santa-system isone based on quantumentanglement? That mysterious system whereby previously connectedparticles/molecules/miscellaneous remain entangled by some unknown mechanism. Quantum mechanics hasgiven us a lot of weird stuff to consider, and this is one of the good ones.You split two entangled particles and separate them by a great distance, thenmanipulate one, and the other will show direct signs of that manipulation,despite the fact that it's very far away. A direct connection that transcends spaceand time? That would come in handy, wouldn't it.

So maybe Santa is the master of quantum? If he was capableof large-scale quantum manipulation, it would explain a lot. Let's look at thearguments.

· As previously pointed out, his naughty/nice listhas to take into account the vast fluctuations in the Earth's child population,their associated behaviours and locations, and as a result this list has to beconstantly updated and checked at least twice. This would require anextraordinary degree of computational power. Modern CPUs may not be up to thetask, but a quantumcomputer? That should be easily capable. But the processes that wouldsupport quantum computing are notoriously fragile,and would probably require a very stable, low energy environment to functionproperly, so Santa would have to spend a lot of time in some verycold, isolated environment...

· Actually, how can Santa possibly know if everychild is being bad or good? The songs suggest he personally watches every childwhich, as well as being creepy, is a big task. But what if he had a directquantum connection into the home of every child? For someone with hismanipulation of quantum processes skills, it wouldn't take much, just a smallsample of matter from something that is still in the child's home, per se.Let's say, I don't know, the ink from a pen or graphite from a pencil? But eventhen, the establishing of a quantum connection to every child would requireevery child to write something and send it directly to Santa. Which isridiculous...

· How does he get to every child's home in asingle night? Well, one possible explanation for quantum entanglement is thatentangled things stay connectedvia wormholes, that Science-fiction go-to favourite. Connecting two disparate pointsof space to allow instantaneous travel between them in a manner that is outsidethe usual temporal constraints, that would be handy wouldn't it? Using theinitial connection established by the child's scribbling (see above), SaintNick could establish more reliable connections with each visit, all he'd haveto do is leave something in the child's possession that he created and that'sentangled with something in his home base. So it would have to be something thechild didn't have before, but that they'd be unlikely to panic about or disposeof. Like a toy, for example. Teenagers eventually stop writing to Santa and puttheir toys away, so he stops coming.

· Actually, what would this wormhole travel looklike, to someone who was lucky enough to witness it? It's bound to be a veryhigh energy process, so it would look like a large fat man emerging from abright, high-energy opening that appears to lead to a tight tunnel that hecouldn't possibly fit into according to normal spatial laws. But people who seethis wouldn't have the vocabulary to explain this, so they'd have to describeit using metaphorsthey can relate to.

· But Santa isn't often spotted, is he? You'dthink with millions of children trying to catch a glimpse, a few hundred wouldbe successful, just based on the law of averages alone? But if Santa hascontrol of quantum processes, he could well have the ability to manipulate his superposition.Santa may exist in a condition of unspecified possibilities. If someone doessee him, it should be feasible for him to collapse the quantumwave function to a state where he isn't there at all. Or maybe he cantransfer into some parallelworld where he's in the room but the child isn't. It's quantum, why thehell not?

So there you go. If a child ever asks you how Santa doeswhat he does, feel free to give them the full Quantum explanation.

'But Dean', you may say, 'how does he do all this? Whatgives him such mastery of quantum processes? And what's the deal with theReindeer?'

I don't know. He's not actually real, so just chill out, no needto get carried away.

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 13th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:17:00.001-08:00

December 13th: The Periodic Table

One phrase that keeps popping up a lot during Christmas is ‘makinga list, checking it twice’. This suggests a few things, namely that SantaClause has a LOT of time on his hands. Making a list of every eligible child onearth, that’s an arduous task, and possibly a never-ending one considering thebirth rate of human society (let alone checking it twice). I would suggest thatit’s unlikely that he could ever have it done within the space of single year,when you include the births, accidental deaths and children graduating fromchildhood to teenage/cynical phase that occur constantly throughout the year.It’s like painting thatbridge.

But then again, if we’re starting to go through all thethings that Santa claims to be able to achieve that aren’t logically possible,that is, ironically, a list that’s never going to end.

Speaking of ongoing, overly complex lists, science has onein the form of the periodic table. Never mind checking it twice, the periodictable has been ‘checked’ countless times, with adjustments being made wheneverrequired. Much like Christmas gift lists, it was all much simpler in the olddays. It was just a block of wood and an orange then (or Earth, wind, fire andwater from an elemental perspective). But these days it’s all PS3 games andtamagotchis! And in terms of the periodic table, it’s noblegasses, transitionmetals and transuraniumelements. Particularly with regards to the latter, it’s hard to check themtwice when, being the products of nuclearreactions, they have a fraction of a second. But saying that, some have ahalf life of millions of years. So, you know, no rush.

But how could I summarise the complexity and detail of the periodictable in an understandable and entertaining way in just one blogpost?

I can’t. Simple as that. So instead, here’s the awesomescience rapper Jon Chase to do it in the form of rap foryou. Merry Christmas.

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 12th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:16:00.003-08:00

December 12th: The Fovea

Christmas. There’s a lot more that goes into it than oneperson can feasibly experience. The amount of preparation involved in acquiringgifts, all that food to get, cook, and give to people who may well be toointoxicated to recognise what it is they’re consuming. The decorations, the work scheduling to getit all organised, the arrangements, the visits. A lot of effort by one part,which may be experienced as nothing more than a brief visit and an exchange of pointlessChristmas cards by another party. It’s tragic, in a way.

And that’s just on a small-scale, individual family basis. Whatabout the industrial processes that go into the whole festive season? Christmasseems to have a profound effect on the whole economy, it’s reported in thenews, with constant update son how the high-street is doing. And think of the manpowerthat goes into converting every branch of every multinational into a more ‘festive’style. Even the fictional aspects, the Santa and his elves thing, if that weretrue, it would involve countless hours of manual (‘elf’ual?) labour and theviolation of spacetime by a bearded fat man; and for what? This herculean effortis experienced by individual children as a period of excitement and theacquisition of a few more flimsy toys. Is that really all it amounts to?

This shouldn’t be surprise though, seeing as humans experiencesuch a thing on a regular basis. Our own eyes and brains are actually capableof experiencing only a small fraction of the visual stimulus that constantlybombards us. You’d probably assume that our eyes encode the visual scene weexperience in much the same way as a camera processes an image; light goes in, getsmoved around a bit, then sent to the brain/film/memory card. But no, not thehuman eye.

When it comes to fine detail, the sort of useful, accurate,specific processing is limited to an alarmingly small area. It’s the fovea, the part of theeye that’s most densely packed with photoreceptors(only cones, no rods, by the way). It can pickup on the small details, the finer points, and no other part of the eye can. It’slike a very small searchlight casting about through the fog of our visual sensoryinput. What we essentially do is use the fovea to focus (no pun intended) onthings which our visual systems classify as worthy of attention. Visualpsychology experiments have used trackingsoftware to follow a person’s eye movements when looking at stimuli such aselaborate paintings. It’s interesting, the tracking pattern is like someonetried drawing the painting themselves on an etch-a-sketch while suffering seriousdrunken tremors.

But it’s enough. The brain can take this scattering ofdetailed glimpses andbuild up a detailed and, more relevantly, useful perception of the world itself.All from a part of the retina that’s no even a millimetre in diameter. Even forsomething as small in area as the retina, that’s a pretty pathetic amount ofspace given over to detailed perception, don’t you think? Especially when the peripheryof the retina can’teven encode colour (our brain just infers it later in the processing stage,if you’re wondering).

But if you did think the fovea was a measly allocation ofuseful processing space, look at it this way; this measly bit of retinal spaceis sufficient to provide us with the sort of rich detailed vision we take forgranted, despite the fact that it’s mostly the result of brain processingrather than direct sensation. You want more? Well, if the fovea were twice thediameter it is, we’d actually need brains the size of beach balls to handle thedata input. And that wouldn’t be practical. We’d need crackers to have paperhats that were a lot bigger (there may also be other consequences, like needingbigger wigs if you’re a bald man).

So yeah, the effort that goes into making Christmas happenis just like our visual perception; far more is going on than we can actuallyperceive. But what we have, that is usually more than enough.

See, I can do schmaltzy too, just so you know.

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 11th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:16:00.001-08:00

December 11th: Kepler 22-b

For some, Christmas is all about the anticipation. What you'regoing to get, how other's are going to react to what you get them, will you getwhat it is you actually want, are you going to end up never speaking to certainfamily members again? The possibilities are what get some people worked up, tothe point where the actual main reveal is something of a disappointment.

At the time of writing this, a similar situation exists inthe astronomical community, as well as, to a certain extent, the 'understandingthe universe and our place in it' community, although they can get a littletheological/philosophical at times. The sort of people you would invite roundfor dinner, but wouldn't want them renting your spare room for fear of constantdiscussions about man's role in the grand scheme of life itself when all youwant them to do is pay for some of the milk they keep stealing from you.

Recently, it was announced that the most Earth-like planetto date was discovered.Named Kepler 22-b, it's sparked a lot of debate andconversation about the ramifications of the possibility of life, the uniquenessof Earth, interest in space travel and numerous other things. Its location isknown, it's in the right place to support life (by our standards, anyway) inthe 'Goldilockszone', it's bigger than Earth but notexcessively so, and it's (by galactic standards) right downthe road. But they don't know if it's made of mostly gas, rock or air yet(but judging by the name, they seem to know its cup size?) so it may be completelyuseless for what we 'want'?

This is the space science equivalent of the big chunkysquare present under the tree with your name on it. It could be the new laptopyou've been going on about, it could be a new PS3 that you're sure you've hearda few hints about, or it could be a large pair of novelty pants in an oversizedbox.

Time will tell, but in many ways, the waiting ends up being thebest part. That is sort of the point of advent calendars, in a way

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 10th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:14:00.003-08:00

December 10th: Trilobites

You get a lot of ‘stuff’ at Christmas, don’t you? It’s different kinds of stuff, yes; But a lotof ‘stuff’, overall. Some of the stuff is very obviously Christmas stuff, someof the stuff is everyday stuff that is just receiving more attention than usualbecause it’s Christmas.

For example, cheap decorations (tinsel, baubles etc.) andred bobble hats = Christmas stuff. Vegetables, nuts and winter clothing =regular stuff that is rendered festive by the Christmas period. And this firstpart of this piece has the word ‘stuff’ in it far too much, doesn’t it?

That’s sort of the point though. What defines ‘stuff’? Itcould be argued that it’s the sort of thing that is encountered often and/or inlarge enough quantities that it breaches the point where the human mind findsit necessary to specify it in any detail. And we encounter this sort of thingoften at Christmas.

The brain is quite good at filtering and generalising whenpresented with too much stimuli. “What did you get for Christmas?” “You know,stuff” (Pairs of socks/pants, deodorant, slippers if you’re of a certain agegroup). Those chocolates you get in thebig tins, the ones that have nougat or that hard crystallised stuff which nobodycan identify, they’re generally lumped together as ‘leftover stuff’. And so on.

Scientifically, stuff has a different meaning. DarkMatter, for example, is ‘stuff’ because it is impossible to specify. There’slots of it (supposedly), but scientists are very keen to actually see thebloody stuff (although by definition, that shouldbe impossible). However, scientifically speaking, it’s rare for a speciesto be classified as ‘stuff’.

If any has managed this bizarre achievement, it’s the Trilobite. One of the mostabundant fossil types you’ll find, it’s more of a species type than anindividual species. Trilobites arrived on the scene, life-on-Earth-wise over half a billion years ago,and hung around for at least a quarter billion years. In comparison, humans arejust at the point where we’ve crawled out of the sea.

Trilobites. Theyspread everywhere.They swam, they hunted, they filtered, theygrazed, they may well have dressed up like bats and fought crime (althoughthis is doubtful as this was long before the existence of bats, or crime as weknow it, probably).

Then they died out, as things often do. With theirexoskeletons and widespread antics, they left durable remainseverywhere, becoming the fossil equivalent of a pair of socks at Christmas; notsomething you’re unhappy about getting, but it will probably be thrown asidewhile you seek out the ‘cool’ stuff.

But there will come a time when you need the socks, andwhile that games console is riddled with bugs and just causes frustration andheadaches, the socks are always reliable and useful. Trilobites are a bit likethat. Despite the fact that most lay people would think of them as fossil‘stuff’ (if they think of them at all), trilobites have taught us an amazing number of things.Or ‘stuff’, if you prefer.

Trilobites and socks at Christmas; generally ignored, butwe’d be complaining if they weren’t around. We’re so ungrateful as a species.

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 9th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:14:00.001-08:00

December 9th: Robert Liston

For your typical adult, Christmas always seems to fly by. Thisis probably a consequence of the ever increasing build-up to Christmas, which thecommercial sector currently starts advertising some time around the summersolstice. With a build up that lasts for at least 2 meteorological seasons forsomething that lasts about 3 days (not counting the desperate Bacchanal that is NewYears Eve), it's no wonder that Christmas seems to go by in a mad rush.

But despite the ludicrous build up time, there still seemsto be a frantic sense of rush around Christmas. There have been months to geteverything done, but still the shops are clogged on Christmas eve with peoplesuffering a sudden attack of remembering they have family, , and whoever is in chargeof hosting the family on the day itself usually ends up as a twitching mass ofstress and tension, red enough to rival the jolly fat man himself (either Santaor some bloated sleazy uncle who keeps turning up despite nobody knowing whohe's related to, take your pick).

Couple this with the tendency of some children to tear thewrapping off presents so manically that you wonder if they've got secret a habitof snorting crack out of shiny boxes, and there's a palpable sense offranticness and speed around the festive season. Everyone has a lot to do, andit seemingly against the clock.

When it comes to science, the man who personifies this is RobertListon, fastest knife in the West End (I didn't make that up, that's an actual nickname)

The link will give you all you need to know about Liston, butjust in case you prefer to finish this first, Liston was a surgeon. Everyonerespects a surgeon, right? The abilityto actually delve inside a living human being, repair a living, biological systemthat's not working to a potentially fatal extent, and put everything backtogether so the patient lives through the whole thing; what more noble,honourable profession is there?

Liston was nothing like that.

It's important to remember, for all that some people mightnot like it now (I'm looking at you , homeopaths!),medicine used to be a hell of a lot worse in the 1800s,and surgery in particular. The 3 main developments that made surgery somethingpeople survived with some regularity were anaesthetics, analgesicsand antiseptics,meaning people stopped dying due to the horrific pain during surgery, thehorrific pain after surgery, or infections caused by the surgery (this wouldhave been before germs were even properly discovered and recognised assomething to avoid, so hospitals were rarely cleaned; why would they be?) Bloodloss is also a problem, but they've got that essentially under control toothese days.

Liston operated (in every sense of the word) before any ofthese things were taken into account during surgery. The only thing thatmattered was speed. Medical knowledge wasn't as advanced as it is now, so it wasa simple two-step system; lop it off, quick as you can. Job done.

Liston was the best at this. He brought the energy andenthusiasm of a hyperactive child opening presents on Christmas day to theoperating theatre. And you know how sometimes those kids will get so carriedaway they actually end up damaging the present as well, sometimes irreparably?Liston did that too.

Which is a nice way of saying he killed a lot of people withhis enthusiasm. And you may be thinking 'surely with no anaesthetics or hygiene,pretty much everyone undergoing surgery died back then?' And you'd be right,but Liston went the extra mile and is one of the only surgeons to have killedbystanders.

This is a guy who accidentally cut offa man's testicles during one surgery (I'm assuming that wasn't what the operationwas actually for), but his most famous case was when he amputated a leg in 2and half minutes and killed 3 people. In these days of the 1800's, surgery wasa popular form of entertainment, hence the term operating'theatre'. People would gather round and just watch. It's like Saw3D, only with no popcorn, so it probably smelled slightly better.

During this one amputation, Liston cut off the patients leg,but the patient died from gangrene anyway. He also cut off the fingers of an assistantwho was restraining him. The assistant also died from gangrene. At the end ofthe amputation, he somehow got carried away and slashed through a spectatorscoat, and they promptly died of shock from the fright. When people say 'naturalmedicine', this is the sort of thing they never think of.

Imagine a child so carried away when opening a present theybreak 3 of their siblings gifts, take someone's eye out, stamp on the dog andset fire to the tree. Now give that child a saw and you've essentially gotRobert Liston.

Just to put the fast pace of the Christmas period into somesort of perspective.

Happy Friday!

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 8th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:13:00.001-08:00

December 8th: Ice

Another persistent theme of the festive season is one ofsnow and other cold-weather phenomenon (if you’re in the Northern hemisphere,that is; conditions are different in the southern hemispheregiven the seasonal variations, but I’m not sure to what extent westernisedcultural norms overrule logic in this instance)

Every recognisable festive image or icon, be it a space-timedefying over-generous bearded fatman, and indoorfir tree, a sleepypicturesque village or anything in a liquid-filled globe that you shake,has to be covered in or at least be in close proximity to some snow. And whatis snow? It’s just ice with a lack of discipline.

People can be a bit hypocritical about ice and snow atChristmas, though. They celebrate its image, even going so far as to get imitationsof it to decorate with, and they’ll espouse on the joys and merits of children playing in it.But when ice and snow actually does show up, it gets nothing but complaints.This is like name dropping a successful friend or family member to impressother people and get things your own way, but if said person then shows up andasks if they can say with you for a few days, all you do is whinge about theinconvenience, like how you have to pay more for the heating bill and they useup all your salt.

We all like to have a moan about the snow and ice if andwhen we are confronted with it, that’s almost part of the tradition (of a UKChristmas at least). But so is giftgiving and generosity, we’re told. And yes, ice is annoying; it bursts thepipes, clogs up the traffic, occasionally causes us to fall over and breaksomething, and forces us to wear thick clothes which are impractical andannoying for tasks requiring fine motor control. However, this list of gripesdoes seem somewhat petty when you consider what ice provides in return; namely,the existence of life on Earth.

Granted, there are probably some sulphur breathingworms on undersea volcanic vents which would dispute this fact, if theywere capable of complex cognitive processes and cross-species interaction,which is doubtful. But even they might be indebted to the icy goodness. Life aswe know it on Earth wouldn’t be possible without ice doing what it does, and I’mnot just referring to the FrozenPlanet life, as cool as it may be (pardon the pun).

As you may probably know, ice doesn’t behave like most othersolid substances. For one thing, it’s less dense than the liquid form of thesubstance, water. Ice floats, which is nice. This means it forms a sort of protective, insulatinglayer on bodies of water in very cold conditions, allowing liquid water topersist beneath, rather than ice sinking and eventually causing the whole massof water to freeze solid.

As you probably know, liquid water is integral for life toexist, providing an essential medium for pretty much all biological processesto occur in, being known as a universalsolvent.

Unlike all the other chalcogens, H₂O isa liquid at room temperature. Oxygen, being a bit of a greedy molecule, tendsto hog all the electrons in this molecular state, giving it a net negativecharge, leaving the poor hydrogen atoms (or ‘protons’ if you prefer) allexposed and naked in their positivity. This means water molecules are ‘polar’,negative on one end, positive on the other, like a magnet, sort of (actually, how dothey work?). Essentially this means water molecules are drawn to each otherunder typical environmental conditions, rendering it a liquid.

But when it’s cold enough, the hydrogen bonds that are sorapidly formed and broken in liquid water become more ‘fixed’, as there’s lessenergy to break them, feeble as they are. But hydrogen bonds are actuallylonger than the polar bonds in liquid water, meaning the molecules arefurther apart, meaning it’s less dense than the liquid.

It’s like getting a box of Lego for Christmas. When it’sin a box, it’s closely packed but all ‘loose’, you can shake it about. When it’sassembled into something, it’s a lot more rigid but also takes up a lot morespace. And it’s essentially stable, but takes a certain amount of energy beforeit reverts to its ‘fluid’ state. With ice, it’s a significant introduction ofheat energy, with Lego it’s more of a misplaced foot and a lot of swearing.Either way, the result is the same; rigid but fragile bonds are broken.

It’s a lot more complicated of course, but essentially itgoes like this: Ice floats àLife exists.

Also, its inclusion makes everything look ‘Christmassy’, andenhances the quality of various beverages, alcoholic or otherwise. It’s up toyou which is more important, but surely that’s enough to overlook a few burstpipes or traffic jams during the festive season?

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 7th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:12:00.003-08:00

December 7th: Patient HM

For many people, the Christmas period is used as a sort of'anchor' for memory. It is generally accepted, regardless of the evidence tosupport this, that Christmas is a happy time, a period of childhood inparticular where there is a strong emotional component, where a lot of goodthings are condensed into one short period and so tend to stick in the memory.

In a way, the Christmas period gives us the opposite of PostTrauamtic Stress Disorder, PTSD. PTSDis a serious issue for many people, and one of the hallmarks of it is atendency to mentally 'relive' the memory of the incident that led to the trauma.This may seem illogical. Why would we want to keep repeating things we findunpleasant? After a bout of food poisoning, we don't go straight back to thekebab shop we stumbled into at 2.30 am and order another discount 'box of meat',just to repeat the colourful experience. But with PTSD, people do apparentlyconstantly relive the cause of their distress, like a diabetic injecting syrupinto their veins for 'fun'.

It's a product of the way our memory systems work. Thetraumatic experience kicks our autonomic nervous systeminto high gear, with our fight-or-flight coordinating sympatheticnervous system flooding our bodies with adrenaline and thelike. and one of the consequences of this is that it amplifies the memory processingaspects of the limbicsystem, which is also heavily involved in emotion processing. It makessense, in an evolutionary context. If you find yourself in a dangerousposition, facing a considerable threat, it would be best to remember it asvividly as possible, so that you rapidly learn to avoid it in future. Humankindmay not have survived if our memories of sabre-tooth tiger encounters wererecalled as just 'brown snarling thing, big teeth, or possibly tusks?'. Assuch, our brains are wired for intense recall of emotionally intenseexperiences. These ones stand out from our daily memories like a big shiny staron a Christmas tree, which is just a green mass with shiny bits on it.

Admittedly, this is not how memory is described in manytextbooks, but then academic literature has never really targeted the festivemarket. It's a niche sadly overlooked, one that this blog is hoping to corner.

But if PTSD can cause us to relive unpleasant experiences,perhaps Christmas can have the same effect in the opposite way? For a child,it's an intense period of pleasure, gratification, acquisition and all thingsfun and magical, perhaps the flood of positive emotions cause the memoriesformed at this time to be more salient? We always tend to look back atchildhood Christmases with a rosy glow. Unless they were shit.

But or most people, childhood Christmases are period thatthey wish would never end. But look at that realistically for a second. Whatkind of life would that be? Never moving on, never progressing, it's justalways 'now'. Sounds horrible, really.

One person who knew exactly what this was like (or, more realistically,could have known but was unable to do so) was patient H.M. Although itsounds a bit like the name given to someone undergoing some sort ofsuper-soldier research project, the trusth was far more mundane and far moreuseful to science.

Patient HM suffered from crippling temporal lobe epilepsy.In order to treat this, surgeons basically removed his temporal lobes. Presumablythey'd mainly treated people suffering appendicitis before this point.

Although it cures his epilepsy, patient HM didn't know this.He didn't know much about anything after the surgery, as he lost the ability toform new memories. He still had his short term memory, but that has a capacityof about30 seconds, which isn't much use really. He was like the guy from Memento, but without a burningdesire for revenge to motivate him to do stuff.

For the remainder of his life, HM's most recent long termmemory was preparing for the surgery. Thanks to his condition, we've learned a greatdeal about the human memory system, as we're not really allowed to cut out bitsof people's brains in order to see what happens, even if they'renot bothered about it.

Patient HM contributed a great deal to the study of thehuman mind, despite the fact that he knew nothing about this. And Christmas isall about generosity, isn't it? And what could be more generous giving a greatdeal without even the minimal conscious awareness of it? Although that latteralso describes victims of theft, so maybe it's not an ideal comparison.

Patient HM passed away almost 3 years ago exactly, with almost6 decades of his life that he had no memory or awareness of, all of itacknowledged briefly but then discarded like the umpteenth pair of hideoussocks given to you for Christmas by a doddery relative.

Patient HM; gone, but not forgotten.

…actually, given the context, that last bit is quiteinsensitive. Apologies.

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 6th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:12:00.001-08:00

December 6^th: Higgs Boson

You get a lot of weird things at Christmas that attempt toderail the usual levels of cynicism of the world in general. A sense ofindulgence, a willing suspension of disbelief when asked to considermagical/fantastical claims, childlike glee and enthusiasm, a ridiculous amountof expense spent on something that may prove to be pointless.

Surely scientists, with their logic, cold reason, lack of asense of wonderment, and overarching sense of seriousness, could never succumbto such ludicrous behaviour?

Well obviously this isn’t the case, and the title of thisentry obviously reveals what I’m going to be referring to.

In a surprising number of ways, the Higgs Boson elicitsbehaviour in the world of science that has many obvious parallels withChristmas, or a certain festive someone. For starters, the Higgs Boson iswidely believed to exist, but its existenceis not proven. The mere possibility of it appearing at all is enough to geteveryoneworked up. There have been plenty of signsfor it being there, but nobody’s actually seen it. Remind you of anyone? Sure,there’s plenty of fictionabout it, and people behave as if it’s real, but that’s not really proof. What weneed is more. The ruffled foliage, eyewitness accounts, food going missing, afootprint maybe, tantalising, but that’s not enough for proper scientists.That’s what the Higgs Boson is like, though.

The Higgs boson is believed to be the particle that givesall otherparticles mass. So the Higgs is a possibly-real thing that distributesthings to other things, and asks nothing in return? Its influence iswidespread, but nobody really knows what it is. That sounds a lot like a certainfestive Christmas figure, doesn’t it...?

Of course, the certain Christmas figure I’m referring to (ifthey exist in the state they’re believed to exist in and are capable of whatthey’re supposedly capable of) could only come about thanks to some very exoticscience going on. And when it comes to exotic science, there’s notmuch to beat the Higgs Boson hunt.

Another thing this Christmas figure is associated with isthe cold. Well, it doesn’t get much colder than the hunt for the Higgs boson,with physicists lowering the temperatures to colderthan the vacuum of space just to catch a glimpse of it. It seems whereverthis Higgs Boson goes, there’s a lot of expensive gear that endsup broken relatively quickly in its wake. This is also true when a certainsomeone else passes through. Thanks to them, you end up with a lot of expensivestuff lying around that tends to end up in an unusable state due to mishaps,proving perhaps that money doesn’t buy reliability.

It can’t be denied that, however much we think we knowalready, finally encountering the Higgs boson would fundamentallyalter our understanding of how our own world works, and expand ourawareness of what’s possible far beyond the current levels. The same could besaid if we were to actually encounter and observe the festive you-know-who.

Many people refer to the Higgs as the ‘God particle’. This is close to what Iwas referring to, the all powerful, science defying individual that he is. ButI think it is far more symbolic of that other semi-mythical figure I’ve alludedto; the one that’s always seen around the yuletide season.

I am of course referring to Godzilla.You often see him around Christmas time, as a toy or on TV or if a cheapskateyou know hates you enough to buy you the DVD of the American remake.

This also proves that the associations made in this piecewere a lot more tenuous than they first appeared. And it ended up beingsomething else entirely, probably not what most people expected at all. A morefitting analogy of the search for the Higgs would be hard to come by.

How exciting!

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 5th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:11:00.001-08:00

December 5th: Cuttlefish

Often at Christmas or the festive period in general, therewill be mention of some sort of animal with bizarre or even magical properties.Robins that can summon the end of the season of Winter, reindeer that can fly andseemingly violate multiple laws of time and space, sheep that are able to lookafter themselves if their herders decide to wander off and look at a messiah,donkeys that can carry a heavily pregnant woman for days on end, and Turkey’sthat can seemingly resist being cooked no matter how long they spend in theoven.

But all of these are in the realm of fantasy (except theturkey one). What about animals that seemingly have miraculous properties whilesticking to the laws of science? Well, one such incredible creature is thecuttlefish.

The cuttlefish is, for want of a better term, freakish (byhuman standards, of course). First off, it’s not even a fish, it’s a mollusc.So it’s practicing deception before we’ve even encountered it.

Anatomically, the cuttlefish is as alien and weird as you’dexpect from a sea-bound invertebrate, but perhaps even more so. They have 8arms and 2 tentacles (these are different things in cephalopod termsapparently, tentacles are longer and only have suckers on the tips, unlike armswhich have them all along their length). So they have a choice of manipulativelimbs, as opposed to our 2 crappy arms, which are both essentially the same.

They communicate via a very impressive ability to change thecolour and polarisation of their skin via cromatophores, in ways that willleave a chameleon looking like about as impressive as a Windows ’95screensaver. The detailed resolution they can achieve on their own skin canrival modern inkjet printers, making this an extremely sophisticated form ofvisual communication, which they can control. This is sort of like typingwriting a text message by having to manipulate each individual pixel into thecorrect alignment. Anyone who’s ever had an etch a sketch for Christmas willknow that humans aren’t really up to this level of manipulation.

In terms of visual communication using their own bodies, the besthumans can do is sign language. But bear in mind, cuttlefish also use theirskin patterning abilities to camouflage and avoid predators. This is likehumans putting their hands over their eyes doing the ‘you can’t see me’ thingwhen under attack, and the attacker agreeing and going away.

Also worth pointing out, cuttlefish can turn their skin awide variety of different patterns, but they can’t actually see colour. So howthey know what they’re doing is anyone’s guess. They can see polarised lightand we can’t though, so swings and roundabouts.

Cuttlefish are also highly intelligent, potentiallypoisonous, have way better eyes than we do and have multiple hearts and greenblood, the latter making them some sort of potential Time Lord/Vulcanamalgamation. Cuttlefish ink even led to the colour scheme of sepia. So everymodern graphics programme and digital camera pays homage to the cuttlefish.Apple would kill for that level of influence.

All in all, it’s lucky they’re aquatic creatures and stuckin the sea, otherwise they’d be a real threat to humanity. It should be finethough, so long as humans don’t do anything stupid like raising the sea levels.

But why would Cuttlefish have a grudge against humans, whathave we ever done to them? Sure, we eat them, but we eat everything, and theyeven eat each other, so that’s not something they can have a go at us for.

Well, it turns out that cuttlefish are also unique in naturefor possessing a cuttlebone, a specialised rigid internal structure that allowsa cuttlefish to control its buoyancy via complicated system of siphons. Thiscuttlebone used to be used to make jewellery and polish, sometimes intoothpaste. But these days, we use it primarily to provide calcium for cagedbirds.

Cuttlefish are some of the craziest, smartest, most capableorganisms on Earth, and we slaughter them en masse so we can have slightlyshiner teeth, and so our budgies don’t get brittle bones in those legs theyrarely use.

You know when you’ve gone to extreme lengths tocreate/acquire the most perfect, impressive or just downright spectacularChristmas present you can for someone? And they just shrug and throw it aside,but say they’ll use the box to keep their potatoes in or something? Imagine ifthey did that, but gleefully attacked you with a chainsaw to get the box from you.

That’s essentially what we do to cuttlefish on a dailybasis. When they do rise up and kill us all, I can only hope they do it swiftly and mercifully.

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 4th [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:09:00.001-08:00

December 4^th: Gillian McKeith

One ofthe more jovial Christmas Carols is ‘Santa Clause is coming to town’. However,many people have pointed out that the lyrics are somewhat alarming.

“He knows when you are sleeping, he’s knows when you’reawake. He knows if you’ve been bad or good so be good for goodness sake”. Thislyric is less suggestive of a kindly old magical gift-dispensing man and more indicativeof some sort of vigilante. At some heavy guitar riffs and this song could bethe ideal theme to the cartoon ‘The Punisher: The high school years’.

There’salso the line ‘You’d better not shout, you better not cry, you’d better not pout,I’m telling you why’. This is also alarming, suggesting that any normal, emotionalhuman reaction to the individual being discussed will not be tolerated and metwith serious retribution. This is not the sort of behaviour one would normallyattribute to Santa Clause, it’s more suggestive of the Borg. Resistance isfutile, after all.

But oneindividual who does seem to inspire this sense of foreboding and dread inpeople is Gillian McKeith, the millionaire nutritionist guru whosequalifications have as much genuine substance as the magic food bars she sells.

Peoplemay be encountering Gillian McKeith’s work a lot after the festive period. Christmasfor many is a time of calorific indulgence, with the guilt not setting in untilthe new year. And we do tend to go overboard a lot. It may be Band Aid’s fault.When they said ‘Feed the World’, perhaps they could have been moregeographically specific?

ButGillian McKeith is known to many as just ‘the diet woman from the telly’, so whenthey hope to shift the festive weight gain they may reach for any books orproducts that feature a familiar (if rather alarming) face. But it’s not allbad, because Gillian McKeith provides several excellent examples of how scienceworks.

Wait! Come back! She does!

Firstly,any defender of Gillian McKeith, when told about her scientifically ludicrousclaims and complete lack of real qualifications, will state that she ‘getsresults’. And this appears to be true, according to the TV shows she does. Theoverweight people whose lives she invades do end up losing weight. Skip all thepseudoscience guff, and what happens is a 3 step process.

Overweight person is shown how much they eat[excessive]

· Overweight person is made to eat less and movemore

· Overweight person loses weight

Althoughdressed up in her surreal gibberish language, what is actually happening hereis an excellent demonstration of physics, such as the laws of thermodynamicsand conservation of mass. Essentially, overweight person consumes excessivechemical energy, which is stored as fat.Overweight person then reduces chemical energy intake and increases chemicalenergy requirements. Hopefully, a new equilibrium between input and output isachieved. Nothing to do with vibrational energies and vitamin gremlins, justgood old physics.

But how does she get a compulsiveovereater to reduce their intake in the first place? It’s seemed like quite achronic problem before she showed up, why would they stop just because she toldthem to? Surely she must have some sort of skill or power to achieve this? No. Onceagain, it’s proper science to the rescue.

If you give a rat chocolate, itwill eat and enjoy the chocolate. Understandably, it’s delicious. It willdevelop a taste for this unfamiliar but pleasant treat. If you then give a ratchocolate followed immediately by an injection of lithium chloride, it willfeel incredibly sick (as in ill, not ‘throwing up’ sick, as rats can’t dothat). If offered chocolate again after this, it will reject it. It hasundergone aversive conditioning. The previously pleasant stimulus has now beenassociated with a deeply unpleasant sensation, using pretty much the samemechanism that Pavlov discovered all those years ago.

So, you’re an obese person who constantlyindulges in fatty foods. Then suddenly, whenever you reach for a cream bun you’vegot this scary looking harridan shouting abuse in your face and talking aboutmagic beans or what have you. What’s going to happen? Pretty soon, you’re goingto associate your usual, unhealthy foods with Gillian McKeith. Again, it’ssimple process.

· Obese person eats junk food.

· Obese person eats junk food and Gillian McKeithappears

· Obese person associates junk food with GillianMcKeith

· Obese person wants Gillian McKeith to go away

· Obese person stops eating junk food.

Simple associative learning is the answer. Junk food meansGillian McKeith, who is essentially the personality equivalent of electroshocktherapy. Once the overweight person makes the association and reduces the junkfood intake, the physics can take over.

Sothere you have it. Feel free to indulge in whatever you like at Christmas, buttry to exercise some self control, for if you go too far, the unintentional avatarof science that is Gillian McKeith may come for you. You’d better not shout,you’d better not cry...

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 3rd [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T13:07:00.001-08:00

December 3rd: Neutron stars

For various unspecified reasons, big shiny baubles havebecome quite a prominent feature of Christmas. Whether the flawless sphere issymbolic of the crystal spheres that surrounded the earth in the ancient geocentricmodel of astronomy (which was probably in vogue at the time of the birth ofChrist), or the most cost effective shape for the mass production of pointlessdecorations, they’re everywhere in December. I don’t really know, and I don’tcare enough to find out.

But speaking of celestial spheres, the universe has its ownshiny baubles. What would make a better shiny decorative bauble than a typical neutron star?

Almost anything would make a better bauble, actually. Tyinga mangled turkey bone to your tree would be a better idea. Neutron stars,although technically big, shiny baubles in the strictest sense of the term, aretypically around 12km across and mass more than half a million Earths. Ateaspoon full of neutron star matter would weigh the same as 900 great pyramids.Or 1200 average ones.

Now, I guess it’s feasible that they can make teaspoons thatcan endure that sort of treatment, but I doubt any fir tree in existence couldwithstand having a neutron star hung from it, even if it is one of those fancyplastic ones (the tree, not the star).

Obviously, bringing a neutron star within the boundaries ofthe solar system would likely play merry hell with the orbits of the planets,so bringing one to within 2 metres of the Earth’s surface to attach to a plantwould undoubtedly end all life on and probably destroy the physical integrityof the planet itself. And that would ruin Christmas.

You could argue that all stars are big shiny spheres, and ina very loose sense you would be right. I singled out neutron stars as theyresemble Christmas baubles the most due to the fact that most neutron starsseem to have a solid ‘shell’. Granted, they do have an atmosphere that is about1m thick at most. For contrast, if the earth had an atmosphere that was 1m deep, youwould be in the vacuum of space if you stood up and your head would probablyexplode. But if you were on a neutron star, you couldn't stand up at all, so that's not a worry. Although being that close to it would have reduced you to an atom-thin spread anyway, so no need to worry either way.

But a typical neutronstar, thanks to the extreme gravity, has a very smooth, hard surface. They alsoemit visible light at pretty much all wavelengths, making them especially shinyand more ‘bauble-esque’ than most stars with their thousand-kilometre deepchromospheres and turbulent ‘surfaces’ of plasma.

Neutron stars are the remnants of massive stars that havesince gone supernova, and the extreme gravity allows the star to overcome electron degeneracy pressure, a property that prevents too much mass from condensinginto one place. By violating the rulesof normal matter, neutron stars matter is possibly the densest substance in theuniverse, relegating to second place the previous title holder, ChristmasPudding.

So because of these properties (not including countlessothers), Neutron stars are quite Christmassy. But that’s just in isolation.What if two of them meet and, more importantly, collide? They’re essentiallybig balls, right? And balls often come in pairs, don’t they.

It has been suggested that, if conditions are right, twoneutron stars can end up orbiting each other, getting closer and closer untileventually they collide and produce a horrific onslaught of unimaginable carnage.Neutron star collisions are one suggested cause of gamma-ray bursters, the mostenergetic events in the universe, unleashing the same energy in seconds thatthe sun releases in its 10 billion year lifetime. If such a thing occurred evenwithin our galaxy, it would release a wave of radiation that coulddecimate/annihilate life on Earth.

A long, slow build up which involves a sense of coming together, a brief spectacular light display,followed by a period of carnage and devastation; What more fitting metaphor forthe turning on of the city centre Christmas lights could you ask for?

Twitter: @garwboy. for regular updates

DECEMBER 2nd [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T12:53:00.001-08:00

December 2nd: Benzene

When you are fully immersed in the frippery of the festiveperiod, you will probably notice a lot of persistent themes, like loops oftinsel, wreaths of holly, toys, halos on fairies/angels, cheap trinkets, an abundanceof sweet things, big red trucks, and an emphasis on harmony and sharing despiteall possible evidence to the contrary.

Taking all this into account, is there anything scientificthat can represent all of this? You could ask yourself that (which would be a weird coincidence as I'm sure I'm the first to do so), and you couldsearch high and low, and you'd eventually conclude that you can't see anythingthat would fit this description. And you'd be right. You can't see it, but it'sout there, in lots of places.

I speak of the molecule, Benzene. Too small to see with the human eye given that it's a molecule, but persistent, pervasive and working constantly all year round to provide us with many things, like Father Christmas in a way, apart from the 'too small to see' thing. You can't see Santa as he's not actually there.

So, Benzene. Most famous of the aromatic hydrocarbons (based on the fact that it's the only one Iknow of, but it's more like the basis for them all), Benzene is a surprisingly christmassy molecule, even more so thanyuletideum, which loses points for not existing outside this sentence.

Benzene is a basic petrochemical, found in large quantitiesin crude oil. And crude oil is used to make petrol, which is essential forpowering the Coca Cola trucks, and Christmas can't start without them, for someunfathomable reason. Benzene is actually the precursor molecule for a lot ofplastics, which end up in your toys, cracker presents, or the cheap glasses youdrink from at yet another desperate festive house party. It is also a precursorto many solvents, so you may also have benzene to thank if you need something todissolve the superglue from your fingers at Christmas, after the traditional'accidentally-stepping-on-the-ridculously-flimsy-but-stupidly-expensive-self-assembly-toy'procedure.

Benzene is actually very sweet smelling, hence the 'aromatic' name. A lot of things are sweet at Christmas, after all,'tis the season to be diabetic (I'm paraphrasing but I think the classic cliché is somethinglike that). It is colourless, sweet smelling, and flammable, so if push came toshove, you could use it as an instant brandy butter substitute. Justpour it on your Christmas pud, light a match, and off it goes, cheerfullyflaming away and smelling delicious. Why doesn't everybody do that?

Probably because benzene is highly carcinogenic. So, youknow, don't do that.

But this is all superficial stuff, surface level,'materialistic' if you will. What about the true meaning of Christmas? Harmony,peace, sharing, all that stuff.

Well it seems the structure of benzene is quitean intriguing one, that had many scientists puzzled for a long time. It's ahydrocarbon, a molecule made up of, as the name suggests, hydrogen and carbon. And carbon is a greedy atom. In the simplest terms possible, each carbon atom has 4 available'bonds' , and hydrogen has just the one, like little tiny Tim hadlegs. Carbon can bind with up to 4 Hydrogen atoms (CH₄ a.k.aMethane), but chemists very early on realised that benzene is 6 Carbon atoms bondedto 6 hydrogen atoms. That's a lot of unaccounted-for bonds. How? Well it was eventually discovered that benzene is aring, like a holly wreath or halo, where all the usually greedy carbon atomsall join 'hands', make do with one hydrogen atom each, and the remaining bondsare shared between all the carbons, constantly swapping them around like somenanoscopic version of pass the parcel.

So there you have it. The molecule benzene clearlyrepresents the festive season. It's a symbol of when typical greed and selfinterest are replaced by sharing and unity, coming together as one in aharmonious circle of bonding which, with prolonged exposure, will cause seriousillness and eventual death.

Which is just like Christmas, when you thinkabout it.

Twitter: @garwboy

DECEMBER 1st [Science Comedy Advent Calendar]

2011-11-29T12:50:00.000-08:00

December 1st

THE CEREBELLUM

Onething that’s unavoidable during the festive period is complex movements.Whether it’s pulling a cracker, assembling some infuriating contraption whichwas a gift for an increasingly impatient child, or battling it out with hundredsof other frenzied shop goers who have also just realised they’ve forgottenseveral vital items on Christmas eve, it can’t disputed that the Christmasholidays are chock full of events that require complex and precision movementsand coordination.

None ofwhich would be possible without the cerebellum, a vital part of our centralnervous system. The cerebellum is always viewed as being somewhat beneath thebigger, bulkier and more ‘intellectual’ cerebrum. But this is because it is, literally.beneath it. The cerebellum is Latin for ‘little brain’, and hangs below the cerebrum.Despite having a possible link with attention and language processing, thecerebellum is mostly identified with movement; not in the generating ofmovement, but in the coordination and modulation of complex movements.

It could be suggested, then, thatthe cerebellum is like the rest of the brain, in that it prefers to mostly shutdown on Christmas day. During the afternoon period of December 25^th,most people report a considerable reduction in attention, language and complexmovements. Could this semi-vegetative state be due to cerebellar deactivation?This is unknown, as nobody ever does research on Christmas day. And even ifthey did, the subjects would never bloody turn up.

Thecerebellum somewhat resembles the much bigger cerebrum, but has a much finer,more regular pattern of grooves on its surface. However, this surface layer of grey matter is pretty much all the cerebellum has, proving once again that often thewrapping on something gives a misleading impression of the contents. Saying that though, the cerebellum is mostly white matter, not grey matter, much like the ideal turkey.

Cerebellar damage doesn’t cause paralysisbecause, as previously stated, it doesn’t generate movements, it refines/coordinatesthem. But cerebellar damage therefore causes disruptions to fine motor control.This can present itself in several ways, from disrupted gait and walkingissues, to the loss of skilled/planned movements, to problems with judgingdistance or even speech deficits. All of these occur often during the festiveperiod, particularly later in the evening of office parties or last days inwork. So again, perhaps the cerebellum is a brain region that likes a break asmuch as we do.

Soplease, spare a thought for the cerebellum this holiday, for if you do maybeit’ll stay active a bit longer and help you get through it.

Plus,it looks like a large scrotum hanging from the brain. And that can’t help theself esteem of any sufficiently complex neuroanatomical region.

Twitter: @garwboy

Sex and the Scanner

2011-10-24T03:33:00.000-07:00

I have commented on the ridiculous ways in which the mediacan use results from scanning experiments before,but I feel I should clarify my position on the issue, particularly with regardsto MRI (Magneticresonance imaging).

(In the interest offairness, I should point out that I've not had much experience with actuallyusing MRI scanners in my previous research, but I have been a subject for theexperiments of others many, many times. I'd estimate I've spent over a day intotal in an MRI scanner of some form, so I feel sufficiently qualified tocomment on MRI scanning in general in the following piece. However, I may wellhave many more experienced scanning-centric neuroscientists read this who areable to pick me up on errors that I've made. If so, please feel free to leavecomments about this and I'll link to them)

First and foremost, I'm all for MRI scanning and otherimaging techniques. It's amazing technology, and a modern privilege that Idon't think enough people really appreciate. Until relatively recently, seeingyour own brain was very rare. It was possible, but given the typicalcircumstances that would allow someone to see their own brain in the old days,it was probably the last thing they experienced. What they thought about it wasimpossible to determine. However, thanks to MRI scanners, seeing detailedimages of our own, living brain is a common occurrence these days. One couldget quite philosophical about that kind of thing, looking directly at the sourceof our minds, memories, thoughts, feelings, everything we are and every aspectof our being. The fact that it resembles nothing so much as a steroid-abusingwalnut just makes it more unnerving for many.

There seems to be this weird view among a lot ofnon-neuroscientists (or as we call them, Morlocks) that the only thing preventinga complete understanding of the brain's inner workings was the fact that wecouldn't directly observe it. Ergo, once you can observe the brain doing itsthing, you can figure out how it works. But it's not like this, at all. Asmartphone is an impressive bit of technology, but I doubt many peopleunderstand exactly how they work. Prising the cover off and looking at the gutsof the device probably won't make it less complicated, more likely the opposite.The brain is like this, except orders of magnitude more complex and made of wobblygrey bits.

So, simply putting someone in an MRI machine and making themdo a task will not inevitably show which specific part of the brain processesthat task. Human's aren't that simple, any task or action will use severalfaculties at once, and the relationship between mind and brain is still relatively poorly understood. Useable resultsfrom MRI, or more accurately in this context, fMRI (FunctionalMagnetic Resonance Imaging) are obtained by analysis of the blood flow tocertain brain regions observed during specific activity. Not neural activitydirectly, but the (supposedly) associated changes in blood flow as themetabolic demands of certain areas increase in line with activity. This is notas easy as it sounds, and I have not tried to make it sound easy. You needbaseline activity rates, threshold readings, anatomical precision which differsfrom person to person, and so on. It's a very useful, but complicated andtime-consuming task.

However, most media mentions of scanning 'experiments' seemto think that you just put someone in an MRI scanner, and if you stimulate themin some way then a bit of the brain will light up. That isn't neuroscience,that's 'Operation'.But still, brain scanning is 'cool', so is often shoehorned into the mostmeaningless 'science' stories.

This is something that irks me a lot, but you learn to putup with it. But sometimes, this sort of thing can reach satirical levels.

I was recently contacted by Dr Petra Boynton via that there twitter. As a rather clued up andintelligent Sex educator who works with the media quite a lot, she's oftencontacted by TV types who want to get her input on their latest sex-baseddocumentary, a programme format which seems to show no signs of going away. Thisis understandable, as they offer an intellectual discourse on one of the moreintriguing yet taboo aspects of human society. But also, tits!

Sadly, the majority of sex-based programmes seem to deservethe degree of cynicism with which I've just described them. Many seem to be far more concerned with titillating, provoking strong reactions,conforming to the prejudices of a target demographic, or just mawkishlyparading the intimate details of strangers around for the audience to gawp at.An evidence-based and rational discussion of sex, sexual behaviour or itsmyriad features seems to be waydown the list of priorities.

But like I said, sometimes these attempts to dress up ourmorbid fascination with sex as serious scientific investigation crosses a line,and the whole thing just becomes farcical. Dr Boynton was recently contacted andasked to give an opinion on a new programme which aimed to investigate whethera new type of sex toy could provide measurably more pleasure in women who useit (compared to other sex toys). Why? I don't know, even though I was forwarded the email conversation thatoccurred. But there you go. They did specify that they wanted to do a properand respectful analysis of women's sexual behaviours and needs, and if that'strue then it's a reasonably noble aim. Dr Boynton's response was veryreasonable, what with sex research and education being a lot more complex thanmost people realise. She advised against the use of things like MRI scanners,on the grounds that a) they are usually just used as a shorthand for impressivescience visuals and b) have little or no practical use when it comes to sexresearch.

The TV people have seemingly decided to go with the use ofMRI scanners anyway, purely on the grounds that they look impressive and makefor good TV. Lacking sufficient expertise in the area, Dr Boynton then tried toget some more persuasive arguments against this approach from moreneuroscientific people. Sadly for her, the discipline of Neuroscience, themedia and you good people reading this, that included me. So, if you're someonefrom the media and are thinking about putting together a programme with a setuplike this, please let me explain why this is unwise.

If I've interpreted them correctly, the suggested experimentaim(s) can be summarised as follows;

Use advanced brain imagingtechniques to quantitatively demonstrate that a specific sex toy gives womenusing it more pleasure than other sex toys, and do this in a way which makesenjoyable television

Now, as you can probably tell from my previous ramblings, Ihave several problems with this. Let's go through them all.

Measuring'pleasure' is very difficult: It would be in this context, anyway. Thereare numerous brain regions that are involved with the processing of rewardingand enjoyable stimuli, I'm not arguing that. But 'pleasure' as a term is like'intelligence', or 'irony', in that everyone knows what it is, but it'sactually quite hard to write down a coherent explanation of it that everyonewould agree on. This is even more true of sexual pleasure. How do you measuresuch a thing? There is no one single thing that every woman finds sexuallystimulating (as far as I know), and a person's sexual preferences are a complexneurological system based on their own experiences, biology and so forth. Youcould feasibly scan the brain activity of a large number of women attempting toachieve sexual pleasure in the exact same way, but the readings would probablybe very different. Any data applicable to all of them would probably be toogeneral to be of any use in studying a neurological effect as complex as sexualpleasure. A reputable science programme wouldn't show some meaningless data andthen just make their own conclusions, would they?... Would they?... Hello?
Sex andmasturbation aren’t the same thing: A minor point, but possibly relevant ifyou're wanting to make a programme about how sex is perceived/experienced.Although they have a lot of biological and anatomical processes in common, sexand masturbation are perceived and experienced differently. Obviously, as withsex there is at least one other person there, and they tend to be very close(spatially, if not in other ways). This is a very big stimulus (even if onepartner does not possess a particularly big stimulus, so to speak) and somethingthat is by definition absent during masturbation, so the sendory processingbeing done by the bain will be drastically different. Someexperiments have apparently revealed that intercourse is a qualitativelydifferent (better?) experience to masturbation, so any results obtained fromthis TV study may not be applicable to sex, per se.
fMRIrequires stimulus to occur in real time: Obviously I don't know the exactset-up for this potential experiment, but I do know that if you want to seewhat parts of the brain activate in response to specific stimuli, you have toscan the brain while that stimuli is occurring. Ergo, if you want to see whateffect a sex toy has on a woman's neural activity, she has to be experiencingit while in the scanner (in this case hving the stimulation occur and thenscanning them will give you 'post-coital comedown' data, and that's probably evenmore vague). Given the remit of the experiment, is this something you can getaway with showing on national television? Even if you use the classic 'thermalimaging' cop-out, that's still potentially quite a graphic image to broadcast. Iimagine you'll have trouble getting that past the censors, but then I'm not anexpert.
fMRI isvery sensitive and subjects are secured in place: This is something thatreally should be flagged up in advance, if you plan to go through with this.Obviously, there are many different types of MRI and maybe I have the wrongidea here, but if you want to do an fMRI, in my experience you have to be verystill indeed, as the machine is trying to measure very subtle changes in bloodflow through tiny capillaries in a small region of the brain. The precisionrequired to detect such small changes means the subject has their head securedin place very firmly, and usually the rest of the body too. Even minormovements can render the whole thing pointless. Bearing all this in mind, howexactly are you going to measure women's responses to masturbation when they'renot allowed to move? Some may prefer tohave sex in this manner, but I know women masturbate in a different way tomen (this is normally where I'd link to something to back this up, but to behonest writing this piece has already rendered my browser search history quite unspeakable)and it logically must involve a reasonable degree of body movement,particularly if using a sex toy. MRI scanners are also usually require the subjectto be inserted into a tube, which necessitates a 'legs closed' bodilyarrangement, thus compounding the problem. If you do want to do this right, you'dprobably have to have someone using the sex toy on the women while she's beingscanned. In all honesty, I don't think lab techs are trained for this sort ofthing. And even if you do somehow get approval to do this, getting to show iton TV would be even more of a headache than the last issue.
Takingmechanical devices into an MRI is seriously not a good idea: Even if youwere to get approval for all of the above, and somehow manage to work out asystem where you can 'run the experiment', so to speak, how do these sex toyswork? Hopefully they're just shaped plastic, but I'm getting the implicationthat they're mechanical in some way. This should present an insurmountablehurdle as you can't take any metal into an MRI scanner, particularly if it'sferrous. It's best not to even have it in the same room. A lot of people aresurprised by this, because if an MRI is completely safe for humans, surely aninanimate metal object would be even less affected by it? But you can use thissame logic for a typical bath; a human can sit in the bath without experiencingany ill effects, but throw a toaster in there too and you've got problems.MRI's use incredibly powerful magnets to pick up minute changes revealed bymovements in our iron-containing blood. If you've ever watched House, they likeshowing what happens when tiny amounts of metal find their way into an MRI (Iknow it's just a TV show, but they've done their research there). Someprofessionals have also kindly arranged some practical demonstrations.In summary, if you want to have women use a metal-containing sex toy in an fMRIscanner, you may as well have them masturbate using a lit stick of dynamite. It'sjust as safe, and the results of any 'accidents' would be just as spectacular.I suppose this would make for impressive visuals, but I imagine the sort ofaudience you'd get for them is not going to be your target demographic.
MRIScanners; Erotic?: Even if you do manage to get round all the issuesmentioned above, being in an MRI scanner is confining, boring, potentially claustrophobic,incredibly loud, very chilly, or possibly all these things at once. Again, I'mnot an expert in female sexual preferences, but none of that strikes me asconducive to achieving a state of mind that would be required to achieveorgasm. If you do want to go through with all of this, you'd need the sort ofwomen who would be willing to be filmed masturbating/being masturbated while stayingvery still in a very distracting and intimidating environment, then having itbroadcast on TV. Therefore, the only women you could use would either have somevery 'selective' turn-ons, or be the sort of person for whom public displays ofbizarre sexual antics are commonplace. This may be doable, but you're seriously veering away from anynoble 'how normal women experience pleasure' ethos you may have started outwith.

So, that's why I don't think that programme would work. Evenif you do manage to overcome all the problems I've mentioned, what are you leftwith? Nothing that would give you any useable information, at any rate. Itwould be cheaper and easier just to set up a fake MRI and have the subjects dowhatever it is you want them to do, and just use footage of a different MRIscan, there are plenty around. This may seem dishonest, but it's asscientifically valid as the proposed experiment, and this way is probably muchcheaper and frees up an expensive MRI in case anyone wants to do some actualscience.

Rant over. I apologise to well intended media types and anydisappointed men who have found their way here as a result of a more 'questionable'web search.

Twitter: @garwboy

Don't read this! It'll destroy your brain! (Susan Greenfield article)

2011-10-15T01:38:00.000-07:00

Baroness Susan Greenfield has been at it again. Weirdly, out of all people, I was called on to write a rebuttal piece, for the Telegraph of all things.

However, those who know my writing will probably realise that I'm never that concise and clear. My original piece was more verbose and piss-taking in its tone.

Here's the original

(NB: Any Telegraph readers who have found themselves here, this is usually used as a science-themed comedy blog, not a serious science one. Just a heads up, as odds are you were expecting the latter)

Baroness Greenfield has espoused yet again on the potential damage that video games and other technological entertainments are wreaking on the brains of young people.

The key word there is 'potential'. The potential damage could be quite significant. Similarly, if I get hit by a bus, the potential damage to me could be very significant. But this doesn't mean it's definitely going to happen. The mere existence of a possibility is not cause for alarm. As a result, I don't feel like I'm dicing with death whenever I need to leave the house. If I did, I'd probably have massive anxiety attacks whenever I realise I've run out of milk. I don't, though.

As a doctor of Behavioural Neuroscience who works teaching Psychiatry via an online course, I have a special interest in how our brains are influenced by our behaviours, but also the view that electronic media can damage our brains is, by necessity, almost the exact opposite of my own. If Baroness Greenfield is ever proven conclusively to be right, my job will be the first thing to go, so I'm not exactly unbiased when it comes to her claims.

Admittedly, Greenfield's claims have an element of accuracy to them, but it's always aggravating to see people use some basic facts to support outlandish, harmful conclusions, lending them credibility where shouldn't really be any.

Greenfield recently made several comments on the matter of computer games.

"Technology that plays strongly on the senses – like video games – can literally "blow the mind" by temporarily or permanently deactivating certain nerve connections in the brain, the Baroness said".

First off, 'literally "blow the mind"'? Ten points off for a seriously dubious use of the word 'literally'. What does 'blow the mind' literally mean? 'Blow' as in physically cause to explode? Or 'blow' as in force air into or over something? The former would mean the complete physical destruction of the brain by use of force, the latter would mean exposing the brain to the external environment and applying air pressure to it. Neither of these is particularly beneficial to an individual, and those who have experienced such things seldom survive long enough to confirm whether the experience was enjoyable in any way. If video games did literally 'blow the mind', they probably wouldn't be as popular. Or, in fact, legal.

[N.B. Professional pedantry: 'Mind' in scientific terms has no universally accepted definition, and is presently impossible to measure, observe or quantify, so the majority of behavioural and neurological studies simply have to ignore it as a factor altogether. But I'll ignore that matter here (a certain irony there)].

But pedantry aside, the temporary or permanent deactivation of nerve connections in the brain is implied to be a negative consequence of excessive computer game playing, as opposed to a perfectly normal and actually quite essential occurrence in a typical, healthy brain. A great deal of the brain's connections are actually used for deactivating other connections and processes. Arguably the brain's most powerful neurotransmitter (the chemicals used by neurones to communicate with each other) is gamma Aminobutyric acid (GABA), which is inhibitory, meaning it stops activity in other cells. And it's really good at this.

The constant deactivating of parts of the brain is vital to our functioning as normal cognitive beings. There can be times when too much of the brain is active at once, and these are seldom good things, as anyone who's had a seizure or violent hallucination will probably attest to. You could argue that Baroness Greenfield is referring to specific, damaging connections, but I can only be as precise in my comments as she is being in hers. Areas of the brain being shut down or deactivated is as normal a part of development as losing your milk teeth.

She told the Daily Telegraph last night: "The human brain has evolved to adapt to the environment. It therefore follows that if the environment is changing, it will have an impact on your brain.

Baroness Greenfield is right in this, the human brain does adapt to its environment. And changing in response to a changing environment is what allowed mankind to survive as a species. I'm actually impressed by the way she's managed to take this extremely impressive and vital property of the brain and turn it into a negative. That takes some doing.

"If you play computer games to the exclusion of other things this will create a new environment that will have new effects ... every hour you spend in front of a screen is an hour not spent climbing a tree or giving someone a hug."

The problem here is that this effect is not specific to video games. Anything you do excessively will create a new environment that your brain will eventually adapt to. If you are a keen fisherman you will spend a great deal of time staring at a large volume of water while holding an elaborate stick. Does this have long-term effect on your brain structure? Most likely, yes. Is it seriously damaging? Not that anyone is aware of, in fact most people will argue the opposite. The fish probably wouldn't, but then they rarely say anything of interest.

And yes, every hour you spend in front of a screen is an our not spent climbing a tree or giving someone a hug. And every hour you spend on a train is not spent on a horse. What of it? Every hour spent doing something is an hour not spent doing something else. You may feel that climbing trees is a more 'positive' activity than video games, but that's purely a subjective view. Climbing trees is undoubtedly a healthy, enjoyable past time, but I think most people would agree though that you have less chance of genuinely falling and breaking your neck while playing on an X-box.

And let's be honest, which is more likely to end up at a psychologist's first? A child who plays a lot of video games, or a child who tends to hug someone constantly for a full hour? I know who I'd worry more about.

... the Baroness urged pupils “to be outside, to climb trees and feel the grass under your feet and the sun on your face".

Yes, as above, indeed this is a good idea, but this black-and-white view that outdoors = good, indoors = bad is seriously simplistic and undoubtedly flawed. A lot of bad things happen outside, as a flick through any mainstream newspaper will tell you.

"Screen technologies cause high arousal, which in turn activates the brain system’s underlying addiction and reward, resulting in the attraction of yet more screen-based activity, the Baroness said.

Again, yes. This is a largely accurate statement. But it's annoying how people (scientists in particular) will use long-winded, verbose methods of describing something in order confuse people, and attribute a meaning to it which suits their arguments. In this case, the phrase "high arousal, which in turn activates the brain system’s underlying addiction and reward, resulting in the attraction of yet more ... activity" is more commonly known as 'fun' or 'enjoyment'. This same effect can be seen in football fans or pretty much anyone who has a persistent hobby. The long-term damaging effects of these aren't being questioned, so what sets video games apart as a negative? The intense visual stimuli? The interactive nature of them? The requirement for concentration? The competitive element? All of these factors apply the any sport you want to name.

The visual aspect of video games is only 'intense' or 'excessive' when considered in technological terms. In real terms, you'll still get a more rich and detailed visual experience from opening a fridge. The brain can handle way more than what even the most powerful console can throw at it (although this seems to not be the case for Baroness Greenfield)

The average child will spend almost 2,000 hours in front of a screen between their tenth and eleventh birthdays, she added.

I don't know where this figure comes from, as no references were provided with this piece. But even if it is right, what of it? Welcome to 21st century Western society. Everything has a screen now. I currently own about 7. I've got one in my pocket at all times, odds are you will have too. That's where we get all our information from now.

A while ago, it was books. Some people would spend a lot of time reading books, which are rectangular, information-rich objects that could cause intense arousal and engage many brain regions. But people who condemn books aren't usually respected for it.

Comparing the dangers to the lack of awareness about the health risks of smoking in the 1950s, she said playing too many computer games could cause a shorter attention span and more reckless behaviour in children.

An unfair comparison which does the Baroness no credit. Indeed, the dangers of smoking weren't know about for a long time, too long for many. But this doesn't mean the same is true for everything else. But smoking involves a process whereby poisonous chemicals are inserted directly into the human lungs. Unless you want to melt them down and directly inhale the fumes, video games cannot do this. All they can do is activate sensory and physical processes in people that were in place anyway. By making this alarming, scaremongering comparison, the Baroness could be said to be implying that stimulation can give you cancer. I genuinely don't think she is doing this, but when you make such alarmist comments, you leave yourself open to such criticisms.

Several scientific studies have suggested that playing an excessive number of computer games or spending too much time surfing the internet can have a physical impact on the brain.

Again, I don't know which studies this is referring to, but it's hardly surprising. The key word is 'excessive'. Excess is a negative term, it means 'too much'. You could replace the word 'computer games' in the sentence above with 'poker playing', 'piano lessons' or 'flower arranging' and the outcome would be the same. As stated previously, too much of anything will cause physical changes in the brain (sorry, have a 'physical impact'), as the brain adapts to better deal with your behaviour. That's why we get better at things with constant practice. Again, this is normally something to be appreciated, but here it's a bad thing.

A paper published earlier the summer in the PLoS ONE journal indicated that internet addiction could rewire brain structures in the inner brain, and even cause shrinkage in grey matter.

In a critique of video games, an article about internet addiction is cited. Odd, that. But I've encountered 'the internet'. There are a lot of things on 'the internet'. This term is extremely vague, like describing a hardcore football fanatic as 'fond of competitiveness'. It's essentially correct, but doesn't really tell you the important bits. And once again 'could' stands out like a sore thumb. As far as the brain is concerned, doing anything constantly for long enough could have all manner of detrimental effects. This is not enough to base firm conclusions on, far from it.

Also, if we're being pedantic, the use of the term 'addicted' means the brain has already been rewired. That's essentially what differentiates addiction from 'excessive use'. So brain rewiring can cause brain rewiring? Quite a tautology.

Another study by Japanese scientists ten years ago warned that because video games only stimulate the brain regions responsible for vision and movement, other parts of the mind responsible for behaviour, emotion and learning could become underdeveloped.

'Could' they now? Funny how some so many bad things 'could' happen. I 'could' develop an aneurysm while reading one of Baroness Greenfield's books. It's a distinct possibility, but not enough to have them banned. I wouldn't even think about demanding it.

Every one of Greenfield's arguments seems to boil down to 'Too much [X] causes a normal brain to adapt in response. These brain changes may have negative consequences', where [X] is video games or other electronic distractions, which seem to be her personal bugbear.

But other scientists have claimed that certain games can help the brain in a variety of ways such as treating post-traumatic stress disorder, boosting intelligence and developing the memory.

This is just a positive spin on my main argument. The brain changes, you use certain parts of it a lot for certain tasks, those parts will alter and possibly grow in size and complexity, whereas lesser used parts will atrophy somewhat. Video games are very complex activities, so the brain will become more efficient at performing more complex actions in response. It's unsurprising that this may have beneficial consequences, as well as potentially negative ones.

There are undoubtedly many things to criticise about video games. They can be needlessly violent, they can be quite unrewarding, perhaps it is unwise to subject children to such graphic themes, perhaps they do teach children unrealistic or dubious things. But each of these criticisms can easily be levelled at any entertainment format. I struggle to see how an hour spent coordinating a detailed assault on a virtual enemy stronghold is more detrimental than an hour spent watching naive young people having their ambitions crushed in front of millions on the X-Factor. But that's just me.

The use of electronic media is an undeniable fact of life now, and is changing the way we see the world. In many ways, it's encouraging that so many children become adept at computer-based activities from such a young age; it'll give them more of a chance of making it in an increasingly technical society. It certainly did for me.

Baroness Greenfield clearly has her reasons for disliking computer games and other electronic entertainments, and they well be noble, well-meaning ones. But this does not justify the use of junk science or the public stating of overblown conclusions based on little or no evidence. With every unsubstantiated claim that video games cause children to become socially deficient or distant, Baroness Greenfield in turn distances herself further from the scientific community that once had such respect for her.

Twitter: @garwboy

Astrology for the Scientific

2011-08-28T14:13:00.001-07:00

I've no doubt that this sort of thing has been done dozens of times before by people better at it than me. But it's Sunday, and I'm bored.

So, I saw via that there twitter that some people are claiming that astrology effectively predicted Hurricane Irene. I don't know if that means they predicted it would happen in general, or that it would strike land at a specific time, or that it would be a certain intensity or blah blah blah. If they predicted it happening in general, I'm sure meteorologists would have done that with a greater degree of certainty long before anyone consulted the star charts. But that's just me, ever the dismissive cynic.

Astrology in general is believed to have predicted many things, like the September the 11^thattacks, Royal Weddings, several wars and lord knows what else. I believe these questionable 'successes' can be explained by what is known in the scientific circles as 'throw enough shit at a wall and some will stick' technique. But I will admit to having a soft spot for astrology, despite what I may have said in the past. I always appreciate creativity, even when it's not something I'd necessarily approve of or agree with. But people love horoscopes and star signs, the thought that our lives are being influenced by something bigger and more powerful than we are is obviously very reassuring to many people (see also; All religions ever). I've even dabbled with writing horoscopes myself before now.

So overall, I feel us sciencey types are missing out with our knee-jerk dismissals of all things astrological. So, to hopefully address this concern, here is a new, revamped star chart for scientists, rationalists, sceptics and the like. What does your star-sign say about cynical old you? Find out*.

PLUTONIOUS

(Jan 20^th – Feb 18^th)

You are a brash and confident seeming, with an outgoing exterior that hides a crippling self-doubt and neurosis that eats away at you and will eventually cause you to blurt out all of your worries and fears in one long stream of consciousness, probably to a nearby commuter who will seriously consider alerting the police about you. Scientifically, you will end up in a discipline that sounds very impressive (e.g. Nuclear Physics, Genetic modification, Germ warfare) but makes people back away slowly when you tell them what is you do, which you will do often. If you end up doing research, you will publish your results anywhere as long is means you're first author. If it's a disreputable or poor-credibility journal, you will tell people that they were the only ones who would publish your data as it's 'too groundbreaking' or 'the establishment don't want people to hear it'. A Plutonius is most likely to be the 'lone maverick' or 'sole dissenting voice' when it comes to controversial theories, and will inevitably cause a public panic or scandal. You assume parties never go on later than 10pm, because that's when everyone has left whenever you go to one.

Likes: Olivia Lee, Heston Blumenthal, Hawaiian Shirts, 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Dislikes: All Bran, poets, the peer review process, JLS.

PAISCES

(Feb 19^th – Mar20^th)

Numbers are your friends. Even the imaginary ones. Ergo, you have imaginary friends. Your meticulous devotion to the mathematical properties of everyday life mean people are always keen to get your help when dealing with taxes and such, but you don't get invited out for dinner often, as you have an unsettling habit of only ever eating the items on your plate in a specific order, and your tendency to argue over what constitutes an appropriate tip gets quite embarrassing. Every collection of items you own (DVD's, pens, socks, books) adds up to a prime number. You are not consciously aware of this, but would be pleased if you found out. You have no particular style or appearance, but however you look you are always perfectly symmetrical. Animals tend to look at you with suspicion. You will probably have been tested for autism at some point in your life. You don't really see the point in Sudoku, you never even have to fill it in order to solve it. A Paisces is highly likely to be involved in some heavily numerical discipline, and more are entering the financial sector these days as the huge numbers being used constantly excites them in ways they're not keen to tell people about.

Likes: Pub Quiz machines, logic puzzles, Russell Crowe, the Financial Times, Stephen Baxter

Dislikes: Shakespeare, Hollywood sci-fi, Carol Vorderman, the X-factor, train stations

MARIECURIES

(Mar 21^st – Apr 19^th)

You are strident and forthright, but not in a way that's helpful to you or your career. Everyone is plotting against you. It's likely that your theory about this is true, but it's more often than not a consequence rather than a cause of your behaviour. You are keen to have a family while keeping your career going, largely just to show people you are capable of that. A Mariecuries may enter any number of scientific fields, but once there they will be very prolific, producing data and forging a reputation at the expense of any personal interaction or social skills. You want people to know your name, and they probably will, but any time they say it it'll be prefaced with the words 'Oh no! It's...', or some variation of this. A Mariecuries will get involved with causes of any sort; as long as they a) agree with them, and b) it'll give them a legitimate excuse to berate people and make themselves better known ('a' can be disregarded if the opportunity for 'b' is big enough). If you have a Mariecurie in your lab or institution they will do the work of 3 people, but you're likely to lose at least twice as many due to sudden resignations.

Likes: Ann Widdecombe, twitter, reputable journals, Simon Pegg, online commenting systems

Dislikes: Lottery winners, Simon Cowell, Anime, Banksy, The Guardian.

BOREUS

(Apr 20^th – May 20^th)

You have a very wide range of interests and will absorb and retain information very readily. This is usually at the expense of any ability to relay this information to other people in a manner which is in any way interesting or succinct. You think of clothing purely in terms of what offers the best protection from likely environmental conditions, and see food purely as an energy resource. If it ever did occur to you to go to a high-class restaurant, you would expect the prices to be indicative of the amount of consumable mass you will be given. As a Boreus, you will be ideally suited to lecturing, on any subject that has enough information to fill an hours-long monologue. You have no problem with continuous talking and are actually under the impression that people's default expression is one of crushing apathy or semi-consciousness. Invitations to attend meetings or give speeches rapidly decline as you get older. Depending on age, a Boreus is highly likely to be a big fan of Dungeons and Dragons or World of Warcraft (online). Relationships are sustainable only with partners who understand that it is purely just a means of reproducing and providing offspring with a minimal risk environment in which to develop, in order to ensure survival of genetic information, although a committed Boreus will be happy to explain in depth why this instinct is just an evolved tendency that isn't really essential to anyone who will listen (i.e. No-one)

Likes: Ledgers, grain, books with an index section, the dewy decimal system, cottage cheese.

Dislikes: Twitter, theme parks, news bulletins, the colour purple, Michael McIntyre.

FLORENI

(May 21^st – Jun 20^th)

You are a do-gooder, with helpful intentions that border on the pathological. You will have mastered any and all helpful skills (CPR, Fire safety, Bomb disposal etc.) that you have had the opportunity to learn, and will jump at any chance to put these into practice, even to the extent of assuming minor situations are actually life-threatening so you can spring into action, much to the annoyance of everyone involved. You will most likely be involved in scientific field that has some focus on human health or biology, such as medical doctor, gene therapy, biological research and so on. You will have entered the field 'to help people', as you reflexively tell anyone who has the misfortune to ask you, as they will then be given a 10 minute treatise as to the value of your work in human terms. Your desire to help and be helpful means others will take advantage of your well meaning tendencies, to the point where you become overworked and stressed to far beyond your ability to handle. As a Floreni, you will have several options at this point, but most people opt for either snapping and killing themselves (and many others) in a huge public incident, or resorting to alcohol and narcotics more and more intensely until you find yourself screaming at squirrels in a park for stealing all your marmite (or other spreadable preserve). Any children born to Florenies are likely to experience deep psychological issues after a lifetime of being pampered and experiencing zero risk or challenge.

Likes: ER, Doctor Who, Children in Need, the NHS, fun runs, Vegetables, Red Wine, Aeroplane socks.

Dislikes: House M.D., Scotland, Politicians, the Grand Theft Auto franchise, Secret Santa, Turkish delight.

CHANCER

(Jun 21^st – Jul 22^nd)

You are generally a passive person, one who lets events affect him/her rather than deciding your own course in life. However, when good fortune does come your way, your ability to deal with it and exploit it is minimal so you just make it up as you go along, and end up coming across as, at best, a baffling eccentric or, at worst, a power hungry idiot. Scientifically, you will probably end up in whichever field is most convenient, be it due to parental influence, pre-existing interests or it being a subject taught in a convenient university which accepts you based on the grades you're likely to get. Career progression will be achieved by stepping in for more senior people who leave. A low-level, uninspiring career is likely, except when, as sometimes happens, you stumble upon a new discovery or important finding that will have you achieving notoriety well beyond your competence level. You will either try to coast on this for several years until everyone notices that you've not produced any follow-up work and promptly forget about you, or you will try to make some clever-sounding claims about what your discovery means that will be poorly thought out and annoy everyone else in the field. You will not be shy of commitment in a relationship, as you will desperately need someone to make all the big decisions for you for your own safety. You will also tend to avoid people in your on field as they tend to make you realise the extent to which you've a very poor understanding of what it is you do.

Likes: Public transport, Supernanny, life coaches, CCTV, ready meals.

Dislikes: Elections, audits, assault courses, sushi, delegation, improvised comedy.

Neo

(Jul 23^rd – Aug 22^nd)

You are 'cool'. By which I mean you think you're cool, but go out of your way to show others how cool you are, which is not cool. You are interested in science because it is not as 'square' as it used to be, it features in a lot more films these days and allows you to affect an air of nonchalant superiority when you tell non-scientists what you do (which is probably something cutting edge and/or slightly dangerous, such as nanotechnology or drug development). Your desire to appear cool often clashes with your scientific instincts, such as wearing shades in low-light environments, boasting about your vegetarianism while wearing leather jackets, tweeting about the disgraceful consumerist attitudes of society via an iPhone, and so on. You will embrace all new trends and technologies in order to exploit the brief window where you're more 'ahead' of the rest of the people you know. You will behave similarly in your scientific work, favouring more unlikely and obscure conclusions and theories purely to stand apart from accepted wisdom and get noticed. This will happen, and you'll be labelled a dickhead. You may find yourself working with the media far more than anticipated, but nowhere near as much as you'd truly like.

Likes: Steve Jobs, Night clubs, swords, martial arts, the Sopranos, Thai food.

Dislikes: Carol Vorderman, Nokia phones, the peer-review process, blue cheese, golf, the periodic table.

Vogon

(Aug 23^rd – Sept 22^nd)

You have borderline sociopathic tendencies. You're love of science stems from a deep-seated dislike of people in general. You may have had several negative experiences as a young child that led you to develop this loathing for your fellow man, but are unaware that, in a social context, they were largely self-inflicted. You pursue science, most likely in a biological discipline but not always, as it allows you to mentally reduce human beings to a collection of unconscious processes and also makes it somewhat easier for you to kill them if it ever comes to that. You think this will happen. You will probably excel in your scientific career, seeing as you care not for the concern and respect of others and completely lack even the vaguest hint of a social life. This allows you to get a lot of work done and data produced in a much shorter space of time, and this will reflect well on you with regards to people who don't know you and have no contact with you. The idea of a relationship with someone genuinely baffles you. You invariably dress smartly or at least in a standard manner as anything unusual means attention from people, and you don't want that. Not until you can find a suitable place to hide the bodies, anyway.

Likes: Band saws, plagues, private Health care, silence, the X factor.

Dislikes: Jehovah's Witnesses, Telesales, public transport, pubs, the immune system.

COXIAN

(Sept 23^rd – Oct 22^nd)

You are a somewhat other-worldly creature. Although physically a normal human in appearance and anatomy, mentally you dwell in some other world where the norms are your own. People often ask you if you're stoned or inebriated, you will reassure them at first then become distracted by your own wandering brain again, leaving them none the wiser over all. You care deeply about science as it means you might be able to eventually investigate the wild flights of fancy that occur to you approximately 34 times an hour. You will eventually gravitate towards quantum mechanics, parallel worlds theory, or one of the other sciences which still operates on a largely theoretical basis, so as to not spoil your daydreams with brutal logic and evidence. Your life could end up being a risky one, as although everyone will think of you as harmless of possibly endearing, you do have a concentration problem which means you are more likely to walk in front of buses or fall down manholes. The opposite sex will invariably be drawn to you, but they will eventually express their frustration with your lack of attention to them and leave in a huff. Maybe half the time, you'll notice this has happened.

Likes: Exotic cheese, Futurama, mountaintops, Steve Martin, the Vengaboys.

Dislikes: Census forms, the Peer review process, textbooks, gravity, open manholes.

VENOMUS

(Oct 23^rd – Nov 21^st)

You are the rugged outdoors type. Everything about you says adventure and exploration. You suffer from almost crippling claustrophobia. You will end up pursuing any scientific discipline that allows you to go to places where most people wouldn't go to and have a look around, possibly chopping at bits of it with a comically exaggerated machete. Zoology, geology, anthropology, anything like this gets you going (figuratively and literally). Your preferences mean you may have difficulty dealing with others. You have so many experiences and adventures you wish to tell people about that it's difficult for them to get a word in. Your constant thrill seeking means you will have trouble finding a partner. Some people propose or get married during a bungee jump, you'd probably need to conduct an entire relationship via one. Although an academic career is something you couldn't physically endure, but stories of your escapades will help inspire others into being interested and respecting science, right up to the point where all your good work is undone when you succumb to a hitherto undiscovered and harmless looking poison snail.

Likes: Jungles, adrenalin, arctic explorer ships, barbecues, Bear Grylles.

Dislikes: Desks, suits, mortgages, budget airlines, David Attenborough.

SAGGYWEARYUS

(Nov 22^nd – Dec 21^st)

Despite your best efforts, you will inevitably end up as the type of scientist that is often regarded as 'ridiculous stereotype'. If you are male, you'll start to develop unruly white hair, a ridiculous moustache at some time around your 21^st Birthday, and it will get worse from there. You will discover all your clothes are made from tweed and can be worn over or under a lab coat with little or no bother. You may find yourself starting to speak with an Eastern European lilt for no discernible reason. Regardless of the scientific discipline you are involved with or what level you're at, people will start calling you 'Professor', to the point where you are officially declared one and are given all the associated responsibilities of one. You won't have a clue what you're doing, but it's Ok as everyone will assume you're an eccentric genius. If you are female, the exact same will happen, but instead of a moustache you'll grow shorter, and wear your hair in a bun.

Likes: Tweed, animals, tolerant postgraduates, rats, blackboards, port.

Dislikes: The internet, hip-hop, Starbucks, flamingos, lager.

CAPRIPORN

(Dec 22^nd – Jan 19^th)

Urrghh. You know what you're like, I see no reason to state it here. Disgusting.

Likes: [CENSORED]

Dislikes: Overly-curious computer repair technicians.

* = I'd say one person at most will conform to these outrageous exaggerations. Happy scienceing!

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Humourology: A Science-Comedy Podcast

2011-08-23T03:08:00.000-07:00

Haven't been writing this much lately, but I do plan to get back to it at some point, I promise. But nonetheless, I've not been completely idle.

I like doing science-themed comedy, it's kinda my thing in the limited area I inhabit. But it's picked up a bit in recent years. I'm not saying this is entirely due to me and my influence, but I have no data to rule this out so I might as well bring up the suggestion and let you ponder it on your own time.

Thing is, the format of Science-themed comedy has now become popular enough where I am to get more people involved in doing it and, perhaps most crucially, to get people along to actually see it happen.

But spreading the science-comedy vibe locally is all well and good, but why not use these here electronic communication systems to broadcast it to any virtual passers-by? So, in honour of the old Science Digestive podcast (on hiatus while Dave is living in Wrexham without Skype), I give you episode 1 of;

Humourology: The scientific stand-up comedy podcast

(WARNING: Adult material)

Covering topics such as environmental law, mathematical harassment, the discovery of antidepressants, the age of the Universe, evolution and Star Wars, this is a veritable mixed bag of geeky delights.

Featuring contributions from Bruce Etherington, Ted Shiress, Piers Stanger, Bob Ramsey, Chris Chopping and Trevor J Williams, I'll be producing more of these whenever the opportunity arises.

Enjoy, or not.

Twitter: @garwboy

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

The Crappiest Day of the Year

2011-08-07T10:52:00.001-07:00

Some people would say I'm not the most sociable person in the world. This may sound odd for someone who voluntarily does stand-up comedy and public speaking about science on a regular basis, but may sound about right for someone who prefers to communicate in text form via electronic mediums. Your interpretation is your own, enjoy it.

But I can see the point of people who would consider me unsociable, as outside of ones where I'm there to perform a specific task or duty, you won't often find me in situations where I would interact with other people in a social situation. It's not that I don't like people, although there are some people I don't like, obviously, and other people I do like. That's normal, isn't it? It's more to do with contexts and environments.

I like to think I'm my own person, I know what I like and what I don't like, and I seek out the former and avoid the latter. And one of the things I really don't like is what I term 'enforced fun'. You won't see me at the big festivals, night clubs, town centres on a Friday, raves, crazy parties or anything like that. Lots of people go to these things because they actively enjoy them, and more power to them. But I don't, so I avoid them. If I did attend these things for some reason, no doubt I'd be considered a killjoy for not enjoying myself like everyone else no doubt would be.

I'm not a killjoy though. I have no problem with other people's joy, certainly not to the extent that I'd want to kill it. I'm not one to commit homicide on an abstract concept, I never signed up for the war on terror for this reason. I just avoid things that I don't. Like most people do, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm indifferent to live music, not brave enough to experiment with narcotics and am actively repulsed by even slightly dirty toilets, so the big festivals would be a massive waste of unhygienic time for me. I don't like dancing, loud noises, overpriced drinks or inhaling the hormonal sweat of strangers, so night clubs have never done it for me. Some people might take genuine pleasure from them and that's cool, but for me there are limited returns on standing in a corner of an overcrowded dark sauna, clutching the only warm lager I'm able/willing to afford while an inebriated stranger bellows in my ear and is still unable to make himself heard (it's never a 'herself', I'm not someone who has ever known the experience of random women talking to him). As fun as that sounds, it get tiresome after 3 hours. And as unreasonable as it sounds, town centres on weekends are out, as I've always had a bizarre aversion to having my face repeatedly smashed into a paving slab by an enraged steroid abuser in a Ben Sherman shirt. I've always been picky like that, so sue me.

I'm being facetious about that last one, of course. Plenty of people go to a city centre on a weekend and never curb stomp anyone. But I was asked to meet up with a comedy mate of mine recently in Cardiff City centre on a Friday night. I never see him usually, so I agreed, and it was quite a bizarre experience for me. I've not been out in central Cardiff on a weekend for many years, and it was refreshing to discover that this wasn't an oversight on my part. I just don't get it, the appeal of getting hideously pissed as quickly as possible with similarly dressed strangers. Nobody got violent while I was there, but then I left before 10.30, so maybe they were waiting for me to go in case I told the police or something. Everyone was giving me a wide birth though, which surprised me. I'm not the most physically intimidating specimen, and with my nerd jacket, glasses and 'keep libel laws out of science' badges, I don't think people saw me as a violent lunatic waiting to lash out. I guess if I was I could be using some reverse psychology thing, but most people didn't seem sober enough to be worried about such unlikely leaps of logic.

It turns out the reason I was making people steer clear of me was how I was looking at them. Whereas most people were looking at each other in one of several familiar, acceptable ways ('potential conquest', 'potential rival', 'alcohol supplier' etc.), I was apparently looking at people as a scientist would look at a rat in a maze; with an unnerving level of calculating scrutiny. Most people, quite fairly, are put off by this. I understand, I didn't mean to do it, I just couldn't help myself from thinking 'why are you doing this? What's your motivation? What pleasure do you obtain from this environment and why?' When I get curious after a few beers, I have trouble preventing myself from adopting my 'amoral scientist' expression, which makes people think I'm on the verge of whipping out a scalpel to cut out their eyeball so I can attach it to the monstrous chimera I'm creating in my attic. Hence, I don't really belong in these places. So I avoid them.

It all boils down to the fact that I really resent being told to enjoy myself when I'm clearly not in a situation where that is likely to happen. When you're in a social gathering context, whatever it may be, there is an expectation to enjoy yourself in the same manner as everyone else, and it's hard to do that against your will, to the point where I actively resent it. Charlie Brooker has a brilliant rant about parties, and I have to agree with him to some extent. Parties are fine if they're just allowed to happen organically, but it's the 'instigators of fun' I can't abide. People who have scheduled games, party pieces, name cards and the like, just to make people talk and engage with each other to enhance the 'fun', rather than just treat people like adults and let them engage with others in a manner which suits them (or, more importantly, allow them to actively avoid engaging with the obvious dickhead that every party is seemingly legally obliged to include). It's probably a holdover from children's parties, but children are more energetic and less adapted to social norms, so games and the like helps them interact and focuses them while the parents can crack open the illicit wine without their dear offspring noticing. But these things don't always translate well to the adult world.

I went to a social once where the fun instigators had spent so long meticulously planning people's enjoyment that they had lost all sense of logic and reason. When you arrived, you were assigned a name badge. On the badge was a famous person or character that matched your gender. Mine said 'Kenickie'. Apparently the aim of this was that you had to seek out the other half of your 'famous couple' amongst the other guests. I was expected to go and find a woman wearing a badge with 'Rizzo' on it, and then… it was never established what I was meant to do then. Talk to her? Re-enact some scenes from Grease? Consummate our fictional relationship? This was never confirmed. And I don't even see how this works as an interaction catalyst. I am not a fan of Grease so my knowledge of it is limited, so exactly what conversational aides can be derived from this approach? Apart from "I see you are the opposite gender to me", or "I see you have been randomly assigned a fiction character that is associated with the one I have been assigned", what exactly is there to be said about this connection? But you could tell the organisers were so concerned with making people interact they didn't give any thought to the rationale beyond this. One guy had a badge that labelled him as 'Jim Corr'. Not sure if he's part of a famous 'couple' per se. I left when I saw a miserable looking girl with a badge that said 'Maxine Carr'. She didn't know where her counterpart was and seemed to be in no hurry to find out. I was him I'd have just turned and left as soon as they gave me my badge, and no doubt he did just that.

Overall, I don't like anyone who would look at you and decide that you aren't happy enough, and decides they must interfere until your enjoyment levels meet their personal standards. I'd wager most people feel this way.

All of this preamble is just a roundabout way of saying that's why I think the 'Happiest day of the year' doesn't get nearly as much press as the 'most depressing day of the year'. Don't get me wrong, it get's far too much (i.e. some), but the most depressing day seems to get a lot more widespread attention than the happy one. Admittedly, I base this purely on the fact that no media sources have ever asked me to comment on it. As opposed to my regular humiliations when getting involved with the most depressing day. Believe me, I've had more than my fair share of dealings with that car-crash of nonsensical pseudoscience. Nobody has ever contacted me from the media to comment on the happiest day. Except for via twitter that is, I had people nudging me (metaphorically) to point out that that yesterday was the happiest day of the year (according to the BBC even! Got no link for that though).

I immediately thought my old nemesis Cliff Arnall had been up to his old tricks (well, trick). But no. He does have another laughable equation to pinpoint the happiest day (apparently coughed up like a media-friendly hairball at the behest of Walls, makers of sausages and ice cream and other things that benefit from people being cheerful enough to have barbecues), but it's in mid-June according to him. So August 6th is the happiest day of the year not according to Cliff Arnall, but Nectar Card. It's always someone shamelessly corporate who comes up with these things, weirdly enough. When the Cochrane collaboration makes a claim like this, then maybe I'll pay attention. However, rather than a nonsensical equation pulled out of the mind-arse of a shameless quack (meaning Cliff Arnall, just to clarify) this claim is, seemingly, based on a slightly more logical principle of just asking people when they're at their happiest. 30% of people say Saturdays, 20% of people say August (I'm really hoping these figures were based on separate questions in order to suggest some sort of useable specificity, but I'm not holding my breath), so overall Saturday in August is the happiest day of the year. Although, last I checked, August had at least 4 Saturdays, so why this one in particular? That's not revealed in the article I could be bothered to read.

It's at least a somewhat logical approach. When are people happiest? Ask them. But there are still myriad problems with this approach. People may say they're happiest in August and on Saturdays, but it doesn't automatically mean that an August Saturday is the happiest day of the year. Someone's favourite foods may be cheesecake and pizza. This does not mean a cheesecake topped pizza is logically their favourite food. Happiness is not a metric measurement that can be added and multiplied in this manner. Happiness is such a nebulous, hard to quantify term (like depression) that any efforts to pin it down to specific date and time like they've done quickly become meaningless.

Also, to suggest that there are predictable regularly occurring external factors that affect people's moods to the extent where the majority of the population are in the same emotional state is, to put it mildly, bollocks. This is seriously underestimating the complexity and variability in the lives, routines and events in the lives of a typical human being. The only figures that can reliably be said to predict depression in large swathes of the population are the ones churned out my the stock markets lately. That, or the viewing figures of Top Gear, but to each their own of course.

I bring this up as, at a recent Winchester Skeptics in the Pub talk I did (and it's a great night if you're nearby, please go to it), a guy in the audience, I believe his name is Ben, suggested you could determine the most depressing day of the year (I do rant about it considerably in my talk) by surveying the self-assessed mood levels of a significantly large group of people over a year. This is probably true, but there are several issues with this that mean it would not produce any useful results.

Firstly, you'd need a subject group big enough to provide decent statistical power and a reasonable cross-section of the population in general. Anything less means you'd have to narrow the focus of your investigation, i.e. The happiest day of the year for University students/pensioners/parents/unemployed/men-who-wear-those-really-low-cut-vests-for-some-undoubtedly-alarming-reason. Then you'd need everyone to agree on and use some universal mood ranking self-assessment scheme. It's no use collating all this data if some people rank their happiness on a scale of 1-10, some use percentages of maximum happiness, others go for a 'not at all - moderately - extremely' ranking of happiness. You can't just mash all these different measurements together and derive some sort of consistent conclusion from it, you'd end up making a complete Arnall of yourself!

Also, you'd need to get your subjects to measure their daily happiness levels for a whole year, not just ask them which day was the most/least happy for them. That would be just as reliable as flat out guesswork, which is what it essentially is. So, after all that, if you have a sufficiently large group of people reporting their happiness levels (or whatever) using the same system of measurement for a whole year, you could run the numbers and, quite possibly, you'd end up with one day that scores higher than all the others (or lower, if you're measuring depression). So you could feasibly say that this particular day is the happiest/most depressing of that year. Whether this day's score would deviate significantly from the norm for the year (or month, or quarter, you'd expect some ups-and-downs during holiday periods or bad weather periods etc. so it might be valid to take them into account), I'm unable to say. But given a large enough group of people, I'd say it would be highly unlikely that enough would feel depressed at the same time to make a dent in the measurements to that extent. But I deliberately said the happiest/most depressing day of THAT year, because that's all it would be.

This method would give you a report of how people felt in response to events and circumstances that happened that year. Any other year, it would be fantastically unlikely that the same things would happen in exactly the same manner. And even if they did, people would be somewhat desensitised to them now, so the ratings would still be different. The idea of a basic equation that can effectively predict all the variables that affect the mood of THE ENTIRE POPULATION is so ridiculous and unbelievable that it was bound to end up in the Daily Mail

Overall, I think the Most Depressing day bullshit seems to have got more media traction than the happiest day bullshit because it offers a get-out clause, as it means the media are saying 'you feel depressed? It's not your fault, it's due to factors beyond your control'. Ironically, I'd wager people are cheered up by this notion as it removes responsibility for a depressing situation and possibly offers hope for improvement. Also ironically, the 'happiest day' is quite annoying, it suggests that if you aren't happy then there's something wrong with you. It's like a fun instigator for the whole population, and we know what I think of that sort.

So yeah, the media or bogus scientists can't tell you which day of the year is the happiest/saddest for you, you can only tell them. And if they ask, tell them to mind their damn business. They won't ask though, they'll just hack your phone if they want to find something out.

And to close, some important points on Cliff Arnall, the main man who seems to have initiated this whole best/worst day debacle we have to go through every pissing year.

Cliff Arnall is often described as a Cardiff University Psychologist. He is not. Cardiff University has a top-ranking psychology school, it's actually a world leader in the field and often ranks in the top of listings concerned with these things. To be a Cardiff University Psychologist you have to be a member of the psychology school, conduct research there and preferably get it published in reputable journals. This is something some people have done (e.g. Myself), but Cliff Arnall has not. He does apparently have a psychology qualification (a very broad term, but will give him the benefit of a doubt there), and he did teach once (for a few months) at the Cardiff Centre for Lifelong Learning, which is essentially evening classes for adults. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't mean he's a Cardiff University Psychologist. It's been alleged that the Cardiff University PR department are happy with this state of affairs as it means they get free publicity. Possibly some are, but all the members of the department I know would like to put a bounty on Cliff Arnall's head, so I'm guessing they'd rather he stopped doing this.
Cliff Arnall is apparently not a research psychologist or sociologist as his output would suggest, but a 'life coach'. I'm not a fan of this field. Fair enough if you are, and no doubt there are plenty of life coaches out there who have nothing but good intentions and a desire to help people, but to me it's always seemed a bit self-limiting. The very concept means people in need of a life coach (for whatever reason) are going to end up in a submissive position. They've employed a life coach to begin with, which suggests that they feel they are incapable of making their own decisions, and even if a life coach does everything to boost their confidence and get them back on track, the whole concept can be boiled down to someone vulnerable paying a stranger to tell them what to do in their own daily lives, which is about as personal and invasive as it gets outside of reality TV (not that there's much
difference). Even if the life coached does end up feeling better, they will always know it was thanks to the interference of a 'superior', a powerful message that they should always obey others and be a good little peon in order to remain happy. Their lives are not really their own, it's external factors that make the difference. Cliff Arnall is a life coach, and he is famous for telling people when they should be happy/sad. Adds up somewhat, now.
Cliff Arnall has 3 children. This was mentioned in the article I read about him, apropos of nothing. I can't see how this fact has any bearing on anything to do with his work, but I'm restating it here in case there's something important I'm missing.
I have never met Cliff Arnall. Odds are he's a perfectly nice guy who's figured out how to make money from a relentlessly shallow and gullible mainstream media. And he's undoubtedly doing a lot better than I am. But his actions have caused me ire and humiliation on several occasions, so I shall continue to lay into him on my own blog until I see a decent reason not to.

Lastly, apologies to any regular readers wondering where this blog has gotten do. Had an insanely busy time of it in July. But now I'm fully employed as a Psychiatry tutor, so have a reliable schedule and will hopefully have a lot of interesting brain-related things to talk about in the coming months

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

A Hari-raising situation

2011-07-03T06:52:00.000-07:00

I was featured in Episode 91 of the Pod Delusion this week. For those of you less audibly-inclined, here's the written version of my pointless rant

A Hari-raising situation

This week, it has emerged that Johann Hari, writer of an award winning and provocative series of interviews, may not have been 100% accurate when reporting actually occurred when he met and spoke with high-profile figures. Apparently Hari would meet with a big-name but controversial individual, let's call him Successpants McKnobjockey, which is a name that's both big and controversial. Hari would publish a detailed report of the interview, with many philosophical musings and elaborate statements and claims made by McKnobjockey, and Hari's reputation as a cutting edge, brutally honest interviewer who asks the difficult questions and get's revealing answers is preserved for another day.

Except now it turns out he wasn't doing that per se. He admits he was taking useful quotes and claims that KcKnobjockey had made at other times, and inserting them into the parts of the interviews where McKnobjockey had just said 'erm', or taken a pull on his oxygen mask, or stopped to inject a syringe of pure heroin right into his eyeball, or whatever it is rich people do when not saying words out loud.

With regards to my views on Hari's behaviour, I am somewhat on the fence, which has become an ironically rebellious position to take in the modern world of polarising arguments. On the one hand, I do agree an interview should report what went on in the interview, and only that, otherwise what's the point of doing the interview? Just swot up on what the subject has said previously and draw your own conclusions. Roger Federer doesn't automatically get put through to the Wimbledon on the grounds that he's been there many times before, what people say and do in the context is what's important. On the other hand, every interviewer should be aware of the previous work of their subject, otherwise they wouldn't be interviewed in the first place, so can any interviewer be said to be completely innocent of relying on what they've said or done previously? Hari just seems to have been a bit more 'direct' than most

I'm not going to defend Hari's actions, but I can sort of see why he did it. When you need to produce interesting and popular interviews to feed the voracious demands of modern media and all Successpants McKnobjockey is doing is dribbling in the corner smacked off his tits then I imagine the temptation to beef up his contribution must be overwhelming. And I don't think what he did was plagiarism as some people are declaring, as he was saying certain people said things that they did actually say, just at different times, but neglected to mention the last part. I think of it as 'self-aggrandising stealth-quoting'. Not so succinct, but more fun to say. Go on, give it a try,.

However, as I'm recording this, it seems like there's evidence emerging that Hari actually did just steal quotes from interviews other people without crediting them. Passing off the work of other people as your own and claiming credit, that is plagiarism, yes. Johan Hari seems to be the radical left-wing columnist version of Peter Kay. And if you like Peter Kay and don't like what I'm saying, I don't care. Your liking of Peter Kay has disqualified you from having opinions that I care about even slightly.

So I have mixed feelings towards Hari... Not like that, cheeky! He does seem to be a largely self-aggrandising dick. Weird to use that description of a London media type I know, but we're living in strange times folks. But with all that, I'm still glad he's around. It's nice that there's at least one person who's using the tools of overreaction and emotional manipulation against the right wing for once. Johan Hari is essentially the UK's answer to Michael Moore; a dick, but a useful one.

But here's the thing; whatever you think of Hari, it's hard to deny that he's a high-profile, successful writer who has achieved many good things. He helped start up the Uncut movement in America, and more importantly, he smacked down Richard Littlejohn and BNP MP live on air. Anyone who does that get's some leeway in my book. I'm not saying I'd let him steal my car if I caught him in the act, but I'd give him a stern talking to rather than just twatting him with a tire iron.

It's the reaction to his behaviour which concerns me. As Hari seems to be the darling of the left-wing, self-described intellectual communities, the response they've exhibited has been deeply worrying. David Allen Green, another skeptic hero, wrote a piece in the New Statesmen criticising those who instantly jumped to his defence, ignoring the fact that he was guilty of failing to meet required standards. This is a very valid point. But what of the others sort? The people who have taken a sinister level of Glee in tearing into Hari. Where once they would reflexively send out links to his articles regardless of what they were about, now they're demanding his head on a pole.

My concern is that the internet, and twitter in particular, is causing people to build up a false sense of superiority and entitlement. This seems to be particularly an issue with the self-described liberal, intellectual communities. This may be because these are the only ones I have any exposure to though, so I can't really draw much of a comparison. But it seems to be more obvious to me because the intellectual posse are the ones who are the first to condemn such behaviour in others. And I don't like hypocrisy. This was driven home most recently during last November's Stephen Fry debacle, when Stephen Fry made some unwise comments about women's attitudes to sex (this was shortly after Johan Hari interviewed Fry via Twitter, if you're looking for some sort of valid connection here). Upon hearing Fry's remarks, the self-described liberal, tolerant twitter types went berserk. Overall, I saw hundreds of supposedly intelligent people directly criticising Stephen Fry, telling him, a homosexual former celibate gentleman in his 50's, that he didn't know anything about women's attitudes to sex. Ya RECKON? But whatever the argument, many people felt genuinely aggrieved with Stephen Fry, and felt they were entitled to make their feelings known to him personally via the great twitter leveller.

If I had the character capacity and gumption, I would have made the following points to Stephen Fry's detractors.

1) This man, Mr. Stephen Fry, is a professional writer and entertainer who has millions of fans via his works, but he is not a sexual behaviour expert. Almost the opposite, by his own admission.

2) This man, Mr. Stephen Fry, has been creating content and entertaining things, generally at the expense of his own mental wellbeing, that you have been enjoying for many years (presumably, if you are a twitter follower of his, or British in some capacity). Given how you've responded to his unpopular comments, I assume you have thanked him personally for each and every piece of work of his that you have enjoyed?

3) This man, Mr. Stephen Fry, does not know you. Any remarks he made which you disagree with were in no way personal attacks, unless he emailed them to you directly or scribbled them on an old Twinings crate which he then hurled through your window

4) This man is Mr. Stephen Fry. Who the fuck, exactly, are you? And how precisely are you entitled to condemn him so vocally for what is, at worst an unfair and illogical opinion, at best a poorly thought out mistake.

Some, but not all, of these points can be made about the Johann Hari debacle as well. What disappoints me most of all is that the liberal, intellectual posse are supposed to be better than that. We condemn the hysterical overreactions of the tabloid press but when one of our own drops a bollock we're on them like sharks after an obese haemophiliac with a nosebleed. Much of the mainstream media is right-wing orientated and with this sort of thing it's easy to see why. Journalists are people too. Mostly. And it makes sense that they'd cater to a group of people who are more easily pleased and less likely to turn on them like rabid dogs if, in spite of all that they have done previously, they make fail to live up to the high standards their readership demands.

It's all very well to say we should treat people we agree with the same standards as those we don't, but it does seem rather imbalanced to me, in that the intellectual sorts are for more ruthless and demanding with people they agree with while a lot of the crimes of the right are ignored (admittedly, they're probably getting overlooked in the bullshit blizzard)

This is probably just a personal view of mine, but I've got no time for people who demonstrate both superiority and hypocrisy, and thanks to twitter I see this a lot more than I used to. Hari's a knob, what he did was idiotic and I'm glad he was rumbled, but let's keep it in perspective. But it's the people who are reacting to this and any other similar incident I'm addressing. If you like to pursue intellectual matters because you're genuinely interested and want to find things out, and you feel let down by Hari's behaviour because he was some you trusted and respected, then go about your business.

But if you're a self-described intellectual because it makes you feel superior, then I'm talking to you. If you complain about people going on about the sport on the grounds that 'not everybody cares' then spend an hour tweeting solidly about the Apprentice, then I'm talking to you. If you see someone trying to achieve something or trying be helpful, and your first response is to criticise them for doing it wrong in some way, then I'm talking to you. If you enjoy it when high-profile names crew up because it justifies you slagging them off, then I'm talking to you. If you believe it's OK to blow Hari's crimes out of all proportion and mock him from your moral high ground because that's what he does, but are unaware of the crushing hypocrisy of this, then I'm talking to you.

Just be honest with yourself. Buy yourself a Heat magazine, sit yourself down in front of whatever tragic reality TV contest is currently showing, and laugh at those inferior to your mighty self until you feel better.

Dean of the University

2011-06-12T08:45:00.001-07:00

So, it seems that starting a University is easy. You just get a bunch of your famous mates to put their names to it, sponge off the resources of an established institution, offer the same courses as anywhere else, and charge double/triple fees compared to the norm. At least, that's what AC Grayling has supposedly done. It's not going too well, apparently.

Admittedly, I'm being rather fatuous. It's apparently not a university, it's a college offering University level education. It is part of the University of London, but it gets a bit confusing at this point. At first I thought it was akin to something like Queens College being part of Cambridge University, but now I'm guessing it's an 'independent' body which is part the confederal University of London. The University of Wales is a similar thing, it's a body which accredits and is made up of various institutions (and has a habit of validating pseudoscientific/bullshit courses, a fact which irks my patriotic side considerably and one which I've acted on before). I assume the New College of the Humanities is in a similar arrangement with the University of London. I could be all thorough and look this up, but that sounds boring. But if you really must know, feel free to go find out. I'll wait.

Back? OK, good.

It does strike me as a bit of a cash-making wheeze by some high profile ageing academics. But a lot of the concern surrounds the elitism of it, coupled with the frankly satirical fees they're charging. It's open to anyone, they say. But then it's not just anyone who has £18,000 a year to fritter away on an overhyped undergraduate course (in my humble opinion). The arguments about whether this is an acceptable move on the part of Grayling and his fellow famous academics are still going on. It seems to have met with wide condemnation, but that's possibly the result of the sources I rely on to get information, which may well be skewed away from the actual middle-ground. But that's not what I'm particularly interested in.

The point that perked my interest was; is it really that easy to set up a University/Higher Education institution? You just get yourself and some mates to promise to teach some courses, get a few facilities you can use, and charge people a ridiculous sum to listen to you waffle on about it? There's probably a lot more to it than this, but that's how it looks from the general articles I've read. So rather than protest the elitism and exploitative nature of the College of New Humanities via articles, blogs and dubious protests, why not fight fire with fire. They set up a profit making university that caters to the rich, I'll set up the exact opposite!

My University: Name

The New College of Humanities is seemingly dedicated to teaching the humanities. Well, the title suggests that is the case. I've not seen that stated anywhere on the actual website, but it seems a valid conclusion to come to. Some people (such as scientists like Richard Dawkins, disturbingly) have criticised the Humanities for not being that useful. Bit unfair, but that's smug scientists for you. But if I was paying double or triple the typical University fees, I'd expect to have a degree or qualification that would be so useful I'd have employers ringing me up in the middle of the night, begging me to work for them, offering vast sums and sexual favours if I'll even agree to a tour of their offices. But in my experience, the one University that everyone seems to improve your employability is the so-called University of life. It's a decent university in many ways, the skills it teaches you are essential and the curriculum is ridiculously varied. On the downside, you never stop paying the fees to attend, and the graduation ceremony is a depressing affair. However, these days there are seemingly more and more people who are failing at life. Check the number of 'fail' shout outs in any discussion online. You'd think that failing life would have terminal consequences, but apparently not. Arguably, it's a consequence of an increasingly complex and ever changing society. So what we need is an institution to teach people about this sort of thing.

So, I propose the 'College of Modern Life'. That's the name sorted, now we need someone to head it up.

My University: Head of School

AC Grayling is a famous, published academic who has a lot of powerful friends, and this makes him qualified to set up a higher-education institution, so we need someone to rival that. I've got my name on 2 academic

papers so far, this blog has been referenced by several big name scientists/skeptics (e.g. Ben Goldacre, PZ Myers, and so on), and Rhod Gilbert once said hello to me when he passed me in the street. That means I've got the qualifications to run this University, right? Doesn't matter if I don't, actually, as it's my idea. You want to set up your own? Go ahead, it'll be fun.

My University: The Professoriate

If we're really going to try and compete with the New College of the Humanities, we need one thing; famous people. Famous people who are qualified in the subject matter of the University itself. Luckily in this case, it being the University of Modern Life, that means we need famous people who are alive today, which opens the field up a bit. I was thinking of;

Hale and Pace
That guy from Big Brother who always wore a hat
Steve Penk
Margarita Pracatan
All the members of the early 2000's pop band 'Girl Thing'
Michaela Strachan
Mr Motivator
Keith Harris

Admittedly, I've never met any of these people nor had any form of contact with them, with the possible exception of having passed Keith Harris on a Blackpool pier in the rain (a very poignant moment). But I'm hoping they'll agree to it based on the fact that they're a) just famous enough to qualify as 'celebrities', b) seemingly not doing much these days, c) could benefit from the publicity and kudos of being affiliated to an academic institution, and, most importantly, d) still alive. Hope it all works out. Obviously, these people will presumably have the same role as their New Humanities counterparts; lending their name to the institution, making some token teaching efforts, then have nothing to do with the whole enterprise. Day to day teaching duties will be undertaken by a more general staff who will be selected using the classic 'who's bored and fancies killing an hour?'. It's never let me down before.

My University: The courses

Obviously, the range of courses will be quite broad, given that it covers modern life. It will also be constantly changing, unless life stops for some reason, although in the event of that happening adjustments to a curriculum would be the least of our concerns. But so far, here are what the University will offer to teach prospective students.

FASHION STUDIES

Modules Include:

Underwear Exposure: How much is too much for the modern individual?
Ironic cross-class garment adoption: From low-cut vests to Burberry.
Sarah Jessica Parker awareness.
Social-Circle Jerks: Acceptable dress sense for potential friends of the fashion conscious.
Studied Nonchalance for beginners.
Is Bigger Better: Just how big can accessories be before you look like a tw*t?
Celebrity Uncertainty: Endorsed garments that are 'P Diddy' or 'MC Hammer'

MODERN COMMUNICATIONS

Modules Include:

Txt Speek 4 L8 adoptors! J

J
Psychology of Blogging: How to deal with the realisation that nobody cares what you think
Troll spotting and maintenance.
Protest THIS!: preparing and constructing the ideal protest banner.
Advanced Political Bullshit.
"I'm not racist but…": Phrases to disguise your awful views
You're all Wrong!: An introduction to newspaper column writing.
"To BCC or not to BCC": Appropriate email etiquette for business communications
Celebrity Tweeters: Why they aren't actually your friends.
Wassuuupp?!?!: Annoying Catchphrases, past and present

TECHNOLOGICAL INTERACTION

Modules Include:

CAPS LOCK: It can be turned off
Smartphone Smugness: Why you're impressed by it, but nobody else gives a shit (some materials shared with 'Psychology of Blogging')
Basic Car Handling: From "Accelerate, granddad!" to "Zzzz: sleeping at the wheel without dying horribly"
Printer and Scanner combat: A guide to defeating the most enraging of devices
Advanced Remote Control Handling: Including 'What is aspect ratio?' and 'turning off the Spanish subtitles'
iWant!: The psychology behind your inexplicable desire for Steve Jobs' latest doohickey
Live Streaming: No, it doesn't involve canoes.

SCIENCE APPRECIATION

Modules Include:

Google Diagnosis: Why your doctor knows less than you.
Scientific Fields that don't require a white coat.
Acronyms Explained: Putting an end to those WTF moments.
Dissecting a relationship: Achieving success with the opposite sex while being a scientist
BOOM!: Which scientific field is most likely to destroy us all?
The McKeith Effect: Using science terminology while talking out of your arse.
Pseudo-Sci-Fi: A detailed study in the ridiculous things people actually believe are real.
Cox Studies: An in-depth investigation of that man off the telly, and his hair.

SEXUAL STUDIES

Modules Include

Anatomy of Women: Why 'Nuts' magazine has lied to you.
Lesbianism: It's a sexual orientation, not an automatic occurrence
Meeting the Parents: Introductions, relevant conversation, and escape routes
The Morning After: When is the best time to leave?
Effective Contraception: From prophylactics to porcelain dolls
Think About Your Mother!: Dealing with prematureness
Is this Normal?: A guide to acceptable fetishes, and when to bring them up.
'They might be Gay, but you might be ugly': Dealing with rejection and severe denial

LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

Modules Include

On a budget: Just how much law are you entitled to in your financial situation?
Slippery Ladders and Too Hot Coffee: Introduction to getting others to pay for your own idiocy.
A guide to Super-in[REDACTED]
Libel, Slander and Outright Fabrications: Which legally questionable procedure is right for you?
'I thought of it first!': A guide to patent law and its abuses.
Pleading insanity: An investigation into the inaccurate law perpetuated by Hollywood movies
The Defence Rests: Legal procedures and processes that really aren't worth bothering with
Jack of Kent: Is any other legal resource actually necessary?

My University: The Resources

In order to offer as professional and slick a system as possible, this University shall exploit the already existing resources of other institutions and businesses. Lectures will take place in my nearby Starbucks, a Wetherspoons pub before it gets too busy (this is a logical venue as most students end up here anyway, sometimes instead of at lectures), the Library (if we keep our voices down) or in a car park, as long as those assembled are quick on their feet. Network access will be provided by a 'guess the wifi password' system, favouring smarter students and thus giving us the edge on technical competence in our student pool. Exams will be allocated based on how much scrap paper and free time I have to spend on the venture. To save time, exam results will be dependent largely on the 'most legible handwriting' marking scheme.

My University: Fees

You get what you pay for. Fees currently stand at 50p and a Kit Kat (or national generic confection equivalent for foreign students). Buying your lecturers a coffee/pint will be considered an attempt at bribery and will not e discouraged in the slightest.

So, who wants to sign up?

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Psychomeopathy?

2011-06-05T11:57:00.001-07:00

Some of you might have heard already, but if you haven't, there's been a news story recently concerning Catholic doctors selling homeopathic 'remedies' for homosexuality [and I'll be honest, I'm worried that the inverted commas around 'remedies' in this context won't be able to contain the pressure of ridiculousness trying to escape].

Apparently I wasn't alone in ignoring this story when it was first flagged up on that there twitter and Facebook places. It's obviously a spoof, I thought. Apparently, it isn't. This is deeply worrying. It's not hard to see why some skeptics and rationalists have had a hard time believing this, it's wrong on so many levels. Overall, it's stating that Catholic doctors are recommending homeopathic treatments based on highly diluted platinum in order to treat homosexuality. This one sentence is completely mad on a rational, psychological, medical, chemical and ethical level.

For starters, it's always worrying when professional doctors start treating patients based on their religious beliefs rather than actual evidence-based medicine. My own thoughts on the whole 'homosexuality is an illness' thing have been stated quite clearly, but even if you do believe it's unnatural in some way, that's not really how being a doctor should work if we're honest. Then there's the whole homeopathy angle itself, which is essentially the go-to alt-med whenever a skeptic or rational person needs an easy target (I'm no exception to this sort of behaviour). As you probably know, homeopathic remedied via serial dilutions until there is none of the original substance left, and the water supposedly retains a memory of the original chemical. Whatever you think of this theory/belief/obvious fantasy, even if there was some merit in it, I'm pretty if I had to dissolve something in successive bodies of water water (or at some stage I think, alcohol), I imagine I'd struggle if I tried it with platinum, a metal prised for its chemical inertness. To even make a start with dissolving platinum, you need some incredibly powerful nitro-hydrochloric acid. Mere water is literally not going to put a dent in it (unless its applied via high-powered steam jet perhaps, but then dents aren't believed to have medicinal properties). And there's the whole belief that, even if homosexuality were some serious mental disorder (which it isn't), it could be treated with a few pills of some vague description. Treating mental processes with chemicals (actual ones) is still a very complex and poorly understood process, and certainly isn't a quick and easy one. The brain does not bow to simple molecules so easily.

But the one thing that occurred to me, when singing sensation Doctor Evan Harris flagged this up on the twitter under with "Catholic docs offer homeopathic 'treatment' for homosexuality", my first thought was 'what the hell are they diluting for that?' Now if you're like me, a) I'm deeply sorry, and b) when posed with that question, your mind probably went to a very dodgy place. As well as the ridiculous 'extreme dilution makes chemicals more powerful' notion, homeopathy also operates under the assumption 'like treats like', meaning patients should be treated with substances that cause the same symptoms that they're trying to alleviate. E.g. insomnia would be treated with caffeine, arsenic poisoning with arsenic, and so on. Thing is, here they're claiming they can treat homosexuality. So what substance which is associated with homosexuality would they dilute? Something readily available, something that a non-homosexual would not want to put in their bodies? I personally couldn't help but go down the 'gentlemen's reproductive emissions' route. But obviously, that isn't the case. And thankfully so, what if a heterosexual female accidentally took the remedy? She'd be shaving her head and burning her bra before you could say 'pointless placebo'.

I'd probably been too judgemental in my initial analysis. I know homosexuality occurs in both genders, but as these doctors were Catholics I was assuming that any illness afflicting a woman would be deemed irrelevant. But more fool me.

Anyway, I discovered that they were diluting platinum, and I'll be honest, if you asked me 'what substance would you associate with causing homosexuality?', platinum wouldn't be top of the list I'd come up with. Probably not even top 5. So I had to wonder what the rationale behind 'Platinum àHomosexual' was. In daily life, you're probably most likely to come into contact with platinum in jewellery. Stereotypically, gay men wear more jewellery than their non-gay counterparts (let's avoid the matter of where on their bodies they wear it), so is that the logic behind it? I'd say this pattern was more an effect than a cause, but that's just me.

But then it occurred to me, if they do genuinely classify homosexuality as a mental disorder, then one cause of mental disorders is heavy metal poisoning. So there is a certain logic to treating what may be caused my metal toxicity with metal. Admittedly, it's usually mercury and other metals that are associated with neurological damage, and I've never seen any indication that one of the symptoms of metal toxicity is 'an irrational sexual appreciation for members of your own gender', but come on! Given the context we're talking about here, that's still an impressively rational approach.

Admittedly, it might just be due to a misprint, where someone sent an email to the homeopath lab stating that 'homosexuality is a mental disorder' but dropped that important 'n' in the process. A remedy that 'contains' platinum is probably one that they can charge more for.

So it's platinum. Other possible homeopathic remedies for homosexuality suggested via the social networks include Cherry Coke and Village People CDs. Obviously people joking around with stereotypes, but is this any less sensible than the reality presented to us in the article itself?

But this got me thinking, if homeopathic remedies can apparently treat mental conditions that aren't actually mental conditions, why stop at homosexuality? (My reluctance to Google whether or not they already do is the only reason I assume homeopaths don't already do this, and I'm aware that I might be very wrong in this assumption). So, in case this is the start of a new trend, here's my suggestions for other homeopathic treatments based on the same logic (or lack thereof) shown above. The supposed disorder is referenced, and the possible treatments (i.e. what causes it that can be diluted to treat it) are listed. Feel free to contribute suggestions of your own in the comments. Any homeopath offering them from this point on can be threatened with copyright infringement.

SYMPTOM: STUPIDITY

Possible Treatments:

Alcohol (a widely known reducer of intellectual prowess. Note: sometimes the original substance to be diluted is dissolved in alcohol, so this should prove a bit of a quandary in preparation)
Silicon of Jordan
(directly extracted from the mammary region of one of the UK's most influential sufferers)
Cowell's False Tan
(similar to above, highly diluted epidermal sample of the man largely responsible for the spread of stupidity in the UK)
Pentapeptides (you know why)
Homeopathic remedies
(should cause amusing confusion during the preparation/pseudoscientific explanation process)

SYMPTOM: RACISM

Possible treatments

Essence of Littlejohn
(bodily fluid extracted from the country's biggest, most celebrated racist c**t. Remedy also treats homophobia, sexism, elitism, inability to grasp logic and massive unsubstantiated persecution complexes)
Marmite
(seems to seriously increase sense of national pride and resentment of foreigners, for some reason)
Marmalade
(a similar-named preserve to above, but for different reasons)
BNP Literature
(shredded and mashed into a fine pulp and diluted into oblivion. Won't treat anything, but any method of destroying that stuff is worth encouraging)
Melanin
(innocent molecule which, logically, on many levels, is the cause of racism)
Growth Hormone
(people apparently become more right wing as they grow older, so accelerating the process would make them more right wing, and therefore racist?)
Blood
('rivers of blood' is/are strongly associated with racism, extreme homeopathic dilution of blood is logically comparable to a river of blood)

SYMPTOM: QUICK TO ANGER

Possible treatments

Aura of Moyles
(Sterile water is stimulated by radio waves carrying a full-length Chris Moyles show, then diluted and sold. Also available in Gaunt, Westwood and Limbaugh for overseas customers)
Clegg's Promise (Normal water that Nick Clegg has promised will cure your illness)
Banker's Bonus (Used cheques/notes that were paid to bankers during the credit crunch. Note: Even using homeopathic logic, this isn't as potent as the real thing, use with caution)
Malik's Malady (A pointless, ineffective treatment that is constantly administered to you despite it being unwanted and unhelpful)
Cameron's concoction (Dilution of a compound of fluids gathered from the British Prime Minister, largely saliva emitted as he laughs uproariously at the plight of the poor)
Pentapeptides (again, you know why)
Laughing Cow cheese (Probably just me on this one)

SYMPTOM: CATHOLICISM

Possible treatments

Hint of choirboy
(You really need this explained?)
Uncontracepted (Water, but filtered through a permeable condom of some sort)
Orphan Child's sweets (Confection taken from a poor child and diluted pointlessly, to enhance the all-important guilt
Transubstantiated Substance
(diluted bread and/or wine taken from the communion ceremony. Unique amongst homeopathic remedies as it genuinely does contain as much of the active compound (Body of Christ) as the original sample)

I might add more if I can think of them. But again, feel free to play along.

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Chavism: The new prejudice

2011-06-03T05:10:00.000-07:00

Every now and again, I contribute to the Pod Delusion. Recently, I volunteered/was asked to do a piece on why I think the term 'Chav' is a form of class prejudice. Martin Robbins, celebrated Blogger and science journo is the one arguing that 'chav' is not an offensive term. The other side of the argument was my incompetent self. Arguably, this could be seen as yet another form of 'Chav' prejudice.

Anyway, this is the relevant episode of the Pod Delusion.

POD Delusion: Pro-'Chav' Rant

I didn't go to a posh school. There were over a thousand students in my school, but if you added up the A-level Chemistry, Biology and Physics classes, you got 7 students. 3 of those students were me. It was a poorly funded, oversubscribed school. Studying was something you did if you couldn't get a girlfriend. And yes, a lot of my fellow pupils would fall into the social and behavioural groups that many would label 'chavs'. They were from poor backgrounds, they smoked under age, they had little discipline, they all dressed in ways that they considered cool but others would consider stupid. I didn't think of them as 'chavs', though. I thought of them as 'teenagers'.

I was born and raised working class. I might still be working class, I'm not sure what the class criterion are any more. I didn't grow up in a cultured or well-to-do place; when I grew up we lived in a pub in a former Welsh mining valley where unemployment and heavy drinking was the norm. I did go through the usual teenage phase of rebelling against my dad, but seeing as my dad was a hard-fighting hard drinking landlord, my rebellion took the form of staying in and reading books, hence I ended up becoming the sort of person who contributes to the POD delusion. But whenever I see or hear someone described as a 'chav', I do get existentially irked as, in a parallel universe very close to our own, they're talking about me. That's my version 'there but for the grace of God..', by the way. It's a useful quantum/atheist version.

I grew up among so-called 'chavs'. I went to school with them. I imagine a lot of my family could be described as such. Not by me, obviously, they're members of my family. The names I call them are not something you could repeat in polite company.

I want to make it clear that I don't think the sort of people labelled 'chavs' are necessarily good people. They often aren't. But saying that, I'm not that nice a person myself on occasion. And I'm not saying everyone should be nice. Check out the blog of my good friend Ted Shiress. A stand-up comic, Cerebral Palsy sufferer, and he sometimes comes across as a decent bloke. He's not though, he's the most evil person ever made (haphazardly) by nature, and I've said so to his face. In public. Which makes me look bad. So this isn't an issue of me arguing about who I like and don't like, it's as impersonal I can make it.

Nor do I think that everyone who uses the term is being deliberately classist or offensive. But saying that, when I was in infant school I used the word 'Paki' quite often. I had no idea what it actually meant. Growing up in a very small, isolated British community in the 80's, in the context I'd heard it used I thought it was another way of saying 'daft person'. But despite my lack of negative intent, it is still clearly an offensive term, given its origins. And I feel, to a lesser extent maybe, the same can be said of the term 'chav'.

I'm sure Martin Robbins has presented a far more well researched and reasoned argument about why the term 'chav' is not classist or offensive. More so than one I will present anyway. I personally find it difficult to argue about the intent behind the label 'chav' because it seems to mean many things to the many different people I've asked. Some think it means someone who breaks the law, some think it means someone from a council estate who hangs around in bus stops, some seem to think the term applies to anyone with a Burberry cap and false tan. It's very hard to argue about the intent of people using the term when it's not certain what they mean exactly.

But the Wikipedia article for ''chav'' summarises as 'chav' as "aggressive teenagers, of working class background, who repeatedly engage in anti-social behaviour such as street drinking, drug abuse and rowdiness, or other forms of juvenile delinquency". Given the way Wikipedia operates, I'm going to assume enough people agree with this definition for it to be considered accurate.

It suggests that 'chavs' are from working class backgrounds. But obviously, not all working class people are 'chavs'. Apparently, a 'chav' has to engage in illegal, antisocial behaviour to truly be worthy of the label. It seems a 'chav' also has to be a young person.

But however you define it, it seems undeniable to me that the term 'chav' has given many people something they really like having; a convenient form of acceptable prejudice.

Prejudice is, unfortunately, something that is very easy to instill in humans. Check out the famous robbers cave experiment by Muzafer Sherif et al (1954), which took place at an American summer camp, where two groups of young boys, of the same ethnic and social backgrounds, met for the first time, became friends, and were then turned into bitter rivals to the point vicious accusations and attacks after just imposition of a few experimental variables. This wasn't the work of months or weeks, but a couple of days. People form prejudices quickly. It's likely to be an evolutionary consequence of humans living in tight-knit social groups, where other groups turning up were usually potential rivals for resources and living space. Whatever the reason, it happens a lot.

It even happened to me. I'm not afraid of 'chavs' or feral teens or whatever they're called. I went to school with them, I'm habituated to them. I've been unsuccessfully mugged by examples of such people on two separate occasions. Their strategy seemed to rely on me being automatically scared and deferential based on how they came across. I wasn't though, and they had no backup plan, and we just went our separate ways.

But when I went home recently, I was in a cafe and saw a bunch of Burberry clad teens in a bus stop nearby. One left the group and approached the cafe. My first instinct was to move toward the currently unguarded till, thinking I could hold him back from it long enough for someone to call the police (It was a small business). Said teen came into the cafe, went tot he counter, and asked for some more milk to the takeaway coffee under his hoodie, which he had legitimately paid for minutes before I turned up.

I'm the last person who should behave in this manner, but the social stereotyping had got to me in the end, and I didn't even realise it. Ergo, I think the term 'chav' is another form of prejudice. It's a term used to separate and denigrate others who are less fortunate than ones self. When someone calls someone a 'chav', they're not being complimentary. However you define it, the term 'chav' is never a compliment. But saying that, I've heard many arguments about why using the term 'chav' is acceptable.

It has been argued that 'chavs' are self identifying, and as such it's ok to call them that. I admit, I knew many kids who would fit the description of 'chav' in my school. Thing is, I didn't hear the term 'chav' until I got to University. In Cardiff, capital city. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but 'chav' was very much a label imposed on that particular social group, not one they sought out for themselves, and even if they have become accustomed to it and now use it willingly, that doesn't automatically make it OK. Other countries became accustomed to the British Empire, but that doesn't mean they'd prefer not to have been brutally conquered in the first place.

By using the 'self-identifying' argument, it suggests that being a 'chav' is a conscious and thought out choice on behalf of the individual. But 'chavs' are, apparently, young people from deprived backgrounds who are poorly educated and shunned by wider society. In such circumstances, peer pressure and your immediate social groups are all you can rely on, so it's hardly any wonder that they conform. Saying it's a conscious decision suggests that there is an element of choice, but choice requires options, and in certain deprived backgrounds this isn't necessarily the case.

It has been argued that 'chavs' and similar people are just as insulting towards the upper classes when they use terms like Toff, hooray Henry, snob and so on. And that may well be the case, but I don't see how this justifies anything. I've encountered many men who say that feminism means women are just as sexist as men these days, so that effectively cancels their own misogyny out. But I believe that logic is exactly what it seems to be; a flimsy rationalisation for bad behaviour.

Similarly, a class prejudice is not an equivalent two way thing. A working class prejudice to posh people means the latter might think twice before parking their expensive cars in areas they'd never go to anyway. An upper class prejudice to working class people can lead to massive cuts in the public sector

Perhaps that is rather melodramatic, but the underlying reality is that, when one form of prejudice has genuine consequences for the victims and the other does not, they can't be said to be equal at all.

The strongest argument is that 'chavs' are usually criminals, and criminals don't deserve respect. A slightly right-wing argument, but one that rings true for many people. It's a valid point, but not one limited to working class people. The term 'chav' has seemingly moved beyond the criminal arena and moved on to any working class group of youths who like that. Hanging around in a bus stop, wearing too much foundation and drinking white cider, these aren't crimes, but enough to get you labelled a 'chav'. Using other people's money in vast sums in risky, self-gratifying ventures that eventually will threaten the foundations of the world's economy, this is a morally reprehensible action far beyond vandalising a phone box, but it doesn't get you labelled a 'chav'. So being a 'chav' is not necessarily a criminal act.

To summarise, you and your friends can smash up a public establishment. If you're thought of as 'chavs', you'll probably end up with a criminal record or ASBO. If you're in the Bullingdon club, you'll probably end up running the country. You might think the latter accusation is just based on anecdotal evidence. I would argue that the same is true for the former.

All things being equal, there are many things that get someone labelled a 'chav'. Being disrespectful of authority, publicly disruptive, expecting others to provide for them, damaging property of others, antagonising others in large groups, yes these are all the hallmarks of 'chavs'. Thing is, I've heard people refer to the noble UK Uncut movement in exactly the same terms. And the student protests. And many others. None of these are 'chavs', as they have a decent education and political awareness.

I'm not saying the people referred to as 'chavs' are pleasant people. They're generally not, the clichés around them are there for a reason, and it's arguably true that they have no respect for civilised society. But society has never shown any respect for them, and rather than do something to change the situation, society has decided to ridicule and condemn them. I would rather they didn't behave in the way they did, but that goes for people of all classes. But only those of a working class background warrant their own disparaging term, 'chav'. The ones who are least able to alter their situations and behaviour are the ones most condemned for refusing to do so. These people are also the ones least able to retaliate in any appreciable way. The propagation of the word 'chav' is, to me, an example of 'blame the victim' culture writ large.

You may disagree with this entire analysis, and it's your right to do so. After all, 'chavs' are acceptable targets, and nobody wants to lose a useful whipping boy if they can avoid it.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Bull. Shit! (Literally)

2011-05-30T12:37:00.001-07:00

I've mentioned before how the credibility of science is exploited and mangled for the sake of advertising. So have more capable people, like Ben Goldacre. I was recently asked by a media representative to provide a critical perspective on the Dettol 'Mission for Health'. It seems that this major distributor of disinfectants has, purely out of the goodness of their hearts, conducted some research as to how badly infested with bacteria certain public transport services are. Why public transport? God knows. It couldn't be because so many people use public transport and this is a good way of alarming them and increasing their desire for disinfectants. That would be so cynical.

I was sent the Dettol press release, which described the different bacterial levels found on Cardiff Buses, Manchester trams, and so on. The numbers mean nothing out of context, or in the absence of any data about what's 'normal', and whether the (geographically and physically) distinct sample locations are comparable in any way. But it's OK, because the press release includes some comments from a 'media doctor' who says the bacteria levels aren't good. I was actually more alarmed by the revelation that 'media doctor' is a real job description these days.

The reporter who sent me the press release also included some comments from an actual qualified bacteriologist. These comments can be summarised as follows: 'Eh?'

It was gibberish, but it was just another example of corporations conducting a self-serving 'scientific survey' and just interpreting the data in a manner that suits their needs. Business as usual, I suppose. This sort of thing happens all the time.

Then, a few days later, I saw this. And that, for me, was the final straw for advertising-led science. I've never seen such obvious 'scientific' fabrications.

You might want to go over that article a few times, to convince your brain that yes, it does say what you think it says.

To summarise; on behalf of Laughing Cow, Comedian Milton Jones performed to a field of cows as part of an experiment in whether or not animals can laugh. And it turns out they can.

Essentially, it's a nonsensical experiment that bastardises science via the exploitation of the mediums of comedy and animal behavioural studies. Given my background, I'm not entirely convinced that this whole thing wasn't thought up with the express intention of annoying me specifically.

I will say right now that this is not an attack on Milton Jones, who is brilliant, and as a father of three trying to make a living in an increasingly crowded field (by which I mean comedy, not cows), I have no issue with him taking the corporate dollar. Plus, I imagine he felt it would be funny to perform to cows. And it is.

What's not funny in the traditional sense is the contribution of Bruce Woodacre. Bruce is, apparently, a 'Cow Expert'. Again, one of those jobs which I didn't know existed until I read this. His CV must be very interesting… Actually, it isn't. It's disappointingly normal.

Bruce has an MA in Animal Science from Cambridge. I don't know what that really involves (couldn't find it online, and he did the course nearly 40 years ago), but it sounds impressive. It's got 'science' in the title, but it's also an MA, not an MSc, so that's not 100% reassuring. But let's not get distracted by that*.

So, here's is my critique of this experiment, and why I disagree with the 'findings' that cows can be amused by comedians.

METHODOLOGY:

This wasn't written down anywhere that I could see, so I have to make conclusions based on what I saw in the video. It seems like the cows were herded towards a stage constructed in the middle of a field, and Milton Jones performed to them. My questions about this would be as follows;

Was there an interval between the cows being corralled and the performance starting? The sensation of being herded towards an unfamiliar construct would be likely to cause levels of activity in the subjects that could obscure the behavioural responses being assessed.
Why were there so few independent variables? 'Comedy' is known to have a very subjective component. Even if cows are capable of expressing amusement, there's no guarantee they would be amused by the surreal whimsy of Milton Jones. A repeat of the experiment with Frankie Boyle, Stewart Lee, Michael McIntyre etc. may provide a more robust assessment of whether cows can be amused.
In a similar vein, was it just comedians used? The cows are in a unique situation, were there measures in place to rule out the novelty of the situation as the main factor eliciting responses, rather than amusement? Did Milton Jones read out a tax return form at some point, or recite from the phone book? This would have shown whether the cows were actually understanding what was being said and not just 'laughing' at his hairstyle. Alternatively, was the behaviour of the subjects assessed when there was nobody on the stage? Some calibration and standardisation wouldn't have gone amiss.
Was this experiment repeated with multiple herds? The one herd used may have been more/less open to amusing stimuli than others. Or they may have been pissed. That makes a difference with comedy sometimes.

EXPERT ANALYSIS:

Bruce Woodacre is a cow expert. He has 'spent 40 years of [his] life trying to understand cows'. This immediately leads to thinking 'WHY?!?!' This also causes me to have some concerns as to the extent and nature of Bruce's 'interest' in cows. Seems a bit overenthusiastic, if I'm being brutally honest.

He also promotes different approaches to cow management on his website, and uses the term 'holistic' at one point, which is enough to make any scientist twitch nervously these days. I've also found examples of him saying that it's important to put yourself 'in the mind of a cow'. I don't really know how to do this. I tried, but after 5minutes of thinking about cud and grass I just got too bored to continue.

So, I'm sure Bruce knows a lot about cows. But this does not make him an expert behavioural analyst. I myself have spent much of my life in or around cars. However, I am not a mechanic.

There are several points in Bruce's expert analysis that I take issue with. These are as follows:

"This cow is a heckler. She doesn't like what Milton's saying. She doesn't think he's funny at all"

Said cow was seemingly chewing cud and moving her head around, in a manner much like most of the other cows in the video. She's also remaining audibly silent, which is not a form of 'heckling' any comic would recognise. Bruce is probably right in saying the cow doesn't think Milton's funny, in that the cow doesn't have any mental concept of what's 'funny' as we'd recognise it, and that goes double for the concept of 'heckling'. It also doesn't speak or understand English. Even if it could, it's spent its entire life in a cow rearing facility, so can't really grasp the social and/or cultural references that make Milton's (or anyone else's) jokes work. The reasons for all this can be explained by one simple fact; It's a cow, not a human.

"I don't think a cow laughs in the same way as a human does".

It wouldn't, Bruce. It's a cow. Have you seen any evidence anywhere that they laugh at all? Please provide references if so.

"[The cows] display signs that they wouldn't normally display. The position of its ears, its' rate of breathing, things like that, which could well be interpreted as laughter".

I'd be surprised if they weren't displaying signs they wouldn't normally display. Normally, they wouldn't be corralled into a field and forced into a small area in front an unfamiliar artificial structure and have a human in a flamboyant shirt make noises at them through a microphone. When animals are exposed to unfamiliar scenarios, they behave in ways that they wouldn't normally in situations they are familiar with. All these things could well be interpreted as laughter. They could also be interpreted as fear, confusion, curiosity, irritation, indigestion, stomach parasites, impatience, thirst, hunger or a response to any sensation or feeling an animal is capable of

"Another example, a pair of cows that are certainly paying attention to Milton…"

In the clip used, the cows in question are clearly paying attention to the camera in their face. Unless they had serious budget issues, I'm guessing it wasn't Milton Jones who was doing the filming. If he's referring to the fact that the cows in question are close to the front of the stage, this is undoubtedly what happens when you're forcibly moved into an area and have several dozen of your co-creatures (each weighing the best part of a ton) pushed in behind you. Admittedly, they may well be paying attention to Milton. He's an unfamiliar thing in an unfamiliar situation. Animals that don't pay attention to things like that are usually dealt with harshly by evolution.

"…and that one is showing clear signs of amusement".

'That one' has its mouth open. If that's a sign of amusement, I'm guessing cows find food hilarious. It does look like it's smiling, admittedly, but remember Bruce just said "I don't think a cow laughs in the same way as a human does". Inconsistency there, Bruce? What sort of cow expert are you, man!

"[This experiment] has been very useful. No, cows can't laugh in the same way as humans can, but we've shown they can show amusement, and that's got to be worthwhile".

You haven't shown that Bruce. You've shown that you can take some ambiguous footage and speculate wildly about what it means, and then bizarrely make firm conclusions based on these speculations. As for worthwhile, if this conclusion was accurate and cows can indeed perceive and understand jokes and humour delivered by a surreal English-speaking comic, then this would undeniably prove that they are thinking, intelligent beings capable of the complex logical processing required to appreciate jokes and recognise the structural elements that make them humorous. This would mean the cattle trade is responsible for the mass slaughter of thinking, intelligent, emotional beings like most die-hard vegans already think it is. I sincerely doubt the dairy and meat industries (who seem to pay Bruce's wages) would consider this finding 'worthwhile'.

I know I'm taking this far too seriously, but this is the worst example of utter bullshit (appropriately) science and ridiculous conclusions that I've yet seen. There's no indication that the analysis is a knowing joke or parody, it's presented as straight up fact. The publicity stunt would have been just as effective, possibly more so, without this horrendous attempt to make it seem scientifically valid. I think Bruce Woodacre has crossed the line, and is making claims that are not just exaggerated or cynically worded, but flat out wrong. He may disagree, and that's his prerogative.

After all, what do I know? I'm no cow expert.

Utter Bullshit.

* = Turns out, "Cambridge awards BAs that magically become MAs- for all disciplines". Why? Don't know, but there you go.

Email: Humourology (at) live .co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

On your marks…

2011-05-29T10:56:00.001-07:00

My wife is currently doing some exam marking, for the module she lectures in. She's also swearing a lot more than usual. I'm not sure if these two things are related, but it seems likely. Admittedly, marking large volumes of work is quite an annoying process, but one that needs doing. I know, as I've done a lot of marking myself in the past, and may be doing some more very soon if the Medical Psychology students I lectured opt to answer the questions based around my lectures. While I'd be pleased if they did, they may wish not to, as I can be somewhat puritanical when it comes to marking work.

Unlike a lot of my peers, once I got into it, I actually got to quite enjoy marking. Be it essay assignments, exams or practical reports, I got to do it at some point. For those of you who may not know, it's standard practice (in Cardiff University at least, but I'm told it's the norm elsewhere) to get postgraduate students to do a lot of the day to day marking in return for some extra cash or, in these constrained financial times, magic beans, or the opportunity to spend an evening with their family or loved ones who are struggling to remember what they look like these days.

I've never marked anything submitted by School students (G.C.S.E's, A-levels, finger paintings etc.), so my experience is solely in the Higher Education realm, but it's still quite an education to do some marking (excuse the deliberate irony of that statement). It's a bit worrying for some people, when they find out that the assessing of students work in Universities is done like this. Most people see Universities as big places where students go to be taught useful things in exchange for increasingly ridiculous fees, so it's disconcerting to hear that the assessment of the students output, which surely should be of primary importance since a) That is the function of the University, and b) they've saddled themselves with a lifetime of debt in order to pay for the privilege of being assessed, is a task which is handed down the ladder of responsibility until it reaches the bottom rung, namely the postgraduate students who don't have anyone else to dump it onto and are desperate enough for money to actually do it.

It's also weird and alarming to some people how the marks for a group of students are invariably adjusted to fit a predetermined pattern, usually the famous bell-curve, or normal distribution. It's assumed that all students in year will have a normal distribution of marks. In fact, it's assumed to thoroughly that it's actually made to happen every time. Too many students failing suggests the course isn't being taught properly or efficiently. Too many getting high marks suggests the assessment process is too easy, and therefore invalid. These things can risk an institutions funding in the long run, so they don't happen. This may seem a bit harsh. In a year that has an unlikely but still plausible number of driven, intelligent students who all score well on exams, the threshold for outstanding marks is increased so that only a 'normal' number of students achieve this. On the flip side, I know of several people who have final degree scores that even they agree they didn't really earn, because too many people got low marks and the standard for a higher mark was lowered.

But everyone does this, it's prevalent in our society. Even something as widely varying as intelligence is decided by the bell curve. The average intelligence of a population is 100. No more, no less. If 99% of the people in the country suffered blows to the heads tomorrow and lost half their cognitive abilities, the average IQ of the country would still be 100. It would just be a lesser 100 than it was previously. So any so-called scientists claiming that other races have IQ's lower than 100 is talking out of his arse from the off. Saying a country/society/race has an average IQ of less than 100 is like saying the metre there is 80cm long; it doesn't work like that. Although if they say they've marked student papers in that country, I can understand why they might feel like that.

I jest, of course. It's not a bad job, even if it does cut into an already overloaded postgraduate schedule. The lecturers and professors are busy with more important things, such as writing grant applications, shouting at postgraduates, and writing grant applications. But I actually grew to quite enjoy the whole process, to the point where I actually got complaints about my marking at one point. As a neuroscience postgraduate in a Psychology department, I got handed a lot of the marking for all the neuroscience and bioscience students doing psychology modules, of which there was a worryingly large number (worrying, in that I found it out after I'd agreed to do the marking). There were only two of us doing it one year, myself and my office mate. He was a great bloke, but more interested in doing actual research than marking the scribblings of undergraduates (which is unarguably the way it should have been for me too, but there we go). He was also French. Not just regular French, but French to the point of cliché in many ways. E.g. constantly playing the 'Amelie' soundtrack in the office, and having an authentic 'hee-hon hee-hon!' laugh. But more to the point, English wasn't his first language. His English was fine, better than mine in many respects, but when you're trying to read dozens of documents that you don't really care about, written by inexperienced authors using technical terms in a language that isn't your native tongue, I can't imagine your eye for detail is going to be that focussed.

I felt differently. I was a lazy student in my undergraduate years, to the point where if I could meet myself as I was back then I'd not hesitate to give myself a thorough beating to hopefully knock some sense into myself. Causality-violating autobeatings aren't an option though, so I have to do the next best thing; discourage that sort of behaviour in others via the medium of intense scrutiny in marking. This eventually resulted in a complaint being made about me to the course supervisor who, unluckily for them, was my PhD supervisor. Apparently, half the group of students were upset that the marks they were getting from me (overzealous and through) were lower than the others were getting from my office mate (French, busy elsewhere, didn't care). They felt this was unfair. The fact that there was an imbalance between the average marks they received and the ones who got the lower marks felt they were being treated unfairly to the point of officially complaining tells you everything you need to know about your typical British student. I'm not being deliberately patronising, odds are I would have done the exact same in their position. But I was the one who was following the marking scheme, so their objections to getting lower marks had no actual grounding for anyone to do anything about it. I never heard any more of this, presumably the students didn't bring it up again lest the focus turn to why the other group are getting higher marks than would be expected.

So I carried on marking, drunk on the insane power granted to me to directly influence the success of students who mimicked my own actions, in a veritable orgy of self-loathing and megalomania. Long may it continue.

And so, a lighter note to end on. In my experience, a typical piece of work is from an undergraduate student that falls into at least one of several categories. Marking is a long, repetitive and rather boring chore, but I you're keeping score with something that does help to break the monotony. So if you find yourself in the position of assessing students in this manner, make yourself a scorecard and see if you can fill it. Or even better, if you are a student who is writing something that is due to be assessed, check over your work and see if you fall into one of these categories.

THE 'LETTER OF THE LAW' STUDENT:

The LOTL student is not necessarily a bad student, just one who doesn't really have a great deal of this 'application' going on. Typically, a student it equipped with handbooks and notes explaining how essays, practical reports and exams work once they're signed up to a course, and are regularly told important details and requirements for successful writing. The LOTL student will observe all of these requirements but completely fail to show any evidence of appreciating why they're necessary, or what they even mean in some cases. An integral study or report is cited, but after a vague or generalised section which is only peripherally linked to what that study is about. The report sections are all in the right order and format, but don't contain much in the way of useful information. Diagrams are presented in the specific, required manner despite having no bearing on the matter being discussed.

At some point in their education, a LOTL student usually just have an epiphany and 'get it', and become a reliable, decent student. Until then, they can be quite amusing to read. The best LOTL example I got was regarding references. This being a scientific report, it had been repeatedly explained how important proper referencing is. The issue of referencing websites had also been raised, and it was made clear that it's a judgement call, but it's unwise to use anything that's not properly edited or peer-reviewed for accuracy or authenticity. One LOTL student had obviously grasped the importance of the referencing, but not understood the whole thing about reliable sources. His/her references read as follows.

[Main Module Textbook]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/somethingslightlyrelevant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/somethinglessrelevant
http://www.pubquizhelp.com/

THE 'BIPOLAR' STUDENT:

Maybe it's a side-effect of too many pro-plus, maybe some students find certain things far more interesting than others, maybe it's just genuine mood swings or varying temperament. Whatever the cause, some students display wildly varying levels of quality and care in a single piece of work. This is baffling, and a little distracting. A beautifully structured introduction section can be a followed by a methods section which is essentially them saying "this iz wot we dunn for the asperiment!" One question answered in an exam paper will be a work of genius, another could be just as worthwhile if written in crayon. It's possible that these students assume that the effort they put into one great section will drag the average up, so the other sections/parts don't need such thorough scrutiny. They're right in some cases, but the disparity itself will work against them. It's a seemingly unavoidable fact that any examiners that markers will always assess a piece of work in comparison to others they've marked recently. A very good section will only serve to underscore how bad the poorer sections are.

This is assuming that the piece isn't actually the work of two separate students, or one with a split personality. If the handwriting changes drastically as well, then it's worth considering these possibilities.

THE 'SUBJECTIVE' STUDENT

Writing at an academic level can be a bit of an adjustment, particularly for the scientific disciplines. You have to refine your style to be as neutral as possible, while including all the relevant information and sources, and you have to do this as accurately as possible. Any conclusions or declarations you make have to be shown to be the carefully thought out result(s) of all the available information, and your argument has to be justified in comparison to the alternatives. Gut feelings, opinions and emotions are not really something you can include. Some students take a while to realise this. This is when you get flashes of feelings and opinions in something that should be more sterile than an OCD sufferer's toothbrush.

I've seen questionable scientific experiments described as 'completely pointless', dubious government decisions described as 'undeniably stupid', ethical principle violators that 'really should have known better', and so on. I've not seen perpetrators of seemingly sadistic psychological experiments referred to as 'psychotic uncaring bastards', but several times I've read papers where I wouldn't be surprised to see it. It's hard, separating yourself and your viewpoint entirely from what you're writing about, but if we don't learn to do that, what would we end up like? Homeopaths, that's what! And there's plenty of them already, no need to further dilute the supply [insert your own inevitable dilution joke here, I can't be bothered any more].

THE 'NON-TERMINOLOGICAL' STUDENT

I imagine this one is more specific to the science fields, and it's quite ironic that 'non-terminological' is not a recognised term for describing students. NT students do seem to understand what's going and what they're supposed to be talking about, but also seem to have a blind spot when it comes to remembering the accepted terminology for scientific or technical measurements. I've seen students that switch from metric to imperial within the same paragraph. Science reports have to be as consistent with their details as possible, and the details have to be accurate. So when I see a practical report which says 'the experiment is over when the subjects face stops dissolving', I tend to get a bit alarmed. It was a visual phenomenon experiment, where the transference of a motion after-effect from one eye to the other was investigated. Once the phenomenon had been induced, the students had to look at the faces of their partners and observe the 'movement', so to speak. At no point was a highly corrosive substance liberally applied to the face of anyone involved. Such a manipulation would have no bearing on investigation of the motion after-effect, even if ethical approval could be obtained. Which is couldn't. So don't even ask.

It's often apparent that NT students know what they're talking about and what they mean to say, but they hamstring themselves by not being able to make this clear in the accepted fashion. You could argue that this is more the fault of a rigid, dogmatic assessment system that values format and style over actual demonstration of knowledge and understanding. You may be right, but I'm not going to get into that here, lest I end up sounding like Patch Adams. As a doctor who also tries to do comedy, that's a constant fear of mine.

THE 'TANGENTIZER' STUDENT

A tangentizer student is, by and large, a good student. Often a very good student. A thorough, thoughtful and dedicated student. They even, horror of horrors, do background reading, sometimes with sources that aren't listed as required reading on the course handouts! They go the extra mile, in other words. Thing is though, they really want you to know that they've gone the extra mile. And more often than not, that mile is a straight line in the wrong direction. Undergraduate students haven't really refined that ability to incorporate several studies into one seamless narrative (no reason why they should have, I still haven't). As a result, a tangentizer student will go to ridiculous lengths to direct the narrative toward the very impressive study they found all by themselves, even when it has little or no bearing on the subject being discussed. It's understandable, you go to ridiculous lengths to discover something nobody else in your group will have found, you're going to want to make sure that it gets noticed and appreciated, right? Otherwise, you'll have put a lot of work and effort into something for no reward whatsoever, and that's not fair, is it? …is it?

Welcome to academia, kid.

THE 'TERRIBLE BLUFFER' STUDENT

You were a good student at A-levels, you know you've got this University lark figured out, but suddenly they're using a lot of unfamiliar terms, these lectures are making no sense and they're making you write things that you've no real idea about. When in doubt, what do you do? That's right; bullshit your way out of it! It's a common tactic, used by everyone at some point, to just sound like you know what you're talking about, try to blend in, and hopefully people will assume you know what you're talking about and leave you be. In group situations or in situations where everyone is doing that all the time (e.g. corporate trading), you can get away with this. However, in situation where your output is being scrutinised by some misanthropic bastard with a grudge (i.e. me) it stand out like a flaming clown on an iceberg, and is just as hilarious.

I'm obviously coming at this from a science background, but I'm sure it's just as ineffective in every field (more or less). When students include big words, complex terms and profound observations to show they understand what they're talking about, they invariably give the opposite effect. It seems that they're under the impression that their work will be assessed by a bored secretary or fellow student who has as much understanding of the subject matter as they do. Desperation, wishful thinking, or some bizarre manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Do these students think they can get away with this because anyone who assess their work will be, at most, as smart as them? Do they genuinely think their surreal observations will go unnoticed? I imagine it varies between students, but it does occasionally provide an opportunity for a cruel, cynical laugh when you're marking your umpteenth paper in a row. My personal favourite was again the motion after-effect reports. Some TB student decided to end his/her report with the obligatory profound summing-up of all the data by saying the following.

"It is often believed, quite wrongly, that the eye that is open is the one we see with". That's not belief isn't wrong, that statement is. It's not one I would have closed with.

THE 'WHY AM I HERE?' STUDENT

And of course, you get the ones who just don't do the work. They submit something for ever assessment and exam, but you do sort of wonder why they bother. Pretty much always hand-written, which isn't against the rules, but discouraged as a) it's much harder to mark, and your marker becomes resentful, and b) there are invariably dozens of computers and printers available for students to use, if they're willing to leave the house. The latter is often too much for some people though, so we get hastily scribbled reports and essays, which are usually slightly-reworded versions of the core text, or practical experiment reports with barely a paragraph for each section, and a pencil graph for which a half-chewed beer matt served as a ruler.

If you want to go to University and not do the work, fine. It's your money at the end of the day, it's not a mandatory procedure. But why embarrass yourself and infuriate your assessors by doing less than the bare-minimum of work required to even stay on the course. It is, quite literally, a waste of time for all concerned. Some people work hard to get into university and never make it, so if you're not going to take it seriously at all why not work out some sort of exchange programme like in the Prince and the Pauper? I won't have to mark shit work, and you might get a made-for-TV film out of it.

I swear once I got handed in a paper that had cat footprints on it. If it had been used to line a litter box, I'd understand. It was already covered in shit, might as well go for broke.

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

The 10 Commandments: 2.0

2011-05-12T05:41:00.000-07:00

21st of May, next week, is the end of the World. Apparently. Biblically speaking, anyway. And I find there's nothing like a looming deadline to realise all the things you haven't done. If the reality predictions are wrong, then it'll become clear that the Bible and associated religions need to be updated. If the rapture does occur, then we only have a few days to show the almighty vengeful God who embodies all peace and love on goodness that we have been paying attention all along, and what better way to do that than by reworking the religious teachings so that they still apply to modern society?

Granted, there are probably hundreds of better ways, e.g. going to church, praying devoutly for hours a day, and suddenly setting fire to your homosexual or alternative-faith friends. But that sounds like a lot of work and expense (petrol alone is ridiculously expensive these days, whether you use it for travelling/burning). But none of those make for a particularly interesting/legal blog. We already have a secular Bible thanks to AC Grayling, but in today's modern fast-paced society, who has time to sit and read a massive book? Even if it's presented via a 'cool' high-tech medium. But more and more of us seem to be coming more rational and dismissive of religion, so an attempt to incorporate science and reason into the Bible, although counterintuitive, is probably essential, as Grayling has noticed. Especially with, you know, the rapture and that. But in this culture we need sound bites, summaries and abstracts.

I've always felt like the 10 commandments are like the 'blurb' of the Old Testament. Easy to remember, quick to read, generally useful pointers for daily life. But you could easily argue they're outdated, considered by most of society to be less outright 'rules' and more 'rules of thumb'. A good example of a rule of thumb would be 'never base a cliché on wife beating', but that's beside the point. As a result, I reckon the 10 Commandments are ripe for a new version, a full overhaul, to make them applicable and useful for modern times. The originals were read on a tablet, so it seems ideal really.

So, what are the 10 Commandments, why are they outdated, and why should they be updated

1	"I am the Lord your God, thou shall have no other gods before Me. Obviously, this one comes first. It's good business sense, God at the time was new and fledgling, so the first he'd need to do was make sure his followers stayed loyal. Even today's trendy modern youngsters can get their heads round this, judging by the number of hysterical overreactions I've seen when someone loses a facebook friend or twitter follower. But although logical, it's not necessarily accurate. Longer versions of this commandment specify that God freed Moses and his gang from Egypt, where there was a veritable plethora of Gods. And the Greeks, and Romans, and those in the Middle East, and India, and China, and so on. There were loads of Gods before God. But I understand that it's not saying God was the first God, but that you 'shall have no God before me'. But technically, this rules out people converting to Christianity, which doesn't seem like something they'd agree with. It essentially is the Bible hanging a 'no girls allowed' sign on the door of it's clubhouse (which doesn't sound too far from the truth, actually), so is effectively ignored. This seems to encapsulate up a general and worrying tendency of many people to selectively adhere to the truths that are convenient for them, while discarding others which are equally valid but less convenient. Whether religious or not, it's important to acknowledge and accept facts. If you believe God is the true God because it says so in the Bible, then the rest of the stuff in the Bible should be equally valid, especially if it's by the same author. Likewise, if you believe something because a 'scientist' said it, then other scientists should have just as valid a claim to say it's nonsense. If one scientist says something, but if hundreds or thousands of more qualified scientists in the same or even more relevant fields say the first scientist is wrong, you can't just ignore them (see antivaxxers, conspiracy theorists, global warming deniers and David Icke). So, in order to maintain adherence to these commandments and the rules they lay down, and discourage mad behaviour and beliefs, the first Commandment becomes Updated: Thou shall not accept some truths and ignore equivalent truths on the basis of convenience and preconceived notions.
2	You shall not make for yourself any engraven images, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. This seems like a re-emphasis of the first commandment. It reads like 'Seriously, I'm the only God you're allowed to have. I don't care if you make it yourself, it's not a God, I am'. I guess people worshipping home-made objects was a big problem in the old days. Although you could argue it's persisted somewhat. It's quite grating to be around anyone who owns multiple iPhones and sees Steve Jobs as some kind of Techno-deity. These Macolytes even have their own churches and rally's, all for the worship of small flat plastic things. And how many manufactured bands or celebrities are famous purely by dint of the media surrounding them? Simon Cowell, Cheryl Cole, they clearly aren't normal humans as we know it so clearly have been engineered in some way, and yet they are adored without question. This goes for the self-help gurus, radical scientists, alt-med practitioners, and so much more. Obsession and fanatical adoration of non-real or non-genuine people and things is as rife as ever. Perhaps with a bit less emphasis on religion and home crafts, this one's a keeper. *Updated: Thou shall not worship or praise without question anyone or anything, unless you have a bloody good reason for doing so.*
3	Thou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain… Basically, don't bad-mouth God. On that count, I'm earned a number of extra eternities in the pit of fiery torture for this blog alone. But these days, when people say things like 'Oh, God' or 'Jesus Christ!', it's not people actively wanting to disparage religious icons, it's just our language has evolved to the point where the original blasphemous nature has been replaced by a pure frustration or surprise at what is undoubtedly not a spiritual or miraculous event. But restricting what people say in this manner runs completely contrary to freedom of speech. Stopping people saying things on the ground that you 'don't like it' isn't really on at all (despite the best efforts of some). You being offended by something is no excuse to stop something happening, unless the thing being said is being said purely to upset and offend and has no logic or merit outside of that. Unfortunately, the ease of communication these days means this sort of thing is very common and easy to do, and there are many who clearly feel some satisfaction from being anonymously and pointlessly insulting to complete strangers. Freedom of speech is one thing, but freedom to be a pointlessly vindictive twat? I don't think anyone gave their lives for that. *Updated: Thou shall not Troll (even on youtube)*
4	Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. The Sabbath is not so holy these days, not since Wetherspoons started opening on Sundays. Also, given that the Sabbath immediately follows Saturday nights, it's unlikely that anything particularly holy or spiritual occurs to most people. Not in the mornings, anyway, although many will probably have made vows and religious proclamations while embracing the porcelain. But there are always complaints of things being too hectic lately, to fast paced, too stressed, so an emphasis on relaxation is probably a good idea. Less stress means less anger, less violence and less intoxication. *Updated: Remember to use all your allotted annual leave before the end of the working year.*
5	Honour your father and your mother. A reasonable point, be good to your parents. A more cynical person could view this as an attempt to make sure people are subservient to a higher authority, and then God becomes our 'Father' and gets indirect respect an obedience via a learned reflex. Lucky I'm not cynical, then. This can lead to abuse and bad results though. People from broken homes and/or who have parents that really shouldn't be allowed near lamp posts, let alone children, they're bound by this rule to honor and obey the people who birthed them for no reason other than a biological fluke. But also, it is not always parents who raise you or help you out, it can be foster homes, or just good friends. And the father and mother thing suggests it only applies to typical heterosexual couples, not same sex couples. Christianity doesn't much like the idea of same sex marriage anyway, it seems, but what if you want to obey this commandment but have two mothers or two fathers. Do you respect one and subject the other to constant streams of hideously abusive language? If so, how do you choose which one? I think this commandment actually needs to be less specific. *Updated: Honour those who have honoured you, for whatever reason.*
6	Thou shall not murder. Somewhat hard to argue with this one. And yet, what with all the killings in the name of religious ideals, it seems like some people still can't quite get the hand of it. Some people write it as 'Thou shall not kill'. Still, same lack of understanding. Perhaps it doesn't count as killing or murdering if it's someone who's not part of your religion? Well, we can't have that these days, the streets would literally be filled with blood, and many other gristly, hairy, horrible bits, no doubt. No, this commandment should be made more encompassing so that nobody has a get-out clause or a way of interpreting it so as to give some ambiguity. Also, it could take into account the rise of technology, seamlessly melding with another set of established rules. *Updated: Thou shall not injure or kill another human being, or through inaction allow another human being to come to harm*
7	Thou shall not commit adultery. Again, one that seems perfectly reasonable in isolation. Did you promise to marry and stay with someone forever? Yes? Do you want to have sex with other people as well? Yes? Well, don't! That's cruel and rather gittish. But once again people can interpret this in rather worrying ways. By specifying adultery, it's possibly implied that other forms of negative sexual behaviour are fine. Technically, rape is not adultery if you're not married, so it's ok? No, of course it's not. But it's not specified. And we all know what some priests (self-proclaimed unmarried, chaste men) get up to with children under their care. So although I agree with the point of this one, lets enhance it so it applies to, you know, everyone. *Updated: Thou shall not engage in any form of sexual behaviour with someone who is not willing or mature enough to allow you to do so*
8	Thou shall not steal. Yup, can't argue that. Might benefit from a bit of clarifying to encompass modern definitions of 'stealing' though. Updated: Thou shall not steal, and that includes plagiarism, proclaiming that somebody else's property was actually yours to begin with without considerable supporting evidence, and illegally pirating materials from a body or source that is not sufficiently successful, powerful or evil to warrant it.
9	Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. I think this one is about lying about your neighbour, and neighbour being a catch-all term for 'someone else who categorically isn't you'. So basically, don't tell lies about other people. I can get on board with that. Seems to be a nasty habit of politicians and lobbying groups the world over. It boils down to people wanting something to happen (or not happen) and being unable to achieve this without removing or discrediting someone who is preventing this thing from happening (or causing it), so they shift blame or cast discrediting aspersions like a bunch of dicks. This sort of behaviour is pathetic and offensive, but also insidious and ingrained in many systems in society, so should be covered by a more sweary commandment to emphasise the point. *Updated: Thou shall deal with your own shit yourself or shut the fuck up about it, and not falsely blame others like a twat*
10	Thou shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's. Although an essentially well-meant commandment, it's not exactly practical any more. Although it's probably spiritually beneficial to not want things other people have, and to be happy with what you've got an look for some peace in that, if everyone stuck to this rule there's a really good chance that our capitalist economy will collapse. It's still getting itself together after that last time that nearly happened, it's in no fit state to risk it again. People wanting things they don't have is normal and human, and somewhat to be encouraged as it encourages them to work harder. It's the people who just want things for no other reason than greed or status, that's not good or helpful to anyone. Especially when, as is the case worryingly often, they are in charge of banks; or, in several cases, countries. And I also don't like the way that wives and servant are bundled in with inanimate objects and pack animals. That can't be good for the people involved. Updated: Thou shall not seek to obtain anything or anyone that you are not entitled by virtue of your own efforts only (N.B. being born in privileged circumstances does not classify as 'your own efforts') So there we are, here are the 10 commandments, updated for modern times. *Thou shall not accept some truths and ignore equivalent truths on the basis of convenience and preconceived notions* *Thou shall not worship or praise without question anyone or anything, unless you have a bloody good reason for doing so.* *Thou shall not Troll (even on youtube)* *Remember to use all your allotted annual leave before the end of the working year* *Honour those who have honoured you, for whatever reason* *Thou shall not injure or kill another human being, or through inaction allow another human being to come to harm* *Thou shall not engage in any form of sexual behaviour with someone who is not willing or mature enough to allow you to do so* Thou shall not steal, and that includes plagiarism, proclaiming that somebody else's property was actually yours to begin with without considerable supporting evidence, and illegally pirating materials from a body or source that is not sufficiently successful, powerful or evil to warrant it. *Thou shall deal with your own shit yourself or shut the fuck up about it, and not falsely blame others like a twat* *Thou shall not seek to obtain anything or anyone that you are not entitled by virtue of your own efforts only (N.B. being born in privileged circumstances does not classify as 'your own efforts')* There you go. Feel free to read, ignore and trust your own better judgement immediately. And yes, I did get a lot of these commandments from The Simpsons. So don't go trusting my theology on this or anything related. Just so you know. P.S. See comments for corrections of my (no doubt numerous) mistakes and misinterpretations. It's the Bible, baby! Happens to the best of us (a group to which I can only aspire to) Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk Twitter: @garwboy