Interview

Recently, I was asked to answer some questions for a students dissertation, which I assume is related to science communication or some such. Just in case anyone is interested, here's what was said.

1. How did you get in to science comedy?

I had been doing comedy for 3 years really, not actually thought specifically about doing science comedy. Originally, I noticed that a large number of comics discussed the jobs they have/had to relate to the audience. Being a Neuroscientist, I didn’t think this would really give the typical audience anything to relate to, so if anything I down-played my scientific leanings. But eventually I realised this meant I came across as somewhat ‘false’, and this really made me struggle at a lot of gigs. So eventually, I did start introducing more scientific aspects to my sets. I felt a lot more comfortable and people enjoyed it more as a result. Despite my initial assumptions, a lot of my more science based jokes were getting the best responses, and I realised this made me stand out from a lot of other acts. I wouldn’t say there’s a specific ‘science comedy’ style practiced by acts, but I realised there is a demand that isn’t being satisfied for comedy that relates to the scientific community. So I decided to try and occupy that niche. So far, so good.

2. How complex scientifically do your jokes get?

It varies. Paradoxically, I’ve found the more complex a joke is, the bigger the response it gets, assuming it’s delivered well. People often appreciate being given the credibility to understand concepts beyond the basic sex-drink-reality TV references that are safe bets. I also sense an element that’s the same as when people see someone do a particularly impressive sporting performance, a collective feeling of “I couldn’t do that, well done”. But with comedy, of course. I do try and address high-science concepts some times like Quantum mechanics or statistical analysis. There’s a difference between a complex joke and jokes about a complex subject. The latter isn’t quite so reliable. I once had a bit where I discussed the ‘silly’ names scientists give important discoveries sometimes (e.g. the embryological signalling molecule named after Sonic the Hedgehog, or the fatal side effect of some old antidepressants called ‘Cheese syndrome’). This isn’t the same as doing complex material, it comes across as trying to look clever by making obvious observations about less common subjects, and most people can see through that. It’s like poking fun at someone who runs a marathon; it’s a lot easier to take if you yourself have done the same, otherwise you just look quite pathetic.

3. How do you go about preparing a science joke for the public?

Basically, it’s the same as any other joke, preparation-wise. You find something you want to discuss, think of an angle that makes it amusing, try and articulate it in a way that makes it as efficient and concise as possible, and then try it out. The difference with science based jokes is that the angle you come from can vary beyond the normal variety. For example, many acts have anecdotes about trains being late. Most acts may approach this from the angle of incompetent organisation or mean spirited staff and discussing what happens to make rail staff so useless or petty, whereas I might argue that the trains are too efficient, and that the high speeds they achieve due to their smooth organisation actually approaches relativistic levels, so the time on board the train goes slower and they think they’re arriving on time, whereas to the outside world they’re late. Or something like that. If I’m doing a standard night, I’ll find a way of explaining that as most people may not have a comprehensive appreciation of the time dilation effect caused by the Universal constant of the speed of light, whereas if it’s a science comedy night, I might assume they can keep up. But otherwise, that’s the process for any joke writing.

4. Have you ever told a science joke that the public failed to understand?

I have been battling a dual problem of talking too fast and mumbling a lot for most of my adult life, so there’s been many jokes my audience hasn’t understood purely because I haven’t been articulate enough. But a failure to understand caused by complexity? I did a science comedy night in Bath Central Library once. I included a joke/theory about how the inefficient layout of the human retina (it’s back to front, logically), coupled with the potential for rising sea levels caused by global warming, would inevitably result in the conquering of humans by the cephalopods (‘correct’ eye structure, water based creatures, quite smart). It didn’t go well, a lot of blank stares. This joke worked in the previous gig, but then I remembered this was a gig for a gathering of optometrists, who loved any eyeball references. Although after that gig someone did threaten to sue me, so maybe it wasn’t so good.

5. What would you consider your most successful science joke.

I have quite a few I can rely on. At present, one of my bankers (comedy term for joke you use that is almost guaranteed to work) is about how I passed my driving test thanks to my knowledge of the uncertainty theory of quantum mechanics and the related observer effect. During a specific science comedy night, where I may have a projector, one of the more reliable sections is where I answer the question “why did the chicken cross the road” with a full analysis of the motivational factors governing the behaviour of a simple bird and the illogical nature of assuming a chicken has any concept of roads. This lasts about 5 minutes, gets a good response. One of my more reliable routines is also about a statistical analysis disproving a well known theory about sharks. It really depends on the audience which is more successful. They could all crash and burn some times.

6. How long do you think the public would watch a strictly science joke only show?

The question there is a bit misleading. A ‘science joke only’ show would be impractical. Comedy isn’t something that can be so rigidly structured. Themes are fine, but imposing rules like that is impractical. A lot of comedy nights have themes, but they don’t stick rigidly too them. A comedy show about politics wouldn’t work if it was only about politics and nothing else. Although science journals have to exclude it by necessity, a comedy night without general opinions, perspective and illogical interpretations wouldn’t work. Science themed, yes, science only, no. However, with that in mind, I’ve run and performed in several science-themed comedy nights, with an emphasis on as much science as possible, and they’ve gone on for over 3 hours with little or no complaints. In fact people voluntarily said they really enjoyed, so will assume they did.

7. Have you ever "watered down" a science joke for the public?

I’ve sometimes not taken a joke to what is, for me, its logical conclusion scientifically for fear of alienating the audience as a result. This is more a judgement call than anything. I try to explain things in a easily understood terms as possible. It’s important to keep in mind that, if lecturing, your purpose is to educate. If gigging, the purpose is to entertain. You can push an audience into listening to concepts and ideas they don’t usually experience, but you’re there to amuse them, they aren’t there to be educated by you. A lot of acts I’ve seen have the habit, which I personally don’t agree with, of demonstrating to the audience how much more intelligent they are than everyone else. If pulled off it can work, but can often be seen as arrogant and patronising, and I always try to give my audience the credibility I think they deserve. It tends to be appreciated. I have discussed some things that have been over the heads of some people so have subsequently kept it simple (largely brain related jokes, as I can go on for hours about my chosen subject). One thing I won’t do is be scientifically inaccurate. So you can guess that pseudoscience doesn’t get much mercy from me if it comes up.

8. Do you think there is a limit to what science comedy can talk about/explain and why?

There is a limit, but it’s not a rigid one. It depends on the act, audience and situation. A typical comedy audience only has a finite amount of patience, and this alters if alcohol is involved. There are many ways to explain a subject which is outside the ‘normal’ arena of general understanding, but this can be said for any subject. A 15 minute set about the metaphorical underpinnings of a classic poem such as Beowulf can easily be as complex as a science based set, but if addressed with patience and a consistent level of humour there’s no reason why it won’t work. If a complex science subject is explained by an act that can maintain attention and make it entertaining then it shouldn’t be a problem. People are willing to listen to anything they enjoy, so making science enjoyable is one of the main reasons I do Science comedy. One thing I would advise anyone attempting to do the same is that, in science comedy, the comedy comes first. It needs to be funny, and then it can accommodate as much science as it can take before it stops being funny. Being educational is fine, but that isn’t the point of a comedy gigs, and the audience knows that very well.

Facebook: A few observations

Facebook is very popular, we all know this. It's become an all-encompassing virtual world, people rely on it, people need it, when things with facebook go wrong, people get alarmingly worked up about it.

But when you get bombarded daily with seemingly useless information about friends, family, acquaintances and their friends, family, acquaintances and their friends, family, acquaintances etc, you start to spot certain things that, without facebook, probably wouldn't happen or wouldn't ever come to your attention. So, considering what facebook has shown me of late, here's a list of things I think are worth remembering. You might think I'm wrong, I might even be wrong, that's your prerogative. But here goes.

1. The old layout is NEVER coming back. Because it was shit, it was changed for a reason. You can, and many did, complain until blue in the face, but what are you going to do? Demand a refund? And I don't think starting a group that claims 'if i get 1,000,0000 pepl to joyn facebook say theyl chang it back!!!' is going to make a blind bit of difference, if that's how you spell normally I can't imagine they could even understand any emails you sent, let alone promise to undo their radical format shift because about 2% of users can't handle change. Deal with it.

2. It's weird, but it's true of statuses, comments, captions or anything else, but no matter what the sentence actually says, adding 'lol' at the end actually makes it at least 50% less funny than it actually is. And unless you did actually 'laugh out loud' when you said/wrote it, you're technically a liar.

3. The guys who own/run/built facebook are apparently somewhat right-wing and mercenary in their beliefs, staunchly pro-capitalist. So when people like that give you something you use for most of your waking hours for no money at all, it's probably not for your benefit. Apparently it's fine that they have access to all your personal details 24/7, which they can use an abuse at their leisure, but if they try to keep it when you leave? Bastards! It is, I know, a gross misuse of personal data, but it seems a bit odd to complain at this point, like walking through public naked then complaining that someone took a photo and posted it online.

4. Ian Huntley is not, and never has been, on facebook. This probably goes for every other high-profile child abuser/murderer you can think of. I'm not to well read on the exact rehabilitation techniques of prisoners, but I can't see felons with a history of killing children being given access to children, online or otherwise. And let's be honest, if Ian Huntley was on facebook, who'd accept his friend request? Who is that desperate for numbers or 'famous' friends?

5. Robert Mugabe, the Government of Israel and anyone else who's caused a humanitarian disaster, these people are renowned for ignoring the international pressure of the combined leaders of western society. So, a facebook group that says they're not nice is going to do absolutely piss all, even if it does boast thousands of members. Declare your dislike by all means, but joining/starting a group is doing exactly fuck all to help matters, so don't think your 'making a difference' by doing so. Ease your conscience by donating or campaigning actively, if your friends with me I already assumed you were opposed to tyrants/invaders/murderers

, didn't think it needed to be said.

6. Although there are many bad people in the news of late, you can't bring back the death penalty for one person. For the death penalty to be justified at all, you'd need a justice system that was 100% efficient, and we don't have that. Innocent people will die if we bring back the death penalty, and that's the sort of thing that it's meant to prevent.

7. If I don't have any idea who you are, I probably won't accept a friend request from you. We clearly aren't friends, my actual friends would say 'hello,it's me, your friend', so if I refuse to accept you, I'm not being rude. Mam always said never speak to strangers, certainly don't let them see all your personal details and photos.

8. Facebook is quite widespread, but has not yet got to the point where it dictates what happens in the real world. If I don't show up as attending an event, it doesn't mean I'm not going, if I choose not to put my Birthday up, I still have one, if I take more than two days to reply to a message, I'm probably busy and not dead.

9. If someone randomly kept poking me in real life, I'd get annoyed and tell them to piss off. Why is it seen as a friendly gesture on here?

10. People who write bitter, cynical rants about what is essentially a harmless distraction clearly should just give up and got to bed.


The people I've tagged are those I hope would concur with my assessment(s) and possibly have more to add.

Fact v Fiction: Segregation of the positive kind

Someone think the Internet should get it's facts straight

Perhaps it's interesting that I should be drawn to this story, being someone who blogs about Science stories and attempts to put a positive 'spin' on things, can I really be trusted to be an accurate source of information? Not 100% obviously, but I've always stuck to the facts, proposing only crazy theories that follow on by some logical step, however unlikely, from the facts available. It's why I do this, to attempt to prove that the facts don't have to be dull, you don't need to put a slant on everything in order to make it interesting. I probably prove the opposite quite often, but then I don't get paid for this, so quality control is minimal.
But in this age where information is available at the touch of a button, there really should be systems in place to ensure the information we use really can be trusted. When I tutor and mark student essays (Oh yes, I do have that level of responsibility), we are instructed to discourage them from referencing websites, because unlike scientific journals or textbooks, websites are often completely unchecked or unedited, and when you're discussing a scientific issue, you can't make crazy claims unless you have the evidence to back them up. So if you want to make statements in an essay, "Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology" is a valid reference, whereas "www.pub-quiz.com/answers" is not. And yes, that has actually been used in one of the pieces of work I've marked.

(My favourite faux-pas to date was when a 1st year student did the standard attempt to sound clever in order to convince the reader they understood the subject but ending up proving the opposite, and ended an essay on visual processes with the phrase 'It is often believed, quite wrongly, that the eye that is open is the one we see with'. Instead of a mark, I wrote the number of the job centre. And Specsavers)

But the Internet is indeed a fantastic tool for the spread of information, and is very democratic and that regard. But like with all democracies, certain groups with a certain viewpoint or belief abuse the system to get their own way, like the zealots at conservapedia, who push rambling bullying dogmatic nonsense disguised as 'information', the owners of which were just given the most brilliant scientific bitch-slap I've seen to date. I'm all for the free spread of information, but if the information is flawed, it can cause panic, fear, distrust and a variety of other emotions which aren't too desirable in large groups of people. Here's some 'information' I've encountered on the Internet.

• The LHC will destroy the world as soon as it's switched on: No! No no no no no! See last blog, and listen to Stephen Hawking. In the local primary school back home, some malicious old lady told all the kids that the world was definitely going to end, and they were all too scared and upset to eat! What are the odds that Jamie Oliver will be trying that strategy next?
• The MMR jab causes Autism: One doctor once mentioned in passing that there was a chance that a link was possible. One sweep of hysteria later, and measles is on the increase, potentially killing thousands of children in the long run. Still, it's better they die young than get Autism, right?
  
• Fluoride is put in the water by the government as a means of keeping the populace under control and sedate: This is a facebook group I saw. Given that fluoride has been in the water supply for decades, during which times we saw such things as the poll tax riots and miners strikes, this seems unlikely. granted, there is much opposition to water fluoridation due to the various side effects too much fluoride can have, but by saying 'it's the government, playing with our minds', you detract from the valid arguments. And let's be honest, collective mind-control of the population would require more effort than dumping a few chemicals in the water supply and hoping for the best. And could several successive governments keep such a thing secret? The current lot constantly leave top secret records on trains, I think this sort of scheme is beyond them to be honest.
• Vernon Kay denies his death: I really wanted this to be an attempt at irony, but I don't think it is. And that scares me more than any universe swallowing black-hole.

What worries me the most is the way nonsense, if repeated often enough with a straight face, becomes accepted as fact. My most hated example is 'we only use 10% of our brain', which is always reeled off by people attempting to illustrate that there are many things Science doesn't know. That's true, but the 10% of the brain thing is utter bullshit. It's based on an experiment from long long ago when someone stuck electrodes into the brain of an unconscious person. 10% of the time, it caused a physical reaction from the patient. The actual fact is, '10% of the surface of the brain will cause physical movement if stimulated electronically'. Which isn't the same. The brain is the most demanding organ we have, over 25% of all our bodies sugar goes on brain function, and it won't consume anything else. It's a jet engine, not a furnace, it takes only the best fuel. And using only 10% of the brain would be like taking a Jet and filling it with rocks, just using so much fuel for no reason. We use all the brain. We're not sure what for, but it's all useful.
But people rely on scientific ignorance to flog stuff, as in 'The new moisturiser contains pentapeptides'. I'm a bit rusty on my biochemical terminology, but 'pentapeptide' either means a string of 5 amino acids, or a protein made up of 5 amino acid chains. Either way, that's massively unimpressive. They might as well say "our new gloop is made up of atoms, whoooooo! Atoms, yeah, that's all sciency isn't it, you're impressed right? We clearly know what we're on about, so buy our overpriced shite, otherwise you'll be ugly forever, you will, we know these things because we're cleverer than you, we must be, remember the atoms? Yeah, that's right, go out and buy it you stupid prole!"
This kind of thing clearly makes me angry, which isn't like me. I'd hate for people to read this and get the wrong information about me. That would be ironic, but not in a funny way.