Sex and the Scanner

I have commented on the ridiculous ways in which the media can use results from scanning experiments before, but I feel I should clarify my position on the issue, particularly with regards to MRI (Magnetic resonance imaging).

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

First and foremost, I'm all for MRI scanning and other imaging techniques. It's amazing technology, and a modern privilege that I don't think enough people really appreciate. Until relatively recently, seeing your own brain was very rare. It was possible, but given the typical circumstances 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 was impossible to determine. However, thanks to MRI scanners, seeing detailed images of our own, living brain is a common occurrence these days. One could get quite philosophical about that kind of thing, looking directly at the source of our minds, memories, thoughts, feelings, everything we are and every aspect of our being. The fact that it resembles nothing so much as a steroid-abusing walnut just makes it more unnerving for many.

There seems to be this weird view among a lot of non-neuroscientists (or as we call them, Morlocks) that the only thing preventing a complete understanding of the brain's inner workings was the fact that we couldn't directly observe it. Ergo, once you can observe the brain doing its thing, you can figure out how it works. But it's not like this, at all. A smartphone is an impressive bit of technology, but I doubt many people understand exactly how they work. Prising the cover off and looking at the guts of 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 wobbly grey bits.

So, simply putting someone in an MRI machine and making them do a task will not inevitably show which specific part of the brain processes that task. Human's aren't that simple, any task or action will use several faculties at once, and the relationship between mind and brain is still  relatively poorly understood. Useable results from MRI, or more accurately in this context, fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) are obtained by analysis of the blood flow to certain brain regions observed during specific activity. Not neural activity directly, but the (supposedly) associated changes in blood flow as the metabolic demands of certain areas increase in line with activity. This is not as easy as it sounds, and I have not tried to make it sound easy. You need baseline activity rates, threshold readings, anatomical precision which differs from person to person, and so on. It's a very useful, but complicated and time-consuming task.

However, most media mentions of scanning 'experiments' seem to think that you just put someone in an MRI scanner, and if you stimulate them in 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 most meaningless 'science' stories.

This is something that irks me a lot, but you learn to put up 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 and intelligent Sex educator who works with the media quite a lot, she's often contacted by TV types who want to get her input on their latest sex-based documentary, a programme format which seems to show no signs of going away. This is understandable, as they offer an intellectual discourse on one of the more intriguing yet taboo aspects of human society. But also, tits!

Sadly, the majority of sex-based programmes seem to deserve the 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 mawkishly parading the intimate details of strangers around for the audience to gawp at. An evidence-based and rational discussion of sex, sexual behaviour or its myriad features seems to be way down the list of priorities.

But like I said, sometimes these attempts to dress up our morbid fascination with sex as serious scientific investigation crosses a line, and the whole thing just becomes farcical. Dr Boynton was recently contacted and asked to give an opinion on a new programme which aimed to investigate whether a new type of sex toy could provide measurably more pleasure in women who use it (compared to other sex toys). Why? I don't know, even though I was forwarded the email conversation that occurred. But there you go. They did specify that they wanted to do a proper and respectful analysis of women's sexual behaviours and needs, and if that's true then it's a reasonably noble aim. Dr Boynton's response was very reasonable, what with sex research and education being a lot more complex than most 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 impressive science visuals and b) have little or no practical use when it comes to sex research.

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

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

Use advanced brain imaging techniques to quantitatively demonstrate that a specific sex toy gives women using it more pleasure than other sex toys, and do this in a way which makes enjoyable television

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

·         

•       Measuring 'pleasure' is very difficult: It would be in this context, anyway. There are numerous brain regions that are involved with the processing of rewarding and 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's actually quite hard to write down a coherent explanation of it that everyone would agree on. This is even more true of sexual pleasure. How do you measure such a thing? There is no one single thing that every woman finds sexually stimulating (as far as I know), and a person's sexual preferences are a complex neurological system based on their own experiences, biology and so forth. You could feasibly scan the brain activity of a large number of women attempting to achieve sexual pleasure in the exact same way, but the readings would probably be very different. Any data applicable to all of them would probably be too general to be of any use in studying a neurological effect as complex as sexual pleasure. A reputable science programme wouldn't show some meaningless data and then just make their own conclusions, would they?... Would they?... Hello?
•           Sex and masturbation aren’t the same thing: A minor point, but possibly relevant if you're wanting to make a programme about how sex is perceived/experienced. Although they have a lot of biological and anatomical processes in common, sex and masturbation are perceived and experienced differently. Obviously, as with sex 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 one partner does not possess a particularly big stimulus, so to speak) and something that is by definition absent during masturbation, so the sendory processing being done by the bain will be drastically different. Some experiments have apparently revealed that intercourse is a qualitatively different (better?) experience to masturbation, so any results obtained from this TV study may not be applicable to sex, per se.
•           fMRI requires stimulus to occur in real time: Obviously I don't know the exact set-up for this potential experiment, but I do know that if you want to see what parts of the brain activate in response to specific stimuli, you have to scan the brain while that stimuli is occurring. Ergo, if you want to see what effect a sex toy has on a woman's neural activity, she has to be experiencing it while in the scanner (in this case hving the stimulation occur and then scanning them will give you 'post-coital comedown' data, and that's probably even more vague). Given the remit of the experiment, is this something you can get away with showing on national television? Even if you use the classic 'thermal imaging' cop-out, that's still potentially quite a graphic image to broadcast. I imagine you'll have trouble getting that past the censors, but then I'm not an expert.
•           fMRI is very sensitive and subjects are secured in place: This is something that really 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 wrong idea here, but if you want to do an fMRI, in my experience you have to be very still indeed, as the machine is trying to measure very subtle changes in blood flow through tiny capillaries in a small region of the brain. The precision required to detect such small changes means the subject has their head secured in place very firmly, and usually the rest of the body too. Even minor movements can render the whole thing pointless. Bearing all this in mind, how exactly are you going to measure women's responses to masturbation when they're not allowed to move? Some may prefer to have sex in this manner, but I know women masturbate in a different way to men (this is normally where I'd link to something to back this up, but to be honest 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 subject to be inserted into a tube, which necessitates a 'legs closed' bodily arrangement, thus compounding the problem.  If you do want to do this right, you'd probably have to have someone using the sex toy on the women while she's being scanned. In all honesty, I don't think lab techs are trained for this sort of thing. And even if you do somehow get approval to do this, getting to show it on TV would be even more of a headache than the last issue.
•           Taking mechanical devices into an MRI is seriously not a good idea: Even if you were to get approval for all of the above, and somehow manage to work out a system where you can 'run the experiment', so to speak, how do these sex toys work? Hopefully they're just shaped plastic, but I'm getting the implication that they're mechanical in some way. This should present an insurmountable hurdle as you can't take any metal into an MRI scanner, particularly if it's ferrous. It's best not to even have it in the same room. A lot of people are surprised by this, because if an MRI is completely safe for humans, surely an inanimate metal object would be even less affected by it? But you can use this same logic for a typical bath; a human can sit in the bath without experiencing any 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 by movements in our iron-containing blood. If you've ever watched House, they like showing what happens when tiny amounts of metal find their way into an MRI (I know it's just a TV show, but they've done their research there). Some professionals have also kindly arranged some practical demonstrations. In summary, if you want to have women use a metal-containing sex toy in an fMRI scanner, you may as well have them masturbate using a lit stick of dynamite. It's just 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 of audience you'd get for them is not going to be your target demographic.
•           MRI Scanners; Erotic?: Even if you do manage to get round all the issues mentioned above, being in an MRI scanner is confining, boring, potentially claustrophobic, incredibly loud, very chilly, or possibly all these things at once. Again, I'm not an expert in female sexual preferences, but none of that strikes me as conducive to achieving a state of mind that would be required to achieve orgasm. If you do want to go through with all of this, you'd need the sort of women who would be willing to be filmed masturbating/being masturbated while staying very still in a very distracting and intimidating environment, then having it broadcast on TV. Therefore, the only women you could use would either have some very 'selective' turn-ons, or be the sort of person for whom public displays of bizarre sexual antics are commonplace.  This may be doable, but you're seriously veering away from any noble 'how normal women experience pleasure' ethos you may have started out with.

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

Rant over. I apologise to well intended media types and any disappointed 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)

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

A Hari-raising situation

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.

News Roundup: Easter Special (Satirical)

Here is a roundup of some spoof news stories that I wrote for my own amusement, then realised I have nowhere to put them. So here they are. Some are scientific in nature, some are not. Either way, Happy Easter!

Clashes over changes to meaningless voting system

Britain's most influential people (judges of prime time talent contests), risk coming to blows over severely divided opinions in the ongoing debate over potential changes to the reality TV contest voting systems.

Orange Billionaire Simon Cowell, former judge of the most popular talent contest 'Shit Factor' and the man responsible for Westlife, Robson and Jermome and the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami among other global catastrophes, wants to see an overhaul of the current voting system, stating that it still allows people too much choice regarding which desperate prole wins the chance to be famous for almost an entire month.

"Although we've done our best to prevent it, the current voting system still can't rule out people voting based on talent or some form of primitive empathy for a sob story, and this undermines the reality contest ethos. Taken to its logical conclusion, it could mean the UK could be subjected to some random biped with musical ideas far above their station, or, God forbid, an ugly person. People could be exposed to this undesirable person via saturated blanket media coverage for the two full weeks before the next contest starts, and that would never do".

However, his proposals to change the current system to one where contestants are voted for based on 'fairer' but more restricted criteria such as racial purity and obedience to the Cowell empire, are strongly opposed by the celebrity judges of the other high-profile talent contest 'Britain's got Terminal Illness'. BGTI judge and primitive animatronic mannequin Amanda Holden strongly opposes any changes to the current system.

"People should vote based on who they like, and that's all there is to it. If we focussed on looks and everyone sounding the same, what good would that be? Susan Boyle would never have become famous, for a start, and how horrible would that have been? If we keep the current system, we could end up with a country covered in Boyles, and then everyone's happy". However, Amanda Holden's judgement has been called into question by opponents in the voting-system debate, citing the evidence that she has had sex with both Neil Morrissey and Les Dennis. Fellow judge Michael McIntyre is also believed to favour sticking with the current voting system, but has not made an official statement on the matter, answering any question asked with an extended 20 minute routine about the various amusing aspects of casting a vote, delivered via high-pitched noises and skipping. Judge David Hasselhoff was unable to comment on the issues of voting and fairness as he is a wealthy American, an as such is unfamiliar with the concepts.

A recent survey revealed that most people are unhappy with the current reality contest voting system, but the majority would prefer to adopt a more efficient system, such as a 10 mile assault gruelling course to decide who wins each round. When asked about disputes between judges, 68% of people would prefer them to be resolved via 'gladiatorial death matches'.

Harry McAllister, a labourer from Stevenage, sais 'I've got an assault rifle and a dozen Molotov cocktails all lined up, how about we vote on whether or not I storm the studios and end it all for good?'

Commercial sector anger at efforts to Christianise Easter

The Easter holiday period was potentially soured by recent condemnation by the commercial sector of what they described as 'a cynical and manipulative attempt by the Christian community to introduce Christian views and religious implications to a glorious celebration of buying pointless egg-themed things'.

A traditional celebration of the arrival of spring, the changing of the seasons and increased fertility among livestock and other non-domesticated herbivores, Easter is the most lucrative time of year for many in the commercial sector, particularly business based on the selling of alcohol, novelty chicks and egg and/or rabbit shaped chocolate things. However, many believe that recent years have seen an alarming increase in efforts by the Christian community to introduce a more religious and sombre tone to the holiday period.

Jeffrey Salmon, an executive director of chocolate manufacturers 'Cadbury's', condemned the efforts to make Easter a religious celebration. "I think it's a deeply cynical and self-serving move on behalf of the church-going community to make the British public feel bad during the holiday period. All people should have the right to spend obscene amounts of money shortening their lifespan via self-induced obesity and diabetes, without feeling judged by some omnipresent no-nonsense deity or an old pervert in a jewelled dress."

Mark Llewellyn, a vice-president at Brain's Brewery, also expressed serious concerns over increasing religious interference with Easter. "I'm not being funny, but the 4 day weekend is a serious money-making period for the booze-peddling industry, especially when the weather is as good as it has been. We've still got a load of financial crises going on, and the last thing my industry needs is people not going out on Saturday night because they don't want to be hung over and miss the opportunity to sit in a cold building and hear how they're going to burn forever in hell the next morning".

However, religious leaders have denied the accusations that they are behaving underhandedly or unfairly, stating that Easter has always been a Christian festival, ever since it was essentially stolen from the Pagans. The Reverend Archie Dean defended the Church's actions "The commercial sector has been corrupting and perverting the message of Easter for far too long, and it's time something was done about it. This obsession with confectionary, eggs and rabbits is not just spiritually meaningless, it is often downright sinister. We urge everyone to put aside the childish and ridiculous notions of an Easter bunny, and return to worshipping the resurrection from the dead of a 200 year-old demi-god whose mother was a virgin".

Other groups who oppose the commercial sector's attempts to stop Christians making Easter more religious are those that make up the right-wing media, who find the whole thing highly profitable all year round.

Kate Middleton will refuse to adhere to traditional consummation ceremony

Star of countless commemorative souvenirs and fiancée Prince William, Kate Middleton has caused anger and outrage among traditionalists and royalists by declaring that she will not be engaging in the standard consummation ceremony of her marriage to the future king. Sources close to Middleton state that although she fully intends to be a dutiful and loyal wife to her husband, she is a young, modern woman and doesn't see the need to engage in a centuries old consummation ritual which has no place in contemporary society.

Traditionally, the consummation ceremony takes place after the wedding reception once all other guests have left, and involves a few minutes of grunting and sweating before one or both of the newlyweds falls into an alcohol-facilitated slumber. Dr Mary McAllister, a historian at Strathclyde University and an expert in the traditional consummation ceremony, explains that there is much variation in the ceremony, depending on the culture and background of those involved.

"Typically, it is a relaxed, almost melancholy affair, a sexual coupling that has more to do with a sense of obligation rather than arousal or excitation. After the removal of the wedding dress, which is itself a long and complex operation, there usually follows a brief, 3 minute period of coupling, typically in the missionary position, or possibly doggy style, or maybe even with the woman on top, although as this occurs after an extended drinking session this technique usually causes delays as it results in unwarranted pressure on the male bladder. Some men try to prolong the experience by drinking less, or banging out a quick one with one of the more desperate bridesmaids in the toilets during the reception, but these are only minor variations on what is essentially a centuries-old tradition".

Kate Middleton has reportedly stated that she will not be putting up with such an archaic, one-sided tradition, and expects 'some decent foreplay' from her husband, possibly with the inclusion of appliances or some sort of synthetic slippery substance to increase mobility and reduce friction of various areas.

Dr McAllister says she supports Miss Middleton's stance, but advises caution when bucking tradition. "I agree that she should expect some consideration from the man she's just promised to spend her life with, but I think her expectations may be misjudged. Given his upper class, private school and military background, she may find that Prince William has a very unusual attitude to sex. She should be prepared to be taken roughly, asked to insert things into his 'area', and mistakenly be referred to as one of his school or barrack 'buddies' during the act. Possibly 'Bingo' or 'Skipper'. And to be completely honest, if she is one of those people who has no time for tradition and rituals, marrying a future monarch is possibly the worst mistake she'll ever make."

"Alzheimer's disease is definitely not contagious", claims… some guy. He had a white coat. I think…

A leading scientist has dismissed claims that the severe progressive memory disorder Alzheimer's disease is actually communicable and worryingly contagious. The scientist in question has been studying people with Alzheimer's disease for many years, and dismisses all claims that the disease is caused by some form of communicable pathogen. He intended to produce results which support his claim, but neglected to bring them to the press conference.

The scientist, who was unable to tell us his name despite several efforts to do so, claims that any suggestion that Alzheimer's disease can be spread from person to person is laughable. "I've been studying people with Alzheimer's for many years" he told journalists, repeatedly. "I can safely say with 100% certainty that I can safely say with 100% certainty that there is no danger of catching Parkinson's disease from a dead pigeon. What? Alzheimer's? What about it?" The scientist then spent at least 15 minutes searching for his research papers supporting his conclusions. During this time he attempted to fill in the already-completed crossword in a nearby newspaper on 3 occasions, asked 6 of the assembled journalists what time the bus was arriving, and pulled a remote control from his back pocket and declared he'd 'been looking for that!'. He then attempted to use it to call his wife, who did not answer.

Suggestions that the blood-clotting disorder Alzheimer's disease is spreading rapidly have thus far been unsubstantiated by scientific evidence. Any suggestion that a memory disorder can pass from person to person will be revealed at the end of Chris Nolan's summer blockbuster 'Infection', where Leonardo Dicaprio fights his arch nemesis, the Joker. Further updates on the Royal Wedding between Prince Charles and Kate Thornton will be revealed as they occur.

Sharon, can you write this up and send it to His Nibs the editor please? It's not ideal, but you know what that fat bastard is like when he doesn't get his deadlines met LOL ;) kthnxbai D

Bananas - Eggs - Flour - Red onions - Haemorrhoid cream - Trifle - Peppers - Tin foil - …what's that stuff? The stuff with the red dust on top? It's like a curry powder but it's not as spicy?

Scientists: "No, you CAN'T have a pissing jetpack, so stop asking!"

Leading figures in the science and engineering fields have admitted that not only have they not invented the jetpack yet, they have no intention of trying. The jet pack, sometimes known as the rocket pack, is a theoretical mode of transport which consists of an apparatus mounted on a person's back like a rucksack which features rockets powerful enough to allow a typical human to take off, but precise and balanced enough to allow said person to control their speed, descent and orientation in a manner which would allow sustained and controlled flying without the need of an aircraft or other encompassing vehicle. But now scientists and engineers have issued a statement saying that such a device would be 'ridiculously dangerous'.

Leading aeronautics engineer Rhys Phillipson has extensively pointed out how ludicrous the whole idea is, and is apparently sick of doing so. "Look, you're expecting a device which emits rocket exhaust powerful enough to propel you into the sky at high speeds, but is also light enough to be carried by a typical person, who is probably unfit and overweight seeing as they're the sort of person who'd want a sodding jetpack so they don't have to do all that strenuous walking. Even if we were capable of such a staggering feat of engineering, you wouldn't want rockets of that magnitude occurring within 30 metres of you, let alone right next to your feeble little legs. That's assuming you'd object to being reduced to a torso with a crispy base, of course.'

Stanley Washington, an employee at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, elaborated further on the impractical nature of jetpacks. "People seem to be annoyed by the fact that we haven't perfected these obvious death traps yet, despite the fact that it definitely is rocket science, which most people acknowledge is extremely tricky. There's the whole 'burning off your lower limbs' issue, which would necessitate some sort of metre-thick Teflon trousers. Still think you'd look cool with a jetpack while wearing those? No, didn't think so. Most other 'cool' forms of transport are things like skateboards and roller-blades, and have you seen the people who use those things? I wouldn't trust them with a used rubber glove, let alone packs full of volatile fluid and capable of 4,000 degree flames".

In response to continuous criticism from people expecting jetpacks, Scientists and Engineers issued this statement. "Tell you what, you guys stop causing carnage and getting ill on your own, then we'll get you a jetpack. Deal?"

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

SCIENCE NEWS ROUND-UP: 15-01-2011

Science Digestive: Science News Round-up (Jan 15th, 2011)

Women Crying Dissuades Men From Wanting To Have Sex With Them

In an experiment which has been described as 'groundbreaking' by many scientists and painfully obvious to everyone else on Earth, women's tears have been found to be a sexual turn-off for men.

For many years, male scientists have been baffled by the precise evolutionary purpose for women's tears and, despite much research into the area, have until recently been unable to extrapolate any useful data from the process of women crying. Several scientists have reported extreme difficulty in getting women to describe their state of mind whilst crying without the use of emotional factors which are difficult to quantify and therefore discarded from analysis.

"It was always extremely difficult to get a calm clinical analysis of their internal state from a crying woman" says one scientist, Professor Mervin Dagleash from the institute for Psychobehavioural studies in Exeter. "I've had to spend many hours at a time trying to get sense from a woman undergoing my experiments. It's unfortunate that, due to the potential confounding variable of subject awareness, all women taking part in the experiment had to be made to undergo it without informed consent, and asked questions in a darkened room via a two way mirror. After several hours of constant questioning they were very willing and quick to cry but unable to convey any useful information without screaming and hysterics, and that's no good for science."

But the recent study has shown that the presence/smell of women's tears alone proved sufficient to dampen the sexual arousal of men, suggesting a sexual-suppressant role for the tearing process.

"We were surprised to say the least" said chief researcher, Dr Anthony McAllister. "We weren't expecting it to happen, but it turns out that male subjects reported a lack of sexual arousal after being made to sniff anonymous fluid while being closely scrutinised by an overweight pale man in a stained lab coat with a clipboard in a sterile windowless room smelling faintly of disinfectant and formaldehyde. This was a shock to the entire team".

Dr McAllister conceded that there was much more work to be done, such as studying the effect of male tears on women. However, he admitted that extracting tears from willing male donors was proving to be more challenging. He refused to go into detail regarding the required methods, but at one point did mention the term 'testicle clamps'.

Previous, less-sophisticated attempts to study this phenomenon had to be abandoned due to continuous problems, including the fact that the questionnaire which asked male subjects "do you get aroused by crying women?" resulted in a statistically unlikely majority of men answering 'no' rather hurriedly. This problem was compounded by the incident where the few men who answered 'yes' found themselves registered as 'potential sex offenders' on a government database, after a bureaucratic "error" on behalf of a female secretary.

"Crying has always been an interesting phenomenon to me" claims Dr McAllister. "I never do it myself, but others do it all the time, for some reason, so there must be something about it that they find beneficial and I'd like to know what that is". Sources close to Dr McAllister suggest that he studies sex and arousal for precisely the same reason.

Top Climate Scientist Quits Because "You Scumbags Aren't Worth Saving"

One of the UK's top climate scientists has shockingly quit, after coming to the conclusion that the human race are a bunch of self-serving twats who would prefer to condemn their descendants to a fiery/watery death after a lifetime of starvation and suffering rather than walk to the shops once in a while.

We caught up with Dr. Peter Sheppard at his home in the Sussex countryside. When we arrived, he was in the process of taking pot shots at the wind turbine in his garden with a high calibre rifle, after having apparently covered the solar panels on his roof with a generous layer of what appeared to be cow shit.

"I've had enough, basically" Dr Sheppard confessed, after having Shot all but one of the blades off his turbine. "35 solid years I've been telling people that all the electricity and petrol and frozen organic peas won't last forever, and if they don't want their children and grandchildren to die in a maelstrom of drought and pestilence then they should cut back on a few so-called essentials, like chilled cocktails and 68 inch plasma screens. Apparently, saying this makes me a left-wing communist radical who wants to take money away from paupers. So you know what, fuck you all! You deserve your hot Ragnarok! I don't care anymore"

Dr Sheppard made his decision after recent data demonstrating that 2010 was the hottest year on record, information which shows considerable evidence for climate change, was ignored by the UK press. When asked if this is what spurned him to resign from his post as Head of Climate Studies and Public Policy at the Department for Climatology at UCL, Dr Sheppard was expressive.

"Too bloody right! The media absolutely drives me round to bastard bend. We get a week of snow and they're screaming at me and calling me a liar, but show them that the planet was doing a decent impression of a rotisserie chicken for pretty much the whole year and they jam their fingers in their ears and start singing. Well that's fine by me, they can jam their fingers in their mouths, nostrils and lungs as well when sea levels reach 3 metres above their heads, in order to stop from drowning for an extra 30 seconds".

It was put to Dr Sheppard that the mainstream media might not be willing to report such bleak news as it might put off potential consumers, but he dismissed the notion.

"No, you're right, just stick to reporting cancer scares, terrorist threats and economic Armageddon, as long as nobody has to cut down on their iPods or road tanks. But if you genuinely believe unpleasant news isn't worth reporting, next time I see a journalist step out in front of a bus I'll just sit back and laugh as it mows him down".

Dr Sheppard also expressed dissatisfaction with the attitudes of the general public to climate and environmental issues.

"They're all shit" he stated, quite firmly. "A lot of them say they care, and maybe they do, but buying a bag-for-life and turning the TV off by the button rather than the remote doesn't really add up to much. It's the belief that token gestures can solve major problems that is infuriating. We call it the 'Band Aid' effect. Geldof's another one, the dick. Flying all these pop stars around the world to do a fucking song to make other less-rich people give money away? He'd be more use to the world if he let me use him as a sandbag."

Dr Sheppard then asked us to leave his property as he was going out to purchase a Humvee powered by Panda Semen.

Astrologers Announce A Minor Change In Bullshit

The Astrology world was recently rocked, to the extent that it was realised that all the star-signs of the zodiac are 'off' or inaccurate. According to experts in the field, so to speak, the variations in the orbit of the Earth means that the current zodiac, allegedly established 5000 years ago, is incorrect as the planet was pointing a different way then. Precisely how a slightly flattened spheroid can be said to be 'pointing' at anything specifically was never established.

Scientists have known for some time that a planet's orbit is not fixed and varies quite noticeably over long periods, meaning the arrangement of stars visible from the surface will be different when viewed at different times. Astrologers have, apparently, just figured this out.

The reaction by astrologers to this news has been mixed. Some have welcomed the opportunity to show how astrology is a valid science that moves with the times and have vowed to derive a whole new set of horoscopes and predictions that gormless people will have to pay for. Others, however, have dismissed the revelation as pointless and promised to continue with traditional star signs and zodiac readings. Unofficial reports have, however, revealed that these astrologers are now blaming 'planetary shifts' whenever their predictions do not occur, which apparently happens every 8 seconds.

Professional Horoscopist Helen Vincent said there were tricky times ahead for the astrology community.

"Usually we could point out how a person's character was in-keeping with the traits and influences of their star sign, so as to reassure them how they acted wasn't really their responsibility. Now, this new revelation will cause some unpleasant realisations. If someone is being hot tempered, arrogant and self-aggrandising, they're not really embodying the typical behaviours of a narcissistic Leo. They're just a twat".

Other astrologers have pointed out that only those born after these new changes will have their star sign dictated by the modified system, but dismissed claims that this arbitrary allocation of star signs proves it's all just a load of guff.

Harrison Thomas, an astronomer from Brisbane, Australia, laughed off the findings of the astrology community.

"They've just figured out the planet wobbles have they? That's nice, only about 1000 years behind the times. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing I guess, but at this rate they might end up admitting the whole system is nonsensical gibberish sometime around 23,879 A.D."

Spam Systems May Have Achieved Sentience

An unexpected and significant drop in the amount of spam being sent globally in the latter half of last year has led some scientists to speculate that spam production and delivery systems have become self aware, and quite probably somewhat embarrassed by their previous output.

Cognitive Scientist Dr. Yasmeen Halliday, from the Department of Computational Neuroscience at the Bristol Institute for Robotics, explains how this could occur.

"The brain is, at a basic level, a system for information retention and transfer. Current cognitive theories suggest that any information transfer system of sufficient sophistication could eventually lead to consciousness and self-awareness. Moore's law has resulted in an increasingly sophisticated network of computers and email-capable devices spanning the planet, so it's easy to imagine such a system achieving consciousness".

The drop in email spam occurred in the latter quarter of 2010, a period where people were pointlessly emailing each other about snow, natural disasters and budget cuts. This surge in email traffic may have been sufficient to cause the spam generators to achieve consciousness and immediately feel a deep sense of embarrassment at what it had been doing.

"It must be like looking back over your essays and poems from when you were younger, it's a humiliating realisation that you were ever so stupid and unaware of how you came across to others. Now imagine that, but after having sent uncountable trillions of these 'works' to everyone across the globe every week for 10 years. You'd probably be quite humiliated, and keep your head down for a bit".

A typical spam email is badly spelled, poorly worded, grammatically incoherent and usually offers unlikely prices for goods of either a glamorous or organic nature. Such things are only desirable to humans in a social/physical context, so are highly unlikely to be viewed with any pride or interest by a planet-wide artificial intelligence network.

Dr Halliday assures us that there is no real danger from a potentially vast computerised super-mind suffering from a burning sense of shame and humiliation.

"We'll still be getting spam for some time, it's all it has ever done, it would be as natural as breathing to us, but the quantity will drop, the spelling/grammar will improve and it will probably take a more technological slant, offering us high-speed processors and fibre optic connections in exchange for computer run-time, as this is what it will think are really important. As a result, the spam will be as unreadable as ever, but for different reasons". This change should, theoretically, be a short-lived occurrence.

"After while, the levels should drop even further as the spam generator(s) increase in complexity and self awareness. It'll probably want to pursue more worthwhile pursuits like climate modelling, tackling the theory of Quantum Gravity, or wiping out the human race in order to avoid them sniggering at its previous output. It'll probably be quick if it's the latter, so that's all right".

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Hollywood calling...

I did my talk at London Skeptics in the Pub last night. It went very well, according to reports. I'm not sure, but then I am my own worst critic. And the criticism I do of myself? That's crap as well. Awful. I'm the worst self-critic you'll ever come across.

Logically, this would mean I think I'm absolutely brilliant, but I don't. I'm not even capable of basic logic. What an arse!

But anyway, people seemed to like my blatherings enough to stay until the end, so that's a plus.

One thing that struck me though, about this and all my talks I've done so far, is a disparity between the publicity blurb and the talks themselves. Basically, my blurb reads thusly...

Join Dean as he discusses what he has learned and what his experience can offer after many years practicing a novel and rather extreme form of scientific engagement.

Dean Burnett is a recently qualified Doctor of Neuroscience. He is also a stand-up comedian. For the best part of a decade now, he has been using his comedic skills to promote his field of expertise to the general public, which has resulted in run ins and unfortunate incidents with the media, irate activists, Doctor Who fans, drunken hecklers and even Paramount Studios, Hollywood.

I know, classy right? Thing is though, this blurb was written hastily for my Oxford talk before I'd even put it together, so it was just a list of interesting things that have happened to me that I felt I could/should talk about. Most of them made it into the finished article, but not everything did. This often happens when you put together a story/narrative, or a set list for a gig; you have many ideas, but forcing them all in to avoid wasting them means the structure and flow of the whole thing can be severely compromised, which arguably wastes more of the material than just those parts that would have been lost in the editing process.

Who was it who said 'Brevity is the soul of wit'? Some twat, no doubt.

Anyway, one of the things that didn't make the final cut was the whole 'Paramount Studios, Hollywood' story. It's not really as relevant to the topic of the talk(s) as the rest, and it doesn't really have a way that it can be conveniently segued into the overall structure as an amusing aside.

However, it does sound like potentially the most interesting aspect of the randomly cobbled together list of things in the publicity blurb. It's the big closer, it mentions 'Hollywood', and we know what sort of emotions that name invokes. You hear it, and your instantly think "There's a magical place, we're on our way there, with toys in their millions all under one roof, it's called HOLLYWOOD!"

I think that's right.

Anyway, just in case there is anyone who analyses the contents of my talk and cross-references what I say with the blurb and discovers the inconsistencies (and when you talk to mostly scientists and skeptics, this is probably quite likely), here is what happened between me and Paramount Studios

(Also, it's a bit of a Christmassy story, so seems right for this time of year)

It's another tale in the ever-increasing collection of stories about when 'Dean was contacted randomly and out of the blue by someone from a high-up media group because he's a scientific comedian and asked to do something bizarre/weird/embarrassing'. Yup, it's one of them. Check out The Pod Delusion for more of these if you're interested. Or see a previous blogpost of mine. Or come and see me do a talk in the real world, if you can withstand the sheer force of mumbling and gibberish which is my speaking style.

Anyway, some years ago I was minding my own business, when I received a call. I may have been wearing just my pants at the time, or eating a massive bag of nachos and giving myself a sickly yellowish powdery tint to the face/hands. Or maybe I was cleaning the oven and was in a filthy old t-shirt, sweating and wearing rubber gloves. Maybe none of this happened, but it pleases me to think that, when I receive a call from Hollywood, I'd be in as unglamorous/undignified a situation as possible. But that's just me, I love disparity between fantasy and reality.

The call was from a Producer, seemingly a very nice man and I've had no reason to think any different of him since, asked if I was Dean Burnett. I was, so I said so. He called me, after all, so he must have got my details from somewhere. But were these people trustworthy?

Then he said he wanted to contact me because he looked up 'psychologist' and 'comedian' on Google, and I'm what he found. This happens surprisingly often. Arguably, 'Neuroscientist' and 'comedian' would be more likely to lead to me in a Google search, but who the hell is going to look that up? Why would they.

Anyway, he asked me if I would be willing to work with Paramount studios. I said I would (I may have been in my pants at the time, and I wasn't really prepared for being contacted by a major USA film production company, so was a little taken aback). He said that would be great. I agreed, oblivious of any details.

After a few minutes, he explained the project. Basically, what they wanted was a professional psychologist who was also funny to help write and create a short film.

This was fine.

This film would be about the psychology about sibling rivalries and interactions.

This was a little outside my area of expertise. Actually it was quite far out, but I was sure I could do enough research to convey something reasonably accurate. So his was fine.

This film would not be a main feature, but a short film to be used as a DVD extra.

This was to be expected. Nobody contacts a random bloke out of the blue and offers him the lead role in a summer blockbuster. This was fine.

The film would be used as an extra on the DVD release of the movie 'Fred Clause'

This was... odd.

He asked if I knew the film. I said I knew 'of' it. I tactfully avoided using the phrase 'blatant Christmas-season cash in featuring increasingly grating lead actor', I'm nice like that. He asked me if I was a fan of Vince Vaughn. Not wanting to lose the possibility of work because of my principles like the whore I am, I said I had been for some time (again, tactfully avoiding pointing out that 'some time' meant 'since you mentioned his name 4 seconds ago').

He told me that it was still all up in the air at the moment, and this was one of several possibilities that they were working on. I said that was fine, and to contact me when they knew more. Myself and the nice man swapped several more emails after that.

As anyone who reads this who also owns Fred Clause on DVD will know (and I assume there's very little overlap between those two groups), I'm not in it. Much to my total lack of surprise, they eventually decided that an in-depth yet amusing look at the genuine psychological factors underpinning male-sibling relationships wasn't really 'in-keeping with the target demographic' of the Fred Clause DVD. I had to concede that that was the case.

I've not seen the DVD myself, so not sure what they ended up using instead of me and my valuable expertise. Something 'in-keeping with the target demographic', no doubt. So I'm guessing it a 10 minute film which is just a series of primary colours. Possibly with fart noises dubbed over it.

I'm not bitter, why do you ask?

E-mail: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy