Astrology for the Scientific

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

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

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

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

PLUTONIOUS

(Jan 20^th – Feb 18^th)

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

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

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

PAISCES

(Feb 19^th – Mar20^th)

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

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

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

MARIECURIES

(Mar 21^st – Apr 19^th)

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

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

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

BOREUS

(Apr 20^th – May 20^th)

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

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

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

FLORENI

(May 21^st – Jun 20^th)

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

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

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

CHANCER

(Jun 21^st – Jul 22^nd)

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

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

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

Neo

(Jul 23^rd – Aug 22^nd)

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

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

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

Vogon

(Aug 23^rd – Sept 22^nd)

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

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

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

COXIAN

(Sept 23^rd – Oct 22^nd)

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

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

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

VENOMUS

(Oct 23^rd – Nov 21^st)

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

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

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

SAGGYWEARYUS

(Nov 22^nd – Dec 21^st)

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

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

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

CAPRIPORN

(Dec 22^nd – Jan 19^th)

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

Likes: [CENSORED]

Dislikes: Overly-curious computer repair technicians.

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

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Humourology: A Science-Comedy Podcast

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

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

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

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

Humourology: The scientific stand-up comedy podcast

(WARNING: Adult material)



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

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

Enjoy, or not.

Twitter: @garwboy

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

The Crappiest Day of the Year

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

A Hari-raising situation

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

A Hari-raising situation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dean of the University

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

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

Back? OK, good.

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

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

My University: Name

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

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

My University: Head of School

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

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

My University: The Professoriate

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

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

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

My University: The courses

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

FASHION STUDIES

Modules Include:

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

MODERN COMMUNICATIONS

Modules Include:

• Txt Speek 4 L8 adoptors! J
  J
• Psychology of Blogging: How to deal with the realisation that nobody cares what you think
  
• Troll spotting and maintenance.
  
• Protest THIS!: preparing and constructing the ideal protest banner.
  
• Advanced Political Bullshit.
  
• "I'm not racist but…": Phrases to disguise your awful views
  
• You're all Wrong!: An introduction to newspaper column writing.
  
• "To BCC or not to BCC": Appropriate email etiquette for business communications
  
• Celebrity Tweeters: Why they aren't actually your friends.
  
• Wassuuupp?!?!: Annoying Catchphrases, past and present
  

TECHNOLOGICAL INTERACTION

Modules Include:

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

SCIENCE APPRECIATION

Modules Include:

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

SEXUAL STUDIES

Modules Include

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

LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES

Modules Include

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

My University: The Resources

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

My University: Fees

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

So, who wants to sign up?

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Psychomeopathy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SYMPTOM: STUPIDITY

Possible Treatments:

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

SYMPTOM: RACISM

Possible treatments

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

SYMPTOM: QUICK TO ANGER

Possible treatments

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

SYMPTOM: CATHOLICISM

Possible treatments

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

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

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Chavism: The new prejudice

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

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

POD Delusion: Pro-'Chav' Rant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy