I'm back, from Outta Space!

Greetings Loyal readers. And Dave.

I've not done one of these for a loooooong time. That thing called a thesis keeps intruding. Recently handed in another draft, which was good overall, apart from being awful in places. The main problem is, for those of you who have a bizarre concern for my progress, that as I didn't do a Psychology BSc but a Neuroscience one (which is the correct way of doing things, if anyone ever asks), I lack the grounding in the correct terminology for discussing animal behavioural processes. I know what I'm talking about, but I don't know how to talk about what I'm talking about.

With me so far? This is a theme which has been prevalent during my blogs thus far, I'm sure you'll have noticed.

Anyhoo, I decided to write the blogs again on the off chance that they take your space from you if you stop. I've had no warning of this, and not heard of it happening to anyone, but given the credit crunch and all that, they might start renting my space out to an ex banker or something. To hell with Stewart Lee, I can do my own satire!

So, you may have noticed there's no link to an article at the top. Usual blog procedure is I find something on a Science news website (99.9% of the time its the BBC news website), discuss it in what I hope is an accurate but amusing manner, people read it, sometimes ponder on it, and promptly forget about it. But as it's my first one in a while I thought I'd discuss my own projects, so feel free to skip ahead to the promptly forgetting part.

Since we last 'spoke', my Science Comedy project 'Humourology' has taken off a bit more than I really anticipated. The story of Humourology thus far goes as follows.

Sometime last year, I believe it was around summertime, I can't be any more specific than that (try and pinpoint the exact time you had a specific thought and you'll see what I mean), I had the brainwave of finally combining my science and comedy experience into one project. At the time there was no title, but the possibility of a night of Science-based stand-up comedy was the general gist of it.

There are plenty of references to Science in comedy, usually with an anti-religion, anti-quackery intentions, or sometimes with the intent of showing off the performers intellectual abilities. The latter isn't always for the best, and relies on the common assumption that all scientists are more intelligent than the average person. This is a bit of an overestimate I feel, scientists just have knowledge of areas that are normally not well understood by the general public. For example, I know several people who are ardent football fans, they can recite team members and layouts going back decades, they can quote word-for-word the commentary during several 90 minute games, they know the problems with strategic structure and tactical approaches, but they aren't considered intelligent because there are many other people who can do the same thing.

Also, anyone who likes sport is a knuckle-dragging primate, so get bent.

But the general theme I've noticed is, if you talk about science without being a scientist, you're an intellectual. If you talk about science and you are a scientist, you're a nerd. Which seems unfair. And this is evidenced by the fact that most comedians who use science aren't scientists themselves. Many comedians who are scientists by trade (Dara O'Briain, Jo Brand, Harry Hill) rarely or never use science jokes.

I find this annoying, so decided it would be a good idea to do a comedy night that, a) Featured scientists doing science comedy on their own terms, or b) featured jokes about science for the sake of science, not as a means of attacking something else.

Seemed like a good idea. And like all of my good ideas, after an initial bout of enthusiasm, it soon died from lack of nourishment. Or more accurately, anticipating an upcoming barren period, entered a hibernation cycle, or dormant state if you were going with a plant analogy. Either way, the metaphor holds together.

Round about October time, I got involved with Laura (Hi Laura) in a purely professional capacity and offered to help out with Cardiff first Science festival that she was organising. I think. Or maybe I was enlisted based on earlier discussions. Either way, it happened.

One of the main reasons I never really got round to doing a science-comedy night to begin with was that I couldn't really see a good reason for doing so. I had my mates on the local scene who would obviously be happy to help put it on and take part, but to what end? The Cardiff comedy scene isn't like London, a lot of our audience are regular, they've seen me before, have no problem with my (or others) science stuff, so what would I achieve by doing such a show for them? As well as disrupting one of the regular nights the other guys run, it would probably look like a vanity exercise on my part, which it wasn't (not just that, anyway).

The point is, I genuinely want to get people to see that Scientists are also people. Regular, idiotic, fallible, bumbling people with opinions and feelings like a normal human. It pisses me off when the animal rights hypocrites attack scientists for being evil, because yeah, they're all massive twats for conducting research that, although unpleasant, could potentially save lives. Bloody Bernard Matthews or Tesco's effectively treat poultry like packing foam and the worst they get is a posh TV chef crying about it. People breed dogs to have skulls too small for their brains, a horrific thing to do, but they don't get their grans dug up and held to ransom, they get rosettes at crufts.

A rant, yes. But I feel it's justified. The reason, I think, that scientists get this over-enthusiastic negative bias is that people see them as detached from the general public. A sort of intellectual class-divide. I want to disprove that. Granted, a lot of scientists are very clever, people accuse me of that very thing, but that doesn't mean we're any better. But we're not nay worse either, and that's the thing I want to emphasise.

But yes, I wanted a night that shows Scientists in a good light. Comedy does that, it makes people like you. Or hate you, but then they laugh at you against their will, which is more impressive in a way.

So, Science festival. What better way to show Joe Public that we're not all borderline-sociopathic dweebs? I have to point out that there are many things with this intention that are ongoing, but to me there's either a sense of preaching to the choir or targeting the younger groups (under 14s, for example), which smacks of just writing off those older as a lost cause. I didn't want to do that, I wanted to put on a Science themed event that allowed alcohol consumption, sex references and the word 'fuck'. Because that's what normal people like (I'm told).

Oddly, the part for me that was the most successful was the preview thing I did at the Science Cafe. I may have mentioned this in another blog, but it was fun, and really did what I hoped for. Then came the first Humourology night. Just to point out, the night was confirmed and I was asked to supply a title asap, 'Humourology' is the best I could do at short notice. It's not good, but it sounds like it should be Latin for 'the science of comedy' (but it isn't). Ironically, the 'humours' were what the Romans believed were the four fluids in the body that maintained health, so the science of humours could be seen as the science of health. In other words, medicine. And what's the best medicine? That's right. It turns out I was being clever all along.

It went well, but it was undeniably a comedy night. This was because nobody (including me, if I'm honest) really knew what the structure was. It was fun, but I was going for a 50-50 science-comedy ratio, ended up being about 35-65 respectively. Still, was fun, people enjoyed.

Didn't know what to do with it then. Felt it still had places to go, but it what capacity. There are thousands (I think) of themed comedy nights around the country, and this triples during the month of August (work it out). But what would this be for?

Basically, I really didn't expect the level of enthusiasm people had for the project. The shows thus far were sell-outs (although free), far more people wanted to be involved than I could have anticipated, the support I was getting was somewhat alarming. Being as self critical as I am (see earlier paragraphs/blogs/routines/diaries) I assumed I'd be fighting an uphill battle at all times with this, but one that I'd enjoy fighting, as long as the risk of death remained as low as it is in normal stand up gigs (Jongleurs is outside the typical range, depending on the city/night/number of stag parties in the crowd).

In March, I organised another gig for NSEW, National Science and Engineering Week, which came a close second to National Pie Week, which occurred on the same week. Clearly, there is much still to be done. But this one was a free gig in the large lecture theatre at Cardiff University Main Building.

That night, had about 100 in again, which is very good for a 'niche' gig. But everyone seemed to enjoy (apart from some bloke on Twitter who felt it was more comedy than Science, and that this was a bad thing). And the use of powerpoint seemed to really help matters. Much easier to incorporate Science material with a screen for your graphs/slides/data/diagrams/pointless pictures. Also, I hosted this night, as the person who organises the bloody things I figured I was the best equipped to explain what was going on. Due to some last minute cancellations, I had to extend my opening bit. Turns out I did nearly 40 minutes, without batting an eyelid, which is impressive. Even more impressive, everyone else seemed to really like it. Add up the intersecting bits from later sections, I've got nearly 60 minutes of stuff there.

But everyone was great that night (except Iszi, who was OK at best, she kept doing stuff about the Beach and I'm not really into that). It really 'worked'.

Since then, I'm booked to do 'Humourology' at Bath Comedy Festival (which is tomorrow), I've got 2 conference gigs lined up, one of which I believe is at the Royal Institute, which may be a first for a comedian. I've got several school speaking events lined up too, apparently I'm some sort of inspiration. Who knew? But I'll keep you posted as to what happens when.

So, long story short, I haven't got a job yet.

Facebook: A few observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, didn't think it needed to be said.

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

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

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

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

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


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

Easy Measly Lemon Squeezy

Measles on the rise, as we all predicted

I say 'we all', by which I meant anyone even the slightest bit informed about how medicine and vaccinations works. And I don't mean trained doctors and scientists, I mean anyone who's ever had a vaccination explained to them when they were old enough to form memories, which in this country should be anyone over the age of 3. But that's one of the most fascinating things about modern society, in that there's no limit to the idiotic things people will believe just because it corresponds to their gut instinct or prejudice (this is less of a blog, more a therapeutic rant for me, by the way).

The measles rise is undeniably due to the MMR scare a decade ago which still hasn't gone away really. The original claim, made on the basis of very little evidence by a doctor who was on the payroll of an anti-vaccination lobbying group, was that there was potentially a link between the MMR jab and the incidence of autism in children.

Already, there was something about this which bugged me (I was 16 at the time, so not exactly as well informed as I am now, and I'm not thoroughly informed now so this, as always, may be wrong). Autism is a very poorly understood disease, nobody really knows (or they didn't know then) what causes it, what the epidemiology is and what to do about it. So, if I was a doctor who wanted to make some spurious but hard-to-disprove link between the MMR jab and some scary illness, Autism is exactly what I'd choose. It's also worth noting that, although I'm not a virologist or expert in infectious diseases, I'm not really familiar with a mechanism by which a weakened version of a very common virus (or three) can cause hitherto unknown cognitive development impairments.

Logically, if it's the vaccine which causes autism, and a vaccine is just a weakened form of a virus with the purpose of giving your immune system a safe period to develop antibodies to prevent future infections, then surely the stronger form of the virus will be even more effective at causing autism? I had mumps as a child (it was unpleasant) and as far as I know, I don't have autism. I think I got measles too, same applies. I doubt I had Rubella, I was always led to believe that's a girl's disease. Not being sexist, just thinking back to my primary school years where such sweeping claims were common.

As Ben Goldacre points out in his regular column, on the back of a recent debacle over some mad journo squawking about the 'dangers' of MMR, the media's irresponsible behaviour with scaremongering and 'presenting a balanced argument' has potentially condemned many hundreds of children to death (he didn't say that, this is my perspective). This story has been blogged about to death, but what are the root causes of these wild opinions people have?

Journalists, as has been pointed out so many times, don't understand science as well as they should when you consider their tendency to comment on stories about it (LHC, anyone?). They need to give a 'balanced' argument, which, as Goldacre points out, takes in the the two extreme viewpoints, and the truth is somewhere in the middle. This, in many cases, is bollocks. There are still some people who believe that the Earth is flat, most people believe it's round, but we haven't had a debate on TV, where the outcome is that Earth is something of a rugby ball or dome. That's because all the evidence is on the side of the spherical Earth, and that's the same of the MMR 'debate'; there's no evidence to support it, so why in God's name are people jumping to the wild conclusion.

There seems to be two main undercurrents that I can detect; distrust of the big, evil pharmaceutical companies, and the classic cliche 'Think of the Children!!!' (parents not wanting to do anything that endangers children in other words). To start with the latter, measles, mumps and rubella are more dangerous and damaging than autism. Granted, autism is less well understood, but then does that make it the worst disease? We have more treatments for cancer than for colds, but which one would you rather have? Unless parents are saying they're unwilling to care for an autistic child because it will be too much work, in which case your concerns are null and void as, and the reactionary idiots must surely agree, being a parent is not conditional. I don't mind so much if people still aren't willing to risk the MMR 'for their children's safety', if they are consistent with this view. So that means no taking them in cars (road accidents), aeroplanes (crashes and very high doses of radiation possibly leading to cancer), mobile phones (tenuous link to tumours), alcohol (they can't have it, not the children, clumsy parenting is dangerous), broccoli (high in carcinogens), pencils (could jam it in their eyes), Lego (swallow it and choke) and anything else which has even the slightest chance of causing illness or damage.

The other problem is distrust at the big pharma companies. Granted, they're not looking out for people's interests, they're after money. And they do have a habit of inventing illnesses they can then treat with new meds. But I think there's a world of difference between being treated for a fictional disease and not being treated for a real one. If the big companies are just pushing MMR jabs on people as a money making exercise, why does it work? People seem to think it's just a money-making ruse, but why? Car companies are big and profit hungry, but nobody accuses them of surreptitiously making axles out of plywood or using whoopee cushions as air bags. it would be a lot cheaper for them and they'd make a lot of profit, so why don't they? I got a C for my business G.C.S.E., so I may be wrong, but I bet one of the golden rules of any business is DON'T KILL CUSTOMERS! And MMR is so much more expensive than giving children three separate courses of vaccination, isn't it?

If the MMR was given to a child who then developed measles, we'd never hear the last of it. Similarly, if a child was given MMR and then developed some obvious horrific side-effects, there would be no end of mob rallying. So any parent who refuses to have their child vaccinated 'for their safety' is an idiot. I don't have children myself, but I hope to one day, and damn right they'll be vaccinated, with MMR. For similar reasons, if my child's clothes caught fire I'd pour water on them, I wouldn't let them burn because there's a slim chance they could drown.

Rant over, back to work.

Science and the Media: A personal perspective

Following my last blog, and where at the end I hinted that I would be making my own media appearance soon, I felt it would be appropriate to discuss my own experiences as a scientist who keeps getting involved with the media. Although I think it is a relevant subject for blogging, it also neatly covers the fact that I can't seem to find an article that I feel can be thoroughly satirised or ridiculed.

I've been featured in all types of media now, apart from films. TV, Radio, journals, newspapers, magazines and of course, the global interworldweb, what you're looking at at the moment. So, I feel I have as much right as anyone to comment on the portrayal of scientists in the media, and I'll be honest, I'm not happy with it. You might think it churlish of me, that I'm biting the hand that feeds me, and this would be a good point if at any point in my life I'd actively sought out media exposure.

The weird thing is, I never have. Genuinely. About 90% of my media exposure has been thrust upon me as if by the whim of some wacky God with a questionable sense of humour. The only times it hasn't been, it's been me calling in a favour on behalf of some other friend/project.

I usually get my media gigs by the same route; an email ends up in my inbox, my work or personal one (possibly via my myspace in the past but not so much these days), which says something along the lines of "Hello Dean, we've never met, but I'm X and I work for Y, and we need a scientist to say something about Z for article/show ... Z1... yeah, that works.

This happens surprisingly often. Here's a brief synopsis of some of my media appearances and how they came about.

GLEE TIME (ITV) - I emailed Glee club manager to enquire who the 'local acts' advertised as part of the show were, he said I could do the first night. Unprompted.

'SCIENCE' MAGAZINE - Journalist (the lovely Krista) created a myspace account for the sole purpose of asking if she could profile me, and berated me for being hard to get hold of in the first message.

FUNNY BUSINESS (BBC Wales) - Director Neil gets hold of Dan Mitchell, who assembles us all to discuss it. I end up progressing further in the televised 'contest' than any of us expected, especially me.

SOUTH WALES ECHO - Get called several times by Katie, lovely girl, asking for my contribution to various articles, which oddly continues after she leaves.

BBC RADIO WALES - Get contacted, again out of the blue, by Sarah, who asks me to guest on the Rodri Williams show.

HTV NEWS FEATURE - Email via work, asking for me, discussing the exact same topic mentioned in and echo article a year previously.

BBC RADIO SCOTLAND - Another work email, asking if I'll do a live link-up to a chat with Fred Macaulay and Tim Vine.

I know a lot of comics who would crave such exposure, and I'm genuinely not trying, so I feel bad in a way, but there's not much I can do about it. I think if you type in 'comedian + Neuroscientist' into google, you get me, although I don't know why people keep typing that in.

But anyway, my credentials established, I think the problem with media and science, and this is becoming a laboured point, is one of ignorance. On both sides. Scientists, by and large, either don't understand or don't expect the way 'the media' does things, it goes against their grain. In scientific media, you can't say or do anything without evidence supporting it, or the references to back it up (but then there are those scientists who do it anyway, but they tend to get frowned upon). The Media doesn't work this way. My impression is that scientists try and tell people what they think they people need to know, or should know, whereas the media leans heavily toward telling people what they think they want to hear. These two things rarely overlap.

Case in point. The recent 8 second clip of me on HTV news (it was on Monday, I think I was on for 8 seconds, I don't know because I didn't watch it) was part of a 'humorous' feature on Blue Monday, the most depressing day of the year. When I say 'most depressing day of the year' this is according to Dr Cliff Arnil, whom everyone I know has their doubts about. He once taught a night class at Cardiff University centre for life long learning, and has since labelled himself a 'Researcher at Cardiff University'. Hmmm.

His equation is self promoting bollocks he sells to travel agents, sales executives and anyone else without the scientific wherewithal to question it. So, media people lap it up. When the reporter Duncan (nice guy, I'll say that) turned up at my flat (yeah, they come to me, I'm that important) to get footage of the story form the 'scientific perspective', I explained thoroughly why it was bullshit. His expression turned to what can only be described as 'I've dedicated an entire feature to this theory and if this viewpoint ever gets established I'll look like a right arse' expression. But we ploughed on. He allowed me to say it wasn't the most depressing day of the year, that there's no such thing as an absolute most depressing day of the year.

According to people who saw it, in the final edit a bit of that was left in. This is quite impressive. The editing I mean, because I didn't say much else, apart form a crap joke which got pride of place of course.

But this sums up exactly why science and the media don't get on. By the time the scientists are asked to get involved, the media has already decided on the story/report from an understandably ill informed viewpoint. A lot of people have complained that science stories in the media are rarely looked over by trained scientists in the way political or economic stories are. This may be the case, but when you consider that most people who study science go on to become scientists, there's probably a shortfall of science versed people with media jobs. Those scientists who do spend a lot of time with the media are generally ones who are more concerned with self publicity. This is also frowned upon in the scientific circles.

But I think the media does need to give scientists more say in how they're represented, they should give control over what's said about an issue to those who understand it most. The media's obsession with the MMR-Autism link (which doesn't exist) has probably resulted in the deaths of children. Doctors aren't familiar with measles, and it's quite a potent disease, but because some idiot said there might be a link and the media took his side, some child somewhere will not have the vaccine, catch the illness and will be presented to a doctor who doesn't know how to handle it. Assuming this hasn't happened already.

On a lighter note, here's a good example. When I was filming funny business, the fact that I was a comedian-neuroscientist proved to be of interest to the film crew (this is why I get all my exposure, I won't deny it, I'm an oddity). They wanted to film me at work. As it happened, a busy neuroscience lab like the one where I work(ed) isn't really open to filming, a lot of sensitive material and equipment scattered around. But no matter, they just wanted to film me 'doing science' a phrase that I've never really defined.

This ended up with me sat in an empty teaching lab that normally occupies over a hundred students, transferring water from one vial to another with a pipette while they asked questions. Apparently, this looked fine. This is the equivalent of someone being an IT technician in a busy office building, and interviewing him/her sat at a child's desk in an empty warehouse while he plays with a calculator. This wouldn't look fine, but people would see that. And that, I think, is the problem.

Rant done

Celebrities and Science, and never the twain shall meet.

Celebrities are misleading about Science

Some people have been complaining that celebrities mislead people about science. It's true, they do, but I don't really see it as a big a problem as those concerned make out. Granted, I'm the person who's the first to say that public awareness of Science is seriously lacking, and I greatly resent all these pseudo-scientists who get millions for spewing fictitious gibberish in the public's faces (see earlier rants regarding McKeith and her ilk).
However, I'm not sure this issue is that big a deal. The article reports that Delia Smith has been stating that if people could cut down on sugar then we could cure the nations obesity. This confuses me a bit, I don't see it as anything more than a generalised statement. If you cut down on pretty much anything you eat excessively then it would help with obesity. Unless you're addicted to carrots or something, but eating too many carrots will kill you faster than obesity (vitamin A poisoning I believe, can break down your cell lysosomes which releases all the aggressive enzymes into the cells and they break down, you sort of fall apart really slowly and horribly, it's very unpleasant or at least it was in the sci-fi novel I read where it happened which was very well researched but probably not a 100% dependable source of information).
If I was a celebrity, that previous quote taken out of context could be used to claim that I stated that carrots are lethal. Luckily I'm not a celebrity.
I think Delia's problem was that she tried the classic bluff of dropping a bit of science in to enhance credibility:
"After six weeks [without sugar] everything will taste sweet... because you will have got your palate back to what nature created". OK, I'm not sure that's true. Granted, you'll desire sugar less if your blood's always full of it, but things will taste different? Taste is a sense, and admittedly sight and the corresponding brain areas can change depending on the stimulus they get, but does this work for taste? And is it even the same thing? If I stop looking at red things for a few weeks, will everything start to look more red to me? If I stop touching metal things, will everything else feel like metal? Granted, this doesn't take into account the metabolic role of sugar, but if I'm confused, surely Delia should be more so? And isn't it a bit rich for a celebrity chef to have a go at people for eating too much? And would we want everything to taste sweet anyway? I prefer savoury things, as do many others. Everyone would start putting excess salt on their food to counteract it, which would cause more health problems. THINK, Delia!

That's one issue. Someone else has criticised Mariah Carey for her maths skills. That's just awful. The criticising I mean, not the Mariah Carey maths skills.

"Carey's grasp of maths came under fire after she said her album E=MC2 stood for "emancipation equals Mariah Carey times two" - rather than squared... Mathematician Dr David Leslie said Carey had "misread the algebra" after adapting Einstein's famous equation for her album title. "The 'two' in the equation means C squared, not MC multiplied by two. "The correct reading of the equation is E=MCC, so perhaps Mariah's re-interpretation should have been 'emancipation equals Mariah Carey Carey'?"

Jesus Christ! Firstly, anyone who takes their mathematical learning from Mariah Carey is clearly beyond any hope. And secondly, what a dickhead! Not really doing much for the impression of Scientists there, and have you ever heard of poetic license? And I don't even like Mariah Carey, but come on.

Then they talk about Tom Cruise disputing the use of psychiatry. But lets bare one thing in mind; Tom Cruise is a Scientologist. Anything he says, does, or even thinks, can be discounted for ever and ever amen. He says this because... Ah, but is he a Scientologist? Then he's wrong. Even if he told me Gravity pulled you down, I'd have to get a bag of apples and a high window just to check. Therefore, all his claims are nonsense. Nuff said.

There's more about Demi Moore not understanding detox and other stuff, but I don't think they should be blamed for this. They're not scientists. Agreed, it's harmful when you figure the influence they have, but that's the unthinking minions who worship them who are responsible.

You may wonder why I'm being so lenient to misinformed stars? It's because these reports of their claims are filtered through the media, therefore I don't believe them. Why? Because it's happened to me. See here. It sounds like I agree with this 'most depressing day of the year' nonsense. I made it quite clear that I didn't and explained why in some detail, but in fairness to the South Wales Echo, that doesn't make for an easily readable story, does it? Still, makes me look like a dweeb.

So take every media claim of celebrity claim with a pinch of salt. All the better to take away that persistent sweet taste


P.S. The 'most depressing day of the year' occurs again a week today, and ITV Wales have asked to do an interview with me about why people should stay cheerful. Dejavu indeed. I shall do my best to ruin it if they try to dumb me down again. Watch this space for details.

Smart Sperm

Clever guys have better sperm?

I read this a while ago, but never got round to blogging about it, but now that I've got some free time, I'm going to, as it's quite an irksome article.

I think this is another great example of how massive conclusions can be made by a the smallest of evidence. This article says clearly that intelligent men have more potent and active sperm. This is quite a claim, as when it comes to such intangible qualities as intelligence and the human body in general, any sweeping statement like this is bound to be wrong. But what bugs me the most is the complete overlooking of the data itself. Granted, there's a few cautionary notes in it, a few attempts to make sure people don't jump to wild conclusions despite the fact that the article itself does just that.

No, this is the bit that really bugs me "...data from former US soldiers who served during the Vietnam war era." I've nothing against war veterans, but it's very unlikely that you could make conclusions about the whole of the human race based on studies of them. Why not, pray? Here are a few reasons, and some people will probably think of me as a commie liberal pacifist anti-American non-patriot, but bare in mind I'm not and never will be American, and the British people have a tendency to slag off anyone and everyone, even people 'fighting for their freedoms'. Nothing personal.

1. I'm not particularly well informed about the enlisting procedure in the US, but many TV shows and books seem to emphasise that the bulk of the armed forces are made up of guys who don't do very well academically. This may be due to a number of factors, some people don't like school and don't deal well with education, but aren't stupid. But still, the impression I get is that the Vietnam war was fought largely by guys who dropped out of or couldn't get into college. Some are obviously more intelligent than others, but for a given value of intelligent. You probably didn't see many professors taking on the Viet Cong.
   
2. Vietnam was a messy war, with all sorts of horrific stuff flying around (Agent Orange, anyone?). Don't forget the effect stress has on the body, even long term, and what could be more stressful than being a foreign country for unclear reasons while the natives constantly try to kill you? And of course, guys from the American Midwest wouldn't really have adapted to life in a tropical country, who knows what they could pick up? Long story short, all these things could contribute to a low sperm count. Maybe the cleverer ones managed to avoid such things, hence the outcome.
3. I'm not sure when the data was collected, but Vietnam vets must be getting on a bit by now. Sperm count tends to decline with age, smarter people would look after themselves and look after their health, dumb people would not. This could show up as intelligent people having higher sperm counts as an indirect result, but it doesn't automatically suggest a genetic component like the article suggests.

Maybe the research took all these factors into account, but still, it doesn't rule out the fact that only Vietnam veterans were used. The full conclusion should read "Intelligent men who served at least one of duty in the Vietnam conflict have better sperm than less intelligent men who served at east one tour of duty in the Vietnam conflict", although that's admittedly less punchy.

And don't think this is me disparaging on soldiers, I have nothing against them per se, but I endeavour to remember that you get pricks in every walk of life, the armed forces included, only the ones in the army have been trained to kill as well, and that concerns me. But I don't like rash claims based on partial data. If this was a real test, they should have used several groups of people, not just veterans. Professors, Scientists, Big business managers, engineers etc. although these people probably have better things to do than perform some IQ tests before wanking in a cup.

I'd guess people involved in science or technical fields would have surprisingly low sperm counts, as most of them are insular people who have no friends and spend most of their time in doors, constantly masturbating over pictures of Seven of Nine or some other sci-fi totty. And if they're not, they're all in labs handling toxic stuff or sitting with laptops over their groins, slowly irradiating their testicles. So yeah.

That should balance any potential soldier-bashing impression I've given.

Galileo was right!

Pope Praises Galileo

Have you ever met one of those people who have more opinions than your average person, despite having only about 10% of the factual knowledge of the average person? They seem to be more common than ever these days, where the media seems to prioritise opinion over information, and every opinion is given equal merit. It's a dangerous way to be, and I doubt it can last forever, but for the moment, every person seems to have equally valid opinions, and there seems to be an inverse relationship between strength and conviction of opinion and the awareness of the issues it's based on. I.e. People who don't have the first clue how the economy works are the ones who protest the loudest when something about it changes in a manner which doesn't benefit them, whereas those who may disagree in the same manner but know how the system works usually just accept it.

But these people have been around for quite some time, long before the technology gave everyone a voice. Back where I grew up, long before the Internet connected us up, there were a rich variety of opinionated idiots. I once heard a woman in a shop moaning that all our kids are daft because we don't send them to school enough like they do in Europe. Clearly this woman had no idea that in France, for example, the average school week is, or used to be, 4 and a half days, 10% less schooling a week than British kids. But that didn't matter; her kids were daft, therefore all kids are daft, and it's not her fault, it's the government. You get the gist.

This preamble is very long, I know, but I am going somewhere. These people are often the first to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them. Passionately, without forethought or remorse. If they were in charge, they'd just lock up anyone who challenged their world view, I'm sure. So it's incredibly annoying when, long, long after the thing they disagreed with has been proven correct and become a fact of everyday life, they suddenly accept it as if they always did. That's quite galling, but then it's especially irritating when said person then feels the need to tell you all about the impressive things they've done or learned about the new 'thing' they've taken on board. Good example, the Internet. I know many people who dismissed the Internet as an irrelevance, a sad outlet for people who didn't know how the real world works. This opinion, it turned out, was wrong. These are the same people who, quite recently,felt the need to regale me with tails of their first computer and how they now send 'e-mails' to people they know. Brilliant.

People on the comedy scene get this often, if they're new acts. You often get people bemoaning the lack of 'proper' comedy like Jim Bowen and Bernard Manning, hating younger comics with their swearing and views about things like racial equality and non-violence. This is usually on the back of never seeing a modern comic ever, as soon as they do they can change their minds. Peter Kay doesn't count though, he pays up to this 'proper comedy' angle. Fat wanker.

But an example of this sort of behaviour spanning centuries is in the news. The pope has given praise to Galileo. Remember him? Shattered many of the church's convictions about the place of the Earth in the heavens via the scandalous method of looking at things? Rather than just guessing and accepting because a man in a white dress told him it was the way of things? Contrary to popular belief, the catholic church didn't torture or just jail him on the spot, there was a long drawn out series of accusations and conspiracy to entrap him, but many of the higher ups were on his side so he got away from the worst of it. But that being said, he was jailed at home until he died eventually.

I'm not saying it was right to do that, but it was indicative of the times; church was in charge, don't piss off the church. Even if you're right. Especially if you're right in fact, then they really needed to shut you up as thoroughly as possible. But all this was long ago.

The pope now praises Galileo, and I'm not sure why. Granted, the catholic church could use a major revamp in order to improve it's image and fit in with the modern world (which is 4.3 billion or 6000 years old if you're a true believer, but neither rule out the fact that it's developing and changing). The pope now saying he did good work seems to emphasise the church's lack of understanding of the modern world, not help reduce it. It's been over 400 years! If some guy came up to you and said 'hey, this electricity stuff, it's good isn't it! I reckon there could be some use to be had from it', your first thought wouldn't be 'My, what a cool and insightful person, he clearly is in touch with modern society and I think I might see what else he has to say and live my life according to his teachings and beliefs'. Unlikely.

I thought this about when Tony Blair apologised for the role of Great Britain in the slave trade. Say what you will about Blair, I sincerely doubt he was responsible for slavery. Some people said it was an insufficient apology. This may be a controversial opinion this maybe, but I don't think he should have had to do that; not because nobody should apologise for slavery, far from it, but there's no-one alive to day who could make an apology that was genuinely meant. Everyone who did it is dead now, and whether or not they regretted it we'll generally never know. If there are people out there who have fortunes based on industries that were founded on slave labour and they then chose to donate all their wealth to looking after slave's descendants suffering hard times then yes, that would be a good apology. But they wouldn't be speaking for the whole, so it's still not sufficient.

Deep eh? Ah well, point is, the pope's an idiot. We all know Galileo was right. We've been to Mars(in robotic form at least, and I have no idea what the church thinks of robots), there's a Hubble telescope which has taken photos that people use as desktop screensavers, and we weren't all covertly sat around waiting for the pope's approval before we admitted such things were real. There was no real need to pledge the support for Galileo as it's way too late to change anything. No doubt the pope of 2183 will state that Isaac Newton was quite clever actually, and in 2542 the Pope will issue a statement saying 'you know what, that Hawking was on to something".