Cooler Dirt

The angriest Americans exhibit the following traits;

1.  They are under 30 years old.

2.  They are uneducated.

3.  They have kids.

A new study has revealed that while anger is a common emotion in all people, those who fall into the above group are more likely to be angry more often then those who aren’t in those groups.

It makes sense to us.  Apart from the obvious financial concerns of those who are young and uneducated, having kids when you don’t have a lot of options or money has got to be tough.   Worrying about someone else’s life when yours isn’t going as well as you like, that can’t be easy.

But it makes us think of a conversation we had with a friend of ours.  She is a substance abuse counselor, and in talking about what makes her job rewarding/difficult, she told us that invariably it is the stupid clients who are the most frustrating.  Ok, that might be a little crass.  But it’s true.

Smarter people are better able to understand their own emotions and can adapt or change the way they react to things more readily than those who aren’t smart.  The less intelligent feel the same things (be it anger or anything else) but aren’t as well equipped to handle them.

(Photo courtesy dboy’s flickr page.)

Uncategorized happiness, intelligence

A new study gives all doubters hope.  Or less hope.  We’re not sure.

According to the report, about half of all peer reviewed, scientific research papers published around the world aren’t true. (No, we aren’t going to get into the self-referential questions of whether the paper itself is true, so shut up.)  A variety of problems contribute to the errors, mostly; poor study design, small sample sizes, selective reporting and others.

And while no one factor is causally identified, the combination of errors means that those studies which have found statistically significant results (results that can be shown to be large enough to not be the result of random factors) are, half of the time, not significant.

Studies in ‘hot’ fields–where multiple teams are competing against one another–tend to be even less reliable, and studies with small sample sizes are even worse.

We know what you’re thinking: you knew it all along.  Scientists don’t have any answers, they just pretend like they do. After all, how many times do you hear about a study that says one thing while another a few months later says the opposite?

But, we have to ask, isn’t that kind of the point?  Isn’t research a venture into the unknown? And aren’t wrong conclusions sort of expected?

Uncategorized news, science

According to a new study, happiness is more contagious than the ebola virus.

Well, not really.  But it is contagious, at least as far as social circles are concerned.

The study showed that people tend to be happier when they associate with people who are happy.  Essentially, if you have happy friends, you too will be happy.

And though the corollary didn’t show as strong a relationship (being around sad people doesn’t necessarily make you sad), there was a clear indication of an increase in happiness up to the third degree of separation.  How much? Look at these numbers:

• First degree of separation (Immediate contact): Increase your happiness chances by 15%.
• Second degree of separation (Friend of a friend): 10% increase.
• Third degree of separation:  (Friend of a friend of a friend): 6% increase.

And while having more friends also increased your chances, the deciding factor was whether or not you had happy friends.

Which brings us to our question:  Do you have a duty to be happy? If your happiness increases the happiness of others, and by inference, makes everyone’s life better, do you have an obligation to be happy?

If it isn’t a duty (ethical or moral), is it just a good idea to surround yourself with better (i.e. happier) friends? Quality over quantity seems to be the deciding factor in increasing your chances at happiness.   If you want to increase your chances at happiness, it seems like you’d be better off getting rid of the downers in your life.

And on that note, we’ll say:  Excelsior, True Believers!

(Photo courtesy Swami Stream’s Flickr page.  Thanks, Swami Stream!)

Uncategorized friends, happiness, study

We have a confession to make: We hate plays.

There, we said it.

Yes, yes, hold your rancor and chastisements.  We know we have now branded ourselves uncultured, illiterate, beer-swilling simpletons, but we don’t care.  No matter what you say to bring us out of our provincial shitkickerdom, plays suck.   Here’s why;

1.  The Medium: For most of human history there haven’t been a lot of options when it came to entertainment.  Medieval people would no doubt see the production of a play as an awe inspiring, life changing experience.  Compared to their daily drudgery, why wouldn’t they?

But times have changed.  We have mass produced books., films, television, sporting events, etc, etc.  The days when a group of people standing in front of you playing make believe was the supreme achievement in human entertainment are long gone.  Whenever we see a play nowadays, we can’t get past the idea that we are watching adults stand around for an hour and a half, pretending to not be on a stage, pretending to not be pretending, pretending to be someone they are not, pretending to…oh, you get the point.

2.  The Culture: What little exposure we’ve had to theater culture has left us scratching our head and wondering whether or not these people could be found anywhere else in life.  Even forgetting the dramatic persona that seems so common amongst these denizens of the stage, there is so much off kilter here, we have no idea where to even begin relating to them.

For instance, what is with the superstitions?  Why can’t you say Macbeth without a theater person going into convulsions and frothing at the mouth in terror?    Why say “break a leg” instead of “good luck”?  No, we don’t really understand any superstition.  They all seem to be so primitive and ego-centric, as if the universe is keeping watch and just waiting to cause you problems because you say one thing instead of another.

And in what kind of world is the excuse “Well, that’s show business,” acceptable when something goes wrong?  If a ship’s captain runs their vessel aground, you don’t hear them say “Well, that’s trans-oceanic shipping for ya!”

And getting back to the people.  We’ll merely summarize our conclusion by saying: only theater people could call someone who sings, dances and acts a “Triple Threat” without breaking into hysterics.  

There is nothing threatening about any of those actions.  Never has been, never will be.

3.  Musicals: No.  Seriously…just, no. We can listen to music and enjoy it’s performance, but when someone stops talking and starts singing, forget it. Whatever narrative thread we, the audience, have been following up to that point is summarily sliced away when the people who I am trying to take seriously start singing in an attempt to communicate.  No.

So let’s hear it.  Why do you hate us now?

Books, Movies, TV, Music and Art plays, theater

We had an interesting discussion the other day about horror movies.  More specifically, the Zombie Movie.  One of us recently read the Max Brooks book World War Z, about a future where zombies almost wipe out the human race and the leftover people have to fight back against them.   Though we all liked zombie movies to one extent or another, we did come up with an interesting observation about the zombie genre in particular.

1.  Zombie survivors make shelters: In pretty much every zombie movie we’ve seen, the non-zombie people wall themselves up, bar the doors, build barricades or otherwise create a fortress to keep the hordes of zombies from getting inside and eating their brains.  (Or something.)

2.  Zombie survivors have immediate needs: Apart from food, shelter, weapons and maybe a zombie-escape-mobile, zombie survivors don’t really have a lot to do.  They don’t have to pay bills, don’t have to study, don’t have to worry about getting the girl.  It’s pretty much basic survival needs with none of the complications of modern life and socialization.  Conversations revolve around how to get away, where the ammo is and what needs to be done to stay alive.

3.  Zombie survivors use violence: It goes without saying that if you are attacked by a zombie, you’re going to defend yourself using whatever you have available.   Chainsaws, swords, bats, and of course, as many guns as you can get your hands on.  If you are cast into a world of zombies, you gotta fight, and fight well.

As we see it,  zombie movie people use violence, build forts and think of nothing other than meeting their immediate survival needs.  Does this sound like anyone you might know?  Or, to be more specific, is there a certain group of people who’s desires closely match those of the people in zombie movies?

How about pre-teen boys?  How about teenage boys, or those on the verge of sexual maturity?  In other words, are zombie movies fantasies of the pre-teen boy inside of all the fanboys, film makers and otherwise adult men who flock to them?

Look at it this way:  If you survive a zombie attack, you have to build a fort to wall yourself off from the outside world. (Very boyish).  You have to find all the weapons you can.  (Ever seen boys play war?)  You have to get food and concentrate on staying alive.  You don’t have to deal with school, or parents, or complicated relationships,or, god forbid, sex! (Sure, there are sexy women in these movies, but aren’t they too just fantasies?)

The zombie fantasy offered by these films caters to the regressed or psychologically stunted impulse to wall yourself off from the world and not grow up.  You don’t have to worry about any big, emotional, complicated stuff that adults have to deal with.  All you have to do is play soldier and stay alive.

Of course, we haven’t found any direct evidence that the people making these films or books believes this, or is using the zombie setting as a metaphorical tool to explore these ideas.  We could be completely wrong about it.

But we don’t think we are.   After all, who are the biggest fans of zombie movies?  When the next zombie movie comes out  (the movie version of World War Z is set to be made soon), go see it in the theater.  Pay attention to the ratio of men to women.  We’re guessing it’s going to be fairly male heavy.  We’re also guessing those men are either adolescents or a little regressed.

(Photo courtest Ateo Fiel’s Flickr site through Creative Commons.  Thanks, Ateo Fiel.)

Books, Movies, TV, Music and Art book, books, brain, conversation, conversations, life

Robots

So we know it’s been a while.  But give us a break, we were…uh…reincarnated, taken by aliens, busy traveling back and forth from Colombia as drug mules, abducted by robots.   Yes.  Abducted.

By robots.

Yeah.  Really smart robots that can think for themselves.   In fact, they’re so smart that since releasing us from their evil island robot lair they’ve gone to work for several government agencies, TV shows and scientific research institutes as autonomous researchers capable of thinking for themselves.

Okay, we made some of that up.  In fact, we pretty much made all of it up.

Except for the part about the robots that think for themselves.

On Thursday, two separate research teams reported that they had created robots that could form their own hypothesis, test them, and then learn from what they observed.

Take a moment to let that sink in.

We aren’t exactly fear mongers around here.  Usually we try to remain level headed, easy going, quick with a joke type people.  And then we came across this section of the report:

“Just by crunching the numbers — and without any prior instruction in physics — the Cornell machine was able to decipher Isaac Newton’s laws of motion and other properties.”

That seems pretty impressive to us.  Even if you only count since humanity has been agrarian, it took us–people–about 10,000 years to come up with Newtonian physics.  These robots came up with it in what, a couple of days?  A week? A few hours?

We have no idea.  But by our calculations, the robots will be taking over next Thrusday, around tea time.

And we welcome our new robotic overlords. We remind them that as trusted blogers we can be used to spread their commandments and round up human slaves for work in their silicone and robot wig factories.

Hail Robots!

Uncategorized artificial intelligence, robots

We were having a discussion the other night, and the topic of Mel Gibson came up.  No, not for the reasons you’re thinking.  (Well, probably because of those reasons.)  We were talking about his Lethal Weapon movies when the topic of the ‘revenge fantasy’ came up.

A common thread or theme found in many films, the revenge fantasy caters to that urge in all of us when we feel we have been wronged and want to pay the wrongdoer back and fantasize about how that retribution would be, how it would feel.  (See movies like The Brave One, Man on Fire, Defiance, etc.)  It arises in many contexts, from the schadenfreude we feel when someone else fails, to the conversations we have with ourselves when we think up the perfect comeback line to say after someone has insulted us and the opportunity has passed.  (”Well the jerkstore called and they’re running out of you!”)

Now, we don’t want to psychoanalyze anyone.  Apart from being grossly unqualified and in every other way not a psychologist, we never the less think there’s something to our observations.  The Basics are this:  Mel Gibson likes revenge. As an actor, he seems to play roles in which the character has a strong desire for revenge.  These characters go on to kill and deal out violence.

If nothing else, it causes us to ask why?  Is Mr. Gibson drawn to these characters because the emotion/impulse resonates with him, or that it’s one he can easily identify with?  Does he just happen to get these parts with strong revenge fantasy elements?  Is he fighting an urge in himself by letting his rage out in a constructive environment?   Is it all of these?

We don’t know, but it makes for an intersting conversation topic.  Take a look at the evidence. Here is a list of some of the Mel Gibson movies that have the revenge fantasy present:

1.  Lethal Weapon 2: Though less prominent in the other films of this series, this film is all about revenge.  Riggs (Gibson’s character) finds out that the bad guys are not only responsible for killing his girlfriend, but also his wife.  Revenge ensues.

2.  Hamlet: Depressed prince finds out Uncle killed dad and married mom.  Revenge ensues.

3.  Braveheart: Scottish clansman William Wallace gets married to his childhood sweetheart whom the English then kill.  Revenge ensues.

4.  Ransom: Millionaire airline owner’s son is kidnapped and a ransom is demanded.  Gibson’s character gets the ransom but instead uses it as a bounty on the kidnappers’s heads.  Personal and third party revenge ensues.

5.  Payback: Ok, we never saw this one, but it’s got ‘payback’ as the title.  We’re guessing the plot goes like this:  Gibson’s character is wronged.  He goes to get….wait for it…payback.  Revenge (and payback!) ensue.

6.  The Patriot: Former extremely violent guy (Gibson) lives peacefully on his farm until the English kill his son.  Bloody revenge (lots and lots and lots of it) ensues.

7.  Paparazzi: Mr. Gibson didn’t star in this film, but he did  produce it, have a cameo and got his former hairdresser to direct it.   In it a star is hassled by paparazzi.  After a car accident is caused by the paparazzi’s flashing their cameras at the star (where did they get that idea?), the star decides to kill him some paparazzi.  Revenge ensues.

Mr. Gibson has been in a lot of other movies (and has directed or been part of the production of many more), but this list at least gives you an idea of what we’re talking about.  I’m sure if we tried, we could find a lot of other revenge elements in his other films.  We just thought these seemed fairly obvious.

The revenge fantasy is a particularly primitive instinct, isn’t it?  Freud said that civilization started when the first person chose to hurl an insult rather than a stone. It seems that some people still very much like the idea of hurling stones.  Or at least shoting people, hacking them to death or burning them alive.

But hey, it’s all just a fantasy.  Right?

(Photo courtesy EAWB’s flickr page through Creative Commons.  Thanks, EAWB!)

Books, Movies, TV, Music and Art conversation, conversation topic, conversations, personal

It seems like every time we start talking about movies, someone brings up the Academy Awards.   We like the Oscars, we do.  We like to think about what movies were good, what movies were bad, and which ones we think were better than the rest.  (Though we don’t really think all movies are equal, or should be judged equally.)

Our problem with the Academy Awards though, is not about them specifically.  People can make up any award they want.  Super.  Have at it.  Go nuts.

No, what troubles us about the Oscars is the impact it has upon discussing movies.  Here’s what we mean;

1.  Sycophantic Explosions: Movies are great entertainment. They are art. They are enjoyable, thought provoking and capable of changing the way you view the world.  They are also the surest way to get someone to claim that a person involved in the film industry is astonishing/amazing/unbelievable/brilliant/tremendous/possessed of unearthly intelligence/a once in a century genius, etc.  Our point is this: why do we pile praise upon films, or actors, or those involved with film making so effortlessly?  Why do some people feel the need to adore and gush over actors or filmmakers?  Why does an actor’s performance or a director’s work have to be praised with ‘I hope they get an Oscar‘?  Isn’t it enough to say you enjoyed the movie, or that it made you think, or cry, or laugh?

2.  The End of Existence: Discussing what is good or bad about a movie, what you like or don’t like, all that makes for wonderful conversation.  But when someone wins an Academy Award, this fact is often brought up as if it is the single greatest achievement in human existence.  “Well, they did win an Oscar.”  Congratulations to them.  Being recognized is wonderful, and as movies are such a popular medium, we can see why the Oscars get so much attention. But is there nothing a person can do or achieve that will bring about a sense of awe in the faces of their peers as winning an award for making a movie? Is this the ultimate achievement, so much so that it has to be treated with almost reverential awe?

3.  The Removal of the Personal: Movies, books, music, any art is experienced on a personal level. That one person gets something from it is one thing, that the work reaches a wide audience and resonates strongly with it is another.  The only way to evaluate a film is by what you think of it, what effect it had on you.  That awarding an Oscar to an actor or movie often causes people to think differently about that film, even if they’ve seen it and already formed an opinion, seems ridiculous.  If authority has be given from on high, you should now like/dislike/fawn over the movie in questions?   Rubbish. Saying a movie was great because it won an Oscar is like saying a meal tasted great because the chef said it did.

It may sound lie we’re down on the Oscars, but we’re not.  Not at all.  But it has been our experience that people who use the Oscars as basis of their conversations about film usually leave us wanting.  Be it layman or professional film reviewer, we’ve found that best film conversations come from those who watch the movies on their own terms, not on those of the people who vote for the Academy Awards.

(Photo courtesy hellochris’s Flickr page, through Creative Commons  license.  Thanks, hellochris!)

Books, Movies, TV, Music and Art book, books, conversation, conversations, music, personal

We forgot who came up with it, but we once heard a rule about evaluating whether or not how women are portrayed in movies, film or TV was realistic.  It went something like this:

If two or more women are in a scene and they only talk about men, it’s no good.

At first glance, it seems fairly simplistic.  But take a look at all the shows, movies or books where women  talking about men (or more specifically, their romantic interests or partners) takes up a lot of the dialogue.  Jane Austin? Sex and the City?   Pretty much any romantic comedy ever made?

Where are the conversations about art or politics or the lesser works of Ovid?  Of course women have these conversations in real life, but they seem to be far less represented in fiction and film.   Think about all the TV shows, movies and books where every conversation is about men; finding them, looking at them, evaluating them, living with them, thinking about them, etc.

It was also pointed out that while this may be how women are portrayed, it may not be far from the truth.  Do women spend more time talking about relationships than men?   Yes.  Do they spend more time talking in general?  Perhaps.  Is the majority of that time spent talking about men?  More importantly, is that what they think about?  Is the conversation merely an expression of their inner thoughts?

A lot of women respond negatively to these ideas.  But that doesn’t mean they are false, does it?  And if they are true, why is that a negative thing?

(Photo courtesy idoherty81’s Flickr page, through Creative Commons.  Thanks, idoherty81!)

Books, Movies, TV, Music and Art book, books, conversation, conversations, life, politics

We had an interesting conversation arising from an article we read on slate.com. The article stated that on Royal Navy SSBN’s (nuclear missile submarines), there is a safe containing a letter from the Prime Minister.

The letter contains the PM’s final orders to the captain of the submarine in the event he (the PM) is killed in a surprise nuclear attack.  The current PM, Gordon Brown, apparently wrote this letter out four times,  in longhand.

Previous PM’s have had to do the same thing, though all their orders have been destroyed.  Presumably, only they know what they wrote, but none of them have ever revealed the contents of their letters publicly.

This, obviously, prompted the question:  What did they write?

What would you write?

Here is the situation: You are the Prime Minister (or the President of the United States, or Russia, etc.) and you are tasked with writing your final orders to the commanders of your nation’s nuclear missile submarines.  These vessels carry enough firepower to vaporize the world’s largest cities, and most of the smaller ones as well.  (A single U.S. Ohio class submarine, for example, carries up to 192 nuclear warheads, each of them at least 5 times as powerful as the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

Your orders will determine whether or not these submarines fire their weapons and kill millions upon millions of people.  (Not to mention leaving the survivors in a world radically different than the one prior.)  You are dead because your nation has already been destroyed.  You’ve lost. You’re only decision is whether to take the attackers with you to the grave.

We didn’t come up with an answer.  Neither do we don’t envy those who have to write these letters, or those who’s task it would be to read them.

(Photo courtesy jmuhles’s flickr page through creative commons license.  Thanks, jmuhles!)

technology conversation, nuclear, war