Cooler Dirt

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

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

A conversation came up the other day about DVD’s.  Specifically, why do we own them?

You may have experienced the following phenomena:  You are watching television when you come across a movie that is just about to start.  You happen to own the movie on DVD, but for some reason you sit and watch it anyway.

Why? In your mind you know that you can watch it at any time.  Why watch the movie now?

After a brief discussion, we came up with the following reasons:

1.  It’s easier: Yes, it isn’t very hard to get up and go to your DVD player, place the movie in the tray and hit play, but it is more than pressing the channel button.

2.  It’s disposable: Something on TV isn’t permanent, it’s disposable.  You can turn it off and not give it a second thought.  If you stop the DVD, you have to get up, remove it from the player and place it back in its case/rack, etc.

3.  You don’t feel obligated: If you take the time and effort to pick a movie out of your DVD collection, place it in the player and start it, you feel an obligation to watch it.  Yes, you can pause it at any point, but you’ve gone through all the work and built an expectation in your mind that ‘Yes, I am going to commit to watching this now.’   It’s very different than finding a movie on a channel and setting the remote down.

All of this brought up another point: the digital revolution.   With the advent of digital technology (the access and recording of information into a digital format), all manner of media is becoming easily transferable and more portable.  Music, movies, books, photographs, you name it.  You can have it all on your computer, your Ipod, your cell phone.

How long will it be before you carry all of this on a Star-Trek like handheld device?  You may only have to carry around something like your cell phone to have access to all of these things.  You could play your movies wirelessly on your TV screen, or send your music to your stereo, or have your picture frames show changing images of your children.    With sites like HULU, you might be able to go online, click on the movie you want and watch it instantly, anywhere in your house.

So will DVD’s go the way of the 8-track or laser disk?  Clearly, yes.  But what they, or their successors, may be replaced with is…nothing.  At least, nothing physical.  With data being conveyed digitally at an increasing speed and with more and more ease, how long will it be before we all have personal tricorders that have access to every piece of media ever created?

And what happens after that?

(Photo courtesy john a ward’s flickr page through creative commons license.  Thanks, john a ward!”

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

The other day a friend of mine and I had a conversation about all those survival shows on the Discovery Channel.  (Or is it The Learning Channel?  We couldn’t remember.)  We’ve been fascinated with man vs. nature type shows ever since we first read Robinson Crusoe.  So, we spent some time talking about it and came up with a question: What would we bring with us if we were stranded in the woods?

I remember once taking a class where one of the lessons was to rank a list of supplies in order of their importance if you were stranded on a desert island.  The list was given to Navy personnel (or maybe it was NASA, I forget that too) and consisted of about 50 items.  The items I remember were these:

• Compass
• Flashlight
• Bottles of water
• Radio, not working
• Umbrella
• Sextant
• Food rations
• Sunscreen
• Small mirror
• Bible
• Plastic jug
• Fishing tackle

When making their list, most people place food and water near the top.  But as I remember, the items on the top of the list as put together by the experts consisted of signaling devices like the mirror.  The theory being that you don’t really want to try to survive on your own at sea (or anywhere else), and your best chance at living is rescue.

Never the less, we came up with a list of items we’d want with us if stranded on a desert island.  Here is the non-signaling device list.

1.  Knife: Because you can use a knife for a lot, like making a shelter, hunting or spear-fishing, etc.
 
 
 
 
 
 



2.  Hand-powered water maker: One of these would come in really handy, especially in the hot climate of a desert island.  You can go a long time without food, but you can’t go more than a few days without water.  With these, you can make enough water to survive on, and all you need is two hands and an ocean.  (Check!)
 
 
 
 
 
 



3.  Plastic tarp or trash bags. Very useful to stay dry, and for a whole lot of other uses.
 
 
 
 
 
 


4.  Fishing Tackle: We have to eat too, and the ocean has fish in it, or so we hear.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


5.  Lighter: We like sushi, but not all the time.  Besides, a fire provides warmth, light and psychological comfort. And you can cook over it.

Uncategorized conversation

Personality tests have been around for a while, and are widely used by businesses, schools and even religious groups.  A few friends of mine and I recently had a conversation about these tests and whether or not they are worth anything.

Some argue that many personality tests cater strongly to the Forer Effect, that tendency of people to view positive, yet vague, assessments of themselves as highly accurate.   This effect is often used by charlatans, astrologers and others of questionable scruples as their way to entice new victims.

The premise is simple: say something flattering about a person and they will believe you to be smart.  If you take it a step further and say the flattery is derived from a test or other diagnostic tool, they’ll believe that the tool is not only accurate, but useful for determining what that person would do, how they should act, etc.

Further confounding this is the evidence.  Many, if not most or even all, personality tests (even the widely used ones) have little reliability or predictive value.  Basically that means that if you take the test more than once, you’ll get a different result, and if you use it to try to predict your behavior, you won’t get it right.

So why take these tests at all? Why take a useless, or at best questionable test, if there is little reason to believe it is worth anything?

Well for one, because they are fun.  We all like to hear nice things about ourselves, and the promise of a test telling us what how great and special we are caters to our ego’s.  But it also allows us a moment of introspection.  Many of us spend the majority of our days in pursuit of something, we have little time to turn our attention towards less immediate tasks.  A little time spent thinking might do us some good.

So here is a basic personality test you can take that might allow you that moment of introspection.  It may prove useful, or it may be worthless.

But no matter how it turns out, it is fun to think about.

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

Testing, Tuedsay, Testing conversation, friends, personal, personality, science, survey, testing

Here’s a conversation topic that came up the other day.  A friend of mine likes the show Dexter.  But, because he doesn’t have cable, he can only watch the show after it is released on DVD or, as he prefers, download the show illegally.  He doesn’t believe downloading the show constitutes theft, and further, it is not immoral.  Another friend held the opposite opinion.  Here are the 2 basic arguments

File Sharing IS NOT Stealing:

1. Intellectual property is intangible: When you steal a car, you deprive someone of that car.  When you download a file, you aren’t depriving anyone of anything.  The property is intangible, and you can’t really ‘take’ it.  Therefore, it isn’t stealing.
2. Downloading a file doesn’t prevent the creator from making money: A writer, movie maker, song writer , etc., can still make money from their creations.   They can use alternate distribution models, they can use subscriptions, etc.  Not only that, but people downloading files often go out and buy the tangible good.  (The CD or DVD, etc.)  They also become fans of the artist and pay them money in other ways, like going to their website, concerts, etc.

File Sharing IS Stealing:

1. You are taking something of value: The file you are downloading is someone’s property, and it has value.  That you can’t hold it is irrelevant.  There are lots of things you can’t hold (a logo, your cable subscription, your neighbor’s wi-fi access), but that doesn’t mean everyone can use them.  If you cut into your neighbor’s cable, or access their wi-fi, or use a corporate logo for yourself, you are still stealing.  It has value and doesn’t belong to you.  So taking it is theft.
2. How do you know: Lots of people depend on intellectual property for their living, and more specifically, on the right to exclusively make and sell copies of their work. (Anyone who makes music, entertainemnt, etc, or is involved in the process.)  If you remove the copyright protetions, that may take all, some or a portion of those jobs away.  Yes, those jobs might still exist if you change the protections, but that’s a hell of a gamble.  If it doesn’t, the jobs are lost and all you have left is “Oops, my bad.”.

What do you think?  Where is the line when it comes to file sharing (or illegally downloading)?  Is it theft? Is it immoral?

Is it….EVIL?!?!?

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

Foolosophy Friday conversation, conversation topic, dexter, evil, file sharing, foolosophy friday, illegal downloading, music, peer-to-peer, ptp, theft

We were having a discussion several days ago, and the topic of arranged marriages arose, mostly because one of us was recently informed by his parents that they had found him a suitable, albeit potential, mate.  (He’s from India, where arranged marriages are much more common than they are in the United States and other western cultures.)

Everyone else in the group thought the idea was about as appealing as canine airline pilots, but after a brief discussion, several of us began seeing the potential upside of such practices.  Of course, none of us wanted to be set up for marriage, but the process itself seemed insightful.  Here’s why we thought it seemed interesting, and why it would make for a good conversation starter:

1.  Your Family Knows you Like Everyone Else:  We all see ourselves differently than everyone else does, simply because we are the only person living in our own heads.  We experience the world through our perceptions and our thoughts, while everyone else experiences us through only their perceptions.  They don’t have our thoughts to help/taint their observations.  Because of this, your view of yourself is necessarily different than how everyone else views you.  Since finding a partner requires you to be with someone else, you may be less better suited to determine who you are suited for (since you have your thoughts getting in the way) than those who, like your potential mate, can only judge you according to their perceptions.

2.  Your Family and Friends Know Your Strengths: Your family has known you all your life.  (Well, mostly.)  Your friends and coworkers have been around you as an adult.  Taken together, this group of people probably knows a good deal about how you behave, with whom you have rapport and what kind of people you get along with. They are in a good position to know who would be good for you, or what kind of person brings out your best side.

3.  Your Family and Friends Know Your Weaknesses : Conversely, your family and friends are also around you at your worst times. You may pride yourself on your even temper, but if you are temparamental and easy to anger, it is your family and friends who are better suited to judging you objectively.  We all harbor illusions about ourselves, but when someone else looks at us, they do so without the self interest involved.  Yes, your family and friends love you and don’t want to hurt you, but if you ask them to take the time and genuinely think about what kind of person would be good for you, your flaws will come into the picture.

Now, none of this makes us want to be set up for a blind marriage, only meeting the person on our wedding day.  But it does make us think.

How often do we tell ourselves something, or believe something about ourselves that isn’t accurate? When finding a mate, how can we get past these potential roadblocks and find someone that fits our real personality, and not just our ego.

If anything, family and friends telling you what kind of person you appear to them to be is valuable enough.  Forming the decision to marry on that kind of information has got to be at least somewhat helpful.

Doesn’t it?

(Photo courtesy Kumon’s Flickr page, rights granted through Creative Commons.  Thanks, Kumon!)

Relationships arranged marriage, conversation, conversation starter, family, friends, good conversation, life, love, marriage, personal, science, tech, wedding