Thursday, June 15, 2006

.bash_profile vs. .bashrc

.bash_profile and .bashrc are two very similar files that are executed when using a bash shell. I was trying to figure out the difference in order to get to grips with some internal Yahoo stuff.

It turns out that .bash_profile is only executed when I log in to my account (whether locally or via telnet/ssh). If I then start another terminal from within that shell, .bashrc is executed instead.

Most people like to call .bashrc from .bash_profile, so that both files get executed on login. So if you're like me, and you need your shell prompt to look different depending on the terminal you're using, put that bit of code into .bashrc.

Here's a good article explaining the whole thing: Josh Staiger: .bash_profile vs. .bashrc

Friday, September 30, 2005

(Ben) Mulletcore

Sadly I can't find a bigger image of this album sleeve.

Ben

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

(Ben) Irish martial arts

Not the joke site you may have been hoping for, but a little introduction to the ancient Irish stick-fighting code of honour.  Most ... interesting.

Ben

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Talking rubbish - litter-ally....

I just got an email saying "thanks" from the Glade litter picker organiser dude.  Apparently we picked up 35 tonnes of rubbish from the site.  There were 25 names on the email list and of those at least five didn't turn up.  So on average we picked up about 1.75 tonnes of litter each.  No wonder my back hurt and I was shagged out all weekend.

Ben


Thursday, September 08, 2005

(Crusha) Drugs stories in the newspapers

Since I never like to miss an opportunity to shove my oar in, here goes.

Agreed that drugs are often a bad idea if you're not in the right place and time to enjoy them. Tim Leary was writing all the way back in the Fifties about the importance of the correct set (ie. people) and setting (ie. environment) as essential ingredients for a positive drug experience. The last time I took K (and it will remain the last) was on the day my finals finished, after mucho booze, with people I didn't know too well. Scarcely surprising that I ended up bollock naked and locked out of my house at three in the morning. That was a humiliating experience, the sort that really offends against one's dignity and is perhaps too easy to laugh off as another amusing bad trip. Had it been the depths of a Cambridge winter it could have been a lot more dangerous; as it was, I was let in by my housemate, which added to the embarrassment but at least saved me being found
under a bush in the garden by someone I didn't know, nude and suffering from hypothermia

On the point of newspapers, I think it is completely pointless to get worked up about what appears in them. They are designed for one thing - to sell more papers, and as such it's daft to expect quality writing. With a freesheet like the Metro the lack of a cover price can be deceptive; they are even less insulated against the vagaries of the market by the fact that their only income is from advertising and so the publishers must design the paper to be picked up and read by the maximum number of people. Subtle things like format, typeface, headline/text balance, choice of cover picture and so on have a big influence on whether we pick up a paper. If the Metro looked like the FT or the Telegraph then only certain people would pick it up. But as they are aiming for the largest number of commuters, a diverse bunch of people, you're more likely to get stories that are guaranteed to titillate, cause sensation, or instil fear. Stories about lifestyles involving 'druggy' lifestyles, especially drugs that are 'new' (to the mainstream) or somehow 'fearsome' (eg. by making you violent/a rapist) are lapped up by people who don't know. It's been going on since the days when people were told that cannabis would turn you into a murderous rapist, or ecstasy would damage your spinal cord. The stories feed off the fear amongst the old of the young, and makes the old feel better about the fact that they're sitting on a train for another day at work rather than expanding their consciousnesses in ways they hadn't dreamed of.

Note the difference in tone and focus in the recent Independent story on cannabis (for those that are interested, I've posted it on the MashedAgain blog along with this rant). On the face of it there are certainly similarities to the Metro ketamine piece in that this is in fact a total non-story - neither a (very) new development nor a particularly important one. But you'll notice that the spin is more positive; it's definitely been written with one finger on the clitoris of the Indy's funky young professional demographic, and it lends glamour, respectability and exclusivity to a lifestyle that among less fashionable social classes is characterised as grotty, feckless and criminal. It's the very worst in broadsheet journalism; snobbery, pomposity and condescension disguised by a spurious veneer of good taste.


The pressure to sell affects all the newspapers, which all rely to a greater or lesser extent on the sale of advertising space. Think on this example:
  • Cost of a banner ad on the bottom of the front page of the Guardian - £22,550
  • Cost of the Guardian - 60p
  • Average daily circulation of the Guardian between March and July this year was 365,365
So their average income from the cover price is £219,219, or about 9 times the cost of a front page ad. Consider how many ads there are in a newspaper and that income will quickly dwarf what they get from the punters. I've deliberately made an example of the Guardian because it's my old faithful favourite, but also because its circulation is pretty small and because it fancies itself as putting good journalism first and commercialism fourth, with a country mile of open space in second and third. Yet on an average Saturday you might find a heartfelt and impassioned article on the urgency of cutting CO2 emissions, directly opposite an advertisement for cheap long-haul flights. That's risible, much as it pains me to see a good newspaper so shamelessly compromising its editorial line. No one expects the highest standards of journalism from the Sun, but even the supposedly squeaky clean are as bound by commercial pressures as anyone else.

My (slightly idiosyncratic) answer? Get your news from Private Eye, or better still buy a good book to read on the train and learn about the world from that. Granted, it's not bang up to date, but at least you're getting a message that's not compromised. And you get the satisfaction of knowing that not a penny of the price goes to the government (no VAT on books, see). By now I'm probably beginning to sound like Huw on the old mashedup@ list, so I'll stop here. In any case, I've got to get to the newsagent's.

B


High society

At up to £300 an ounce, exotic strains of designer cannabis are fuelling a booming market in herbal highs for affluent smokers

By David McCandless

Published: 05 September 2005

You've smelt it, wafting sweetly across the park, floating over the fence from the pumping party next door, rising to greet you off the plane at Schiphol Airport. Is that a hint of pine? With an undertone of blackberry? Ah, yes, it's the unmistakable complexity of gourmet cannabis.

For an emerging generation of herb elitists, the generic skunk sold on street corners - the plonk of the cannabis world - no longer hits the spot. These media executives, creative professionals and party people choose to have their executive brain functions impaired by only the best brands of cannabis: AK47, Charas, Kali Mist - vintage weeds that represent the summit of 25 years of selective breeding and artisan horticulture.

"Why fly economy?" says Samuel, 34, who works as a graphic designer for the music industry. "Connoisseur varieties are for those who want to smoke but don't want to be monged out or fall unconscious under a radiator." He regularly buys Northern Lights and Charas from a specialist London dealer who delivers via moped, his wares lovingly clingfilmed and neatly compartmentalised in a plastic toolbox.

At £150-£200 per ounce it's not cheap, but for Samuel high-grade weed is a marker of taste. Bringing crisp, silver-tufted, hand-rolled Northern Lights to a party gets him attention. Even bringing it to work can be productive. "You can get things done on this kind of weed," he says. "Deals, creative work, sharing ideas. It dissolves egos and makes everyone happy."

Cannabis growing techniques have reached a level of artistry on a par with the wine industry. The two main plant varieties - Cannabis sativa and indica - have been rarefied and crossbred into hundreds of exotic strains. Each has its own look, taste, and quality of high. A recent upsurge in home growing have made these rarer varieties more widely available. Specialist dealers have stepped in. A thriving "cannaseur" marketplace is blossoming.

Yearly crops are considered with the same scrutiny as a wine buff might give a fine Alsatian white. Good vintage? Organically grown? Properly handled? How does it taste? Citrus? Peppery? Fruity?

The buzz, though, is key. A cannaseur knows the difference between getting stoned and getting high - and savours it. The effects of a good ganja transcend the heavy, mindless "stoner" effects of street weed. Cerebral, lively, trippy, the four-hour high set off by a supreme cannabis produces emotional qualities usually reserved for key life moments.

It's no surprise, then, that the connoisseurs often inhabit the creative industries: music, new media, advertising and film.

"It's great for gestating ideas, digging into your unconscious, getting shamanic," says "Marcus", a 30-year-old published novelist who chooses to remain anonymous. He gets through a modest quarter of an ounce of AK47 a month. For him, a hit of sterling spliff is a great way to get into a creative flow.

Connoisseurship is partly a response to the low-quality cannabis that has swamped the UK market-place for years. While three million adults will have smoked cannabis in the last year, according to the Home Office, most will have inhaled garden variety, often adulterated, "monkey bedding".

"In drought periods, I've gone without rather than smoke that crap," says Martin, 32, who works in post-production in the film industry. He orders a quarter of an ounce of Durban Poison a week from his dealer in Richmond, who in turn sources it from some drug geeks with an organic plantation "somewhere in Sussex". A perfectionist, Martin used to buy from a website until the hi-tech police shut it down. "I only smoke organic that's been properly dried and cured," he boasts.

Much cheap weed is of the "schwag" variety, an American term for low-grade grass composed mostly of stems and seeds, compacted into green bricks and handed out in bags by street dealers. Headache-inducing with a chemical aftertaste, it's the cannabic equivalent of Happy Shopper lager.

Worse, though, is "soapbar", the "Oxo cube" form of hashish that was the dominant form of pot in the UK for decades. For many people growing up in the Eighties and Nineties, it was their first taste of the drug. Shame, then, that it isn't actually cannabis.

"Moroccan-made soapbar is actually an adulterated facsimile, made from about 10 per cent ground-up 'vegetable matter', marijuana leaves, stems and twigs and 90 per cent adulterant," says Nick Craston, editor of the cannabis magazine Red Eye. "It's bound with beeswax. Nescafé coffee is added for colour, and then it's given a lick of turpentine for a shine. Basically, it's crap. It's bad for you. Another situation where prohibition, in all its wisdom, is feeding people garbage."

The desire to avoid smoking garbage, and the status rewards of carrying good weed, are fuelling the prestige market. "Once you've had a taste of the good stuff you won't go back," says Craston.

The Dutch, of course, are the gatekeepers of excellence. Many a UK smoker has had his passion ignited in the coffee shops of Amsterdam. Every November, the city plays host to the international Cannabis Cup. Glassy-eyed devotees from all around the world gather to sample and rate the vintage crops. The best strains are crowned the connoisseurs' choice. The growers get international fame while the seeds are hocked online for about £140 for a bag of 10.

Craston has been on the select panel of judges twice. "You smoke and you smoke and you smoke. We had 44 strains of hash and grass to smoke in, I think, five days." The competitor weeds are rigorously evaluated. "You have to judge them on taste, strength, smell and burn." Olympian weed is also expected to look good. Buds are routinely coiffeured to increase score (all the top growers use bonsai scissors).

Strength is a key aspect of prize-winning green. Potency of cannabis, measured in delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, content, has been rising steadily over the last decade. Street skunk is about 8 per cent THC. White-knuckle varieties can hit 23 per cent or more. The Ice-o-Lator varieties, a super-strong form of Dutch hash made by an ice-water extraction technique, have won the Cannabis Cup many times and are much prized among cannaseurs. They can reach up to 40 per cent and come with their own health warning: "Experienced users only." "It was too much," says one user who posted a report on the web. "We had to give it back."

Higher strength equals a more intense high, but it can also mean a greater chance of paranoia and other bad-trip phenomena. More than a quarter of cannabis smokers report anxiety as a regular or occasional side-effect. Indeed, super-strong Dutch grass, or nederweed, has been the undoing of many a British stag party. The Dutch government is now considering treating nederweed as a type of drug in its own legal bracket after many a curious tourist has ended up in a dimension not of their choosing.

"Tolerance is everything. If you lay off smoking for a while, it can really kick you off into the deep end," says Lawrence, 28, a City broker who uses high-end cannabis to unwind at weekends. "We had a boy's night recently. I hadn't smoked for a month. Everyone was passing spliffs around. After 20 minutes, I pulled a whitey." (A "whitey" is a state of cannabis-induced semi-consciousness accompanied by a distinctive bloodless skin tone.)

Few of these championship-level varieties make it over to the UK in smokeable form, but the highly treasured seeds are legal to sell, import and buy, although cultivation is obviously a no-no.

The bulk of vintage cannabis is now home-grown. Many connoisseurs are, in fact, growers themselves. DIY hydroponic (soil-less) set-ups now cost less than £200 to install. The internet is solid with blow-by-blow instructions on how to cultivate high-yield, high-strength varieties. At overgrow.com, enthusiasts exchange tips, maintain grow blogs, and post impressive centrefolds of slender female plants with large, glistening buds.

Where criminal syndicates used to smuggle ninebars in the hulls of Jamaican dredgers or the fuel tanks of lorries arriving from Morocco, now they factory-farm. "There's still smoke coming from elsewhere, particularly Holland," says Red Eye's Craston, "but it's mediocre compared with home-grown. For gangsters, cannabis is still a big product. They still import huge amounts of commercial garbage. But the bulk of pot-smokers and growers are not criminals."

Most connoisseur varieties are grown by proud enthusiasts and small co-operatives in basements, cellars and greenhouses. Leftovers from the low-yield crops are passed around to friends and family or sold to a small customer base of fellow aficionados.

Personal cultivation is not without its dangers, however. Despite the reclassification of cannabis to a class C drug, which means that most adults will only get a warning for being in possession of small amounts for "personal use", the Government has yet to set any guidelines on what constitutes personal use for growers.

Also, top-drawer cannabis thrives under 24-hour halogen floodlights, which guzzle electricity. The power companies now have "FBI" divisions that track down anomalous pockets of high electricity use - often the result of a heavyweight hydroponics set-up hacking into the local supply.

For many, though, the risk is worth it. They see growing as a sacred hobby and smoking as an antidote to the times. "You can see the damage that alcohol is doing to our society," says Craston. "People get pissed up and go out looking for a fight. You get nice and stoned, you go out looking for Mars bars."

The 18th Cannabis Cup runs from 20-24 November (www.cannabiscup.com)

The cream of the crop

HIGHS

*AK47

Named after number of days it takes to grow, this sativa cross is famed for its crystalline feel-good high and smoky flavour.

£150 per ounce

*CHARAS

Catch-all term for sticky black hash from the Himalayas. Favoured by Indian sadhus (holy men) and Soho graphic designers, it's hand-rubbed and exceptionally good.

£210 per ounce

*STRAWBERRY COUGH

A legendary weed with a hint of ripe strawberries characterising its after-taste. Very rare - usually not for sale.

£300 per ounce (if you can get it)

*G13

Super strong variety, stolen, apparently, from an American government growing programme - although that might just be marketing. Very popular when it first came out, but, like America, less fashionable now.

£250 per ounce

LOWS

*SKUNK

Generic hybrid pot, selectively bred by the Californian horticulture legend "Sadu Sam", who named it after its distinctive pungent odour. Earthy taste with spicy undertones, not very strong, nor cerebrally pleasing.

£80 per ounce

*SOAPBAR

Analysis of this adulterated hashish has revealed topsoil, plastic and even veterinary salt supplements. Tastes like burning rubber. Avoid.

£50 per ounce

*POLM

Like olive oil, hashish has first, second and third pressings. Polm is about the 10th pressing - a low-grade hashish with a high wax content and a tarnished flavour. Soapbar in disguise.

£120 per ounce

Thursday, August 25, 2005

***GEEK E-MAIL*** - Google stuff

Google's pretty good at developing funky new stuff. I'm a big fan.

Gmail - http://www.gmail.com/ (best webmail I've ever used, groups e-mails into conversations like 10 year old mail clients used to do, why did people forget this? Perfect for handling mashedagain e-mails)
Google Desktop 2.0 - http://desktop.google.com/ (try this one out, it's pretty cool, with the new sidebar. Lets you search your entire computer at the same speed as it takes to do a search on Google. Oh, and it searches e-mail too if you want.)
Google Talk - http://www.google.com/talk/ (MSN IM replacement, except that it's all free to connect to with any client, which is A Good Thing.)
Google Maps - http://maps.google.co.uk/ (try the hybrid aerial photo / map overlay view)
More stuff - http://www.google.co.uk/intl/en/options/

--
http://mashedagain.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Re: Balkan folk-dancing babies?

now ben, i'm sure emailing the list and the blog simultaneously is just SPAM.

plus i bet it causes chaos when people start hitting reply to all...

h

On 8/16/05, Ben Jarman <mightyupsetter@gmail.com> wrote:
This story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1549954,00.html ) is interesting.  Think of the repercussions.  If some of us hadn't grown up liking trance, maybe we'd like gabber more?  If some of us hadn't had a taste for bleepy electronic stuff, maybe we'd be more into guitars and words and things like that?  It's amazing how early tastes form....
 
Ben

Re: Balkan folk-dancing babies? (Alexis)

On 8/16/05, Ben Jarman <mightyupsetter@gmail.com> wrote:
Mmm. But the more I tihnk about it the more I wonder what it's really telling us. Babies start life as a blank slate and then get influenced by their parents. Common sense or is there something I'm missing?


It's telling us that and more- the interesting things from a psychological point of view are the fact of there being a "window" during which such discrimination abilities are acquired.
There is a very long standing (and ongoing) debate in the literature about whether there are "critical" or "sensitive" periods during which the human brain needs to be exposed to certain types of stimuli in order to acquire certain abilities. The most obvious domain in which this applies is language acquisition- learning a 2nd language in adulthood is significantly harder than learning it as a child, moreover, the later you learn a language the less likely it is you will be able to speak it without an accent, even if you do master the grammar and vocabulary.

What Erin's work addresses is the question of whether there is a period during which the development of the infant brain is most sensitive to musical/rhythmic stimuli, and it seems to come out in favour.

What it also tells us (and again this is very similar in speech perception) is that the infant brain is initially able to discriminate more stimuli than the adult brain, and over the course of development with exposure to environmental stimuli we acquire specific discrimination abilities relevant to our environment- e.g. it is essentially no use for us (as English speakers) to be able to hear the difference between the 6 tones of Vietnamese, while we do need to be able to hear the difference between /r/ and /l/ if we don't want to have lice in our risotti, similarly it also not much "use" to be able to distinguish the subtleties of Macedonian folk music, and instead we are better at distinguishing between local folk music, which is more "relevant".

What is interesting about this of course, is that despite these findings, with sufficient practice we can learn to identify the 6 tones of Vietnamese and to identify the differences between Freeform Hardcore, Hardcore, Hard Trance and Hard House.

The work ultimately supports the notion that there is a period during development within which babies learn to make distinctions between environmental stimuli to which they are exposed and loose the ability to distinguish those to which they are not exposed. This sounds like a bum deal, but actually, (to go back to speech for a second because it's an easier example) what it means is that we have more perceptual space for relevant stimuli which makes it easier to categorise differing instances of the same phoneme- we all produce the same sounds in an acoustically different way (think of accents, but also more subtly, differences in vocal tract, body size, etc. all affect the acoustic properties of a sound, so that your utterance of boy and mine would have very different waveforms), so having a reduce number to search through when you hear a weird one increases your chances of categorising it correctly.

One of the most fascinating things relating to this which I learned only recently, is that children exposed to multiple languages retain their ability to discriminate the sounds of all those languages, but only if the sounds had been produced by live talkers- audio and video tapes did not produce the same effects, which is a bit of a shame, because it seems to suggest that if you want you kid to be a polyglot simply making them listen to bedtime stories in a different language every night isn't going to give them much of an advantage in terms of their retaining the ability to discriminate the sounds of foreign languages...

Safe,
A

P.S. The implications for taste I will leave for now, but I saw a poster on this at a conference recently and I may post about it soon, though it wasn't a very good experiment.

Re: Balkan folk-dancing babies?

now ben, i'm sure emailing the list and the blog simultaneously is just SPAM.

plus i bet it causes chaos when people start hitting reply to all...

h

On 8/16/05, Ben Jarman <mightyupsetter@gmail.com> wrote:
This story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1549954,00.html ) is interesting.  Think of the repercussions.  If some of us hadn't grown up liking trance, maybe we'd like gabber more?  If some of us hadn't had a taste for bleepy electronic stuff, maybe we'd be more into guitars and words and things like that?  It's amazing how early tastes form....
 
Ben

Something very, very cool (geddit?)

Balkan folk-dancing babies?

This story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1549954,00.html) is interesting.  Think of the repercussions.  If some of us hadn't grown up liking trance, maybe we'd like gabber more?  If some of us hadn't had a taste for bleepy electronic stuff, maybe we'd be more into guitars and words and things like that?  It's amazing how early tastes form....
 
Ben

(DJ) Now we know why spaghetti shatters when you break it.

Always wanted to know this. Woohoo!

http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/

Now I can e-mail posts to the blogger

This is a test to see if e-mail posts work.

--
http://mashedagain.blogspot.com/

Monday, August 15, 2005

(HP) Toilet Graffiti...

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

(Ben) This one for Harry and the bootleg lovers

Here's a mildly engaging article about the history of cut-up bootleg music. It's been around for a lot longer than we think. Nothing new in the world, then?

B

Repeat viewings and increasing complexity...

One of the intersting points that Johnson makes on the increasing quality of TV programmes (and films to a more limited extent), is that aside from audience boredom and increased revenue (debatable? inflation, more studios etc...), one fact is that repeat viewings have increased to become an increasingly dominant factor in determining the type and quality of content produced.

DVD sales now make up the major revenue source for films - more that box office takings. TV Shows are now seen more and more times, be it thru DVD sales or the constant repeats (particularly in merca, and increasingly in britain due to the proliferation of cable tv channels)

this gives you a solid economics explanation for the creation of shows which have more repeat value, which 'get better and better the more you watch them'

viz seinfeld (allegedly), the simpsons, 24, the west wing, etc
and in films: fight club, memento, being john malkovitch, adaptation etc etc

h

(Ben) More about popular culture

H,

The point about increasing numbers of social interactions is an interesting one. I'd like to be able to find some research on the average size of someone's social network; it probably is larger for a city-dweller now than a peasant in 1100, but then we're probably not expected to be au fait with an enormous extended family group in quite the same way as he would have been. People I met in Ghana could name more than a hundred relatives; I don't even know the names of some of my cousins.

If the argument is about more complex popular culture then he's probably right to say 24 is more complex than a comparable 1950s law enforcement show such as Gunsmoke. This is probably due to several factors, though this may not be an exhaustive list:

  • Access to a larger market (thanks to cheaper TVs and international reach), meaning larger audiences, more advertising revenue, and therefore higher budgets, allowing more ambitious plots/concepts.
  • Increasing familiarity with, and eventually boredom with, old forms. (Incidentally, boredom is a word first put into print by Dickens). The effect is increased commercial pressure to come up with new forms within a medium (television) that bring some kind of novelty (in the case of 24, realtime filming of a 24-hour period).
  • Better technology meaning that more spectacular effects can be put in (relatively) cheaply, whereas before if you wanted to film something exploding you had to blow it up, either in real or model form.
All of which leads me not to disagree with Johnson's first premise, ie. that popular culture is not dumbing down, it is in fact getting better. TV is a more mature medium than in its fledgling days. Here I may seem to be a neophile. But though this is a new development, it is not a new process: English poetry matured enormously with the arrival of the (originally Italian) Petrarchan sonnet form, leading eventually to the writing of one of the single most consistently brilliant bodies of English poetry, Shakespeare's sonnets, and arguably to the prominent place of iambic pentametered verse in 16C English drama. Subsequently new developments sent it spinning off into different directions. Likewise, house music matured slowly, from a predominantly gay scene in Chicago and New York in the early 80s to one that was broad-based and musically more eclectic in 1990 or so. Subsequently rave music split into many parts and each went off, maturing in its own way. Did this process, in either case, leading to more complex versions of each art form, make poetry fans and ravers more intelligent? I doubt it, though it certainly gave them richer and more nuanced versions of their favourite art forms to enjoy.

Finally, Johnson's point about Dickens is funadamentally wrong, because it rests on the idea that Dickens sold few books and was therefore little-read in society as a whole. Yes, he did not sell massive numbers of books. Huge sales in those days were very rare, perhaps because of the expense of publishing and binding books, which were mostly still handmade at the time. Imagine how much smaller the number of TV watchers would be if the unit cost of a telly was 50 or 100 times larger. But as any GCSE English student could have told Johnson, Dickens' readership was in fact enormous - he was among the most widely read authors in Victorian Britain, and one of the few whose novels were enjoyed by people regardless of social class. His novels were (I think) all initially published in serialised form - chapter by chapter in monthly magazines (see here under 'Novels' and 'Legacy' for more details). Elitist? Quite the contrary; he was very widely read across all social classes, not least because of his coruscating but good-humoured attacks on unjust Victorian institutions and partly because he published his books in such a thoroughly unelitist way. So it wasn't merely a matter of sales, but also one of the quality of the content. My objection to Big Brother is not that it's dumbed down or easy to watch - I only have to turn it on myself to realise how much it depends on the viewers' familiarity with and understanding of the format, the characters, and so on. It's mainly that the I find the content boring and contrived; the tag 'reality' TV is pretty meaningless given that the producers clearly pick 12 people who will make sensational TV. If I was interested in watching people make and break friendships simply for its own sake, then I'd probably enjoy BB more. Granted, that probably makes me a misanthrope, but hey, at least I know it.

Anyway, that's more than enough. I'll blog this as well.

Ben

Monday, August 08, 2005

(HP/Ben) Thoughts on the 'dumbing down' of culture

an email conversation between me n ben which I thought we'd share with the world...


Ben Jarman spotted this on the Guardian Unlimited Books site and thought you should see it.

-------
Note from Ben Jarman:

I stumbled across this when trying to find out more about that book you were talking about. Thought it might be of interest.
-------

To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited Books site, go to http://books.guardian.co.uk

What Zelda did
Steven Poole is not convinced by Steven Johnson's argument for junk television, Everything Bad Is Good for You Steven Poole Saturday July 02 2005 The Guardian


Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Popular Culture Is Making Us Smarter by Steven Johnson 238pp, Allen Lane, £10

I read this book while chain-smoking, glugging whiskey and eating massive quantities of dairy products; now I feel I've been had. Not everything bad is good for you. Steven Johnson's fizzily readable little polemic actually consists of two separate arguments about popular culture.

First, he rails against the notion that our culture is dumbing down; he says that TV, films and video games are better than before. Second, he maintains that these things are actually making us more intelligent.

Johnson makes a persuasive case for the first claim. It is true that TV shows such as The West Wing are more complicated than Starsky and Hutch. It is also true that video games such as SimCity are more complicated than Pac-Man. The uninitiated may learn a lot from Johnson's entertaining and clever account, in the first section, of the sheer hard work and problem-solving required to navigate a modern video game. His fine analyses of obscure in-jokes in Seinfeld or the confusing jargon of ER are also illuminating, and he makes the good point that the era of DVD aftersales encourages more subtlety and complexity in television programming. So far, so good. But perhaps these scattered observations do not cohere well enough into a headline-grabbing thesis. So let's say in addition that this stuff is actually making us smarter. And here the problems begin.

What might "smarter" mean? Johnson never says, and systematically blurs crucial distinctions. Pop culture is "intellectually demanding", or it enhances "our cognitive faculties", or it poses "cognitive challenges", or it has "intellectual benefits". But cognition and intellect are not the same thing. A baseball player or cricketer has a highly specialised cognitive mastery in judging the flight of a ball through the air, but that does not make him necessarily an intellectual powerhouse. Conversely, an intellectual giant might be cognitively challenged in various fields, such as remembering where he put his keys.

The book affects an air of empirical, science-based analysis, but unfortunately Johnson wants it on the cheap. Early on, he grandiosely announces that he will do what most cultural critics fail to do: engage with the findings of neuroscience. What he actually then does is to mumble something about the brain's dopamine system and to guess that videogames might be good at engaging it. He saves his grand proof, meanwhile, for the second half of the book, which goes like this: IQ scores have risen steadily over the last few decades in the industrialised west, so this must be thanks to the cerebral challenges posed by pop culture. Really, must it? You could make an equally plausible case that since banana consumption has risen massively in the west over the same period, it must be the nutritional benefits of bananas, so rich in potassium and other brain-enhancing minerals, that are responsible for a rise in general intelligence. (That is, if rising IQ scores are actually evidence for a rise in intelligence, an idea that is highly controversial.)

What is undeniable is that watching complicated TV shows makes you better at watching more complicated TV shows; and playing video games makes you better at playing more video games. But Johnson wants more: he wants these skills to be, as psychologists would say, transferable. One recent study Johnson triumphantly cites shows that regular video-gamers were better at doing "a series of quick visual recognition tests, picking out the color of a letter or counting the number of objects on a screen". In other words, regular video-gamers were better at performing video game-style tests. This is not a very surprising result.

So much for the pseudo-science. The weirdest aspect of the book is that it defends popular culture while holding an attitude of contempt for it. "With mass culture," Johnson opines, "the individual works are less interesting than the broader trends"; and "the content of most entertainment has less of an impact than the kind of thinking the entertainment forces you to do". In other words, he is a snob: yes, this stuff is crap, but look, it's useful crap! Embarrassed by the princesses and dungeons of the videogame Zelda, for instance, he pleads that it is a "false premise" that "the intelligence of these games lies in their content, in the themes and characters they represent".

Of course, we know that "content" consists of more than "themes and characters", but Johnson is hobbled by an exclusively literary idea of what content might be. He admits that "Most of the time, when you're hooked on a game, what draws you in is an elemental form of desire: the desire to see the next thing", but he never for a moment considers the visual aesthetics of games - how they imagine and construct the next thing for you to see - and cannot allow this to be part of the "content" which he suggests we ignore. He does not seem to notice, moreover, that this wilful blindness is inconsistent with the fact that if video games make us better at anything, it is precisely at visual tasks.

Meanwhile, I defer to no man in my admiration of the television series 24, but again Johnson begs us to forget the "content" and admire instead the complexity of the "social network" that populates the fiction. He even draws a cute little diagram with lines representing the relationships between characters. Is this really what makes 24 so good? "The content of the show may be about revenge killings and terrorist attacks," he says, once again hurriedly skipping over what he perceives to be the crap, "but the collateral learning involves something altogether different, and more nourishing. It's about relationships."

This is hilarious. I have learned nothing nourishing about relationships from 24; I would be deeply worried about any adult who claimed that she had. But the idea that learning about relationships is the desirable thing reveals something interesting. Johnson poses as a hip, wired, ultramodern thinker, yet his notion of cultural value is extraordinarily conservative - based, once again, on values specific to literature. There is a generic problem in our culture with film or pop critics who read everything as a text, and are incapable of discussing the visual or sonic aspects of their subject: Johnson, sadly, fits right in.

Everything Bad Is Good for You is in the end most interesting as an example of a particular philistine current in computer-age thinking. In an age of digitised media, everything is reduced to, and judged by, its brute sum of "information". "What are the rewards of reading?" Johnson asks rhetorically at one point. The answer is: "the information conveyed by the book, and the mental work you have to do to process and store that information." This is a barbaric, instrumentalist view of art. For a corrective, we may remember what André Gide said of Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu: "If I try to find the quality I most admire in this work, it is its gratuitousness. I don't know of a more useless work, nor one less anxious to prove something."

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited

________


Hmmm. A couple of good points in there, but most of it seems to be
nitpicking and some fairly childish one-upmanship. Am happy to lend you
the book if you like (it is now finished and added to my toilet
litterature collection)

The book was also picked up by the Economist this week in their "are
video games evil/violent/depraved/bad for our kids" lead feature. Which
comes out nice and heavily on the sensible, non-reactionary side of that
debate, thankfully. Long live the Economist!


h
_______________________________



Yep, although it's difficult to tell when I haven't read the book in question, it does have the smell of a literary hatchet-job - a question of sharpening the claws rather than really grappling with the argument. Having read around a little more, the book seems to have divided the Guardian journalists, with (surprise, surprise) those working on the Books and literary sections reacting more negatively - see the one I sent before and then this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,,1495160,00.html

But the technology and online writers are less sceptical and more excited about it. All of which might suggest that those who have more enthusiasm for technology, computer games, TV etc (like you) are more likely to go for his argument, while occasionally-Luddite, progress-doubting literary types (like me) are more likely not to.

My own objection is not so much to the content - you're right to single out such fears as reactionary and rather hysterical. I don't believe games make psychopaths any more than videos and films did (both technologies sparked similar hysteria at the times of their invention). But what bothers me is the fact that they are so addictive - every time I've found a good game it has totally absorbed me to the exclusion of all else, sometimes so that I've lost sleep and made myself ill playing them. Some games have such a powerful hold that you have to insist that kids play them in moderation - or suddenly it's hours later and they've forgotten about real life. You can't let a kid do nothing but play games and watch TV (and left to their own devices he will). For a start he'll become obese, for seconds he may well struggle dealing with the vast and nuanced range of emotions he has to interact with in others. And surely there are some games which are pretty mindless and don't require much beyond hand-eye co-ordination? I'd love to know how playing Doom, for instance, is supposed to have affected our IQs - it's not as if there's much to it.

All things in moderation, remember?

Ben


_______________________________________


Hmmmm. Not 100% sure about all things in moderation… greatness is only ever achieved through the exact opposite – think Mozart, Newton, and Japanese Yo-Yo championships. Perhaps the experience of extreme focus on difficult and frustrating tasks that arises from computer game addiction can teach kids something valuable about practice, dedication, concentration etc etc….

h

_______________________________


*including (sometimes) moderation itself.

Yes - but is it really much different from what can be learned by (say) mastering a musical instrument...

HP wrote:

Well, no. but notice how you've phrased that sentence in a typically neophobic way. "is it really that much different from xyz", presupposing a 'why do we need to change' attitude. Now the kids have the option of Civ 3 instead of learning the oboe – brilliant! Aside from anything else, it's much cheaper…

;-)

h

_______________________________


Well, indeed. But I'd still rather listen to someone play an instrument than watch them play Civ3. Ultimately this is a matter of taste, which itself is tied up with my own childhood environment, pre-existing knowledge, and so on. There are plenty of other people who can sit for hours on end and watch computer games being played by someone else - my schoolfriend Mark for one.

You're right that my "is it really so different from" is a little testy, but it's not a neophobic thing. If I was seriously a Luddite I would not be sitting typing this on a computer or calling potential landlords on a mobile phone (much as I occasionally wish mine would make outgoing calls only).

The main objection I have is not neophobic as such but neosceptic, by which I mean it stems from my belief that there's nothing much new in life. I don't think learning to play Sim City is more or less difficult/complex than learning an instrument; more logical and less instinctive perhaps, but different in nature rather than degree. Nor do I think learning to follow the West Wing is necessarily more demanding than learning a 7,000-line saga from your dad and in the process making your own poetic embellishments so that it suits your voice and plays up what you find interesting in the story. To move away from cultural pursuits, an Olympic javelin thrower probably has a lot less to learn than a neolithic hunter, since all that matters is how far the spear goes, not how accurate it is, what parts of the animal are weak spots, and all the other things that the hunter has to take into account. But then the neolithic hunter didn't have to learn to practice his trade in front of millions.

What I mean is that life is complicated. It always has been and it always will be, and so the opportunities for learning, developing, becoming the next this or the new that will always be there. Consequently when a little-known academic comes along and refutes "received" wisdom (how received or wise is it anyway?) by suggesting we are all getting more intelligent as a result of complex plotlines on TV, I am sceptical. I'm not saying I think the child who watches the West Wing learns nothing; I'm asking whether the West Wing is really more complicated or instructive than the Iliad, or Beowulf, or War & Peace. Call me an old-fashioned egalitarian but the idea we are superior to all generations before us just doesn't wash with me.

I think you'd really enjoy "What Good Are the Arts" by John Carey. He deals with lots of questions such as whether the arts ennoble and what their effect is, and believes that Kant's Critique of Judgment is the root cause of much of the snobbery, fuzzy thinking and hypocrisy we have about the arts in general, 'high' art vs. 'low' art, and so on. It's about 250pp and I've lent my copy to a friend, but Frank Kermode wrote a very good essay on it for the London Review of Books, which I have downloaded and attached. Enjoy....


____________________________________


You say neosceptic, I say neophobic…

I suppose I personally would basically disagree with the assertion that there’s nothing new in life, and with your further assertion that life is not getting any more complicated.

Obviously there are plenty of new things in life. Just because you can find common concepts and ideas between playing Civ3 and learning to play the hurdy-gurdy does not mean that Civ3 isn’t new. Try explaining Playstations to Socrates!

As to the world getting more or less complicated, this is admittedly a contentious issue. But I would suggest that the simple population figures would provide one possible indication of the increasing complexity of modern life. Dealing with social relationships is fairly taxing (some people suggets it was the primary reason for the evolution of the large human brain), and we have to deal with increasingly many of them, what with being piled on top of each other in cities, etc etc.

In Johnson’s defence, he does anticipate the ‘West Wing vs War and Peace’ argument. First off, he points out that his argument is really comparing the West Wing with Dallas, or Bewitched – ie comparing old popular TV shows with new popular TV shows, and showing that they are increasingly complex. This he shows rather well (inclding with a couple of nifty diagrams showing number of separate plot lines, and number of character relationships which have to be tracked).

He also compares the mental effort involved in watching lowest-common-denominator games shows from today and from past eras – say Wheel of Fortune with Big Brother. Again, he makes some solid points about the engagement, mental effort etc required in watching big brother, with all the commentary, opinion forming and ‘emotional intelligence’ required, as against the repetitive, fixed-rules and quite frankly dull experience of watching Wheel of Fortune.

So you have to go with like for like. Sure, Zelda may not have the plot, characters and stylistic nuances of the Odyssey, but it does teach you a hell of a lot about logic and problem solving – and it’s not easy to say which is more useful in today’s environment.

There’s another good point in there about Dickens, who sold about 50,000 copies of his books in his lifetime, vs say the Matrix, which was seen by hundreds of millions of people. Even accounting for the population growth since D’s lifetime, his books were massively elitist compared to today’s most popular media offerings. So again, the comparison between War and Peace and 24 isn’t fair.

OK. On whether we’re better than past generations. Well, we could certainly kick their ass in a fight. Aside from all the nuclear weapons and the fact that there’s more of us, we live longer, we’re less likely to die as a result of killing each other (FACT), the average 8-year old understands physics better than Plato, we’ve got better drugs, we’re more intelligent, we’re more attractive, etc etc etc

OK, time to upload this lot to the blog

J

h


Friday, August 05, 2005

(Dafydd) Random links

How to post to this page

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=14697186

See me for username/password details: dafydd@webchip.co.uk

I'm working on getting e-mail posting set up, which will avoid all of this nonsense.

(Ben) More stupid websites

This is a classic. Featuring Jesus, Alien & Predator sharing an apartment in New York. I think this link takes you to the most recent one - there's a big archive if you enjoy it.

Ben

(Ben) Some rare good sense about London post bomb attacks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/comment/story/0,16141,1542245,00.html.

Much as I hate to support Ken, who a lot of the time is a smarmy, self-regarding git....

Ben

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

(Ben) Rude French hip-hop

Greetings all. Hope you're all enjoying not being on holiday. Hur hur hur. Some of you will soon receive postcards rubbing it in some more.

Anyway, I went to a free festival in Parc de la Villette here in Paris. One of the acts was called Raw T. Avoid them. They were a bunch of grotty little Mancunian rudebwoys playing grime (ie. the next generation of garage, created by mating garage with its little sister and producing an even more disturbing spawn). However, the next act was TTC, a French hip-hop act who were excellent. They mixed up hip-hop, breakbeat and some dancehall sounds. One of the (three) rappers was the funniest frontman I've seen in ages - a really sweaty fat white guy in a tattered pink T-shirt who was going fucking nuts onstage. Their album is called Batards Sensibles (Sensitive Bastards) - look out for it on a torrent near you (I'll post again if I find one once I get home). For those who fancy/are capable of reading some French, their website is at www.batards-sensibles.com.

See you all after my return.

Ben

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

quit yo' jibba-jabba foo'

http://www.mrtvseverything.com/MrTvs.html


ok, now i figured out how to do this, it's time to get on to podcasting i reckon...

h

Friday, July 29, 2005

(Fogg) M41 action

I read about this but hadn't seen any photos until a couple of months ago and here they are. Follow the photo story, read the report.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/protest/m4101.html

Sunday, July 24, 2005

(Mike) Stick Cricket

If the test match is rained off, fear not. You can still enjoy the cricket - in stick form!

http://www.stickcricket.com/

Warning: This is a very addictive game, and will have the side effect of making time appear to pass quicker - ideal if in work.

Enjoy,

Mike (of the Booth)

P.S. I whole heartily support this blogger type thing instead of the email mailing list. I just hope and pray that people use it.

Friday, July 22, 2005

(Ben) Just found this again

Those of you who bother to read this (ie. probably about 2 people) may have seen this before. It's so damn cool (in such a geeky way) that I'm recording it on here. Wicked.

http://www.henrylim.org/Harpsichord.html

Ben

Thursday, July 21, 2005

(Ben) Wikipedia again

The more I read Wikipedia the more I get annoyed or amused by the varied quality of its articles. Check this one out on "rave parties". The sections on "types of ravers" and "glowsticking" seem especially stupid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rave

(Dafydd) Wikipedia

This is going to sound like an advert, but I don't care. I wanted to point people's attention to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

It's an absolutely amazing creation. An hour after the bombings a couple of weeks ago, there was several pages worth of correct information about the bombings, together with information that wasn't even on the news websites yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_London_Bombings

Anyway, take a look at some of the pages. Every word or term with an associated wiki page is linked. You could spend days there.

On a lighter, but still topical note, here's where I was taken when I typed 'psytrance':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psytrance

Welcome

This is the mashedagain blog. Please post, comment, ramble, etc.