Interacting on the Interweb

The latest furore surrounding the ‘potentially damaging’ nature of things like Facebook and Twitter is in swing, with the Daily Mail (safe to click! Minus images) interpreting a scientist’s views as social networking turning your kids’ brains to mush. Note that Martin does of course disagree – as do I.

Sciencepunk has taken the time to speak to Susan Greenfield herself to try to get a clearer idea of exactly what her concerns and suggested solutions might be, under all the media distortion and so on. He’s written up the interview for New Scientist. I take up her invitation to join the debate.

Unfortunately, listening to her speak I still find myself vehemently disagreeing with most of what she says for various reasons, including the fact that she clearly has very little or no personal experience of what she talks about, is missing some key issues and appears to wilfully ignore positive outcomes in favour of potentially negative ones.

That’s not very scientific!

So, let’s get ranty.

Context is everything

First I recall a comedy sketch (apologies for forgetting whose, do say if you know!) based on the occasions when Facebook is suddenly down/unavailable, in which the bereft individual wanders the streets shoving photographs in people’s faces and shouting “DO YOU LIKE THIS??”.

I laughed, because it’s absurd, we don’t do that… but hang on! We kind of do. I quite often show people pictures I’ve taken, be it on my camera, my phone, downloaded to my computer or even (omg old!) albums with pictures on actual photo paper!

Important to remember is that we behave differently in some situations compared to others; it’s a ridiculous fear that online behaviour is going to replace offline behaviour. They’re different things that don’t translate. Just as you don’t put your feet up on the table in a meeting vs. in the lounge, or take your shirt off and sit on your friend’s shoulders at a posh indoor concert at a swanky theatre.

We like to share our experiences with our friends, and sometimes if we’re a bit more serious about photography, get people’s input on our creative endeavours. That’s not a fault, it’s perfectly normal behaviour and taking feedback/constructive criticism/praise onboard is a good way to improve ourselves if that’s the goal.

Small-talk, seeking approval and helpful suggestions, presenting an image of ourselves – this is what we do in life, not just online. Does she also have a problem with in-person small-talk? Should we only ever be having super-meaningful conversations?

Sorry, but after our lab meeting we like to go and have lunch, talk about the weather, take the piss out of each other and show holiday photos, for example. We don’t spend all day talking about work or the latest world crisis; that would be draining and rather unhealthy, I’m sure most would agree.

In the same way, not all of my tweets or facebook status updates are serious. I share articles, I have a moan about things, we’ll have some discussions. But other times I’ll be swearing about a minor injury, taking a photo of the mouthwatering foods/lovely scenery I see before me or friends/pets making tits of themselves. Because life is a mixture of these things and if it weren’t, it’d be bloody boring.

Greenfield seems to want to make a connection between things like increasing autism rate and internet use. I’m pretty sure it’s well-accepted that the ‘increase’ in rates of conditions like this is due to better diagnosis and a clearer definition of what the condition actually is – these are recent things. There’s no good evidence (that I know of) to suggest the perceived increase is due to vaccines or playing on computers or anything else (edit: Jon Brock says it is indeed demonstrably false); it’s likely always been there, we’re just picking up on it better now. Which is good, because it means more people get the help and support that they need.

Also there’s been a ‘shocking rise in things like happy-slapping’?? Well of course there has, because again this term applies to a phenomenon that’s only been able to exist since mobile phones got video cameras. That does not mean that people didn’t go around beating other people up for fun and to show off to their friends before this era. Sadly I know this from personal experience as I’m sure many do, but good for her if she’s never had to deal with such things.

I do not believe for a second that these kind of people only exist because the internets have created them, by eroding their empathy circuits. There have always been nasty ****s and there always will be, sadly. Don’t blame the internet, or video games, or whatever the latest demon-you-don’t-get is.

When pressed for evidence, instead of offering some, she instead asks if we want to wait and see what kind of evidence emerges? *Ominous sound effect* – That is not an answer, it’s just silly scaremongering. She’s even placing weight in parental concerns, on anecdotes.

Parents will always be concerned about what their kids are up to, it’s the generation gap – every generation is both very different from (in terms of technology in particular) and the same as (regarding concerns, ‘we never did such things!’ ‘you whipper-snappers without any respect’! etc.) the previous ones. Again this is nothing new. To me it just sounds like she’s scared of change and using popular fears as an excuse to criticise.

It’s not so much the technologies in and of themselves that I’m criticising but how they’re used

Nail on the head. If your kid is spending 6 hours straight in front of the TV, damn well turn it off. Go for a walk. You can’t blame Nintendo for the people who spend their lives with the console running, you can’t blame Google for someone staying up until 5am looking at random websites. Discipline your kids and yourself and these things are like any other activity – perfectly healthy in reasonable amounts. Also if my child wanted to hug people for 6 hours, I’d be concerned at the level of clinginess they’d somehow developed.

Hi Ho Silver Lining

What gets me in a real rage about these attacks on social media, the internets and so forth, is that people (especially people who don’t even use it themselves, infuriatingly) are so very quick to not even bother considering the positive outcomes.

I’ve made similar points in the past but I’ll do so again ‘cos I can.

Some people aren’t comfortable in social situations. If you’re so concerned about the people on the austism spectrum, take a bit of time to learn what it is they struggle with, and what helps them. Even for those of us without personal experience of such things, sometimes we all have those days when we’d just rather not have to put on a smiley face and be around people.

For some, that’s more the default setting. That’s not because interaction with other people is completely off-putting, but sometimes the trappings that come with getting together ‘irl’ are just too much. If people are put off by the poking, liking and kind of sharing that happens on FB/Twitter then take a step back and look at what we do offline.

How should I dress? What should I say? What is the tone of my voice conveying? Is this rude? Will I upset them if I say that? What should I do in this situation? Do I have to smile now? Is eye contact creepy? No, if I look away, that’s impolite. Wait, I’m staring. Oh she thinks I’m a complete weirdo. I need to buy the next round? What are they laughing at?

Et cetera. You might not have ever thought these things, but many do, and social interaction can be a stressful experience – think of a time you just wanted to go home to the TV/a book/bed.

But most of us want to talk with people and share bits of our lives. If the above is a regular issue then the internet is an absolute godsend. Again I’m not going to waffle on about my personal reasons for thinking this but would encourage those who are scared of online things ‘replacing real life interaction’ to just stop and reconsider. Maybe, just maybe, the internet is actually a very fulfilling and stimulating environment that does give people a sense of identity and belonging in plenty of cases.

Of course, writing this on a blog isn’t the best way of conveying such a message, I know. So don’t whine at me about that!!

The wealth of information online, both factual things to learn and giving better access to ‘real life’ events and so on, it’s a huge resource that helps people immensely. Liaise with friends, make new ones, find a place to stay at short notice… the list is extensive.

People seem so hell-bent on discovering how damaging the interwebnets are for our brains, they don’t seem to be bothered about the good it’s doing. This happens with every technological leap, like television as she mentions herself; will it replace books?! No, of course not.

If you think Twitter is all people saying what they had for breakfast, I don’t want to talk to you about it. Either give it a try or listen to the people who explain it really isn’t, at least try to get a better idea, or shut up. Don’t knock it if you haven’t tried it, as they say.

If you only update your facebook page to broadcast your personal life then don’t complain it’s all about gossip and invasion of privacy. These experiences are user-driven, they are what we make them, and if I see more of this pointless demonising, I will shout louder.

My friends, whom I cannot refer to as ‘online’ or ‘offline’ because they are largely both (except when there are huge oceans in the way), have kept me afloat when I’ve been too upset to talk on the phone, too much of a mess to leave the house or present myself to people face-to-face.

Thank FSM for the internet because without it… well, imagine! Where would I get to see parrots dancing to horrible pop songs hilariously or cats in all manner of sickeningly cute predicaments. Or indeed hear first-hand accounts from countries descending into civil war, or kids getting beaten by police at legal protests.

Life is not simple, nor is our virtual world. Embrace it/keep your distance, whatever. But don’t be so quick to demonise what you have not even tried to understand or see good within.

That’s the remit of rags like the one that published the silly, distorted story in the first place.

—

I’m not going to go into the video games criticism much; saying that actions don’t have consequences and this could affect how people think is just another I’ve-never-played-them sourced view, in my opinion, and I’ve had rants about all that before as well.

Edit: more people are irritated!

Dorothy Bishop has written an open letter to Greenfield regarding her comments. Edit (2): having received much support and thanks for her letter, one academic chooses to challenge her position. If you want to see how scientists fight, take a look.

Martin has a more serious piece addressing Greenfield’s somewhat shaky claim that she has never linked autism to internet use, following more high-profile individuals losing their rag with her, including Carl Zimmer – documenting the rise of the most amusing #greenfieldism hashtag.

It’s even made it to the Wall Street Journal!

Breaking!! Susan Greenfield causes autism!

16/8/11: More recently, Andrew Maynard (my fellow I’m a Scientist! 2010 contestant) has published an excellent analysis of Greenfield’s latest outing, which came in the form of a video statement published on the Guardian website.

Hi, my name is…

[Edit]… what? Who? {Chicca chicca} Slim Shady! *Cough*, yes, anyway…

A friendly request

Would you be so very kind as to leave a comment below explaining why/how you’ve ended up on my little site and how much of a sciencey person you consider yourself to be?

People who write are often concerned they’re preaching to the choir/sounding off in the dreaded echo chamber…

Why do I care?

I’ve just been reading through a post from Ed Yong and I’d like to copy his experiment – although I’ve no idea how many people read my stuff here, how many of them return regularly or indeed how many have stopped bothering now I don’t tend to update weekly!

That’s something I will fix eventually, I hope. Got a few posts in the pipeline, it’s just finding the time to sort them out – poor excuses I know, sorry about that.

Now, this isn’t a ‘professional’ blog by any means; I don’t write exclusively about science (mostly, yes) or any one subject; it’s a mixture of whatever I feel like, including news that has irritated/amused me, events I’ve been to, some random things going on in my life and so on.

However, I’m still interested in who reads what I write when I actually get around to it and why. I expect most regulars are already friends, both on and off the internet. But if you’ve never met me, I’m even more intrigued as to how/why you’ve ended up here.

“You practically made me, via Twitter/Facebook” is one I’ll expect to see a lot

Also, if you do visit intermittently/regularly, what kind of content are you looking out for and why?

Thank you for taking the time to let me know; even if it’s just in the format “waitress, was bored, linked from x site” – much appreciated!

Critical Furniture

This is a ranty one [edit: that turns a bit mushy].

Before I start, a bit of a disclaimer. This is not a reaction to any one discussion, comment/post or person in particular. It is the culmination of many that have happened over an extended period of time. So don’t be offended if you feel like I’m talking directly at you – it’s not the case! (Basically, get over yerself, I talk to loads of people, innit).

So, what’s getting my goat today?

Again a little disclaimer. Criticism is often a good thing, I’ve written about this before; it’s central to medical science for starters. I don’t mind being criticised – sometimes we need things pointed out to us that we don’t want to hear or admit, haven’t realised and so on.

However, the caveat is that it should really be constructive. I’m happy for someone to point out how I’m doing something wrong, particularly if that leads to a way to improve it; either coming from them, or logical steps from taking said criticism on board.

If you just go around pointing out people’s flaws, mistakes and anything you don’t quite agree with for no reason other than being generally disagreeable, that’s just anti-social and mean-spirited.

Soapboxes

There seem to be more and more attitudes developing that there’s a competition going on. The aim of which is to be the ‘best’ kind of skeptic.

The ‘most skeptical’? The most active of the activists? Most lovable and huggable or most aloof and untouchable? I don’t know. As far as I’m concerned, no such contest exists.

Partly because it is (obviously) ridiculous, also because, again as I’ve said before, there is no coherent skeptical movement; it’s just something people have chosen to identify as (or not!) because they utilise some common philosophies. And quite probably enjoy going to the pub.

What exactly is the use of standing up, pointing the finger, telling someone they’re not doing things right (whatever that means) while not offering ideas of how to do it better or at least backing up such an assertion with some decent reasons for your assessment?

Not doing so seems all too reminiscent of reading some right-wing publication, loudly pon

tificating about the sorry state of the country then not even bothering to drag yourself to a polling station.

Each to their own

Going back to the no-coherent-movement.

There is no skeptical application form, no church (despite some deliberations around echo-chamber/back-patting events, there isn’t), no rulebook or set of requirements. It’s the old herding cats thing, if you like.

Some people like the spotlight; these are the TV/radio presenters, ‘media tarts’ (affectionate rather than derogatory; post to come on that, eventually!) and so on. Others don’t, but want to get their message out – the spotlight-lovers can help with that e.g. in podcasts and talks.

For some, the most important thing about being a skeptic is the activism side. These include the people in positions of relative power (the famous names, journalists, authors, lawyers and politicians) and all the grass-roots activists doing their bit, whatever that may be – writing letters, blogging, spreading the word to whatever extent they wish or indeed have the time to do so.

This is not one’s cup of tea

For some there’s just being skeptical by nature and not necessarily feeling the need to do anything more than that. Talking to people with similar views is often reassuring, pleasant and enjoyable. I count so many wonderful ‘skeptics’  among my friends now, I could take or leave everything else, to be honest. The friendships are reason enough to attend events, the bonus being the odd brilliant/extremely interesting talk you just weren’t expecting.

There’s nothing wrong with this, in my view. Maybe you don’t want to go to the pub, maybe you don’t want to spend what little free time you have writing letters – perhaps you’re a bit cynical yet more on the hopeful-skeptical side. Not everyone has to be an activist. It’s not a requirement, you’re not going to be turned away from anything if that’s your position.

However, I do not get the criticism aimed at things like SitP because some people choose not to go – it seems very misdirected to me. Some people don’t fancy it; I don’t think it’s not welcoming – I went by myself the first time (thanks to one David Allen Green!) and have since come to love it. Others won’t find it so appealing. Is that the fault of SitP, or is that just because not everyone likes the same stuff?

Getting offended on behalf of others when you’ve no evidence those people even exist is hardly useful, methinks. If they do exist, I expect people will listen to what they have to say and if it’s valid criticism, it should be taken onboard somehow.

SitP is well-attended and well-liked, nationally and indeed internationally! If it’s something different you want, you are free to go and do it – SitP was built from the ground-up by people who cared enough to bother and so can any other phenomenon be; whether it’s Skeptic Mums in the Café, Skeptic Minorities in the Park, We Don’t Like the Term ‘Skeptics’, or whatever. SitP doesn’t turn people away (except for that very drunk top-hatted man in Camden with the foul language, not knowing where he was the other week…) but probably not everyone wants to go.

Dare I labour the already dubious metaphor, we don’t all decorate our houses the exact same way. I wouldn’t see the existence of various groups as rivalry or splintering, but simply the result of a range of tastes.

Armchairs

I understand disliking echo-chambers; on the opposite side of enjoying the company of those with similar views, there’s preferring to be challenged, to argue, to change minds. Perhaps lacking a need for reassurance and general agreement. That’s fine too, but there’s no need to rip into those who feel differently. Why assume that people who like to have an agreeable evening do so all the time? Unfair judgement is passed too often.

There’s one kind of armchair-sitter I do not like. Criticising things you have no or little personal experience of, intention of attending or improving/contributing to in any way – another anti-social manifestation. Or to use that immortal playground line, don’t knock it ’til you’ve tried it.

Perhaps this is partly a consequence of a community that contains a lot of ‘nerds’; the old somewhat socially-inept, crowd-hating stereotype occasionally rings true and an even smaller fraction manage to combine it with some actual malice. This is unfortunate but probably can’t be helped; if you don’t have a problem with your own attitude you’re not going to bother to change it, whatever anyone says.

There’s always one – in a big enough crowd, there are a few. Their actions and views are by no means representative of the whole; a ‘dicky’ comment on an article shouldn’t draw the conclusion that all the peers of said commenter are equally dicky. As one sensible person pointed out; just call them on it and move on – showing they are indeed the minority is the best you can do.

Pot, Kettle?

Back to the anti-social and holier-than-thou stuff; how is it any less abrasive to constantly pick on large numbers of people (who, as I said, don’t even necessarily formally subscribe to a discreet group) because one or two aren’t behaving ideally? Surely if you walk into a room with your guns blazing, being met with counter-strike should be expected.

There are ways of voicing concerns that don’t elicit such a backlash – people only tend to get defensive when given a reason to do so, so perhaps if when facing such counter-attack, stopping and asking why that is would be sensible, as is being careful to avoid hypocrisy.

Talk of sensitivity doesn’t sit well with me. I find it reminiscent of the old sexist joke-maker, “oh you’re just being over-sensitive”, following something that is demonstrably offensive eliciting an easily-justifiable response.

Yes, people need to be aware of their actions. I’m very much one for being as nice to everyone as you possibly can, unless given good reason to do otherwise. This isn’t everyone’s philosophy, though, and sometimes being nice doesn’t get results.

from Ralf Neugebauer

I wasn’t at TAM (though may I take the opportunity to thank everyone I had a nice chat/drink/dance with during the after-TAM evenings; I had some horrific news on the Friday that I might go into more detail about later – immersing myself in skeptical loveliness kept me going, so cheers for that) but I believe PZ gave a talk along that vein.

There are so many parts to play, many different personalities, philosophies, attitudes and purposes. It is naive to assume that yours are the most valuable or right and that means you’re justified to put everything else down, or that your disagreeing with something means it has no merit at all.

Dare I say that applies to life in general, not just to the mish-mash of entities that is skepticism.

The Big Picture

Possibly the thing that I find most saddening is losing sight of the point. I think most people agree that the enemy (if we temporarily agree on such a concept) is not fellow skeptics, even if they’re being a bit dicky, but the people out there creating victims.

Your Raths and Wakefields, the quacks, charlatans, snake-oil salesmen and swindlers.

The people whose actions result in illness, physical and psychological damage, suffering and death. Or just people wasting their hard-earned pennies.

The average self-confessed skeptic; however bad a day they’re having, however offended another skeptic might be by what they just said, however smug you think they are – they don’t have those crimes on their conscience.

Variety…

… It’s the spice of life! Yeah, I’m wheeling out the big clichés now.

Too long; didn't read

You might not like that article or that bit of a talk, the tone of voice they said that in, that programme, their hair-do (!), but if we were all the same, it’d be pretty damn boring. Yes, it’s nice to find a niche (as I said above), but it’s also nice to have differing opinions, agree to disagree, have a bit of an argument then a pint and a hug and hey presto, still mates regardless (don’t assume that if I disagree with you about something, I’ll stop being your friend! Pretty much never the case).

I’m done with analysing the inner workings of the skeptics (perhaps an optimistic proclamation, but this is probably long enough to bore people before the end) – I attend what I can and what I want, I see my friends, for whom I am so immensely grateful, I appreciate people’s different approaches and I’ll call someone out if I think they’re being unfair or indeed wrong. They might not pay attention.

I do expect people to do the same for me. Sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes we get it a bit wrong. But it’s OK, in the grand scheme of things.

Be Who You Are and Say What You Feel Because
Those Who Mind Don’t Matter
and Those Who Matter Don’t Mind.
– Dr. Seuss.

————

Read more on this kind of thing from Carmen, Crispian and gimpy (both on SitP and TAM).

Edit: also Alom Shaha goes on the attack in his Guardian blog, Frank Swain presents a minimally-revised version of his Westskep talk (that I wrote up here) at Winchester SitP, and Kash defends SitP for his own reasons.

—

Yes, I ended up trying to squeeze in as many clichés and sayings as I could, don’t hold it against me

No points for getting what else I was shoehorning in excessively.

Cake or beer? I’ll have the cake, please.

Yesterday was the Science Blogging Talkfest event – photos from (the very sneaky photographer!) Rebecca Smith here, a couple of which I’ve now stolen (below). So, it was Talkfest and I’m talking in most of the pictures. Makes sense but looking quite ridiculous.

Basically some bloggers/readers of blogs/journalists/editors/Tweeters got together to have cake and tea/beer, discuss science blogging and the universe then drink the local pub dry.

A success, I reckon (even if the aims weren’t too clear, it’s sparked a lot of discussion).

So, after the sparkly cupcakes (which, as Ed Yong pointed out, were probably designed mainly to make everyone look equally ridiculous and break the ice) we sat down to have a Q&A with the panel about the purpose, merits and pitfalls of Science Blogging (and a bit about blogging in general).

The panel

In the hotseats were Alok Jha (Guardian science correspondent), Ed Yong (accomplished science writer), Mark Henderson (Times science editor), Jon Butterworth (CERN & UCL physicist), Petra Boynton (marvellous sex educator) and Andy Lewis (creator of the Quackometer). For Twitter users: @alokjha @edyong209 @markgfh @jonmbutterworth @drpetra & @lecanardnoir.

Before questions, there was a show-and-tell of people’s favourite blogs. These included:

Laelaps – a blog about excellent dead things (I used to want to be a paleontologist actually)

Genetic Future – making genetics issues accessible

Mind Hacks – on phsychology/behaviour and its relevance to everyday stuff & media stories

In the Dark – a sometimes-inspired, sometimes-written-after-dinner (not my words!) astronomy blog with personality.

Why Blog?

A question that family and friends often ask, I find.

JB: originally to explain things behind news stories (CERN and the LHC, for example) – but then it just kept going.

PB: because journalists get things wrong and leave out important information. We can bring evidence for people to use in life and get people thinking differently. Now I cover what gets requested.

MH: blogging enables you to reach quite specific audiences that clearly do exist but aren’t usually targeted by the mainstream media. Blogs often comment on stories as they unforld and add “DVD extras” (coined by Ed).

EY: to talk about science and show that it’s interesting. I love writing and explaining, making things easy to understand.

Actually it gives me a physical tingle. I think I’m addicted to it.

- Funny as it was when Ed said this, I think most people agree. It is nice when you manage to explain something that’s quite complicated in a way that elicits some kind of “ohhh, I seeee!” response from people (or indeed just a person).

A point to which most nodded was the fact that blogging enables you to avoid editors – although blogging does have a somewhat unique ability to be continually edited via comments and feedback. Alok stood up for editors later, saying that

A good editor can make your copy 100x better.

But a common Twitter-based reponse to this was along the lines of ‘well you’re f***** if you’ve got a bad one then’.

I re-started my blog, having had the original just-a-diary style one at university, because I missed having an outlet for sharing my views on things (usually that have irritated me) and I wanted to try my hand at communicating science. I mix personal entries with technical stuff because I’ve always presented myself as I am online and I don’t intend this site to be any different. I like socialising, getting to know people – I feel the best way to do that is to let people get to know me, too.

Measuring Impact

Ed told some brilliant stories he’d got from some of his readers simply by asking them why they read his blog and what they got out of it. This included a stay-at-home Dad who had little interest in science until stumbling across his site and others, who then acquired learning about science as a major hobby. Then there was the applause-earning anecdote from a previously fundamentalist christian who’d decided to become a scientist instead after being prompted to ‘think about how we learn things’.

PB: Can you really measure it?

As we discussed at the BSA SciComms conference, ‘impact’ is a difficult concept to define anyway. It’s often personal, rarely quantifiable and probably irrelevant a lot of the time.

I completely agree with Jon and others who said what really matters is your enjoyment. Many people start blogs just because they like writing and communicating with people, getting their opinions out, expressing themselves.

Alok, Ed, Alice Bell, Mark, Petra, Jon and Andy

Part of the reason I do it is that I like thinking about various issues (sometimes important, sometimes really not) and a lot of the time it seems people aren’t up for a serious discussion in person. This way, you can get down all your thoughts and it’s likely that someone out there on the web will want to engage with you. Message boards have always been good for this; chat rooms, even Facebook.

Don’t let anyone tell you blogging is trivial

Said Ed, following his impressive readers’ stories. Opinions can be changed, things can be achieved that perhaps otherwise would not have. Not everyone blogs in order to change the world, or even what a few people think, but if you are – go for it!

Anyone part of the libel reform campaign probably feels part of something effective; also 10:23, the Quacklash (which I shall hopefully write about shortly) and other achievements. Sure blogging isn’t the only effector but it’s definitely a force.

Unfortunately, as was conceded at the end of the event, not always for good.

The internet is (for the most part) a free space where anyone can say what they want. That, of course, means that people we’d rather not hear from, whose influence will never be positive, can do their share of misinforming and opinion-shifting.

‘Climategate’ is a shining example.

Tweeting to Distraction

So the Twitterfall was back with a vengeance at the event; people’s thoughts (including some of the panel’s) were displayed on the walls – we don’t usually see what goes on inside people’s minds but in this case we get some insight.

The list of tweets is available here.

It’s a bit surreal, often funny (found myself sniggering a lot, apologies to the person sitting next to me) but is it really a good thing?

I think (and I know I’m not the only one) that many people were quite distracted by it, to the point where maybe discussions were diminished because people were too busy tapping away and reading the feed. Did we really get anything extra from it? I’m not sure.

Hilarious, when an outbreak of coughing erupted, caused by Stephen Curry’s

Cough if you think Dr Evan Harris needs to be in the Geek calendar

But the problem is, now I can’t remember what was being said when this happened!

I think Twitterfalls are great for intervals and such, good for working out who you know from the Twittersphere and whose hand you’d like to shake, but not sure it’s a good idea during such an event. Any thoughts?

I’ll add the link to the official recording (if it worked!), photos etc. when it’s available.

Edit: Also covered by

@ShaneMcC questions the lack of purpose and Jon Butterworth himself gives more in-depth analysis.

Stephen Curry tackles the wider issue of (perceived?) ‘bland’ scientific prose.

Alice in Galaxyland – giving some tips for those further afield and busy with work (for the record, give me a shout if you need a sofa, fellow skeptics!)

Paula Salgado

Vivienne at Outdoor Science

In the Dark, having picked up on being mentioned as a favourite site!

Guns don’t kill people, Rabbids do

I wrote this back in 2008 but feel the need to post it, following this preposterous attempt to show how bad games are for kids. Methinks the problem here is having gun-toting redneck parents.

Edit 22/03/10 – OK this is what I’m talking about. Do not watch if you have high blood pressure.

Is gaming bad for children?

There is considerable opposition to the games industry but I know that there are plenty of healthy people out there (myself included) who enjoy video games a lot. People like to say “games are bad for children” and that “there are negative psychological effects” like implanting desires to go and shoot real people or steal cars. “They should be outside playing instead, not sat indoors!”

What games did (and do) for me

I have been using computer games since the age of 3-5, largely because my older brother bought and kindly let me use the latest gadgets (Commodore 64, Atari, Amiga 500). I also played in the woods, ate at the table and read books. Rather than playing things that mainly involved death and destruction, they tended to be educational games for learning maths, French etc. – brightly coloured with plinky-plonky music (they all had plinky-plonky music then!).

Dull-coloured games supposed to be more realistic just didn’t appeal to me (e.g. Shadow of the Beast on Amiga).  Similarly, children prefer to look at toys in shops over the home furnishings. I learned a lot from games; Pythagoras’ theorem from an Earthworm Jim cartoon, Japanese geography from Mystical Ninja (N64), Roman/Greek Gods from Populous and hilarious insults from Monkey Island (You fight like a dairy farmer! Well, you fight like a cow!). I drew my favourite characters & play songs on my keyboard. More exciting than school art/music!

In my second quinquennium I got into Street Fighter, Star Wing, racing titles and Deity-games like Populus. These had some violence and while I desperately wanted spikey wrist bracelets like Chun-Li for a while, I didn’t feel the need to act things out (that’s not a dig at you, cosplayers). How do you reconstruct shooting polygonal alien space ships/beating up electric green monsters anyway? My sense of reality was not blurred by gaming experiences. It’s obvious that the two are separate.

Perceived problems of gaming

Perhaps this is where today’s opposition comes from; games are more realistic. However, I (and others) find that this means graphics are a boring brown-green-grey mixture that is thoroughly uninspiring, I would have thought, to children.

Games like Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto get the Aunties and Uncles crying that we are filling our children’s minds with the desire to maim and kill. Do they take their little nieces and nephews to 18-certificate films containing sex, foul language and death? I doubt it, well I hope not – so why are parents letting them play 18-rated games?

I have no time for people who buy GTA for their 11-year-olds and are then shocked by killing prostitutes to reclaim money, outrunning police cars & aiding hardened criminals in various illegal activities for fun. No, I don’t personally like GTA but I know a lot of people who do. They are, importantly, well over 18 & can easily separate the virtual world from reality. Just as we have the watershed to protect children from unsavoury television, we have the certification of games. It is the fault of people who fail to pay attention to these if their child’s attitudes become warped, not the gaming industry itself. I don’t think any sensible person would call for the end of swearing, sex and violence in all films so I don’t see why it is reasonable to call for all disturbing video games to be banned. Just don’t go and buy them for your kids.

Literature, too. Anyone who’s read Stephen King must have at some point wondered what’s wrong with him – where does all that disturbing stuff come from?? I don’t recall anyone burning all his books, though. If you’re an adult you can choose what you want to do; go and see a violent film, read a freaky book, play a crime game.

Another common complaint is that gaming is anti-social. Really? I used to have friends come over for multiplayer, binging games I didn’t have. I didn’t play all day long – if your child is playing too much, stop them! Have a time limit, have the computer and TV where you can see it and take some responsibility.

The current gaming landscape

Now we have the world of online gaming. You can challenge/team up with people from miles away. Whether console-based or, for the more serious gamer, on PCs, this is surely a form of social interaction. I know that after being bullied throughout primary school, having the internet from the age of 12 (where my parents could see it, I hasten to add), really helped me. I could go to small chat rooms & talk to people without being in the same room, even people on the other side of the world! It was fascinating and it rekindled my interest in people and socialising.

Gaming communities within epic landscapes such as World of Warcraft allow some otherwise shy & secluded characters to re-make themselves into something they’re confident to show to others. Whether this translates to the real world or not, surely some interaction with others is better than none? Online capability is increasingly important in new releases, with the fun of playing death-matches with your friends in the same room extended to people you may not have met face-to-face… yet!

More recently, the Wii has brought us ‘active gaming’. We flail around, pull some muscles (Wii Sports baseball) and get a bit sweaty (boxing!). Maybe this will lead to more people of all ages going out and trying a new sport or just being a little bit more active than usual. We can easily move away from couch-potato-land if we embrace these innovations. No, it’s not actually tennis/bowling/skiing – so what? It’s more than watching someone do it on TV; it’s funny (laughing is healthy too) and sociable. Most people I know who play games also do some real sport and have other hobbies besides.

Nintendo hoped to change people’s gaming attitudes and the typical gaming audience. Now from the youngest to the oldest, male and female, people don’t feel alienated from the fantastic experience that is the video games world. I know it has enriched my life and friendships and sparked my imagination many times. While other consoles may be pushing for ever increasingly realistic graphics with more and more brown-green-grey, hordes of FP shooters, racing clones etc., Nintendo still leads the way in producing original, innovative titles, even if a lot of them recycle characters (with varying success).

Thank you, Ninty, for keeping my inner child alive.

Left: Deku Link; right: Link with Goron mask (Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask; inspired by Wil Overton‘s original images )

Edit: Just found this talk, how gaming can save the world! Good stuff.

Addendum Re: today’s (10 March 2010) news story; how exactly do they know that the reason the toddler grabbed the gun was because she thought it was a wii gun (which are white and blue plastic)? Toddlers grab stuff, it’s what they do. If you leave a loaded handgun on the table, your parenting shortfalls are far more extensive than playing too many games, or indeed letting your children near games. Picking up a controller doesn’t kill you – shooting yourself in the stomach most certainly does. They are clearly not the same thing.

“It looks so real. I mean, when you take that and you can look at my glock, there are real similarities,” said Wilson County Det. Jeff Johnson. – er, well, kitchen knives look an awful lot like… knives… but if your kid stabs themselves with one you left on the floor, the problem isn’t with the fact that knives exist is it! Christ.