I've again succumbed to my fear of posting. I've starting writing multiple blog posts over the last several months but haven't finished a single one. Rather than try and write them all again, I'll just give a brief overview of the things that have caught my attention, and the titles I was going to use for each post.

On Christmas
As usual leading up to Christmas, we all get bombarded with bullshit. This was going to be a post regarding the 'real' meaning of Christmas, how the festival was appropriated by Christianity, a few anecdotes from my encounters with my peers & my thoughts on Christmas tradition.

Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011)
Probably the single most influential person in my life (whom I haven't met). Reading his books, articles and essays and watching his debates, talks and interviews on Youtube introduced me to so many things. Secularism, free-thought, skepticism, aspects of 20th century history and the so-called 'new atheist' movement, not to mention a raft of literature and authors who I otherwise would never have found.

Anything I might attempt to write would be trite, so I'd like to point you to eulogies by Salman Rushdie and Katha Pollitt.

I disagreed with Hitchens on lots of things, but was always totally in awe of the process and logic he used for his arguments and debates.

Baptism
This was going to be a post about the nature of religious indoctrination and why it shouldn't exist. Specifically Roman Catholic baptism (as it's what I know the most about). I think I'd like to come back and write about this properly at some point.

On my time in Advertising
Like almost every industry, Advertising has its foibles and idiosyncracies which might grate after a certain amount of time. This was going to be a post about those foibles and idiosyncracies based on my experiences.

No light cyclists
I counted 46 no-light cyclists during a 45 minute walk from Farringdon to Hackney, in the pitch black, during rush hour. I was incensed. The same amount again had awful/faulty lights. Now I'm all for cycle safety in London, but think as much attention should be paid to awful cycling habits as there is to bad infrastructure decisions that the cycling community get so upset about.

As I said at the time on Twitter, I'm not pitching an 'Us vs Cyclists' thing. I'm bored of people whinging about Cyclists, Pedestrians or Drivers. There are just shit people who do all three of those things badly.

War on Poppies
The Friday before Remberance Day I wrote a long post on my mobile phone whilst waiting for a delayed flight. I was quite pleased with it, but unfortunately, it was lost. Rather than try and assert an opinion, I'll just say it was sparked when FIFA rejected a request by the FA for England to have poppies emblazoned on their match shirts. Here are a couple of articles that influenced me. One from Robert Fisk and one from Laurie Penny.

Also
I had this comment on an old post:

Another self absorbed so called creative/media worm. Your ambitions for polemecy made void due to a constant monologue of uninteresting cow crap flowing from your undeveloped uneducated brain onto the interent. You have no talent , you've created nothing you're what is commonly referred to as an egomaniac.

I wouldn't normally feel the need to write about any criticism I might receive (though I did respond quite childishly at the time), but this is scarily accurate as to how I perceive myself.

In the summer of 2010 I visited New York, San Francisco and LA, spending one week in each city. I'd saved up for the majority of that year to make sure I had enough spending money to do whatever took my fancy (within reason) while I was away. Needless to say, I spent a large part of the holiday in licensed establishments lapping up local alcoholic beverages. When I returned from holiday I decided to not drink for a little while. Even though I expected it, it was remarkable how much pressure I came under from people to drink.

That stint of little-to-none alcohol consumption was quite difficult. Not even slightly in a physical sense, I didn't, and have never, had a physical dependency on alcohol. So why was it so difficult? Predictably, it was social addiction, not helped by little (but perfectly innocent) comments from friends, acquaintances and co-workers.

Although I can't remember what spurred the decision, I decided again I would try and cut down on my drinking in about mid-September of this year. However, this time I see the reduction as a little more permanent. I set up an account with drinkaware.co.uk and set about recording how much alcohol I was consuming using their mobile web app on my phone, in the hope I'd be able to chart a change in my drinking habits. Here's my data so far:

This shows me drinking much less than I usually would, and it's made easier by not talking about it. I definitely get fewer comments if I don't mention I'm cutting down, some people don't notice (perhaps this blog post is a counter-productive?). There have been a few occasions where some people have taken it upon themselves to try and debate with me, though, it's more of an instruction to drink than a debate, but one I've come to enjoy disobeying. Now, it's important for me to stress that I don't mind coming under pressure from my peers, it would be hypocritical of me to do say I did, as I've been on the other side of this argument many times over the last 10 years. I'm just interested in the difference between pressure to drink versus, say, to smoke or eat, and using my experiences as an example.

If I were a smoker and cutting down on cigarettes, it would be a bit strange to have a jeering group of friends jovially trying to convince me to join them for a smoke at lunch, would it not? Or say, tempt me while I'm trying to lose weight by sneering at my celery and Ryvita lunch? For some reason, it's acceptable to make analogous comments to someone who's not drinking alcohol upon arrival in pub or bar.

It seems fairly straight forward; I'm most likely a lot more interesting when I'm drinking (I certainly write fewer grumpy blogposts), and more generally, the perceived social-enhancing and inhibition-reducing properties of alcohol should probably be attributed as the reason that this particular type of addictiveness is more prevalent with alcohol than smoking or eating.

I have no interest in adding to the shrill and patronising marketing campaigns instructing people to reduce their alcohol consumption, this excerpt from an interview with Christopher Hitchens — in which he talks so eruditely about burning the candle at both ends, in the context of his oesophageal cancer — encapsulates a sensible approach.

A drinking culture is not something that can be ignored, especially in a metropolis like London, there's always someone drinking more heavily than you who is perfectly healthy, perpetuating a false reasoning that it's okay to smash the living hell out of your body. However, in doing so, you make yourself 'a candidate' — as Hitchens puts it — for some pretty nasty stuff.

(Photo courtesy of Bora Demirbilek)

In Hackney (where I reside), fireworks are already being set off a few weeks in advance of November 5th. This made me think about why I was having to put up with these shrieking noises outside my window every night, perhaps I was just being a grumpy old man? Perhaps I should lighten up? In short — I realised —  no, I should not lighten up. Bonfire Night is a notable annual celebration spawned from our religiously sectarian past and is totally abhorrent.

Like the majority of people growing up in the UK, I always celebrated bonfire night. It was a good opportunity for family and friends to get together and ritually burn an effigy of a Catholic revolutionary.

This statement might seem shocking, but it is analogous to saying: '...it's a good opportunity for family and friends to get together and celebrate the birth of Jesus' — which is not at all shocking. Christians lament how Christmas has lost its original meaning (which isn't actually true, but that's another story), however I have not heard a similar lament for Bonfire Night. Have we not forgotten the original meaning of Bonfire Night as well? Not likely, this rhyme faithfully recited for centuries has ensured we have not forgotten:

 

Remember remember the fifth of November

Gunpowder, treason and plot.

I see no reason why gunpowder, treason

Should ever be forgot...

 

The fashioning a 'guy' for burning on a bonfire is a tradition that can be traced back to the 1650s, some 50 years after Guy Fawkes was executed. This is messed up. To make matters worse, this is the bit the children do. "Leave the fireworks to Dad, Jonny, you go and finish up the effigy of that treasonous Catholic scumbag Guy Fawkes with your sister so we can ritually burn it on the fire, okay? Then you can have a sparkler". I'm not suggesting this has any effect on children, but it is worthy of our attention. It is also bizarre that burning at the stake is one of the few things that Guy Fawkes was not subjected to during his torture and execution. We didn't quite get to burn him, but let's pretend we did, eh?

So, with the rhyme and the guy burning, our ancestors have fashioned themselves quite a useful deterrent. It has most likely been a more effective tool against treason than the horrors that were planned for Guy Fawkes.

Throughout the years, guys have also depicted various unpopular public figures when deemed appropriate, so it could be argued that Bonfire Night is a time for us to ritually burn effigies of people who we would actually like to burn? It is outmoded, medieval stuff and we should cast it off.

I do not think it would be a valid argument to claim Bonfire Night as a 'good excuse' for a get together with family and friends. Do we really need 'excuses' for get togethers with our loved ones at any given time of year?

I'm sick of people blaming social media — directly or indirectly — for the riots in England this month. To summarise my frustration at the various commentators and media coverage, take a look at this short post in The New Statesman. David Cameron clearly hasn't worked out whether people want him to think social media is a good thing or bad thing yet.

It's like blaming the metal industry for knife crime.

For what it's worth, the police need a better strategy at dealing with criminals who use tools like Twitter and BBM. Limiting the 'free flow of information' as Cameron puts it, would not only be regressive, but totally misguided. Does anyone really think these riots would not have not taken place if social media didn't exist? I guess knife crime wouldn't exist if we banned metal.

I wasn't intending on writing this post, but I'm hearing similar arguments pop up a lot from smart folk regarding Google Plus so would like to throw in my 2p.

This is not a review, just some comments on criticisms that Google Plus has been exposed to in the last week or so.

'It's like Facebook with less features'

Ostensibly, Google Plus is light version of Facebook. Offering similar features, but with less clout. This might be accurate at the moment, but Google have clearly done a lot of work in getting the fundamentals of the UX right. The relationship between 'your circles' & the stream is a stroke of genius. The stream is a single place that can be used for private messaging, sharing content with friends, sharing content with specific friends & sharing content publicly (pretty much blogging).

This is very different to Facebook.

If Google had just released Circles & the stream (inc. +1) I probably would've still been impressed. It's just launched and they've also got Sparks, Hangouts and a gTalk intergration. Most of which need work but are good attempts for a first release and show promise. Unlike Facebook, Google is not social by nature and by getting Google Plus right, they're other products are going to become far more powerful. Vincent Wong did some great analysis on this.

'There's no-one on it'

If you think this, you're an idiot. Maybe that's a bit harsh, but bear with me. When everyone first joined Twitter, you had to spend some time finding people to follow, or you went with Twitter's recommendations (which were based on nothing at the time). With Google Plus, everyone suddenly expects it on a plate? Ridiculous. People are so busy comparing Google Plus to Facebook that they seem not to have noticed that Google Plus uses asymmetrical sharing, like Twitter. See the excellent slideshow by Ross Mayfield for more on this.

In conclusion

You should read this Q&A with Joseph Smarr of the Google Plus team. I'm confident that Google Plus is going to put Google exactly where they need to be for the coming years.

 

...I've kinda put my ass on the line here.

 

EDIT: Nice update on The Next Web 

Having a minor flashback to my dissertation. Reading a paper by my former lecturer Joe Flintham on 'Narrative Approaches to Wellbeing' while it coincidentally transcends into some of my more recent interests in neurology and psychology, meaning I simply have to stick my metaphorical oar in!

Abstract narrative concepts are more prevalent in our lives than is ostensibly the case and this paper explores narrative as a therapeutic device.

I would suggest that narrative is fundamental to the way in which we are able to contextualise our personal realities. It is the most reliable framework we have for projecting our consciousnesses in a communicative manner; humans look for patterns, but we also create them.

From the small amount I know about psychotherapy, the use of narrative as a tool in psychotherapeutics — I understand — is quite widespread especially in popular approaches such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) — thought to be the most efficacious approach for a number of common mental illnesses. Irrelevant of any further discussion, the evidence-based approaches of CBT work, and rely on narrative concepts as therapeutic devices to promote wellbeing in patients.

A hypothesis that is derived from the notion that engaging with narrative might be good for 'wellbeing', is that perhaps narrative can be applied to the mentally sound as a therapeutic device as well. Intuitively, this is agreeable and while this is clearly a point for academic literary investigation, I'd suggest that it is also as empirically testable as the efficacy of CBT.

N.B. I've most likely borrowed original phrases from the paper which you should read.

Been meaning to write this up for a while.

Over Xmas I had some genetic testing courtesy of 23&Me. Once I'd filled the 'saliva collection kit' and returned it to California in an awesome biohazard bag thing, I waited a couple of months and now have a whole bunch of information on my health and ancestry based on my genetic make-up.  

Motivated purely by curiosity and a fledgling interest in genetics, I was keen to contextualise some of the things I'd read with my own data. I have subsequently discovered that direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetics is seemingly controversial in some circles, and as far as I can see, it's purely due of the lack of regulation and control over the way in which some consumers might interpret/act on the results. To my relief, there doesn't seem to be too much in the way of an attack on the scientific validity of the testing (not to my knowledge anyway).

Although the health section of the testing wasn't of particular interest to me, it is the root of the controversy. 

Regardless of my level of interest, it does have the potential to ostensibly provide the most profound information, so I did have to ask myself some questions before going ahead: How would I react if I found out there was a 50% of me developing Parkinson's Disease at 50ish? What if I was a carrier for the three early-onset breast and ovarian cancer mutations? And if so, how would this affect my female relatives? Should I tell them? Lots of questions.

When going through the process, 23andMe made quite clear as to the accuracy of their testing with multiple disclaimers and the like.

Interestingly, Ben Goldacre made quite the vehement attack on DTC genetics, which surprised me into commenting on the post. The crux of the criticism is that DTC genetics can have a an impact on people's heads; it has the potential to falsely reassure/scare people. I subscribe to this somewhat and agree there should be more tangible support available to consumers if they want it, not simply a bunch of papers and reports to read on the company's website. Strangely though, the research cited by Ben Goldacre suggests that genetic tests don't cause a observable change in behavior:

"...such testing did not result in any measurable short-term changes in psychological health, diet or exercise behavior, or use of screening tests."

In my eyes, this doesn't challenge the validity of DTC genetics; the consumer's motivation for having some form of genome testing is a separate study.

As the Human Genetics Commission suggests "...the consequences for an individual of taking a genetic test will vary significantly depending on the individual...". Damn right, so it angers me somewhat to see DTC testing subtly demonised in the news.    

I'd suggest that it's the job of the regulators to catch up with the DTC genetic companies. As long as they're behaving responsibly in the meantime—and providing the clear, relevant information on the accuracy of their test—adults should be able to decide whether they'd like to understand something more of their genetic make-up than is initially apparent by looking in the mirror. I'm probably not well informed enough to make this assertion, perhaps I would feel differently had I received some alarming information.  

I'd like to think that it's not because I've parted with my cash that I'm defensive of DTC genetics. After analysing the shots that have been levelled at it, I don't think they give your average consumer enough credit.

Some good further reading courtesy of Ed Yong and some guidelines on regulation from the Human Genetics Commission.

Also, a post on 23&Me's blog about their thoughts on regulation, from a meeting with the FDA Advisory Panel.  

My interests have been somewhat directionless over the past few months. I have been reading up on several themes which span many different subjects, and I've struggled to reconcile them with each other. It is in that context I decided to read Letters to a Young Contrarian by Christopher Hitchens and I thought I'd share a couple of the excerpts from my Kindle Highlights.

"A rule of thumb with humor; if you worry that you might be going too far, you have already not gone far enough. If everybody laughs, you have failed."

"Dante was a sectarian and a mystic but he was right to reserve one of the fieriest corners of his inferno for those who, in a time of moral crisis, try to stay neutral."

"The next phase of epoch is already discernible; it is the fight to extend the concept of universal human rights, and to match the "globalisation" of production by the globalisation of a common standard for justice and ethics."

This book has done a fantastic job of focussing my mind on understanding how to express my opinions. Perhaps more importantly, it's also indirectly armed me with the skills to confidently 'pick my battles' when it comes to disputation.

If you're the type of person who doesn't know when to leave an impassioned argument alone, read this book.

I've succumb to my original fear of blogging and not posted for ages although over written two drafts. Sigh. So I've binned those and decided to write one ad hoc and not hem myself into chronologising my influences.

I'm 63% through The Decisive Moment by Jonah Lehrer which has been most illuminating thus far. Analysing the relationship between the rational & emotional regions of the brain and how they interact to inform our decisions.

Although I think its unfairly lumped into the 'self-help' category (as this conjures awful connotations), it has been probably the most influential text I've come across in the last few years and has somewhat redefined my opinion of rational thinking; there is far more to be said for the primitive emotional areas of the brain than I'd previously assumed.

A Brief History of Time introduced me to some wild concepts. The nature of space-time, black holes & the uncertainty principle, to name but a few. I'd highly recommend it as an introductory read for anyone who wishes to learn more about the nature of the universe. I've often wondered why there aren't more people interested in the nature of the universe, and there's a nice reference to this in the foreword by Carl Sagan. After outlining some of the big questions regarding existence, he goes on to explain:

"In our society it is still customary for parents and teachers to answer most of these questions with a shrug, or with an appeal to vaguely recalled religious precepts. Some are uncomfortable with issues like these, because they so vividly expose the limitations of human understanding. But much of philosophy and science has been driven by such enquiries."

For me, parents and teachers are obligated to encourage the asking questions and challenging the resulting answers to the nth degree. In terms of intellectual growth, this is far more important than ensuring a 6 year old remember their 3x table. Seriously, I can't think of anything more tragic than a child asking an awkwardly timed question in a classroom, only to be fobbed off with some rubbish which will mostly likely lead to them not question things.    

If some children aren't getting the appropriate responses to allow them to engage their brains in a meaningful way, for whatever reason, society should adapt to cater for them. Why is this not the basis of our education system? I'm sure there's a reason, but surely there's a debate to be had.

EDIT: With that in mind, have a read of this, sigh.

EDIT 2: My Mum just told me off for swearing in this post, so I've removed it. It wasn't really adding any value I guess.