(One of a series of reposts, for your enjoyment while I'm on vacation. First posted in January 2011.)
*****************************************
The hottest news today, for those who believe that their personalities, destinies, and love lives are controlled by the positions of distant planets relative to arbitrary patterns of even-more-distant stars, is: you're not the astrological sign you think you are.
The ancient Greeks are the ones who are responsible for a lot of the names we use for constellations today. They looked up into the night sky, probably after having tanked up on ouzo and retsina, and instead of seeing what most of us do -- a completely random arrangement of stars -- they saw patterns that reminded them of people, animals, and objects from their myths and folk tales. Thus we have a vague, wandery curve of faint stars that is Draco the Dragon, a pair of bright stars that is Canis Minor the Little Dog, a crooked zigzag that is Cassiopeia the Celestial Queen, and a little group of six stars that is Waldo the Sky Wombat.
Okay, I made the last one up. But some of them are equally weird. There's Coma Berenices, "Berenice's Hair;" Fornax the Furnace; Volans the Flying Fish; for people who like things simple and obvious, Triangulum the Triangle; and for people in the southern hemisphere who like things simple and obvious, Triangulum Australe the Southern Triangle.
Even earlier, astronomers during the Babylonian times had noticed that the sun and the planets seemed to trace a path against the stars, and that path is the zodiac. The twelve zodiac constellations are the ones that the sun seems to move through, as the earth travels around the sun; and your sign is supposed to be the constellation in which the sun seemed to reside at the moment of your birth.
But now, astronomers with the Minnesota Planetarium Society have released a bombshell. Because the Earth's axis precesses, the constellations of the zodiac aren't lined up the way they were during the time of the ancient Greeks. Precession happens because the Earth wobbles like a top as it spins, and the axis of the earth traces out a circular path every 26,000 years (meaning that Polaris won't be the North Star forever). As a result, the whole zodiac has tipped by about ten degrees, and most likely you aren't the sign you think you are -- you are the one immediately preceding it, or possibly even the one before that.
Worse news still if you're a Sagittarius; not only are you not a Sagittarius, your sign is likely to be a constellation that isn't even part of the standard zodiac. During Greek times, the zodiac actually passed briefly through the constellation Ophiuchus, the Snake Handler, but because thirteen seemed an unpropitious number for the zodiac constellations, and also because "Ophiuchus" sounds like the scientific name of an intestinal parasite, they threw it out. Now, however, because of the precession of the Earth, the zodiac spends a lot longer in Ophiuchus, and it's no longer possible to ignore it. So if you were a Sagittarius, you're probably now an Ophiuchus, and might want to consider a career as a herpetologist, or at least a snake charmer.
And I guess I'm not really a Scorpio. This is too bad. I kind of liked being a Scorpio. They're supposed to be deep, intense, passionate, secretive, and a little dangerous, which I always thought was cool. Now, I guess I'm a Virgo, which means I'm weak, stubborn, and petulant. So I've gone from being James Bond to being George Costanza. It figures.
Of course, I console myself with the knowledge that astrology is pretty silly anyhow; one has to wonder why anyone ever found it plausible that the fact that Saturn was in Capricorn at the moment of your birth is why you like cottage cheese. (Okay, I made that up because I don't feel like researching what it really means if Saturn is in Capricorn. But my point stands.) Right now, I'm mostly curious to see what the astrologers will do -- if they will revise their astrological charts to reflect the actual positions of the sun and planets relative to the stars, or if they'll keep doing what they've always done.
My money is on the latter. I'm guessing that they'll figure that they've never worried about a minor issue like whether their predictions have any basis in reality, so why start now?
Skeptophilia (skep-to-fil-i-a) (n.) - the love of logical thought, skepticism, and thinking critically. Being an exploration of the applications of skeptical thinking to the world at large, with periodic excursions into linguistics, music, politics, cryptozoology, and why people keep seeing the face of Jesus on grilled cheese sandwiches.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Monday, June 30, 2014
The Red Menace of "Les Schtroumpfs"
(One of a series of reposts, for your enjoyment while I'm on vacation. First posted in June 2011.)
*****************************************
It's been a rough year for cartoon characters.
First, we had a Muslim cleric ranting about how Mickey Mouse was an Unclean Agent of Satan. Then, the Seal-the-Borders cadre began to howl that Dora the Explorer was an illegal alien. Not to be outdone, the Catholic church contributed their own little piece of surrealism with the claim that the Simpsons were clearly Roman Catholics.
And now, Antoine Buéno, a university lecturer in Paris, is claiming that the Smurfs are communists.
His treatise, entitled "Le Petit Livre Bleu: Analyse critique et politique de la société des Schtroumpfs," brings up two immediate questions:
1) Did you know that the French for "Smurfs" was "les Schtroumpfs?" I didn't. I also defy you to say "les Schtroumpfs" without laughing. It makes it even better if you say it with a fruity, Pépé le Pew accent.
2) Is this guy kidding? Or what?
In answer to the second question, let's look at his evidence:
Thierry Culliford, son of the late Pierre Culliford, creator of the Smurfs, is outraged, and referred to Buéno's thesis as "grotesque." Pierre Culliford, who went under the pen name "Peyo," was "not political," his son told reporters. "When there were elections, he would ask my mother, 'What should I vote?'"
Buéno, of course, dismissed that, saying that Peyo was expressing communist themes in The Smurfs "unconsciously." Because all cartoonists do that, you know. Even comic strips are not free from it. For example, don't you think that "Nancy" in the comic strip of the same name looks like Kim Jong Il? Let's compare:
So, I think we can safely assume that cartoonists are unconsciously channeling all sorts of scary political themes in their work, and that from now on you should read the funny pages with that in mind. Who knows what kind of dreadful political ideologies could be creeping into your subconscious while you're looking at "Marmaduke," "Blondie," or, god forbid, "Garfield?"
Buéno, for his part, is not backing down. He says that his paper is "rigorous and thorough and documented." About his claim of The Smurfs as having communist overtones, he told reporters, "It's so obvious I didn't think I'd have to spell it out."
So, anyway, there you have it. Another tour de force from the halls of academia. And we wonder why people think the members of the intelligentsia are a little bit cracked.
*****************************************
It's been a rough year for cartoon characters.
First, we had a Muslim cleric ranting about how Mickey Mouse was an Unclean Agent of Satan. Then, the Seal-the-Borders cadre began to howl that Dora the Explorer was an illegal alien. Not to be outdone, the Catholic church contributed their own little piece of surrealism with the claim that the Simpsons were clearly Roman Catholics.
And now, Antoine Buéno, a university lecturer in Paris, is claiming that the Smurfs are communists.
His treatise, entitled "Le Petit Livre Bleu: Analyse critique et politique de la société des Schtroumpfs," brings up two immediate questions:
1) Did you know that the French for "Smurfs" was "les Schtroumpfs?" I didn't. I also defy you to say "les Schtroumpfs" without laughing. It makes it even better if you say it with a fruity, Pépé le Pew accent.
2) Is this guy kidding? Or what?
In answer to the second question, let's look at his evidence:
- Smurfs take their meals in a communal dining hall.
- They have a single leader, who is a father-figure that they never refer to by name.
- Every effort is done collectively; they rarely strike out on their own, or show private initiative.
- Papa Smurf looks like Stalin.
- "Smurf" could be an acronym for "Small Men Under Red Force."
Thierry Culliford, son of the late Pierre Culliford, creator of the Smurfs, is outraged, and referred to Buéno's thesis as "grotesque." Pierre Culliford, who went under the pen name "Peyo," was "not political," his son told reporters. "When there were elections, he would ask my mother, 'What should I vote?'"
Buéno, of course, dismissed that, saying that Peyo was expressing communist themes in The Smurfs "unconsciously." Because all cartoonists do that, you know. Even comic strips are not free from it. For example, don't you think that "Nancy" in the comic strip of the same name looks like Kim Jong Il? Let's compare:
So, I think we can safely assume that cartoonists are unconsciously channeling all sorts of scary political themes in their work, and that from now on you should read the funny pages with that in mind. Who knows what kind of dreadful political ideologies could be creeping into your subconscious while you're looking at "Marmaduke," "Blondie," or, god forbid, "Garfield?"
Buéno, for his part, is not backing down. He says that his paper is "rigorous and thorough and documented." About his claim of The Smurfs as having communist overtones, he told reporters, "It's so obvious I didn't think I'd have to spell it out."
So, anyway, there you have it. Another tour de force from the halls of academia. And we wonder why people think the members of the intelligentsia are a little bit cracked.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
What IS it, my Preciousssss???
Dear loyal readers,
This will be my last new post for a couple of weeks, as I'll be on vacation through July 12. But fear not -- to keep your appetite for woo-woo silliness and skepticism sated, I've lined up a series of reposts of some of the most popular articles from Skeptophilia in the past four years. I hope you enjoy them... and be ready for some new posts on Monday, July 14! Keep sending your comments and suggestions -- they are most appreciated.
**********************
Sometimes, I marvel at how little it takes to get the woo-woos going.
Take, for example, the article that appeared a few days ago in The Telegraph, that told the story of an "unnamed holiday maker" who was hiking in the hills of Huairou, north of Beijing. He had gone off, he said, in search of a place to take a piss, and happened upon the following menacing-looking creature:
Well, the first thing I thought was that if I had been the one to run into this thing, that would have taken care of my need to pee right there. Be that as it may, he evidently retained some of his presence of mind, at least at the time. He said that he took out his cellphone and "took a few pictures of it," but that "now I am terrified."
What, he wasn't terrified at the time? You just happen to run into a mostly-naked evil-looking humanoid with huge floppy ears, and calmly whip out your cellphone and snap a few shots -- and then days later, you look at them, and you scream, "Dear god, what is THAT?"
Well, despite the rock-bottom reliability of the story -- from the way it was reported, to the lack of names, to the fact that neither Gollum nor Dobby the House-Elf has ever been known to visit China -- this story's path through the interwebz resembles a giant pinball game. I've seen it three times on Facebook, at least ten times on Twitter, and it's made four appearances on the various sites catalogued on Area51.org.
But the story didn't end there, as most of them do -- with a weird, blurry photograph and some unsubstantiated claims. Because shortly after the original story began to make the rounds, someone stepped in and said, "Hey, y'all, calm down, this isn't real!" (as if that was in any doubt). An "online commentator" (also unnamed) said that he and some buddies had been up in the hills making "a mini sci-fi film" and that this was just him in costume. He also had gone off to pee, and got caught.
"And when I was having a pee," he wrote, "a person popped up and took pictures of me and shot away."
So one guy taking a piss came upon a guy in a monster suit taking a piss, and hilarity ensued.
Maybe. Who knows? Given that the debunker also didn't leave his name, or any real proof that what he was saying was true, he could be lying, too.
So all we really have is the photograph, which is hardly convincing, in these days of Photoshop and other digital editing software. I'm morally certain that this isn't an alien, or a cryptid, or any of the other possible non-solutions people have been suggesting. It's either a hoax or an accident (if we're to buy the actor-having-a-pee answer). As for any other possibilities -- we're not buying them, Precioussss... no, not at all.
This will be my last new post for a couple of weeks, as I'll be on vacation through July 12. But fear not -- to keep your appetite for woo-woo silliness and skepticism sated, I've lined up a series of reposts of some of the most popular articles from Skeptophilia in the past four years. I hope you enjoy them... and be ready for some new posts on Monday, July 14! Keep sending your comments and suggestions -- they are most appreciated.
**********************
Sometimes, I marvel at how little it takes to get the woo-woos going.
Take, for example, the article that appeared a few days ago in The Telegraph, that told the story of an "unnamed holiday maker" who was hiking in the hills of Huairou, north of Beijing. He had gone off, he said, in search of a place to take a piss, and happened upon the following menacing-looking creature:
Well, the first thing I thought was that if I had been the one to run into this thing, that would have taken care of my need to pee right there. Be that as it may, he evidently retained some of his presence of mind, at least at the time. He said that he took out his cellphone and "took a few pictures of it," but that "now I am terrified."
What, he wasn't terrified at the time? You just happen to run into a mostly-naked evil-looking humanoid with huge floppy ears, and calmly whip out your cellphone and snap a few shots -- and then days later, you look at them, and you scream, "Dear god, what is THAT?"
Well, despite the rock-bottom reliability of the story -- from the way it was reported, to the lack of names, to the fact that neither Gollum nor Dobby the House-Elf has ever been known to visit China -- this story's path through the interwebz resembles a giant pinball game. I've seen it three times on Facebook, at least ten times on Twitter, and it's made four appearances on the various sites catalogued on Area51.org.
But the story didn't end there, as most of them do -- with a weird, blurry photograph and some unsubstantiated claims. Because shortly after the original story began to make the rounds, someone stepped in and said, "Hey, y'all, calm down, this isn't real!" (as if that was in any doubt). An "online commentator" (also unnamed) said that he and some buddies had been up in the hills making "a mini sci-fi film" and that this was just him in costume. He also had gone off to pee, and got caught.
"And when I was having a pee," he wrote, "a person popped up and took pictures of me and shot away."
So one guy taking a piss came upon a guy in a monster suit taking a piss, and hilarity ensued.
Maybe. Who knows? Given that the debunker also didn't leave his name, or any real proof that what he was saying was true, he could be lying, too.
So all we really have is the photograph, which is hardly convincing, in these days of Photoshop and other digital editing software. I'm morally certain that this isn't an alien, or a cryptid, or any of the other possible non-solutions people have been suggesting. It's either a hoax or an accident (if we're to buy the actor-having-a-pee answer). As for any other possibilities -- we're not buying them, Precioussss... no, not at all.
Friday, June 27, 2014
Spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam
Yesterday I got a spam reply on one of my old Skeptophilia posts.
It happens pretty often, and I usually just ignore them, being that (1) I'm not stupid enough to reply, and (2) I have no particular interest in black-market anabolic steroids, penis growth pills, or helping out exiled Nigerian princes. But this one was so funny that I read it aloud to a student of mine who happened to be hanging around, and we both had a good enough laugh that I thought I should share it here.
[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]
So here it is, along with some interspersed editorial comments from yours truly.
ATTENTION TO THE WHOLE WORLD:Not just me, eh? You want the whole world's attention? That's pretty ambitious.
Hello and blessed are you who found me.Well, you found me, technically. But hello back atcha.
My name is DR SHAKES SPEAR, and am here to help you change and transform your life in the most positive way possible.Is that William Shakes Spear? Huh. I thought you had Shuffled Off This Mortal Coil four centuries ago. Shows you what I know.
I use the power of white, black craft and Wicca and voodoo spell casting to help people just like you they get the love they want and the money they deserve.Did you even read my blog, dude? You are seriously barking up the wrong tree.
My love spell offer amazing and quick results. Do you want to find your soulmate?Already have, thanks.
Do you want to reunite with a past lover and make him or her love you again?Merciful heavens above, no. My past lovers are past for a reason.
Do you need to bind a troublemaker from causing problems in your relationship?Unless you count the fact that my dog takes up way more than his fair share of the bed, I think I'm fine in that regard.
With my spell casting service, I can cast a love spell on your behalf that will help all of your wishes and dreams come true. I also do other custom spells, such as money spells, job spells, friendship spells, and good luck spells.Versatile, that's you! But you have to wonder why, if you can just cast money spells, you are trying to bilk money from a poor struggling writer.
You may have already tried the power of spells and prayers to get what you want.No, "hard work" and "a reasonable supply of brainpower" have always worked for me.
Although it is true that everyone has the ability to cast spells and perform magic, spell casting is like a muscle. Everyone has this 'muscle' but the more you use it, the stronger it gets, and the more things you are able to do with it.Well, that's a mighty fine sales pitch. However, the muscle it mostly made me think of was the gluteus maximus, because you seem to be talking out of your ass.
If you are not an experienced spell caster, your spell may not be as strong, and the results not as quick as you may desire. GET YOUR PROBLEMS SOLVE HERE AND BE FREE!!Ooh, I can't wait for my problems to be solve!
Hello to people that want to be Great,Hi there.
Note: This Spell casting do not have any effect on any one, But just to get your problem solve ok.Ok. But if it do not have any effect on any one, how the hell do it get my problem solve?
Get your problem solve in master...You can get the bellow problems solve here.Yes, those bellow problems can be a bitch, it's true.
1. Bring back lost lover, even if lost for a long timeCf. my previous comment about lost lovers. They can stay lost, thanks.
2. Remove bad spells from homes, business & customer attraction etc.Now you're talking. If you could cast a spell that would make 9th graders less annoying, I'd be much obliged.
3. Get promotion you have desired for a long time at work or in your career.Promotion? To what, administrator? That'd be a big "nope." For me, being an administrator falls into the "just shoot me now" category.
4. Remove the black pot that keeps on taking your money awaySo that's where it's going!
5. Find out why you are not progressing in life and the solutionIf you could progress one of my novels to "bestseller" status, I'd take back everything I said about you.
6. Ensure excellent school grades even for children with mental disabilitiesWho needs the Common Core, when you have Dr. Shakes Spear?
7. I destroy and can send back the Nikolos if requestedI'm not going to request, because I have no idea what the fuck that even means.
8. We heal barrenness in women and bad issue and disturbing menstruationI'm disturbed just thinking about this one.
9. Get you marriage to the lover of your choiceToo late, because I took care of that one myself. But it's a nice offer.
10. Guarantee you win the troubling court cases & divorce no matter how what stageShouldn't #10 come before #9? Just saying, you know, as a pitch. As is it seems like getting the cart before the horse.
11. Mental illness & bewitchedWhat about them?
12. Extreme protection for those doing dangerous jobs like security guards, Bank manager, cash transporters, etcNot teachers, eh? No "extreme protection" for us? Just your ordinary, garden-variety protection?
I can help you, and I want to help you. Read through my words and CONTACT ME VIA:shakesspear23@yahoo.com OR shakesspear23@gmail.com AS MY POWERS ARE SO STRONG AND VERY EFFECTIVE AND HAS NO BAD EFFECT INSTEAD IT HAVE A VERY GOOD RESULT AFTER CASTING THE SPELL.Maybe you should work on a spell for getting your caps lock unstuck.
So, there you have it. A tasty meal of spam, courtesy of Dr. Shakes Spear. I strongly recommend against sending anything to the email addresses, because of course that only would alert Dr. Spear that (s)he has a fish on the line, and pretty likely result in your being inundated by further offers. So unless you have a particular need for steroids or penis growth pills, or are feeling a sudden desire to help down-on-their-luck Nigerian princes, it's probably best just to press "delete" and forget about it.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Ouija wackiness south of the border
Ouija boards have been around for a long time -- since 1890, in fact -- but they've only really hit an upswing in popularity (and a commensurate downward spiral amongst the highly religious) in the last couple of decades. In fact, I've dealt with them before, and wouldn't be back on this topic again if it weren't for our dear friends at The Daily Fail.
Mail. The Daily Mail, is of course what I meant. They've once again reinforced their reputation for high-quality, groundbreaking journalism with their story entitled, "Three Americans Hospitalized After Becoming 'Possessed' Following Ouija Board Game in Mexican Village."
In this story, we hear about twenty-something siblings Alexandra and Sergio Huerta, and their cousin Fernando Cuevas, who were visiting relatives in the village of San Juan Tlacotenco, Mexico, when they decided to whip out the ol' Ouija board and see what the spirits had to say. And of course, as with most cases of the ideomotor effect, the spirits very likely didn't have much of interest to say other than what the participants already knew -- until Alexandra Huerta went into a "trance-like state" and started growling.
[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]
Because you know how susceptible demons are to eye drops. Whip out the Visine, and Satan is screwed.
Interestingly, Alexandra's parents called a local Catholic priest for an exorcism, who refused because the three were "not regular churchgoers." I guess as a priest, your job fighting the Evil One is contingent on the possessed individual belonging to the church Social Committee, or something.
But so far, all we have is the usual ridiculous fare that The Daily Mail has become notorious for -- a non-story about three young adults who either were faking the whole thing for attention or else had suffered panic attacks and some sort of contagious hysteria. Worthy of little attention and even less serious consideration, right?
Wrong. You should read the comments, although you may need some fortification before doing so, because I thought that the comments on CNN Online and the Yahoo! News were bad until I started reading this bunch. These people bring superstitious credulity to new levels. Here's a sampling, representing the number I was able to read until my pre-frontal cortex was begging for mercy:
I've had plenty of experience. Like us, there is both positive and negative charges amongst, let's call it, the spiritual realm. The most common cause of error is to act like it is an actual game with no consequences. I assure you they are quite real. I assure you that regardless of positive or negative matter (let's call "spirits" ), they can do some mind boggling things i.e. dimming candles, creating areas or pools of water in places that couldn't possibly form etc. AND yes, if you blatantly agree to invite them in with you it could potentially shock you into a "possessed" state. LIKELY, it was the shock of being witness to paranormal activity as nothing can really prepare you for it. Rule #1: Be of the most steadfast, clear and pure mind and you will have an opportunity to experience something you would never be able to otherwise. Rule #2 ALWAYS be respectful (which also may explain this possession scenario) to them! Most are quite nice and knowledgeable!
Only a true exorcist Catholist [sic] priest can really rid someone of a possession. Not all Catholic priests have this special "training" if that is even the right word to use (probably not). It's serious stuff and the Catholic Church takes it seriously. Perhaps we're not getting the full story on that priest's decision. If the 3 young people were indeed "possessed," they likely still are...as sedatives won't fix that. They need to try the C.C. again. There is a procedure to be followed.
We just bought a house and there was a board in the closet. I threw it out instantly and prayed for the Lord to protect the house, I asked Jesus to bless all who enter. My mother played with one as a teen and it answered many questions correctly, she and her friend asking the other one's question to prevent guiding of the piece. My God-fearing farm-raised Epispocal [sic] grandma walked by and the piece stopped abruptly-all I need to know.
Oh, so NOW you WANT a priest. This is so sad you blame a priest, for not responding to what could be a physically (or life-) threatening situation, at night, brought on by the free will of consenting adults. Out of many possible suggestions for this sad state of affairs, as a remedy, I can suggest daily praying the Rosary of our Blessed Mother. Because, "when you fill your mind with Holy thoughts, the demons will flee upon approaching you as they see that you are not fertile ground for them."
This is NOT fake! I know this for a fact. After dealing w/ one, there were spirits and slamming doors in my house.Good grief, people, will you just calm down?
It's a toy. The thing was invented back in the 19th century as a kids' game. There are no demons to call up, and even if there were, I doubt that a little piece of plywood with some poorly-stenciled letters would be sufficient to get them to pay a visit. There have been tests run on people trying to mess with a Ouija board while blindfolded -- you'd think that demons wouldn't care, right? -- and it turns out that the only satanic messages these subjects spell out are things like, "kdolwicmsalpomng," which may mean something in the Language of Hell, but doesn't really mean much to the rest of us.
So the whole thing is kind of idiotic, which is what the original click-bait story on The Daily Mail intended. They don't really care if what they say is well-written, or informative, or even true, as long as people give them hits. (And for those of you who would like to read the original without contributing to TDM's share on search engines, the link I provided goes through the wonderful service DoNotLink.com, which allows you to see content without adding to their hit profile.)
Anyhow, that's our dip in the deep end for today. My advice: don't go out of your way to throw out your Ouija board if you have one, but also don't expect it to tell you anything but random nonsense. In that way, it's a little like The Daily Mail itself, isn't it? Mildly entertaining, but mostly garbage, and gets boring pretty quickly.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
The writing brain
As a writer of fiction, I have wondered for years where creative ideas come from. Certainly a great many of the plots I've written have seemed to spring fully-wrought from my brain (although as any writer will tell you, generating an idea is one thing, and seeing it to fruition quite another).
What has always struck me as odd about all of this is how... unconscious it all feels. Oh, there's a good bit of front-of-the-brain cognition that goes into it -- background knowledge, visualization of setting, and sequencing, not to mention the good old-fashioned ability to construct solid prose. But at its base, there's always seemed to me something mysterious about creativity, something ineffable and (dare I say it?) spiritual. It is no surprise, even to me, that many have ascribed the source of creativity to divine inspiration or, at least, to a collective unconscious.
But now, Martin Lotze, a neuroscientist at the University of Griefswald (Germany), has taken the first steps toward understanding what is happening in the brains of creative writers -- and the results that he and his team have uncovered are fascinating.
One of the difficulties in studying the creative process is that during any exercise of creativity, the individual generally has to be free to move around. Writing, especially, would be hard to do in a fMRI machine, where your head has to be perfectly still, and your typical writing device, a laptop, would be first wiped clean and then flung across the room by the electromagnets. But Lotze and his team rigged up a setup wherein subjects could lie flat, with their heads encased in the fMRI tube, and have their arms supported so that they could write with the tried-and-true paper-and-pencil method, using a set of mirrors to see what they were doing.
Each subject was given a minute to brainstorm, and then two minutes to write. While all of the subjects activated their visual centers and hippocampus (a part of the brain involved in memory and spatial navigation) during the process, there was a striking difference between veteran and novice writers. Novice writers tended to activate their visual centers first; brainstorming, for them, started with thinking of images. Veteran writers, on the other hand, started with their speech production centers.
"I think both groups are using different strategies,” Lotze said. "It’s possible that the novices are watching their stories like a film inside their heads, while the writers are narrating it with an inner voice."
What has always struck me as odd about all of this is how... unconscious it all feels. Oh, there's a good bit of front-of-the-brain cognition that goes into it -- background knowledge, visualization of setting, and sequencing, not to mention the good old-fashioned ability to construct solid prose. But at its base, there's always seemed to me something mysterious about creativity, something ineffable and (dare I say it?) spiritual. It is no surprise, even to me, that many have ascribed the source of creativity to divine inspiration or, at least, to a collective unconscious.
But now, Martin Lotze, a neuroscientist at the University of Griefswald (Germany), has taken the first steps toward understanding what is happening in the brains of creative writers -- and the results that he and his team have uncovered are fascinating.
One of the difficulties in studying the creative process is that during any exercise of creativity, the individual generally has to be free to move around. Writing, especially, would be hard to do in a fMRI machine, where your head has to be perfectly still, and your typical writing device, a laptop, would be first wiped clean and then flung across the room by the electromagnets. But Lotze and his team rigged up a setup wherein subjects could lie flat, with their heads encased in the fMRI tube, and have their arms supported so that they could write with the tried-and-true paper-and-pencil method, using a set of mirrors to see what they were doing.
[image courtesy of Martin Lotze and the University of Griefswald]
Each subject was given a minute to brainstorm, and then two minutes to write. While all of the subjects activated their visual centers and hippocampus (a part of the brain involved in memory and spatial navigation) during the process, there was a striking difference between veteran and novice writers. Novice writers tended to activate their visual centers first; brainstorming, for them, started with thinking of images. Veteran writers, on the other hand, started with their speech production centers.
"I think both groups are using different strategies,” Lotze said. "It’s possible that the novices are watching their stories like a film inside their heads, while the writers are narrating it with an inner voice."
The other contrast between veterans and novices was in the level of activity of the caudate nucleus, a part of the brain involved in the coordination of activities as we become more skilled. The higher the level of activity in the caudate nucleus, the more fluent we have become at it, and the less conscious effort it takes -- leading to the conclusion (no surprise to anyone who is a serious writer) that writing, just like anything, becomes better and easier the more you do it. Becoming an excellent writer, like becoming a concert pianist or a star athlete, requires practice.
All of this is also interesting from the standpoint of artificial intelligence -- because if you don't buy the Divine Inspiration or Collective Unconscious Models, or something like them (which I don't), then any kind of creative activity is simply the result of patterns of neural firings -- and therefore theoretically should be able to be emulated by a computer. I say "theoretically," because our current knowledge of AI is in its most rudimentary stages. But just knowing what is happening in the brains of writers is the first step toward both understanding it, and (possibly) generating a machine that is capable of true creativity.
All of that, of course is far in the future, and Lotze himself is well aware that this is hardly the end of the story. As for me, I find the whole thing fascinating, and a little humbling -- that something so sophisticated is going on in my skull when I think up a scene in a story. It brings to mind something one of my neurology students once said, after a lecture on the workings of the brain: "My brain is so much smarter than me, I don't know how I manage to think at all!"
Indeed.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
There's a word for that
I've always had a fascination for words, ever since I was little. My becoming a writer was hardly in question from the start. And when I found out that because of the rather byzantine rules governing teacher certification at the time, I could earn my permanent certification in biology with a master's degree in linguistics, I jumped into it with wild abandon. (Okay, I know that's kind of strange; and for those of you who are therefore worried about my qualifications to teach science classes, allow me to point out that I also have enough graduate credit hours to equal a master's degree in biology, although I never went through the degree program itself.)
In any case, I've been a logophile for as long as I can remember, and as a result, my kids grew up in a household where incessant wordplay was the order of the day. Witness the version of "Itsy Bitsy Spider" I used to sing to my boys when they were little:
All of this is just by way of saying that I am always interested in research regarding how words are used. And just yesterday, I ran across a set of data collected by some Dutch linguists regarding word recognition in several languages (including English) -- and when they looked at gender differences, an interesting pattern emerged.
What they did was to give a test to see if the correct definitions were known for various unfamiliar words, and then sorted them by gender. It's a huge sample size -- there were over 500,000 respondents to the online quiz. And they found that which words the respondents got wrong was more interesting than the ones they got right.
From the data, they compiled a list of the twelve words that men got wrong more frequently than women. They were:
It's easy to read too much into this, of course; even the two words with the biggest gender-based differences (taffeta and codec) were still correctly identified by 43 and 48% of the male and female respondents, respectively. (Although I will admit that one of the "male" words -- codec -- is the only one on either list that I wouldn't have been able to make a decent guess at. It means "a device that compresses data to allow faster transmission," and I honestly don't think I've ever heard it used.)
It does point out, however, that however much progress we have made as a society in creating equal opportunities for the sexes, we still have a significant skew in how we teach and use language, and in the emphasis we place on different sorts of knowledge.
I was also interested in another bit of this study, which is the words that almost no one knew. Their surveys found that the least-known nouns in the study were the following twenty words. See how many of these you know:
I'm not entirely sure what all this tells us, other than what we started with, which is that words are interesting. At least I think so, and I'm pleased to say that my kids still do, too. My younger, who is now 23, was home for a visit recently and wanted to know if we'd gotten any movies from the popular DVD-rental company. He phrased it, "Do we have any Netflixen right now?"
Only someone in my family would think "ox-oxen, Netflix-Netflixen."
In any case, I've been a logophile for as long as I can remember, and as a result, my kids grew up in a household where incessant wordplay was the order of the day. Witness the version of "Itsy Bitsy Spider" I used to sing to my boys when they were little:
The minuscule arachnid, a spigot he traversedOkay, not only do I love words, I might be a little odd. My kids developed a good vocabulary probably as much as a defense mechanism as for any other reason.
Precipitation fell, the arachnid was immersed
Solar radiation
Caused evaporation
So the minuscule arachnid recommenced perambulation.
All of this is just by way of saying that I am always interested in research regarding how words are used. And just yesterday, I ran across a set of data collected by some Dutch linguists regarding word recognition in several languages (including English) -- and when they looked at gender differences, an interesting pattern emerged.
What they did was to give a test to see if the correct definitions were known for various unfamiliar words, and then sorted them by gender. It's a huge sample size -- there were over 500,000 respondents to the online quiz. And they found that which words the respondents got wrong was more interesting than the ones they got right.
From the data, they compiled a list of the twelve words that men got wrong more frequently than women. They were:
- taffeta
- tresses
- bottlebrush (the plant, not the kitchen implement, which is kind of self-explanatory)
- flouncy
- mascarpone
- decoupage
- progesterone
- wisteria
- taupe
- flouncing
- peony
- bodice
- codec
- solenoid
- golem
- mach
- humvee
- claymore
- scimitar
- kevlar
- paladin
- bolshevism
- biped
- dreadnought
It's easy to read too much into this, of course; even the two words with the biggest gender-based differences (taffeta and codec) were still correctly identified by 43 and 48% of the male and female respondents, respectively. (Although I will admit that one of the "male" words -- codec -- is the only one on either list that I wouldn't have been able to make a decent guess at. It means "a device that compresses data to allow faster transmission," and I honestly don't think I've ever heard it used.)
It does point out, however, that however much progress we have made as a society in creating equal opportunities for the sexes, we still have a significant skew in how we teach and use language, and in the emphasis we place on different sorts of knowledge.
I was also interested in another bit of this study, which is the words that almost no one knew. Their surveys found that the least-known nouns in the study were the following twenty words. See how many of these you know:
- genipap
- futhorc
- witenagemot
- gossypol
- chaulmoogra
- brummagem
- alsike
- chersonese
- cacomistle
- yogh
- smaragd
- duvetyn
- pyknic
- fylfot
- yataghan
- dasyure
- simoom
- stibnite
- kalian
- didapper
I'm not entirely sure what all this tells us, other than what we started with, which is that words are interesting. At least I think so, and I'm pleased to say that my kids still do, too. My younger, who is now 23, was home for a visit recently and wanted to know if we'd gotten any movies from the popular DVD-rental company. He phrased it, "Do we have any Netflixen right now?"
Only someone in my family would think "ox-oxen, Netflix-Netflixen."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)






