Standing on the shoulders of ants

The news used to really piss me off, either they were reporting something stupid, or the reporting was itself manifestly stupid. Then I realised that getting angry wasn't going to stop people on the other side of the television being superstitious, or backward, or ignorant, or lazy or anything in fact. So I started laughing instead and found this to be a more fulfilling experience. The news is basically there for entertainment anyway. How much of that stuff do you really need to know? How much of it do you act on? How much of it do you act on just because it's easy? A nice day out in the capital marching in protest anyone? How about signing a petition because you care enough to use a pen? Throw some loose change at Haiti while you're at it. And then there's all the stuff that you actually could do something useful about, but the news doesn't bother with because it's dull. Elderly people slowly dieing alone, when just a few visits a week from someone with free time for a chat would make all the difference. But that would be really awkward right? And dull. Some old person you don't know, they'd probably want to talk about dentures or darning socks or something. Or the war. Or they might even be some elderly person you do know, which is much worse. Probably ask why you're not married yet and when you're going to get a real job. If they don't mistake you for your brother. No, doing good close to home is weird and unpleasant. Much better to do something you wanted to do anyway, but get yourself sponsored so a reputable charity can sort the messy stuff.

So apparently I do still get angry about the news. The reason for this latest outburst of hypocritical drivel on my part is, as so often the case, facedick. It's one thing for the news to put out a load of old balls, it's quite another for your friends to relay it all over the place. Certainly some 'feed' posts are informative. However let me give you a rule of thumb. If the relevant linked article features the phrase "a study has shown", "a new study", "psychologists" or something similar, don't pass it around. Don't even read it. It'll be bollocks, wildly speculative or just plain obvious.

For example "New research shows there is a link between being politically active and wellbeing" means, "thinking you're making a difference makes you feel better", probably because otherwise you'd be forced to face up to what a merciless waste of space you really are. And that can be depressing. This example clearly falls within the remit of the third member of the above triumvirate of pointless. "Study shows that playing with wii causes RSI" also fits into this category and helpfully crops up every time there's a big console release. At least this latter case is quantifiable, repetitive strain injury being a genuine medical complaint. Studies about 'wellbeing', 'crowd psychology', and 'the appeal of 16th century literature based pet names' are usually based off questionnaires using the highly accurate '1 to 10' metric, as in "how would you rate the accuracy of questionnaire based studies on a scale of 1 to 10?" There's a reason that drug trials are carried out with placebos in double blind tests. It's because questionnaires invariably attract bullshit results and need to be carried out really really carefully even when used in conjunction with objective data (e.g. 'Is the patient dead or not?' 'Has their arm regrown?' instead of 'Do they feel like it's regrowing?').

Questionnaire-centric studies really find their calling at school, as a core feature of GCSE geography coursework, or 'colouring in' as it is often known. Here their vagueness and ease of execution are appreciated by students who don't want to run the risk of having results that can actually be checked and found in error, and most importantly who have only just remembered that the coursework needs to be handed in tomorrow. So next time you're going to post that study, please just link straight to the crayola home page instead. They have over 1000 free colouring pages for you to print out that are far more worth your time, and your friends' time. I draw your attention to this fine specimen.

Climate science isn't questionnaire based, but from the depiction in the media it might as well be. I am fed up of hearing people say "The science is clear." The only totally clear thing is that the Earth is finite and people are making a big mess faster than it's getting cleaned up. This will clearly be a problem at some point. Exactly 'when' is still up for grabs, though it shouldn't matter anyway if you don't want some future generation to be confined to small toxic islands, slowly eating their way through a dwindling reserve of tinned spaghettiOs (TM). Then again, if they're going to be anything like previous generations I'm not sure they deserve any better.

PS. Don't read New Scientist if you are interested in science.

PPS. I have experimented with italics in this post to indicate emphasis. How does that make you feel on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being 'constipated' and 10 being 'very clammy'?