Probably the most off the wall issue which constantly pops into my head each time I hear political discussions these days, 99% of which are related to President Bush, is this idea that Bush is somehow a “genius moron”. I honestly don’t know how else to put it, the same people who point out his ever present blunders are often the same who in the next breathe accuse him of heinous crimes one would otherwise attribute to some kind of super villain. Let me be honest, I am not the biggest fan Bush could hope to have, I tend to be conservative in many views (traditions, social values, & business) and liberal in many others (pro-choice, stem cells, religion).
Regardless of my views, I think most of us can fairly easily recall a talking head or friend who makes these genius moron statements. They often say things which go something like “Bush can’t pronounce nuclear correctly and did terrible in school”, while soon after saying “Bush constructed the situation in Iraq simply to put money into the pockets of the military-industrial complex, while also ensuring the long term control of the religious right and duping Tony Blair”. These statements seem to be very much mutually exclusive. To all the anti-Bush people out there saying these things, which is it? Is he too stupid to speak the English language or come across to the public as at least a semi intelligent person or some kind of evil architect of a Evangelical Christian New World Order?
In my mind he seems to be a man of average intelligence with less than stellar PR skills, born into a rich, politically powerful family, who (I’m trying to be fair here) may or may not be leveraging his Christian faith as a driver. I being no fan of publicized religion tend to think of the use of such (highly conservative Christianity in the US) in any public election as an appeal to the lowest common denominator. In this I think Bush, even if “stupid”, has surrounded himself with skilled analysts who tell him to appeal to the fears of Christian America. So we get a President who plays a game of bold moves shadowed under humble God fearing morals, all of which somehow works out in the heads of his supports.
It all boils down to this: make up your damn mind. We’ve certainly shown we don’t have to love the man, but let’s be logical in our disapproval; he can’t actually be a genius moron. If he is then he must be the only one in existence, and that just might make him somehow electable to a third term. Don’t ask him how he’ll do it, just sit back and watch him bumble into a truly glorious 12 years.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Monday, December 24, 2007
Greydon Square on SGU
One of the podcasts I have followed regularly over the year is The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, a show produced by the New England Skeptical Society (NESS). Before listening to this show I had never really considered myself a “skeptic” but more so just a person with common sense. Such common sense would tell you psychics are simply cold readers, evolution and science have evidence, and UFO proponents are generally just nutty conspiracy theorists. One of my favorite episodes of the SGU was one with guest Greydon Square. Greydon certainly isn’t the typical guest of the SGU, evidence of such being that he rapped on the show. Generally the SGU, like all of science and the skeptical community, is stereotypically white and over 35, a group not generally associated with young black rappers. The demographic data and personal experiences speak for themselves here.
This is why episode 120 was certainly one of my favorites. Sure I’m biased to appreciate a more youthful take on the realities of skeptical/scientific thinking, but I also believe this is truly important. Increasingly in our young demographics we are consuming celebrity train wreck gossip, empty entertainment, and other assorted mindless confectionaries more than ever. Certainly one of the hallmarks of young thinking is to reject what those older than you appreciate/know, but I hope we can shed at least a part of that naïve thinking. As I indicated in a previous post that thinking came to its height around 50 years ago and is nothing more than arrogance sprinkled liberally with ignorance. All humans alive today are a unique fraternity coexisting on Earth for a relatively short time, and to dismiss the hard learned truths of our elders is plainly stupid. Sure all generations have made mistakes, but should we not learn from those mistakes and proofs? Science is the ultimate resource to learn from, and build upon, the knowledge of our forbearers, to do just that.
In this I think Greydon is a great representative of what I hope can be, in my generation. Urban culture, which I separate from rap culture, has many less than academic values, but this certainly does not mean we cannot appreciate an ideal rich in both street and science wisdom. “Street smarts”, which I feel is at the core of much of urban culture, is really quite analogous to science. That may seem to be a weird statement, but think about the 2, base decisions on fact and logic and you will prevail. Perhaps it’s not so crazy…
Basically I’m glad to see public advocates of “popular youth culture” (a stuffy term, I agree), such as Greydon, refusing to relegate themselves to worldly ignorance. Such ignorance may not be a fair label to put on street culture, but it tends to be the stereotype from where I’m sitting. This is not about your Chemistry professor trying to “hip it up”, and get “jiggy” (WTF?) while teaching endothermic reactions. This is about young culture becoming more than what your crappy guidance councilor thought you would by knowing/learning what works. Psychics, pseudoscience, and the like don’t work. Scientific method does work, and all you really need is the resulting evidence.
This is why episode 120 was certainly one of my favorites. Sure I’m biased to appreciate a more youthful take on the realities of skeptical/scientific thinking, but I also believe this is truly important. Increasingly in our young demographics we are consuming celebrity train wreck gossip, empty entertainment, and other assorted mindless confectionaries more than ever. Certainly one of the hallmarks of young thinking is to reject what those older than you appreciate/know, but I hope we can shed at least a part of that naïve thinking. As I indicated in a previous post that thinking came to its height around 50 years ago and is nothing more than arrogance sprinkled liberally with ignorance. All humans alive today are a unique fraternity coexisting on Earth for a relatively short time, and to dismiss the hard learned truths of our elders is plainly stupid. Sure all generations have made mistakes, but should we not learn from those mistakes and proofs? Science is the ultimate resource to learn from, and build upon, the knowledge of our forbearers, to do just that.
In this I think Greydon is a great representative of what I hope can be, in my generation. Urban culture, which I separate from rap culture, has many less than academic values, but this certainly does not mean we cannot appreciate an ideal rich in both street and science wisdom. “Street smarts”, which I feel is at the core of much of urban culture, is really quite analogous to science. That may seem to be a weird statement, but think about the 2, base decisions on fact and logic and you will prevail. Perhaps it’s not so crazy…
Basically I’m glad to see public advocates of “popular youth culture” (a stuffy term, I agree), such as Greydon, refusing to relegate themselves to worldly ignorance. Such ignorance may not be a fair label to put on street culture, but it tends to be the stereotype from where I’m sitting. This is not about your Chemistry professor trying to “hip it up”, and get “jiggy” (WTF?) while teaching endothermic reactions. This is about young culture becoming more than what your crappy guidance councilor thought you would by knowing/learning what works. Psychics, pseudoscience, and the like don’t work. Scientific method does work, and all you really need is the resulting evidence.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Children of Baby Boomers
Yesterday I noticed an article by Debbie Schlussel, a fairly well known writer on political manners and the like. I found this particular article interesting because it was opining on the selfish nature of the Baby Boomer generation. I, as a guy in his mid-twenties, am not likely to be intimately aware of the societal differences between each successive generation as they of age to call the shots, simply because I have only lived through roughly 1 ½ generations in the societal driver’s seat. Specifically what she was getting at in this article was the apparently huge decrease in saving by Baby Boomers during retirement, money which would most likely be passed on as inheritance. Some may see this as selfish while others may see this as simply living life to the fullest, but I must admit I fall somewhere in the middle. I am as capitalistic as any guy out there- what you’ve earned is yours, but I do see the selfish component. To me it’s not necessarily the passing of large sums of money but the traditional values which have [or haven’t] also passed from parent to children. Frankly I don’t care if the Boomers pass on more than the historical average or not, but what I do care about is the loss of those values.
The way in which my semi-logical brain works, inheritance should almost certainly be passed down if your parents left inheritance to you. The matching of intergenerational values (monetary in this sense) seems to be the most important to me; simply if I received a certain allocation of inheritance from my parents, it would only be right to attempt to embrace those same values in planning for my children’s inheritance. It’s not really the money I’m thinking about in this example, but the core traditions and values each family has garnered generation upon generation being tossed out the window in a scant lifetime.
All this leads me into something I have thought quite a bit about in the past 5 or so years. When I take a look at the world around me, which in my case is 99.99% an American point of view, I see a society at large who has lost its traditions. Why were these traditions lost, and who did the losing you might ask? In my naïve sense of my society, it seems to have been the Boomers. We all know the larger history of the 1960s and early 1970s, as well as the societal upheaval spawned in that period, but I don’t think many consider the losses- things we lost as a society and a people. Without a doubt many important and forward thinking ideas and concepts were created, accepted, and/or made into law during this time, but we lost the meaning of a family. In my mind a people who make up a country, or larger society, are quite lost without a family and the traditions inherent to a family.
In the very late ‘40s and ‘50s the US was a country returning from the largest war ever known on the planet. When home these men and women’s worldview and lives had change dramatically, and in a play to return to a stable environment they created a somewhat neo-Victorian society. We all have a fairly good idea of what the “up tight” society of this time was like, clichés included. The rare reader of this article may have even lived through that time (ok wishful thinking). Now, if there is one thing children are quite good at, it’s rebellion, through both action and philosophy, and lo and behold there happened to be a very large generation of children newly born to take this rebellion to heart.
The obvious result of this rebellion can been found in history books, law, and personal conversation, so we have a very good idea just what became of this rebellious activity. Those results were the loss of the nuclear family, the clichéd family existing somewhere in the white bread American ether with 2.2 kids, a working father, and a homemaker mother. This idea of so-called suburban paradise doesn’t sound totally enticing to me, but the inherent values of that system do sort of sound pleasant these days when we idolize no-talent girls for slutty behavior and mimic a gangsta culture (mostly in a stupid faux sort of way, but still). The loss of these values has put our society on a course to love the famous and the infamous in identical manners. Why does this now happen? Why do we idolize trainwrecks instead of ability/talent? I think that’s summed up in the lost values of our “intimate support network”, also known as a family. When parents make the decisions to treat their kids as adults because it’s wrong to lie about Santa Claus and where babies comes from, the natural result is a child with wildly different values than his grandparents. When dinner is never spent together at the table, and is instead in front of the TV, the child’s values simply change. Maybe you see what I mean; I doubt I have to give every typical example of our society’s less than spectacular family norms to demonstrate my point.Quite simply put, children are raised in an environment which is much changed from that of previous generations. Obviously I am no social scientist, but this issue doesn’t seem to require a Ph.D. in any subject to see cause and effect- sweeping changes occurred to an earlier generation and now its children are living in a much different culture. Sure, technology has changed our lives, but shouldn’t parents be doing the job to keep their children appropriately exposed to such devices? Particularly TV, internet, video games, etc in lieu of more growth oriented endeavors like conversation, reading, and sports. Don’t get me wrong, I love all these things just as much as anyone, and not for 1 second do I believe those things are the root cause of these issues. Instead I think the issues are related to ways in which we treat children and adults regarding these things. They’ve only acted as tools to accelerate the changing ideals and culture. Children’s emotional growth has been accelerated immensely, to the point where they cannot properly handle certain responsibilities/requirements put on them.
So how do I get to finger pointing over the death of the family unit from retirement/inheritance savings? I think it’s related in ways which are more than minor or simply coincidental. The job of parenting was done in a much more laissez-faire manner, leaving kids to deal directly with realities of life. Why would Boomers do anything differently in death? The kids will learn as they go, using what they can scavenge, just as they did when they were schoolchildren.
***
I don’t want to sound as if I am outright blaming the Baby Boomer generation for all societal ills around us currently. I only seek to work out the causal nature of our society, specifically identifying the nodal/shift points in our societal values. Perhaps the changes were inevitable and were simply embraced in such a manner by this arbitrary generation. To me it’s more about improvement than blame, and obviously the dynamics are intrinsically limited coming from the (naïve?) POV of a 20-something. As long as there is thought on causal outcomes I’m pleased.
The way in which my semi-logical brain works, inheritance should almost certainly be passed down if your parents left inheritance to you. The matching of intergenerational values (monetary in this sense) seems to be the most important to me; simply if I received a certain allocation of inheritance from my parents, it would only be right to attempt to embrace those same values in planning for my children’s inheritance. It’s not really the money I’m thinking about in this example, but the core traditions and values each family has garnered generation upon generation being tossed out the window in a scant lifetime.
All this leads me into something I have thought quite a bit about in the past 5 or so years. When I take a look at the world around me, which in my case is 99.99% an American point of view, I see a society at large who has lost its traditions. Why were these traditions lost, and who did the losing you might ask? In my naïve sense of my society, it seems to have been the Boomers. We all know the larger history of the 1960s and early 1970s, as well as the societal upheaval spawned in that period, but I don’t think many consider the losses- things we lost as a society and a people. Without a doubt many important and forward thinking ideas and concepts were created, accepted, and/or made into law during this time, but we lost the meaning of a family. In my mind a people who make up a country, or larger society, are quite lost without a family and the traditions inherent to a family.
In the very late ‘40s and ‘50s the US was a country returning from the largest war ever known on the planet. When home these men and women’s worldview and lives had change dramatically, and in a play to return to a stable environment they created a somewhat neo-Victorian society. We all have a fairly good idea of what the “up tight” society of this time was like, clichés included. The rare reader of this article may have even lived through that time (ok wishful thinking). Now, if there is one thing children are quite good at, it’s rebellion, through both action and philosophy, and lo and behold there happened to be a very large generation of children newly born to take this rebellion to heart.
The obvious result of this rebellion can been found in history books, law, and personal conversation, so we have a very good idea just what became of this rebellious activity. Those results were the loss of the nuclear family, the clichéd family existing somewhere in the white bread American ether with 2.2 kids, a working father, and a homemaker mother. This idea of so-called suburban paradise doesn’t sound totally enticing to me, but the inherent values of that system do sort of sound pleasant these days when we idolize no-talent girls for slutty behavior and mimic a gangsta culture (mostly in a stupid faux sort of way, but still). The loss of these values has put our society on a course to love the famous and the infamous in identical manners. Why does this now happen? Why do we idolize trainwrecks instead of ability/talent? I think that’s summed up in the lost values of our “intimate support network”, also known as a family. When parents make the decisions to treat their kids as adults because it’s wrong to lie about Santa Claus and where babies comes from, the natural result is a child with wildly different values than his grandparents. When dinner is never spent together at the table, and is instead in front of the TV, the child’s values simply change. Maybe you see what I mean; I doubt I have to give every typical example of our society’s less than spectacular family norms to demonstrate my point.Quite simply put, children are raised in an environment which is much changed from that of previous generations. Obviously I am no social scientist, but this issue doesn’t seem to require a Ph.D. in any subject to see cause and effect- sweeping changes occurred to an earlier generation and now its children are living in a much different culture. Sure, technology has changed our lives, but shouldn’t parents be doing the job to keep their children appropriately exposed to such devices? Particularly TV, internet, video games, etc in lieu of more growth oriented endeavors like conversation, reading, and sports. Don’t get me wrong, I love all these things just as much as anyone, and not for 1 second do I believe those things are the root cause of these issues. Instead I think the issues are related to ways in which we treat children and adults regarding these things. They’ve only acted as tools to accelerate the changing ideals and culture. Children’s emotional growth has been accelerated immensely, to the point where they cannot properly handle certain responsibilities/requirements put on them.
So how do I get to finger pointing over the death of the family unit from retirement/inheritance savings? I think it’s related in ways which are more than minor or simply coincidental. The job of parenting was done in a much more laissez-faire manner, leaving kids to deal directly with realities of life. Why would Boomers do anything differently in death? The kids will learn as they go, using what they can scavenge, just as they did when they were schoolchildren.
***
I don’t want to sound as if I am outright blaming the Baby Boomer generation for all societal ills around us currently. I only seek to work out the causal nature of our society, specifically identifying the nodal/shift points in our societal values. Perhaps the changes were inevitable and were simply embraced in such a manner by this arbitrary generation. To me it’s more about improvement than blame, and obviously the dynamics are intrinsically limited coming from the (naïve?) POV of a 20-something. As long as there is thought on causal outcomes I’m pleased.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
ISP Injected Ads
Ever heard of DPI (not in printers or scanners), or probably less likely, ISNS? If you are familiar with the Net Neutrality thing you probably know DPI = Deep Packet Inspection, something which most of us are less than enthusiastic about. Please understand I am no Net Neutrality expert, but I have a passing knowledge of DPI, mostly related to ISPs utilizing this concept to layer packets (downloads) coming through their web servers (generally from P2P which fill up their pipes very readily). Now, this ISNS thing is straight from your favorite Canadian cable ISP, Rogers, and their “in-browser marketing” firm, PerfTech.
ISNS (Internet Subscriber Notification System) is this nifty little function Rogers is testing which utilizes JavaScript to inject information into third party web pages, apparently without the knowledge or consent of those sites' owners. Check out this screen capture of ISNS in action, thanks to Lauren Weinstein’s Blog. What the hell happened to Google’s nice, clean look? ISNS happened to it. Can anyone out there really say they think this won’t be used for advertisement purposes in the near future? Sure the thing allows users to choose not to see the messages in the future, but I think it’s safe to assume the ads won’t have that feature readily/commonly available.
This is just another example of ISPs using their location between you and the web sites to maximum commercial advantage. Comcast has already drawn plenty of negative press from their apparent DPI choke hold on download traffic (P2P, torrents, etc), and you can be sure if this slips through our grasp at least 1 large US ISP will soon be jumping into the game as well. Want to check the weather? Well how about you learn about these great weight loss pills! Oh, and you are visitor 999,999,999… lucky you.
***
More from ars technica.
ISNS (Internet Subscriber Notification System) is this nifty little function Rogers is testing which utilizes JavaScript to inject information into third party web pages, apparently without the knowledge or consent of those sites' owners. Check out this screen capture of ISNS in action, thanks to Lauren Weinstein’s Blog. What the hell happened to Google’s nice, clean look? ISNS happened to it. Can anyone out there really say they think this won’t be used for advertisement purposes in the near future? Sure the thing allows users to choose not to see the messages in the future, but I think it’s safe to assume the ads won’t have that feature readily/commonly available.
This is just another example of ISPs using their location between you and the web sites to maximum commercial advantage. Comcast has already drawn plenty of negative press from their apparent DPI choke hold on download traffic (P2P, torrents, etc), and you can be sure if this slips through our grasp at least 1 large US ISP will soon be jumping into the game as well. Want to check the weather? Well how about you learn about these great weight loss pills! Oh, and you are visitor 999,999,999… lucky you.
***
More from ars technica.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Top Gear: This Is Why I'm Hot
I've been a fan of the BBC's Top Gear for some time now. What else could you ask for in a segment like this?
If you are at all interested in cars, both exotic and typical, check out Top Gear (BBC America for us in the States) if you haven't already. At the very least because they crashed a ridiculously fast and supremely expensive car in a test lap.
If you are at all interested in cars, both exotic and typical, check out Top Gear (BBC America for us in the States) if you haven't already. At the very least because they crashed a ridiculously fast and supremely expensive car in a test lap.
What Should I Read Next?
What Should I Read Next allows you to enter the books you’ve already read and provides suggestions accordingly. I can’t say I’ve built my list up very well yet, but I’m curious to enter 10 or 15 more and see what it makes of my reading habits. What recommendations come from William Gibson, Bret Easton Ellis and Hemingway? I do see this as an interesting tool for readers whose friends aren’t exactly the literary sort. I have friends who can read, they apparently choose not to do so. This leaves me with precious few peers from whom I can glean recommendations, and perhaps most powerfully, the mystical tubes of the internets.
In the past few years I have been especially reliant on lists and Amazon reviews/recommendations, which have been better to me than I might have guessed beforehand. From my research the most premier list of novels is the Modern Library’s 100 Best Novels. I can dig The Board’s List just about as much as anyone can when it comes to these “top whatever” lists, but I must say I am far less in agreement with The Reader’s List. Do we really need that much Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard in the top 10? Either I missed something with Rand or simply haven’t joined the right science fiction based religion…
***
As quick note, I hope any readers out there from my generation never shy away from speaking with the “older folks” about classic/good books. It’s the same old story in that there are so many other distractions for the younger demographic that discussions on books seem to be less prevalent (or acceptable?). Don’t underestimate the opinions of your parents’ or grandparents’ generations as many of my favorite books first made a splash during their day. Just because none of your Twitter homeboys are intimately familiar with a 90 year old book doesn’t mean it’s not worth reading.
In the past few years I have been especially reliant on lists and Amazon reviews/recommendations, which have been better to me than I might have guessed beforehand. From my research the most premier list of novels is the Modern Library’s 100 Best Novels. I can dig The Board’s List just about as much as anyone can when it comes to these “top whatever” lists, but I must say I am far less in agreement with The Reader’s List. Do we really need that much Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard in the top 10? Either I missed something with Rand or simply haven’t joined the right science fiction based religion…
***
As quick note, I hope any readers out there from my generation never shy away from speaking with the “older folks” about classic/good books. It’s the same old story in that there are so many other distractions for the younger demographic that discussions on books seem to be less prevalent (or acceptable?). Don’t underestimate the opinions of your parents’ or grandparents’ generations as many of my favorite books first made a splash during their day. Just because none of your Twitter homeboys are intimately familiar with a 90 year old book doesn’t mean it’s not worth reading.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Heavy Metal = Dean's List?
In reading an article a few months ago I was surprised to find a link between “heavy metal” and so called gifted children. I say surprised not because I was actually surprised to find a link between the 2 (I had noticed it anecdotally in my friends), but more so because I assumed it was in some way by which I chose my friends and acquaintances. Basically if I chose different people to talk with, that link wouldn’t exist in my mind.
From the age of 13 or so, each time I heard a new heavy guitar riff on the radio or in a friend’s collection, I had to hear more. This is where your friend’s older stepbrother comes in as that revered conduit of “older society” which so drives your young mind. I can say Metallica’s Enter Sandman and White Zombie’s More Human than Human were my first loves in this way. Sure they aren’t shining examples of the complexities of the harder genres of music, but damn those sounds connected me to something in my soul that I never discovered sitting in church next to my mother. Somehow I felt understood through those sawing and screaming guitars, in all their minor key glory. They alone got straight to the core of my anger and fears.
Later on in high school, college, and corporate life I began to see this link every now and again. The directory shares from my college days, and now the office, are a good example. Most of the more technically minded folks (read: programmers) are as into “the hard stuff” as I am. This is not to say there isn’t a fairly nice variety of artists and genres, hell I have Mozart right next to Machine Head.
Anyway, back to the study. These guys point out the gifted child will be more receptive to the hard edges of metal because they understand the complex world around them at an earlier age. The music provides an outlet for the aggression they feel, viewing the hypocrisy and negativity in the adult world. This seems to make perfect sense to me being that these children generally thought of as well mannered, and it seems logical they would have a private outlet for emotion, a method by which these emotions can be expressed without the risk of disrupting their achievements. What self respecting gifted child needs the burden of breaking out in tears during homeroom or involuntarily sucker punching Grandma in an uncontrolled fit of raw emotion?
In the interest of pure scientific analysis I must point out the percentages in these studies really don’t appear staggering. Perhaps the link is more than statistical noise within the study and frankly I’m good with that for now. The link between Scandinavian Death Metal and full-on Einstein genius surely can’t be far away, corpse paint and everything. In the end I’m probably just attempting to justify my Static-X, Chevelle, and Mudvayne listening habits. Maybe I’m just hoping we can accept those bands as we do Radiohead (which I do enjoy at times). Just remember at least metal heads aren’t looking to blatantly advertise their emotions as the emo thing did for its fans. Heavy metal growls, “I’m conflicted about my place in the world”, but emo whines, “I’m conflicted but mostly I need to tell you about the constant pain of living”. I don’t have to spell out which is better for society. (It’s metal)
From the age of 13 or so, each time I heard a new heavy guitar riff on the radio or in a friend’s collection, I had to hear more. This is where your friend’s older stepbrother comes in as that revered conduit of “older society” which so drives your young mind. I can say Metallica’s Enter Sandman and White Zombie’s More Human than Human were my first loves in this way. Sure they aren’t shining examples of the complexities of the harder genres of music, but damn those sounds connected me to something in my soul that I never discovered sitting in church next to my mother. Somehow I felt understood through those sawing and screaming guitars, in all their minor key glory. They alone got straight to the core of my anger and fears.
Later on in high school, college, and corporate life I began to see this link every now and again. The directory shares from my college days, and now the office, are a good example. Most of the more technically minded folks (read: programmers) are as into “the hard stuff” as I am. This is not to say there isn’t a fairly nice variety of artists and genres, hell I have Mozart right next to Machine Head.
Anyway, back to the study. These guys point out the gifted child will be more receptive to the hard edges of metal because they understand the complex world around them at an earlier age. The music provides an outlet for the aggression they feel, viewing the hypocrisy and negativity in the adult world. This seems to make perfect sense to me being that these children generally thought of as well mannered, and it seems logical they would have a private outlet for emotion, a method by which these emotions can be expressed without the risk of disrupting their achievements. What self respecting gifted child needs the burden of breaking out in tears during homeroom or involuntarily sucker punching Grandma in an uncontrolled fit of raw emotion?
In the interest of pure scientific analysis I must point out the percentages in these studies really don’t appear staggering. Perhaps the link is more than statistical noise within the study and frankly I’m good with that for now. The link between Scandinavian Death Metal and full-on Einstein genius surely can’t be far away, corpse paint and everything. In the end I’m probably just attempting to justify my Static-X, Chevelle, and Mudvayne listening habits. Maybe I’m just hoping we can accept those bands as we do Radiohead (which I do enjoy at times). Just remember at least metal heads aren’t looking to blatantly advertise their emotions as the emo thing did for its fans. Heavy metal growls, “I’m conflicted about my place in the world”, but emo whines, “I’m conflicted but mostly I need to tell you about the constant pain of living”. I don’t have to spell out which is better for society. (It’s metal)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
