Here is some funny standup about Merkins and talking about the private part wigs
http://ia310834.us.archive.org/1/items/WhatUseIsAMerkin/Standup-Murkins_64kb.mp3
This is a clip from Hosks Half Hour the comedy podcast that everyone is listening to but no one has heard of
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Could National thought day solve all our problems?
I was thinking about thinking today, a dangerous never ending loop of thought if ever there was one. I was thinking of the vagaries and fortune that often assisted people with new theories, the holistic knowledge needed to create and then develop theories and ideas.
Knowledge in the human species is a cumulative knowledge, most and probably all the new thinking today is built upon the foundations of our ancestor’s knowledge. So you could say we our better informed thanks to the thoughts, ideas and studies of the previous generations. I would say the current ideas have evolved in a Darwinian manner; leading ideas are improved and developed whilst other disproved or unpopular ideas are left to whither and die.
Even with the cumulative knowledge we still need flashes of insight because although in the long term knowledge on different topics is a smooth progression; a close look at the graph will show sudden explosions of knowledge followed by some rapid growth and then a tailing off to only small increases until we have another spike. The spike and sudden leap in the graph or in knowledge of a subject is caused by someone thinking about the topic or problem in a different way than the previous thoughts on the subject.
The spikes often seemed to be arrived at by people bringing in ideas and knowledge from different areas such as music, experiences and more often or not luck.
Let’s first think about penicillin, this discovery came about because a Petri dish had been left out because Alexander Fleming was a messy lab technician, which makes me feel better whilst I type this at my messy desk, it his described in more detail by wikipedia
"When I woke up just after dawn on September 28, 1928, I certainly didn't plan to revolutionize all medicine by discovering the world's first antibiotic, or bacteria killer," Fleming would later say, "But I guess that was exactly what I did."
By 1928, Fleming was investigating the properties of staphylococci. He was already well-known from his earlier work, and had developed a reputation as a brilliant researcher, but quite a careless lab technician; he often forgot cultures that he worked on, and his lab in general was usually in chaos. After returning from a long holiday, Fleming noticed that many of his culture dishes were contaminated with a fungus, and he threw the dishes in disinfectant. But subsequently, he had to show a visitor what he had been researching, and so he retrieved some of the unsubmerged dishes that he would have otherwise discarded. He then noticed a zone around an invading fungus where the bacteria could not seem to grow. Fleming proceeded to isolate an extract from the mould, correctly identified it as being from the Penicillium genus, and therefore named the agent penicillin.”
There is also Isaac Newton who was inspired by being struck by an apple and then suddenly coming up with the idea for the Universal Law of Gravitation. I’m not sure whether it’s bad luck which has prevented a similar apple from hitting me on the head or perhaps a similar apple or another sort of fruit or object has struck me on the head but I didn’t have the other knowledge for it to cultivate a world changing theory.
My favourite story is Archimedes who whilst thinking about how to measure the weight of the kings gold ring whilst in the bath realised an object plunged into liquid, in this case his dirty body becomes lighter by an amount equal to the weight of liquid it displaces, according to folklore Archimedes then leapt out of the bath naked and ran around the streets shouting “Eureka!”.
We have all taken baths and I am sure many of us have had inspiration to solve problems but Archimedes found the solution to his problem of finding the weight and quality of the kings gold rings by bringing in knowledge or thoughts from everyday life and his personal hygiene to help him solve a problem he was having. Would Archimedes come to this solution without thinking about it in the bath, who knows but it was a mixture of fortune and intelligence which lead him to the solution. The inspiration for his new thought came from mixing his knowledge of two different areas, well not knowledge but usage of the bath in this case.
I remember reading about a discovery but have forgotten what it was and who it was but the person was trying to understand a pattern he could see in there results. This person was also a musician and he realised the pattern he saw was the same as the music scale he was practising whilst learning to play the piano. His musical knowledge helped him find the pattern and come up with a new analysis of his results, although I can’t remember it and this last paragraph seem a bit useless, what I am trying to emphasis is it’s often the patterns and knowledge of other areas that help us organise and understand items in other unrelated areas.
Knowing musical scales, mathematical theories, the double helix structure, business selling strategies, having a bath or being hit on the head by some fruit, it’s often having the unrelated knowledge which prompts some people to view problems in a different way to someone who doesn't have that knowledge. The problem occurs that you might the unrelated knowledge without using it on a problem where that knowledge would be insightful.
It is with this idea in mind that I think we should have a national thought day, where many people turn their thoughts to a problem or theory and write down their ideas on the subject. This in many ways is what happens today but the different thoughts come through people writing essays, books, TV and radio shows and then the people who read these ideas have ideas of their own but based on the new knowledge and their own individual thoughts based and influenced on the holistic knowledge of their brain.
Writing books, publishing essays and presenting ideas in other formats can take a long time because people spend extra time on the presentation of such ideas rather than the content. New ideas are often worth a lot of money, especially if you are trying to sell a book with your new idea in. Sometimes people don't want to collaborate with someone because it would dilute the monetary value of the idea.
Forgetting about the money or the prestige of having an idea first, in terms of creating new ideas or views on subjects then I think we should have a national thought day, what if we told the whole of the UK for today think about solutions for Global warming. Or is the mind linked to consciousness, how can improve education in England,
In general the usefulness of people’s ideas will be influenced by the depth of the knowledge they have on the subject, more informed people on a topic will be able to give a more in-depth thoughts and ideas. Yet it could be the people with different backgrounds and mixture of experience and knowledge that come up with the spike idea, the new thought on the subject which leads to the graph of knowledge spiking up.
It might need someone with a knowledge of the optimal soil configuration for mushroom growth to shed light on how to increase learning capacity of the brain or a guitar playing marine biologist studying sea horses (if they study sea horses) who comes up with the idea of how to cure aids.
I say put up the problems and let everyone put a thought towards it because I think somewhere there will be someone who has an individual collection of experiences and knowledge which will lead that person to come up with an idea the rest of us wouldn’t.
I also have a comedy podcast which needs listening to - Hosks Half Hour
Knowledge in the human species is a cumulative knowledge, most and probably all the new thinking today is built upon the foundations of our ancestor’s knowledge. So you could say we our better informed thanks to the thoughts, ideas and studies of the previous generations. I would say the current ideas have evolved in a Darwinian manner; leading ideas are improved and developed whilst other disproved or unpopular ideas are left to whither and die.
Even with the cumulative knowledge we still need flashes of insight because although in the long term knowledge on different topics is a smooth progression; a close look at the graph will show sudden explosions of knowledge followed by some rapid growth and then a tailing off to only small increases until we have another spike. The spike and sudden leap in the graph or in knowledge of a subject is caused by someone thinking about the topic or problem in a different way than the previous thoughts on the subject.
The spikes often seemed to be arrived at by people bringing in ideas and knowledge from different areas such as music, experiences and more often or not luck.
Let’s first think about penicillin, this discovery came about because a Petri dish had been left out because Alexander Fleming was a messy lab technician, which makes me feel better whilst I type this at my messy desk, it his described in more detail by wikipedia
"When I woke up just after dawn on September 28, 1928, I certainly didn't plan to revolutionize all medicine by discovering the world's first antibiotic, or bacteria killer," Fleming would later say, "But I guess that was exactly what I did."
By 1928, Fleming was investigating the properties of staphylococci. He was already well-known from his earlier work, and had developed a reputation as a brilliant researcher, but quite a careless lab technician; he often forgot cultures that he worked on, and his lab in general was usually in chaos. After returning from a long holiday, Fleming noticed that many of his culture dishes were contaminated with a fungus, and he threw the dishes in disinfectant. But subsequently, he had to show a visitor what he had been researching, and so he retrieved some of the unsubmerged dishes that he would have otherwise discarded. He then noticed a zone around an invading fungus where the bacteria could not seem to grow. Fleming proceeded to isolate an extract from the mould, correctly identified it as being from the Penicillium genus, and therefore named the agent penicillin.”
There is also Isaac Newton who was inspired by being struck by an apple and then suddenly coming up with the idea for the Universal Law of Gravitation. I’m not sure whether it’s bad luck which has prevented a similar apple from hitting me on the head or perhaps a similar apple or another sort of fruit or object has struck me on the head but I didn’t have the other knowledge for it to cultivate a world changing theory.
My favourite story is Archimedes who whilst thinking about how to measure the weight of the kings gold ring whilst in the bath realised an object plunged into liquid, in this case his dirty body becomes lighter by an amount equal to the weight of liquid it displaces, according to folklore Archimedes then leapt out of the bath naked and ran around the streets shouting “Eureka!”.
We have all taken baths and I am sure many of us have had inspiration to solve problems but Archimedes found the solution to his problem of finding the weight and quality of the kings gold rings by bringing in knowledge or thoughts from everyday life and his personal hygiene to help him solve a problem he was having. Would Archimedes come to this solution without thinking about it in the bath, who knows but it was a mixture of fortune and intelligence which lead him to the solution. The inspiration for his new thought came from mixing his knowledge of two different areas, well not knowledge but usage of the bath in this case.
I remember reading about a discovery but have forgotten what it was and who it was but the person was trying to understand a pattern he could see in there results. This person was also a musician and he realised the pattern he saw was the same as the music scale he was practising whilst learning to play the piano. His musical knowledge helped him find the pattern and come up with a new analysis of his results, although I can’t remember it and this last paragraph seem a bit useless, what I am trying to emphasis is it’s often the patterns and knowledge of other areas that help us organise and understand items in other unrelated areas.
Knowing musical scales, mathematical theories, the double helix structure, business selling strategies, having a bath or being hit on the head by some fruit, it’s often having the unrelated knowledge which prompts some people to view problems in a different way to someone who doesn't have that knowledge. The problem occurs that you might the unrelated knowledge without using it on a problem where that knowledge would be insightful.
It is with this idea in mind that I think we should have a national thought day, where many people turn their thoughts to a problem or theory and write down their ideas on the subject. This in many ways is what happens today but the different thoughts come through people writing essays, books, TV and radio shows and then the people who read these ideas have ideas of their own but based on the new knowledge and their own individual thoughts based and influenced on the holistic knowledge of their brain.
Writing books, publishing essays and presenting ideas in other formats can take a long time because people spend extra time on the presentation of such ideas rather than the content. New ideas are often worth a lot of money, especially if you are trying to sell a book with your new idea in. Sometimes people don't want to collaborate with someone because it would dilute the monetary value of the idea.
Forgetting about the money or the prestige of having an idea first, in terms of creating new ideas or views on subjects then I think we should have a national thought day, what if we told the whole of the UK for today think about solutions for Global warming. Or is the mind linked to consciousness, how can improve education in England,
In general the usefulness of people’s ideas will be influenced by the depth of the knowledge they have on the subject, more informed people on a topic will be able to give a more in-depth thoughts and ideas. Yet it could be the people with different backgrounds and mixture of experience and knowledge that come up with the spike idea, the new thought on the subject which leads to the graph of knowledge spiking up.
It might need someone with a knowledge of the optimal soil configuration for mushroom growth to shed light on how to increase learning capacity of the brain or a guitar playing marine biologist studying sea horses (if they study sea horses) who comes up with the idea of how to cure aids.
I say put up the problems and let everyone put a thought towards it because I think somewhere there will be someone who has an individual collection of experiences and knowledge which will lead that person to come up with an idea the rest of us wouldn’t.
I also have a comedy podcast which needs listening to - Hosks Half Hour
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Why is laughter contagious?
I was thinking about laughing today, I have noticed that when I am recording contents for my comedy podcast I am often laughing at the daft stuff I am or have just said.
The reason I was thinking about laughing because I was thinking about the funny clip of two BBC cricket commentators Brian Johnson and Jonathan Agnew laughing when commentating at the oval. The commentators start cracking up with laughter and go all high pitched. You can find the clip here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/fungames/audio/legover.mp3
I find it impossible not to start laughing when I hear this clip, despite knowing exactly what is going to happen, once they say he couldn’t get his leg over, that’s it they can’t go on, struggle for a bit and then start laughing and once one of them starts the other can't stop himself. It makes me laugh just thinking about it.
Ricky Gervais often does this on his podcasts and interviews, the sound of Gervais’s high pitched laughing often makes me laugh regardless if what he is actually saying is funny.
When you think about this, it is in some ways disturbing, it seems laughing is contagious. I have heard this theory mentioned by Malcolm Gladwell in his book the Tipping point. This lead me to think about my own podcast, Ricky Gervais and the excellent cricket commentary clip.
What this contagious laughing indicates is a couple of points
1. Laughing is contagious; if someone else laughs you might too.
2. you don’t even have to hear or know what they are laughing at to join in
3. laughing isn’t always a response of hearing, reading or seeing something funny
The above points may explain why people enjoy watching comedians perform live. I have often been to a comedian and then the next day someone asked me if it was good, Yes I would say but then I couldn’t recall anything funny the comedian said. The of course could be due to my poor memory but maybe it wasn’t all that funny but the fact everyone else was laughing caused me to laugh as well.
I am not saying that comedians just rely on a few people laughing to start a laughing wave and then they don’t have to worry about saying anything else funny but I am saying having lots of people laughing will definitely encourage other people to laugh regardless of the quality of the material.
The mirror has included a list of TV and radio stars who couldn’t stop laughing, if only they included the links to the clips
So what is laughing and is it any good for us, this is one of those topics I wonder how humans would explain laughter to aliens, perhaps they already beamed down to earth and found a bunch of humans laughing and got back in their space ships thinking we aren’t ready to meet them yet, anyway I found a description of laughing here
“When we laugh, the brain pressures us to simultaneously make gestures and sounds. Fifteen facial muscles contract, the larynx becomes half-closed so that we breathe irregularly, which can makes us gasp for air, and sometimes, the tear ducts become activated (1). Nerves sent to the brain trigger electrical impulses to set off chemical reactions. These reactions release natural tranquilizers, pain relievers and endorphins (2). “
I have to admit it doesn’t sound as much when you see it written down in such a clinical manner. This article has some interesting facts, like 80% of laughter isn’t based on humour. It also states speakers laugh 46% more than listeners, although this is 97.5% false when you investigate the laughter speaker to listener level of my podcast, which I have selfishness not mentioned for a few paragraphs, although writing that did make me laugh and probably not you.
I love statistics and this article is chock full of odd and intriguing statistics. Humans laugh on average 17 times a day! And some researchers who presumable are avoiding doing any real work, theorise laughing 100 times a day is the equivalent of doing a 15 minutes of exercise.
The baffling figures they pluck out of the air is impressive for the definitive numbers which I would multiply with a uselessness factor of 3.5 to come to the conclusion I would also like to be someone who spent his time coming up with such statistics.
So scientists think laughter is contagious, I think laughter is contagious so all is good in the world. Laughter it seems is also good for you and is like doing a workout, well bring on the laughter diet.
The amazing fact these ideas seem to indicate is all we need to do is just laugh more, we don’t have to be funny or read funny things or even see anything funny. The only thing we have to do to laugh more is decide to laugh, by laughing you will trigger someone else laughing whose laughter will bounce back making you laugh and none of you will know why. If anyone else comes into your laughter zone they will then start laughing as well.
The results of this will be increased happiness, healthy body, positive feelings, endorphins released and you will all feel a whole lot better with the only downside is your face might ache a bit but when you are all laughing your aching face will probably seem funny.
So get laughing and if you need any help, did I mention I have a funny podcast full of laughing and you know what listening to laughing does to you
Hosks Half Hour - http://hoskshalfhour.blogspot.com/
The reason I was thinking about laughing because I was thinking about the funny clip of two BBC cricket commentators Brian Johnson and Jonathan Agnew laughing when commentating at the oval. The commentators start cracking up with laughter and go all high pitched. You can find the clip here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/fungames/audio/legover.mp3
I find it impossible not to start laughing when I hear this clip, despite knowing exactly what is going to happen, once they say he couldn’t get his leg over, that’s it they can’t go on, struggle for a bit and then start laughing and once one of them starts the other can't stop himself. It makes me laugh just thinking about it.
Ricky Gervais often does this on his podcasts and interviews, the sound of Gervais’s high pitched laughing often makes me laugh regardless if what he is actually saying is funny.
When you think about this, it is in some ways disturbing, it seems laughing is contagious. I have heard this theory mentioned by Malcolm Gladwell in his book the Tipping point. This lead me to think about my own podcast, Ricky Gervais and the excellent cricket commentary clip.
What this contagious laughing indicates is a couple of points
1. Laughing is contagious; if someone else laughs you might too.
2. you don’t even have to hear or know what they are laughing at to join in
3. laughing isn’t always a response of hearing, reading or seeing something funny
The above points may explain why people enjoy watching comedians perform live. I have often been to a comedian and then the next day someone asked me if it was good, Yes I would say but then I couldn’t recall anything funny the comedian said. The of course could be due to my poor memory but maybe it wasn’t all that funny but the fact everyone else was laughing caused me to laugh as well.
I am not saying that comedians just rely on a few people laughing to start a laughing wave and then they don’t have to worry about saying anything else funny but I am saying having lots of people laughing will definitely encourage other people to laugh regardless of the quality of the material.
The mirror has included a list of TV and radio stars who couldn’t stop laughing, if only they included the links to the clips
So what is laughing and is it any good for us, this is one of those topics I wonder how humans would explain laughter to aliens, perhaps they already beamed down to earth and found a bunch of humans laughing and got back in their space ships thinking we aren’t ready to meet them yet, anyway I found a description of laughing here
“When we laugh, the brain pressures us to simultaneously make gestures and sounds. Fifteen facial muscles contract, the larynx becomes half-closed so that we breathe irregularly, which can makes us gasp for air, and sometimes, the tear ducts become activated (1). Nerves sent to the brain trigger electrical impulses to set off chemical reactions. These reactions release natural tranquilizers, pain relievers and endorphins (2). “
I have to admit it doesn’t sound as much when you see it written down in such a clinical manner. This article has some interesting facts, like 80% of laughter isn’t based on humour. It also states speakers laugh 46% more than listeners, although this is 97.5% false when you investigate the laughter speaker to listener level of my podcast, which I have selfishness not mentioned for a few paragraphs, although writing that did make me laugh and probably not you.
I love statistics and this article is chock full of odd and intriguing statistics. Humans laugh on average 17 times a day! And some researchers who presumable are avoiding doing any real work, theorise laughing 100 times a day is the equivalent of doing a 15 minutes of exercise.
The baffling figures they pluck out of the air is impressive for the definitive numbers which I would multiply with a uselessness factor of 3.5 to come to the conclusion I would also like to be someone who spent his time coming up with such statistics.
So scientists think laughter is contagious, I think laughter is contagious so all is good in the world. Laughter it seems is also good for you and is like doing a workout, well bring on the laughter diet.
The amazing fact these ideas seem to indicate is all we need to do is just laugh more, we don’t have to be funny or read funny things or even see anything funny. The only thing we have to do to laugh more is decide to laugh, by laughing you will trigger someone else laughing whose laughter will bounce back making you laugh and none of you will know why. If anyone else comes into your laughter zone they will then start laughing as well.
The results of this will be increased happiness, healthy body, positive feelings, endorphins released and you will all feel a whole lot better with the only downside is your face might ache a bit but when you are all laughing your aching face will probably seem funny.
So get laughing and if you need any help, did I mention I have a funny podcast full of laughing and you know what listening to laughing does to you
Hosks Half Hour - http://hoskshalfhour.blogspot.com/
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Hosks Half Hour - Episode 51 - Explaining why you should never laugh in public toilets
The Hosks Half hour is back, so get ready to laugh you pants clean off
Episode 51 - why you shouldn't laugh at people in the toilet
Hosk Story
BT stands for Bastards and Twats
BT - Hazaar I'm back baby
SKY - Screwed me big time
Hosk turns light out in toilet
hosk laughing - bus man pissing in bushes
Hosk Standup
The Hosk almost died of a heart attack!
morning time
pinball wizard
Hosk Thought
McGoogan
rubbish breast joke
News nuggets
krypton factor is back!
man trapped in toilet
man punched in face in urinal
songs
green field
this is bass
The Hosk singing to Bon Jovi
Episode 51 - why you shouldn't laugh at people in the toilet
Hosk Story
BT stands for Bastards and Twats
BT - Hazaar I'm back baby
SKY - Screwed me big time
Hosk turns light out in toilet
hosk laughing - bus man pissing in bushes
Hosk Standup
The Hosk almost died of a heart attack!
morning time
pinball wizard
Hosk Thought
McGoogan
rubbish breast joke
News nuggets
krypton factor is back!
man trapped in toilet
man punched in face in urinal
songs
green field
this is bass
The Hosk singing to Bon Jovi
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Monotheism - going from one god to no god in one easy belief
I have been reading some interesting articles today, one leading me onto another. I first started reading about an article by Richard Dawkins after the September 11th attack in 2001, with the title
Stop respecting religion and start submitting it to the same scrutiny as any other idea or argument
actually the first part of the article starts with this
Stop respecting religion and start submitting it to the same scrutiny as any other idea or argument, says Richard Dawkins. And September 11th 2001 makes this scrutiny more urgent than ever...
In the article Dawkins mentions the religion has been the cause of many violent atrocities and conflicts in the world, which always strikes me as incredible odd and something which I can never really understand. Why religion is so intolerant of other religions, in fact why is religion so intolerant of many things and peoples ideas. It always strikes me that religious people I would expect to be the most tolerant and forgiving but always seem to be in the media complaining about things. My comment is probably an inferior rehashing of Dawkins and Gore Vidal and I would recommend you read those articles for a more intelligent discussion of the subjects of religion and Monotheism, read the rest below if you want my thoughts on it.
In the article Dawkins quotes Gore Vidal and his essay - The Great Unmentionable) Monotheism and its Discontents –
This essay by Gore Vidal goes into a good deal of depth about not being able to discuss religion and is well worth reading.
I didn’t know what Monotheism meant so I had to look it up
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monotheism
Monotheism
mon⋅o⋅the⋅ism
[mon-uh-thee-iz-uh m]
–noun
the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.
________________________________________
Origin:
1650–60; MONO- + (poly)theism
The idea of one god always brings a forth intrigue from me, intrigue in what religious people make of this. If there was one religion and everyone believed the same religion with the same god, although I would think this foolish to believe in a god, you would at least give it a bit more credence being based on the fact everyone who believes in god is believing in the same one, some strength in numbers or at least consistency. Basically if everyone who believes in a god all believed in the same god then I could entertain the idea of plausability. The current situation of many different religions and gods seems to contribute to the argument of no god existing.
I myself think Football should be classified as a religion and each team as a different faith because it also is based on illogical, hereditary or environmental (e.g. where you live) conditions.
The fact is there are hundreds of different religions featuring many different gods. This must surely raise a few doubts or questions to religious people, one story about a God creating the world and you doubt it, many stories of different gods creating the world and now you are thinking, well they can’t all be right but how do we know which one is true?
The question of knowing which religion is correct is an impossible one to answer, all the religions are based on faith and not facts. So you could read about all of them but get no nearer the truth.
In the initial article Dawkins focuses on how society is conditioned not to questions religious beliefs and indeed we often tell each other never to discuss religion or politics are you have had a few drinks. The reason why we should discuss these topics is because they are based on faith and not facts, you won’t be able to prove to a religious person God doesn’t exist and in the same way they can’t prove to you he does, so all you have left is a lot of hot air. Politics is based on ideology but it’s difficult to discuss it because it is based on a number of topics with people arguing different and unrelated points, leaving you with more hot air.
Dawkins also mentions an article from the late and great Douglas Adams and his article “is there an artificial God”
The Douglas Adam article I recommend reading because it’s humorous, thoughtful and informative, a delicious mix.
So I will finish with thinking about the new word I have learnt Monotheism, the belief there is only one god. How do religious people come to terms with this, they must realise if they had been born in a different country they would believe in a different religion and god. What do religious people think about all the people who believe in a false god? They must think those poor misguided fools, dedicating their lives to pray and worship a god that doesn’t exist, can’t they see that might god is the only one that exists.
I would say to those religious people, the thoughts you have on the people who believe in a god that doesn’t exist are the same thoughts I have about the god you believe in and all the reasons you have to explain why the other religions god’s don’t exist could be used to explain why you god doesn’t exist. Surely there can’t be all these gods and if there was only one, why would he let all these people believe in the wrong god, why doesn’t he just pop down to earth and let the whole world stop spending time fighting, arguing and talking about which god exists.
Of course if he did that I would have to find something else to write about, so hopefully he will wait a few days before he puts in an appearance otherwise this article will all seem rather silly but I’m fairly confident there won’t be any sightings for a while.
Stop respecting religion and start submitting it to the same scrutiny as any other idea or argument
actually the first part of the article starts with this
Stop respecting religion and start submitting it to the same scrutiny as any other idea or argument, says Richard Dawkins. And September 11th 2001 makes this scrutiny more urgent than ever...
In the article Dawkins mentions the religion has been the cause of many violent atrocities and conflicts in the world, which always strikes me as incredible odd and something which I can never really understand. Why religion is so intolerant of other religions, in fact why is religion so intolerant of many things and peoples ideas. It always strikes me that religious people I would expect to be the most tolerant and forgiving but always seem to be in the media complaining about things. My comment is probably an inferior rehashing of Dawkins and Gore Vidal and I would recommend you read those articles for a more intelligent discussion of the subjects of religion and Monotheism, read the rest below if you want my thoughts on it.
In the article Dawkins quotes Gore Vidal and his essay - The Great Unmentionable) Monotheism and its Discontents –
This essay by Gore Vidal goes into a good deal of depth about not being able to discuss religion and is well worth reading.
I didn’t know what Monotheism meant so I had to look it up
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monotheism
Monotheism
mon⋅o⋅the⋅ism
[mon-uh-thee-iz-uh m]
–noun
the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.
________________________________________
Origin:
1650–60; MONO- + (poly)theism
The idea of one god always brings a forth intrigue from me, intrigue in what religious people make of this. If there was one religion and everyone believed the same religion with the same god, although I would think this foolish to believe in a god, you would at least give it a bit more credence being based on the fact everyone who believes in god is believing in the same one, some strength in numbers or at least consistency. Basically if everyone who believes in a god all believed in the same god then I could entertain the idea of plausability. The current situation of many different religions and gods seems to contribute to the argument of no god existing.
I myself think Football should be classified as a religion and each team as a different faith because it also is based on illogical, hereditary or environmental (e.g. where you live) conditions.
The fact is there are hundreds of different religions featuring many different gods. This must surely raise a few doubts or questions to religious people, one story about a God creating the world and you doubt it, many stories of different gods creating the world and now you are thinking, well they can’t all be right but how do we know which one is true?
The question of knowing which religion is correct is an impossible one to answer, all the religions are based on faith and not facts. So you could read about all of them but get no nearer the truth.
In the initial article Dawkins focuses on how society is conditioned not to questions religious beliefs and indeed we often tell each other never to discuss religion or politics are you have had a few drinks. The reason why we should discuss these topics is because they are based on faith and not facts, you won’t be able to prove to a religious person God doesn’t exist and in the same way they can’t prove to you he does, so all you have left is a lot of hot air. Politics is based on ideology but it’s difficult to discuss it because it is based on a number of topics with people arguing different and unrelated points, leaving you with more hot air.
Dawkins also mentions an article from the late and great Douglas Adams and his article “is there an artificial God”
The Douglas Adam article I recommend reading because it’s humorous, thoughtful and informative, a delicious mix.
So I will finish with thinking about the new word I have learnt Monotheism, the belief there is only one god. How do religious people come to terms with this, they must realise if they had been born in a different country they would believe in a different religion and god. What do religious people think about all the people who believe in a false god? They must think those poor misguided fools, dedicating their lives to pray and worship a god that doesn’t exist, can’t they see that might god is the only one that exists.
I would say to those religious people, the thoughts you have on the people who believe in a god that doesn’t exist are the same thoughts I have about the god you believe in and all the reasons you have to explain why the other religions god’s don’t exist could be used to explain why you god doesn’t exist. Surely there can’t be all these gods and if there was only one, why would he let all these people believe in the wrong god, why doesn’t he just pop down to earth and let the whole world stop spending time fighting, arguing and talking about which god exists.
Of course if he did that I would have to find something else to write about, so hopefully he will wait a few days before he puts in an appearance otherwise this article will all seem rather silly but I’m fairly confident there won’t be any sightings for a while.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Are people starting to like Bill Gates?
I sometimes wonder what people will say about me when they are gathered round someone’s house or hopefully down the pub after my funeral. I hope they are sad for a second and then focus on my entertaining, stupid and amusing anecdotes and stories.
The reason I wonder this is that when ever someone dies people only have good things to say about them, rightly so in many ways, you want to remember and focus on the good qualities of people when making a brief statement about their life. Still I hope that someone might say that I could be a bit of an arse, argued a lot and often made a bit of a nuisance of himself, I mean who want’s to be liked and doing good things all of the time, bugger that a bit of selfish thinking never did anyone any harm.
Why am I talking about this, well I was wondering if we will start to see a change of opinion about Bill Gates, a slow changing of opinion towards nerdy Bill. This can happen now that Bill Gates has retired from Microsoft, although not working for Bill Gates is probably only working 37.5 hours a week I am guessing. Bill Gates will have a glimpse of the kind of things people will say at his funeral as social commentators routinely write articles on him from now until his actual death, if indeed he can die and hasn’t replaced his living organs with a biochemical version of windows!
Gates has been seen as the enemy, part of the windows led dictatorship of the home PC. In some ways Bill Gates has been lionised as the Darth Vader character in Star Wars and all, he was “the man” many people were rebelling against. A lot of PC users liked to see themselves as Han Solo’s or Luke Skywalker’s working in a small Rebel Alliance trying to work against the big corporate machine/imperial army (to labour on with the Star’s theme).
I have noticed this rebelling and rally against popular/mass used entities before, it often happens to bands. After a certain time when a band becomes so popular then the people who want to be different/individual and not go along with the norm will start to distance themselves and dislike the popular band. I read about one instance of this, it was when the Bee Gee’s had 5 singles in the top of the American single chart and was around the release of Saturday Night Fever. Showing perhaps there is truth in the saying that the only way to is down. Recently we have also had Cold Play, what most people seem to complain about is not the music but the band and their ubiquity.
So Bill Gates and Microsoft had a monopoly and then fought to keep it using nefarious bullying tactics and crushing any smaller competition which had the temerity to try and compete against Microsoft.
Recently I have noticed a small change in the opinion of Bill Gates, I personally have had a grudging respect, in a similar vain to the respect I have for the ruthless efficiency of seven times Formula one winner Michael Schumacher. I freely admit I do not have the focus to control as long and as hard as either Bill Gates or Schumacher and am not sure if I would be willing to act in the way they have done (although it is distinct possibility if I was in their position) but I can appreciate their actions in a cold calculating historical reflection. It has been successful because it is Bill Gates and Michael Schumacher that we know remember and not the names of the people who they bested.
Now Bill Gates has chosen to dedicate his time and considerable wealth to philanthropy will also make it easier for people to warm to him, which is saying something because he seems to have a impatient manner which often precocious intelligent child geniuses have when having to talk to well rounded but less intelligent individuals. I will use this opportunity to tell this trumpeted up self important little brain bullies, all the time you were locked away studying the rest of us were out on dates and socialising with people and having fun and no fun cannot be defined by making up a new calculation or formula or in Bill Gates’ case a new operating system.
I will add I think it is noble thing for Bill Gates to do, many businessmen often spend their time and money in making more money, so regardless that Bill has more money than anyone, the media attention, time and money he is putting towards good causes is a benefit to the mankind and so should rightly be applauded, Well done Bill you weasel faced uber nerd, there I said it.
So with the Gates shuffling out of Microsoft (is he a rat leaving the sinking ship?) and his focus on philanthropy, you will see history slowly rewritten to paint a nicer version of events which make nerdy Bill sound a bit more human and less Microsoft. It will also focus on his many achievements, especially on the start of Microsoft and his school days where he put in an incredible amount of work and thinking to propel him and Microsoft, which for a long time people could tell where Microsoft started and Bill Gates finished.
The plus side of Bill Gates giving his money away is it will hopefully stop people telling how many millions Gates earns a second or a minute, who cares, I bet he doesn’t it. It will also stop me wondering if you could buy your own country for 50 billion and what you would do with it.
So prepare yourself to join the new Bill Gates appreciation society as the world starts to like the person who was once the Darth Vader of the computer industry.
Why not listen to some comedy in your ears, listen to the comedy podcast - Hosks Half Hour for some comedy like you have never heard it before
The reason I wonder this is that when ever someone dies people only have good things to say about them, rightly so in many ways, you want to remember and focus on the good qualities of people when making a brief statement about their life. Still I hope that someone might say that I could be a bit of an arse, argued a lot and often made a bit of a nuisance of himself, I mean who want’s to be liked and doing good things all of the time, bugger that a bit of selfish thinking never did anyone any harm.
Why am I talking about this, well I was wondering if we will start to see a change of opinion about Bill Gates, a slow changing of opinion towards nerdy Bill. This can happen now that Bill Gates has retired from Microsoft, although not working for Bill Gates is probably only working 37.5 hours a week I am guessing. Bill Gates will have a glimpse of the kind of things people will say at his funeral as social commentators routinely write articles on him from now until his actual death, if indeed he can die and hasn’t replaced his living organs with a biochemical version of windows!
Gates has been seen as the enemy, part of the windows led dictatorship of the home PC. In some ways Bill Gates has been lionised as the Darth Vader character in Star Wars and all, he was “the man” many people were rebelling against. A lot of PC users liked to see themselves as Han Solo’s or Luke Skywalker’s working in a small Rebel Alliance trying to work against the big corporate machine/imperial army (to labour on with the Star’s theme).
I have noticed this rebelling and rally against popular/mass used entities before, it often happens to bands. After a certain time when a band becomes so popular then the people who want to be different/individual and not go along with the norm will start to distance themselves and dislike the popular band. I read about one instance of this, it was when the Bee Gee’s had 5 singles in the top of the American single chart and was around the release of Saturday Night Fever. Showing perhaps there is truth in the saying that the only way to is down. Recently we have also had Cold Play, what most people seem to complain about is not the music but the band and their ubiquity.
So Bill Gates and Microsoft had a monopoly and then fought to keep it using nefarious bullying tactics and crushing any smaller competition which had the temerity to try and compete against Microsoft.
Recently I have noticed a small change in the opinion of Bill Gates, I personally have had a grudging respect, in a similar vain to the respect I have for the ruthless efficiency of seven times Formula one winner Michael Schumacher. I freely admit I do not have the focus to control as long and as hard as either Bill Gates or Schumacher and am not sure if I would be willing to act in the way they have done (although it is distinct possibility if I was in their position) but I can appreciate their actions in a cold calculating historical reflection. It has been successful because it is Bill Gates and Michael Schumacher that we know remember and not the names of the people who they bested.
Now Bill Gates has chosen to dedicate his time and considerable wealth to philanthropy will also make it easier for people to warm to him, which is saying something because he seems to have a impatient manner which often precocious intelligent child geniuses have when having to talk to well rounded but less intelligent individuals. I will use this opportunity to tell this trumpeted up self important little brain bullies, all the time you were locked away studying the rest of us were out on dates and socialising with people and having fun and no fun cannot be defined by making up a new calculation or formula or in Bill Gates’ case a new operating system.
I will add I think it is noble thing for Bill Gates to do, many businessmen often spend their time and money in making more money, so regardless that Bill has more money than anyone, the media attention, time and money he is putting towards good causes is a benefit to the mankind and so should rightly be applauded, Well done Bill you weasel faced uber nerd, there I said it.
So with the Gates shuffling out of Microsoft (is he a rat leaving the sinking ship?) and his focus on philanthropy, you will see history slowly rewritten to paint a nicer version of events which make nerdy Bill sound a bit more human and less Microsoft. It will also focus on his many achievements, especially on the start of Microsoft and his school days where he put in an incredible amount of work and thinking to propel him and Microsoft, which for a long time people could tell where Microsoft started and Bill Gates finished.
The plus side of Bill Gates giving his money away is it will hopefully stop people telling how many millions Gates earns a second or a minute, who cares, I bet he doesn’t it. It will also stop me wondering if you could buy your own country for 50 billion and what you would do with it.
So prepare yourself to join the new Bill Gates appreciation society as the world starts to like the person who was once the Darth Vader of the computer industry.
Why not listen to some comedy in your ears, listen to the comedy podcast - Hosks Half Hour for some comedy like you have never heard it before
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Was the voting in the American election positive racist?
You have to give it to the Americans, if there is a possibility to draw an event out for the longest time possible then they are the nation to do it and what’s more they will show as much of it as they can on TV. We have finally come to what seems the longest election campaign in the world and without doubt the most publicised.
I appreciate which candidate is chosen to become the American president does have important consequences for the UK and the rest of the world but do I need a daily if not hourly update on what has been going on in the American election. Sometimes it seems the reporting on the event has been in more depth and frequent that the election for the prime minister.
Anyway it’s done and Obama has been elected, good, now lets move on world.
There has been a huge deal made about Obama being of black origin and it brought to me the question of whether Obama has benefit from what is seen as a positive racism. Black people have in America and the rest of the world have suffered from racist behaviour towards them for a long time and see this as a significant period in their history.
I don’t think the term racist is the correct word but a lot of the media on the radio and TV I have seen and heard has featured people of black origin saying they are going to vote for Obama because he is black. The fact that I few him as the best candidate rather than the a 72 year old man and a gun totting hockey mum who has had a 100,000 dollar make over is not the point I’m discussing here. What if we had heard all the white voters saying they were going to vote for McCain because he was white, is this racist. I found myself slightly ignorant of the exact definition of racism and so I thought I would look it
Here is the definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/
rac⋅ism
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Do the people voting view their own race as superior? Maybe. Are people discriminating against a candidate because of the colour of skin? Yes.
It seems at odds with all the hyperbole stating this is the most important and influential job in the world and people are basing their votes on the colour of the candidates skin, when in this election there seems many other factors to base your decision on.
The way the media mentions race is something to consider, well it’s not just the media but ourselves in our everyday lives also have to deal with different races and different attitudes. I also have the same thoughts on the sex of people and the sexiest attitudes towards some women. I just see people who are raising a certain point or have a certain opinion, it’s what they say not who say’s it. It is worthy of mentioning this debate brings to mind Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. I usually think we should deal with it in these two ways
1. When the media keep mentioning race or sex of that a person it highlights and points attention to the race or sex of the person as if it is something which is very important and possible more important than many other issues and theories regarding that person. I think the colour of the skin or sex of the person isn’t the most important point and they shouldn’t focus on it and instead focus on the polices or beliefs of the person.
2. That by highlighting the race or sex of the person it highlights the fact this point is often used to discriminate and you the consumer of the media should not fall into this trap.
So I veer between thinking the media should mention it or focus on it because I don’t care about it, sometimes I think all people are just people and the colour of their skin or their sex isn’t important to me. Recently I have been hearing constituently that Barack Obama is black, so what, Barack Obama is a person the same as John McCain is a person, the most important part isn’t the colour of their skin but what are their actual policies. This is the same thought I had when it was Obama versus Hilary Clinton, all the focus was on it could be the first women versus the first black person in white house.
Then some other times I think, yes Obama being black is important, the same way it was important the way footballers and musicians raised the status of black people in England. In the end the more you see influential black people the less important the colour of their skin becomes but that is only after the way has been paved by the generations of black people before them. In particular as a football fan I think of the monkey charts and people throwing banana’s at John Barnes, the fact it seems so distasteful and odd is a mark of how society has changed over the past 20 years.
One of the interesting points I have taken from the American election is how in this election in particular seems to have been focused on the person rather than the political party. In the UK people seem to vote for the party first and the candidate is a secondary consideration. It seems rather odd in some ways how candidates either are thought to believe one set of values or a different set of values and although we do have some other choices the candidates aligning themselves not with the two major parties will never get in. Yet when the candidate is elected prime minister he can do what he likes and not really following the part line, although he will have to get his choices voted in. Anyway I seem to have veered off course with the last paragraph.
Incidentally I heard a few interviews with American saying they wouldn’t for Obama because they thought he was a Muslim and he was one of them. I find it quite scary that religion has such an influence in the election of the American president. I remember reading with the last election with the now former president Bush, he played on his religious beliefs to get the Christians to vote for him. The radio discussion on the topic stated it would be impossible for a non Christian person to be elected president in America. I wonder if one day in the future people will be celebrating the first Atheist prime minister, I think this would really be something to celebrate.
Another interesting point I would like to mention is about the American election was a Radio 5 live presenter was saying there was some people voting for Obama because they thought he was good looking, the female presenter was saying these people shouldn’t be allowed to vote if the looks of the candidate was the criteria they used for deciding their vote. I found this interesting because part of the way someone looks is often what people base their first opinion on and good looking people tend to generate better first impressions than their uglier counterparts. Studies have also shown people who talk eloquently, confidently and with powerful low voice also give a better impression to the listeners. In fact most of human communication is based on how we say things and it is only a small percentage is based on what we actually say.
The final thing I would like to say it was amazing to see so many people getting out and voting and I am glad it is finally over and now all the new stations will have to find something else to tell us incessantly about every day, Good luck to Obama it’s a bit of a paradox the situation he finds himself in, everybody is excited and expecting radical changes but I get the feeling with the current economic situation that in many ways he will be just fire fighting and will do well just to keep things going let alone radical changes.
It will be interesting to see how Obama does and everyone has high hopes, I wish him good luck and good fortune, I think he is going to need it.
Now if you would like to stop being serious and looking on the lighter side of life, why not check out my comedy podcast - Hosks Half Hour
it will make you laugh like a good comedy should
I appreciate which candidate is chosen to become the American president does have important consequences for the UK and the rest of the world but do I need a daily if not hourly update on what has been going on in the American election. Sometimes it seems the reporting on the event has been in more depth and frequent that the election for the prime minister.
Anyway it’s done and Obama has been elected, good, now lets move on world.
There has been a huge deal made about Obama being of black origin and it brought to me the question of whether Obama has benefit from what is seen as a positive racism. Black people have in America and the rest of the world have suffered from racist behaviour towards them for a long time and see this as a significant period in their history.
I don’t think the term racist is the correct word but a lot of the media on the radio and TV I have seen and heard has featured people of black origin saying they are going to vote for Obama because he is black. The fact that I few him as the best candidate rather than the a 72 year old man and a gun totting hockey mum who has had a 100,000 dollar make over is not the point I’m discussing here. What if we had heard all the white voters saying they were going to vote for McCain because he was white, is this racist. I found myself slightly ignorant of the exact definition of racism and so I thought I would look it
Here is the definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/
rac⋅ism
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Do the people voting view their own race as superior? Maybe. Are people discriminating against a candidate because of the colour of skin? Yes.
It seems at odds with all the hyperbole stating this is the most important and influential job in the world and people are basing their votes on the colour of the candidates skin, when in this election there seems many other factors to base your decision on.
The way the media mentions race is something to consider, well it’s not just the media but ourselves in our everyday lives also have to deal with different races and different attitudes. I also have the same thoughts on the sex of people and the sexiest attitudes towards some women. I just see people who are raising a certain point or have a certain opinion, it’s what they say not who say’s it. It is worthy of mentioning this debate brings to mind Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. I usually think we should deal with it in these two ways
1. When the media keep mentioning race or sex of that a person it highlights and points attention to the race or sex of the person as if it is something which is very important and possible more important than many other issues and theories regarding that person. I think the colour of the skin or sex of the person isn’t the most important point and they shouldn’t focus on it and instead focus on the polices or beliefs of the person.
2. That by highlighting the race or sex of the person it highlights the fact this point is often used to discriminate and you the consumer of the media should not fall into this trap.
So I veer between thinking the media should mention it or focus on it because I don’t care about it, sometimes I think all people are just people and the colour of their skin or their sex isn’t important to me. Recently I have been hearing constituently that Barack Obama is black, so what, Barack Obama is a person the same as John McCain is a person, the most important part isn’t the colour of their skin but what are their actual policies. This is the same thought I had when it was Obama versus Hilary Clinton, all the focus was on it could be the first women versus the first black person in white house.
Then some other times I think, yes Obama being black is important, the same way it was important the way footballers and musicians raised the status of black people in England. In the end the more you see influential black people the less important the colour of their skin becomes but that is only after the way has been paved by the generations of black people before them. In particular as a football fan I think of the monkey charts and people throwing banana’s at John Barnes, the fact it seems so distasteful and odd is a mark of how society has changed over the past 20 years.
One of the interesting points I have taken from the American election is how in this election in particular seems to have been focused on the person rather than the political party. In the UK people seem to vote for the party first and the candidate is a secondary consideration. It seems rather odd in some ways how candidates either are thought to believe one set of values or a different set of values and although we do have some other choices the candidates aligning themselves not with the two major parties will never get in. Yet when the candidate is elected prime minister he can do what he likes and not really following the part line, although he will have to get his choices voted in. Anyway I seem to have veered off course with the last paragraph.
Incidentally I heard a few interviews with American saying they wouldn’t for Obama because they thought he was a Muslim and he was one of them. I find it quite scary that religion has such an influence in the election of the American president. I remember reading with the last election with the now former president Bush, he played on his religious beliefs to get the Christians to vote for him. The radio discussion on the topic stated it would be impossible for a non Christian person to be elected president in America. I wonder if one day in the future people will be celebrating the first Atheist prime minister, I think this would really be something to celebrate.
Another interesting point I would like to mention is about the American election was a Radio 5 live presenter was saying there was some people voting for Obama because they thought he was good looking, the female presenter was saying these people shouldn’t be allowed to vote if the looks of the candidate was the criteria they used for deciding their vote. I found this interesting because part of the way someone looks is often what people base their first opinion on and good looking people tend to generate better first impressions than their uglier counterparts. Studies have also shown people who talk eloquently, confidently and with powerful low voice also give a better impression to the listeners. In fact most of human communication is based on how we say things and it is only a small percentage is based on what we actually say.
The final thing I would like to say it was amazing to see so many people getting out and voting and I am glad it is finally over and now all the new stations will have to find something else to tell us incessantly about every day, Good luck to Obama it’s a bit of a paradox the situation he finds himself in, everybody is excited and expecting radical changes but I get the feeling with the current economic situation that in many ways he will be just fire fighting and will do well just to keep things going let alone radical changes.
It will be interesting to see how Obama does and everyone has high hopes, I wish him good luck and good fortune, I think he is going to need it.
Now if you would like to stop being serious and looking on the lighter side of life, why not check out my comedy podcast - Hosks Half Hour
it will make you laugh like a good comedy should
Monday, November 03, 2008
Why do people still read Horoscopes?
Horoscopes and astrology is an unusual beast that we have roaming around our daily lives, a seemingly mythical beast born which flourished in an agein the world where claims of reading futures in the stars seemed plausible but why does it continue to thrive in the current climate.
Horoscopes and astrology when tested by scientists have been shown to produce random results, unsurprising really, if people could accurately predict the future surely they wouldn’t need to rely on newspapers for money. Thinking about scientists testing horoscope predictions does bring forth an amusing image, what would be the criteria to test if a horoscope was true or false?
When you factor in the vagueness of horoscope predictions and appreciate the results apply to hundreds of millions of people, the task of testing the accuracy of the predictions becomes implausible, exhausting and pointless. The scope of the prediction would seem indicate the impossible job horoscopes have gleefully given themselves, imagine saying you could predict the future of 6 billion people divided into 12 star signs merely by looking up at the stars, planets and sun.
This leads me to my first odd point regarding horoscopes, everyone knows their own star sign, why? People like me who think it’s completely bonkers anyone could possibly tell anything about anyone’s future from looking at the moon, sun, planets and stars, yet I still know my star sign.
Why do I know my own star sign, up to this point in my life knowing my star sign hasn’t produced one single small benefit or accurate insight into the future? The only benefit which comes to mind is laughing at the future predicted for my designated star sign.
I’m not sure how many people believe in star signs and to what extent. I think a lot of people think the notion of astrology as a future predicting medium is nonsense.
Yet horoscopes and symbology are ubiquitous in society and are prevalent in every daily newspaper. I am not entirely clear whether the horoscope predicts the future on a daily forecast; it would seem to be this way because there is a new horoscope everyday. Yet the contents of horoscopes are generally so vague it doesn’t seem likely for them to occur in one day.
Daily horoscopes can also include a number of predictions, which seems to contribute to an increased likelihood of failure in the forecast. I have also witnessed some forecasts include special forecasts for single people, quite how the stars manage to sort themselves into forecasts for only single people really is quite impressive.
What do people who read horoscopes hope to gain from them? If they believe the future is already set and they are merely travelling down that path, which if you believe horoscopes you must belief the future is already set. This personally seems a very undesirable notion, if I were to belief this then why would I ponder over any decisions because I would belief I have no alternative but to make the choice I am destined by the stars to choose.
If you thought horoscopes were correct why would is the benefit of reading them, you can’t change them unless you believe that by reading the horoscopes it will help you make those decisions. This is one area perhaps horoscope believers help to justify the validity of horoscopes to themselves, a form of self prophecy. If they read they are going to ring an old friend or find love in the supermarket then it is likely they are going to look for these opportunities now the idea is placed in their heads and thus themselves contribute to the correct prediction of the horoscope.
It’s seems most fortunate to people who read horoscopes they are recipients to mostly positive futures as predicted in horoscopes and rarely is anything bad or unpleasant bad news. This is another reason for me to question the validity of horoscopes.
Horoscope writers seem to have self preservation in their mind because who would ever want to read a horoscope with negative or downbeat forecasts, probably only a few miserable people. So in order to retain their popularity they have a tendency to write positive exciting futures which people will enjoy reading, thus preserving the horoscope column.
People do not seem to concern themselves with the accuracy of the horoscope predictions. It is my experience with people who read horoscopes that they have what I describe as a fruit machine memory regarding horoscopes. A fruit machine memory is something I attribute to people you see in pubs who put in pound after pound into the fruit machine but never really remember all the times they lost or how much money they put in but only remember when they win the jackpot. I view horoscope readers in a similar vain to fruit machine addicts, they only seem to remember the times when the horoscope said something that happened but conveniently forget the daily occurrence of incorrect predictions.
People seem to take horoscopes as a mixture of simple fun and yet are willingly to give its prediction some importance if it sounds like something good. Why are certain people willing to take prompting and advice from someone who is clearly making it up? Do they garner some sort of comfort from another person predicting their future? I am yet to understand the appeal of a taking some advice from a stranger who gives you a paragraph with odd, random and mainly useless advice.
The fundamental problem I have with star signs and horoscopes is the millions of people who each have the same future. There are 12 star signs and there are roughly 6 billion people in the world. So this means 500 million people are going to have the same future or prediction each day, no matter what country or social environment they live, so people in the Antarctic will have the same future as people who live in Ghana or London.
People in prison are predicted the same future as someone is free? Age doesn’t seem to be factored into the prediction either babies and children will have the same predicted future as adults and the very old. The other question which puzzles me is why are all the horoscopes completely different in each paper, are they looking at the same stars and planets?
So next time you are reading a horoscope for a bit of fun just think how daft you are being and think maybe it’s about time I started looking up to the stars and making my own future and deciding to do something worthwhile rather than something daft like this from the guardian! I wonder what happens if I don’t refresh my wardrobe?
Sagittarius
22 Nov-21 Dec
The gap between your public role as hard-grafting trooper and your private life of tender feelings currently looks quite a chasm. Until your birthday month, however, you just have to render to Caesar his due and keep your innermost concerns and private duties to yourself. As Venus is still on your side, a charming smile and a refreshed wardrobe will carry you through most social challenges.
Horoscopes and astrology when tested by scientists have been shown to produce random results, unsurprising really, if people could accurately predict the future surely they wouldn’t need to rely on newspapers for money. Thinking about scientists testing horoscope predictions does bring forth an amusing image, what would be the criteria to test if a horoscope was true or false?
When you factor in the vagueness of horoscope predictions and appreciate the results apply to hundreds of millions of people, the task of testing the accuracy of the predictions becomes implausible, exhausting and pointless. The scope of the prediction would seem indicate the impossible job horoscopes have gleefully given themselves, imagine saying you could predict the future of 6 billion people divided into 12 star signs merely by looking up at the stars, planets and sun.
This leads me to my first odd point regarding horoscopes, everyone knows their own star sign, why? People like me who think it’s completely bonkers anyone could possibly tell anything about anyone’s future from looking at the moon, sun, planets and stars, yet I still know my star sign.
Why do I know my own star sign, up to this point in my life knowing my star sign hasn’t produced one single small benefit or accurate insight into the future? The only benefit which comes to mind is laughing at the future predicted for my designated star sign.
I’m not sure how many people believe in star signs and to what extent. I think a lot of people think the notion of astrology as a future predicting medium is nonsense.
Yet horoscopes and symbology are ubiquitous in society and are prevalent in every daily newspaper. I am not entirely clear whether the horoscope predicts the future on a daily forecast; it would seem to be this way because there is a new horoscope everyday. Yet the contents of horoscopes are generally so vague it doesn’t seem likely for them to occur in one day.
Daily horoscopes can also include a number of predictions, which seems to contribute to an increased likelihood of failure in the forecast. I have also witnessed some forecasts include special forecasts for single people, quite how the stars manage to sort themselves into forecasts for only single people really is quite impressive.
What do people who read horoscopes hope to gain from them? If they believe the future is already set and they are merely travelling down that path, which if you believe horoscopes you must belief the future is already set. This personally seems a very undesirable notion, if I were to belief this then why would I ponder over any decisions because I would belief I have no alternative but to make the choice I am destined by the stars to choose.
If you thought horoscopes were correct why would is the benefit of reading them, you can’t change them unless you believe that by reading the horoscopes it will help you make those decisions. This is one area perhaps horoscope believers help to justify the validity of horoscopes to themselves, a form of self prophecy. If they read they are going to ring an old friend or find love in the supermarket then it is likely they are going to look for these opportunities now the idea is placed in their heads and thus themselves contribute to the correct prediction of the horoscope.
It’s seems most fortunate to people who read horoscopes they are recipients to mostly positive futures as predicted in horoscopes and rarely is anything bad or unpleasant bad news. This is another reason for me to question the validity of horoscopes.
Horoscope writers seem to have self preservation in their mind because who would ever want to read a horoscope with negative or downbeat forecasts, probably only a few miserable people. So in order to retain their popularity they have a tendency to write positive exciting futures which people will enjoy reading, thus preserving the horoscope column.
People do not seem to concern themselves with the accuracy of the horoscope predictions. It is my experience with people who read horoscopes that they have what I describe as a fruit machine memory regarding horoscopes. A fruit machine memory is something I attribute to people you see in pubs who put in pound after pound into the fruit machine but never really remember all the times they lost or how much money they put in but only remember when they win the jackpot. I view horoscope readers in a similar vain to fruit machine addicts, they only seem to remember the times when the horoscope said something that happened but conveniently forget the daily occurrence of incorrect predictions.
People seem to take horoscopes as a mixture of simple fun and yet are willingly to give its prediction some importance if it sounds like something good. Why are certain people willing to take prompting and advice from someone who is clearly making it up? Do they garner some sort of comfort from another person predicting their future? I am yet to understand the appeal of a taking some advice from a stranger who gives you a paragraph with odd, random and mainly useless advice.
The fundamental problem I have with star signs and horoscopes is the millions of people who each have the same future. There are 12 star signs and there are roughly 6 billion people in the world. So this means 500 million people are going to have the same future or prediction each day, no matter what country or social environment they live, so people in the Antarctic will have the same future as people who live in Ghana or London.
People in prison are predicted the same future as someone is free? Age doesn’t seem to be factored into the prediction either babies and children will have the same predicted future as adults and the very old. The other question which puzzles me is why are all the horoscopes completely different in each paper, are they looking at the same stars and planets?
So next time you are reading a horoscope for a bit of fun just think how daft you are being and think maybe it’s about time I started looking up to the stars and making my own future and deciding to do something worthwhile rather than something daft like this from the guardian! I wonder what happens if I don’t refresh my wardrobe?
Sagittarius
22 Nov-21 Dec
The gap between your public role as hard-grafting trooper and your private life of tender feelings currently looks quite a chasm. Until your birthday month, however, you just have to render to Caesar his due and keep your innermost concerns and private duties to yourself. As Venus is still on your side, a charming smile and a refreshed wardrobe will carry you through most social challenges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)