Related to the point about the decline of snobbery, I'm sadly fascinated by the way in which cultural institutions have largely stopped asking the question "How can we explain to new audiences the appeal of what we offer?" and insist on asking "How can we change what we offer to appeal to new audiences?" Both questions are worth asking, of course, but it seems symptomatic of our post-Blairite cultural situation that the latter question is put so frequently and the former so rarely.
The problem goes beyond the arts. Churches, universities and political parties all behave similarly these days.
One of the most stimulating series I watched on TV as a pre-teen kid was “Burke’s Connections”, where James Burke traced the cascading influence of innovations on scientific and social development around the world. It helped that he had the budget to hop around the world from location to location, but I was gripped. It was so much more interesting than anything I studied at school and fired an interest in history that has never left me. Is there anything this inspiring now? History seems to be either sarcastic or high minded scolding.
Reading also broadened my cultural ambitions in a way I don’t really see from my kids. I grew up in a happy home, but as a bit of a swot I realised I was never going “on the buildings” like all the men on both sides of my family. Though I was London Irish, I was drawn to writers like Bellow and Roth who had a similar half-in, half-out feeling towards their upbringing I had. What their characters read was very influential for me.
Apropos of not very much, I’d like to share my delight that the BBC has exhumed all three series of The Cops, after burying them in concrete for 20 years in the aftermath of riots in Oldham and Bradford in 2001. Though it has its melodramatic moments, it’s a superb show, really well written, filmed and performed, demonstrating that social breakdown pre-existed “austerity”, though it’s doubtless worse now.
I absolutely love the “accidentally turn on the BBC for 10 seconds game” would love to hear more examples.
My favourite of recent times was discovering that Blue Peter still exists and the feature they had when I accidentally switched on was the presenter, who is a paraplegic in an electric wheelchair going to meet a Sheepdog trainer… who is also a paraplegic in an electric wheelchair.
Also various One show mishaps of ethnically diverse people dancing for climate change.
Also note: I invested in a Polish ETF ~6 years ago and it’s barely broken even… too much state ownership of their companies still. Nobody has missed the boat yet.
" ‘This study of 700,000 teens found that having a classmate diagnosed with a mental disorder was associated with a 5% increased risk of also being diagnosed with a mental disorder.’ Human behaviour is contagious, one of the least appreciated elements of social theory."
There are two opposite interpretations of this statistic. One is that a classmate being diagnosed of depression or anxiety alerts you to the possibility that your unhappiness or worry might itself be an example of depression or anxiety. All that's happening is that mental health problems that would otherwise be going undiagnosed are being picked up on. If this is the case, it's probably for the best that the classmate got diagnosed in the first place.
The other interpretation is that having a classmate who is diagnosed with depression and anxiety increases the risk that you yourself will suffer from depression or anxiety. If this is the case, it may not be for the best that the classmate gets diagnosed... or at least, it may not be the best that the rest of class knows that the classmate got diagnosed. Indeed, one might end up thinking that the taboos that existed a few decades ago, when people were ashamed publicly to admit that they suffered from mental health problems, served a useful function as a kind of quarantine.
It feels like it could be rather important to work out which of these interpretations is more accurate, since the answer would have quite dramatic implications for social policy.
Speaking of Julius Caesar I think it is unappreciated just how scarred he was by what Sulla had done. It massively affected how Caesar behaved. Ed Watts is very good on this and came on my podcast to talk about it.
I think what is underestimated is how closely related Caesar was to Sulla’s bitterest enemies. Caesar’s aunt was Marius’s wife. And Caesar’s own wife Cornelia was Cinna’s daughter. So when Sulla tells the 18 year old Caesar to divorce Cornelia you would think it is a done deal. But Caesar refuses to do so. Which turns him into a fugitive from Sulla’s thugs but eventually his other family manage to get Sulla to pardon him. It’s an incredible sign of Caesar’s self assurance, pride or whatever you want to call it that he is willing to take on the murderous Sulla like this. And at 18!
As a counter to my point about contagion, a reader emails this which he's happy for me to share:
You mentioned a study of 700,000 youth wherein having a classmate with mental illness increased odds of a respondent reporting mental illness by 5%. In fact, this figure (statistical inside baseball...this corresponds to an odds ratio of 1.05, with 1.00 being no effect at all), is very, very tiny. There are two problems with this conclusion.
Effects this small are very often due to statistical noise, not "real" effects. This is very common in large sample studies (like 700,000!) In samples that big almost everything is "statistically significant" including many relationships that are purely chance (probably including this one). I generally do not recommend interpreting odds ratios as meaningful until they get to 1.44 or even better 2.0. Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens all the time and leads to widespread misinformation in the general public. I (and others) can spot it because we do stats for a living...but the average news reporter, politician or person in the public can't and thus take it at face value. Unfortunately, percentage figures sound impressive to regular people who don't realize the garbage from where they're derived (think of all the medical and dietary studies that promised impressive sounding percentage figures only to later fall apart).
Even if this effect were "real" and not noise (improbable I'd say), it doesn't mean there's contagion. The kids could have grown up in similar social circumstances that have nothing to do with influencing each other.
Although you said contagion is undervalued as a concept, I think the truth is the opposite. There's little evidence human influence works like a virus. Deliberate incentives and punishments tend to be needed. To the extent people mimic each other, that is often an active decision process, not passive and automatic. I generally think we should avoid disease language like "contagion" when we talk about human behavior...it's emotive, simplistic and doesn't really fit the complexities of what's really going on.
The OED - online and thus regularly updated - allows only one definition of racism:
"Prejudice, antagonism, or discrimination by an individual, institution, or society, against a person or people on the basis of their nationality or (now usually) their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
As if struck by an awareness of a breach of its own practices (it claims to be 'The historical English dictionary') , it then adds:
"Also: beliefs that members of a particular racial or ethnic group possess innate characteristics or qualities, or that some racial or ethnic groups are superior to others; an ideology based on such beliefs."
My printed 2002 Shorter Oxford, by contrast, has the recognisable:
"(Belief in, adherence to, or advocacy of) the theory that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, qualities, etc., specific to that race, esp. distinguishing it as inferior or superior to another race or races; prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism based on this."
Related to the subject of the desexualization of culture, I found a quirky un-PC blog post a while back hypothesizing that what really frightens gays into the closet is not a Puritan attitude towards sex in general but rather potent heterosexuality:
The horror of age gaps ! I think is interesting. I mean 25 and 32 ( I remember seeing this reaction to the leads in the recent star wars film ) Not 55 and 16 Why do I think this important- because human relationships are asymetical
Related to the point about the decline of snobbery, I'm sadly fascinated by the way in which cultural institutions have largely stopped asking the question "How can we explain to new audiences the appeal of what we offer?" and insist on asking "How can we change what we offer to appeal to new audiences?" Both questions are worth asking, of course, but it seems symptomatic of our post-Blairite cultural situation that the latter question is put so frequently and the former so rarely.
The problem goes beyond the arts. Churches, universities and political parties all behave similarly these days.
One of the most stimulating series I watched on TV as a pre-teen kid was “Burke’s Connections”, where James Burke traced the cascading influence of innovations on scientific and social development around the world. It helped that he had the budget to hop around the world from location to location, but I was gripped. It was so much more interesting than anything I studied at school and fired an interest in history that has never left me. Is there anything this inspiring now? History seems to be either sarcastic or high minded scolding.
Reading also broadened my cultural ambitions in a way I don’t really see from my kids. I grew up in a happy home, but as a bit of a swot I realised I was never going “on the buildings” like all the men on both sides of my family. Though I was London Irish, I was drawn to writers like Bellow and Roth who had a similar half-in, half-out feeling towards their upbringing I had. What their characters read was very influential for me.
Apropos of not very much, I’d like to share my delight that the BBC has exhumed all three series of The Cops, after burying them in concrete for 20 years in the aftermath of riots in Oldham and Bradford in 2001. Though it has its melodramatic moments, it’s a superb show, really well written, filmed and performed, demonstrating that social breakdown pre-existed “austerity”, though it’s doubtless worse now.
Should have added, on iPlayer. Don’t miss it, it might vanish again.
I absolutely love the “accidentally turn on the BBC for 10 seconds game” would love to hear more examples.
My favourite of recent times was discovering that Blue Peter still exists and the feature they had when I accidentally switched on was the presenter, who is a paraplegic in an electric wheelchair going to meet a Sheepdog trainer… who is also a paraplegic in an electric wheelchair.
Also various One show mishaps of ethnically diverse people dancing for climate change.
Also note: I invested in a Polish ETF ~6 years ago and it’s barely broken even… too much state ownership of their companies still. Nobody has missed the boat yet.
" ‘This study of 700,000 teens found that having a classmate diagnosed with a mental disorder was associated with a 5% increased risk of also being diagnosed with a mental disorder.’ Human behaviour is contagious, one of the least appreciated elements of social theory."
There are two opposite interpretations of this statistic. One is that a classmate being diagnosed of depression or anxiety alerts you to the possibility that your unhappiness or worry might itself be an example of depression or anxiety. All that's happening is that mental health problems that would otherwise be going undiagnosed are being picked up on. If this is the case, it's probably for the best that the classmate got diagnosed in the first place.
The other interpretation is that having a classmate who is diagnosed with depression and anxiety increases the risk that you yourself will suffer from depression or anxiety. If this is the case, it may not be for the best that the classmate gets diagnosed... or at least, it may not be the best that the rest of class knows that the classmate got diagnosed. Indeed, one might end up thinking that the taboos that existed a few decades ago, when people were ashamed publicly to admit that they suffered from mental health problems, served a useful function as a kind of quarantine.
It feels like it could be rather important to work out which of these interpretations is more accurate, since the answer would have quite dramatic implications for social policy.
yes both could be true, although I've just posted a comment from a reader who is a professor, which suggests it's not really meaningful as a stat
There was a piece in The Guardian this week about people playing music out loud on their phones https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/27/noise-pollution-use-headphones
Speaking of Julius Caesar I think it is unappreciated just how scarred he was by what Sulla had done. It massively affected how Caesar behaved. Ed Watts is very good on this and came on my podcast to talk about it.
https://www.buzzsprout.com/207869/15469551
yeah it certainly would have, Sulla always sounds like a terrifying figure
I think what is underestimated is how closely related Caesar was to Sulla’s bitterest enemies. Caesar’s aunt was Marius’s wife. And Caesar’s own wife Cornelia was Cinna’s daughter. So when Sulla tells the 18 year old Caesar to divorce Cornelia you would think it is a done deal. But Caesar refuses to do so. Which turns him into a fugitive from Sulla’s thugs but eventually his other family manage to get Sulla to pardon him. It’s an incredible sign of Caesar’s self assurance, pride or whatever you want to call it that he is willing to take on the murderous Sulla like this. And at 18!
Just off the top of my head. I cannot remember Sulla being portaryed on camera.
The horror stills lasts?
As a counter to my point about contagion, a reader emails this which he's happy for me to share:
You mentioned a study of 700,000 youth wherein having a classmate with mental illness increased odds of a respondent reporting mental illness by 5%. In fact, this figure (statistical inside baseball...this corresponds to an odds ratio of 1.05, with 1.00 being no effect at all), is very, very tiny. There are two problems with this conclusion.
Effects this small are very often due to statistical noise, not "real" effects. This is very common in large sample studies (like 700,000!) In samples that big almost everything is "statistically significant" including many relationships that are purely chance (probably including this one). I generally do not recommend interpreting odds ratios as meaningful until they get to 1.44 or even better 2.0. Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens all the time and leads to widespread misinformation in the general public. I (and others) can spot it because we do stats for a living...but the average news reporter, politician or person in the public can't and thus take it at face value. Unfortunately, percentage figures sound impressive to regular people who don't realize the garbage from where they're derived (think of all the medical and dietary studies that promised impressive sounding percentage figures only to later fall apart).
Even if this effect were "real" and not noise (improbable I'd say), it doesn't mean there's contagion. The kids could have grown up in similar social circumstances that have nothing to do with influencing each other.
Although you said contagion is undervalued as a concept, I think the truth is the opposite. There's little evidence human influence works like a virus. Deliberate incentives and punishments tend to be needed. To the extent people mimic each other, that is often an active decision process, not passive and automatic. I generally think we should avoid disease language like "contagion" when we talk about human behavior...it's emotive, simplistic and doesn't really fit the complexities of what's really going on.
I should add - he's a professor as well!
The OED - online and thus regularly updated - allows only one definition of racism:
"Prejudice, antagonism, or discrimination by an individual, institution, or society, against a person or people on the basis of their nationality or (now usually) their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
As if struck by an awareness of a breach of its own practices (it claims to be 'The historical English dictionary') , it then adds:
"Also: beliefs that members of a particular racial or ethnic group possess innate characteristics or qualities, or that some racial or ethnic groups are superior to others; an ideology based on such beliefs."
My printed 2002 Shorter Oxford, by contrast, has the recognisable:
"(Belief in, adherence to, or advocacy of) the theory that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, qualities, etc., specific to that race, esp. distinguishing it as inferior or superior to another race or races; prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism based on this."
Related to the subject of the desexualization of culture, I found a quirky un-PC blog post a while back hypothesizing that what really frightens gays into the closet is not a Puritan attitude towards sex in general but rather potent heterosexuality:
https://akinokure.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-geography-of-gayness-in-american.html?m=1
Hence why gay symbols are now everywhere in a world where (especially young people) are becoming ever more Puritan.
i shall read
Another remarkable prophecy of Demolition Man (1993), the roll-back of the Sexual Revolution:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E3yARIfDJrY&pp=ygUSRGVtb2xpdGlvbiBtYW4gc2V4
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/glen-powell-meteoric-rise-proves-051533837.html
The horror of age gaps ! I think is interesting. I mean 25 and 32 ( I remember seeing this reaction to the leads in the recent star wars film ) Not 55 and 16 Why do I think this important- because human relationships are asymetical