delgrosso dot com

In today’s information rich and technically savvy world, nothing is more intriguing or mystifying than the viral information that has propagated from one person to another in the form of a “meme”. An internet meme is a neologism, which is a newly created concept or expression that has been recently introduced and quickly spread from person to person. With the advent of the Internet, the introduction of themes and catchphrases are rapidly amplified through the technology we use every day. Email, instant messaging, and a plethora of personal blogging and social networking sites put everyone on a more intimately refined level of rapidly spreading our knowledge, thoughts, and ideas. The meme itself, once reaching a high level of popularity will most likely evolve into multiple versions of itself or spawn new memes. Much like a virus, a meme is an infectious idea that is directly dependent upon it’s replicating host.

So what is this all about? Memes explain a lot about who we are and what make us unique. They enlighten us to the direction the internet is moving and how we communicate with one another directly and indirectly. Memes, oftentimes, transcend the internet and enter our personal lives and add to the already existent memes we subconsciously spread every day in gestures, art, and even language. Our brains are quickly adapting and we will think we are consciously choosing these things, but it’s fundamentally our inherent programming to replicate that is making us do it.

- Josh Hopkins, guest blogger

The Mind Hacks blog discusses new research in how the placebo effect works, via a recent BBC4 radio program.

However, recent work by psychologist Amir Raz has suggesting [sic] that both hypnosis and placebo may both work through the manipulation of attention, essentially influencing the focus of processing within the brain to alter how it regulates the body and mind.

Part of the discussion is whether hypnotic suggestibility is part of the placebo phenomenon itself or merely an indicator; i.e. are suggestion and placebo the same thing at work.

I’ve always believed in the efficacy of placebo, even when I’m knowingly trying to remedy myself with something that I know doesn’t have any basis in physiology.  I think part of this is a learned comfort response – when you’re young and sick, and your mom gives you soup and hugs, you “feel better” even though she hasn’t cured your cold.  We carry this response with us into adulthood, trying to use our own personal remedies and comfort routines to cure aches and pains and such, in a sort of medicinal cargo cult way.

When I’m sick in wintertime, I’ll take cold medicine and whatnot.  But I also drink lemoncello, because it reminds me of Sorrento and Capri and warm sun on my skin.  And though I know that alcohol and lemon rinds do absolutely nothing to relieve sinuses plugged with unspeakable goo, I’m happy to take the placebo effect that it gives me.

(via Seed)

Meet NASA’s future Martian rover, the 12-TET-Rover:

The 12-Tet Rover is … 12 tetrahedrons made of 26 struts … that will roam all over Mars’ complex terrain. Unlike the current wheeled rovers, it will be autonomous, so it will not require instruction from a whole team of scientists to complete a simple task. It will recognize obstacles and figure out how to get around them. It has a huge advantage over wheeled rovers because it does not require flat ground to operate properly. Rather than use wheels, it extends its struts and tumbles forward.

(via Pruned)

Matthew Chatfield (aka The Virtual Ranger) makes some observations about the stylistic differences in presentation between nature programs on the BBC and on American television (specifically National Geographic):

And yet both clips were superbly photographed, both accurately explained some quite complex information, and both clearly provided good entertainment to their viewers. So why are they so different? . . . To The Ranger’s British eyes, this American clip seems almost patronising and childish in its presentation. And yet the content is little different; the difference is purely stylistic.

This is a phenomenon I’ve noticed time and time again.  It’s not that I don’t enjoy content on Discovery Channel and NG and others, but as The Ranger notes, their productions always seem to value drama and flash over forthright delivery of content.  I often find myself literally yelling at the teevee to STOP DUMBING IT DOWN.  For a 1-hour program, that’s 44 minutes of screen time for maybe 18 minutes of actual Scientific Content, with the rest of it being flashy CGI, poorly staged re-enactments, and dramatic voiceover filler¹.

Given a choice between investing an hour of my time in a BBC program² or an American equivalent, I’d take the BBC offering pretty much every time³.

Science fiction writer Mike Brotherton writes a great piece about exposing SF works to a larger audience outside of the genre fiction silos that publishers put them into (i.e. “escaping the ghetto”), and applies a delicious takedown of Michael Crichton in the process:

In my opinion, however, he has three fatal flaws and my intellectual integrity prevents me from using him as a model for how to get science fiction to the wider public. His themes are consistently anti-science, he makes large and consistent errors in getting the science right, and he consistently insists he’s not just a writer but that his M.D. and his research gives him expertise on the science he gets wrong. Oh, and he’s a dick, too, writing one critic into a book of his as a child rapist.

Timely article for me, as I’ve been struggling with the issue of how to make my first foray into a genre work accessible to my “usual” audience and also legitimate with typical SF readers as well.