Saturday 26 June 2010

My analysis of football (on wine)

A terrible travesty, if there ever was one, to have burdened the earth and poisoned our minds... Unlike wine.

I wrote on last fm...
"haha. I'd rather listen to about three tracks of godspeed... (around 90min, funnily enough) than watch football... I genuinly can't stand the attachment of a team to a country.... it makes no sense.. just cus they're called england does not mean they represent engand... thats like me whacking an AA badge on myself gettin hammered, killing a prostitute and then having people blame AA for sobriety induced stress."

then i giggled...

Sport is great. Sure, i'll give you that one. Definitely two thumbs up for entertainment and competition. But the climactic juncture of football induced frenzy, frothing mouthed people, is enough for me to "thumb-down" signalling, kill this awful abomination of satan-spawn stricken puke piece.

Here are my personal grievances, listed, numerically, for you:

1. Football has been obsessively bought into, which makes sense considering the size of the market, but this means mental rape every time i go near a media source.

2. The attachment of England (the team) as England (the country) and the ensuing nationalism... my team my country blablabla. The same approach goes for more local football clubs...
epitomized by the language "we beat them" as though our locality somehow connects us.

i wish it did.

3. they are paid to much. Based on basic supply and demand... they don't - but concerning the extent of world problems.... >> they should get paid faaaar less.

4. It's boring.


i don't think i even have that many points... and i don't think i even have a problem with football that much... just

GET OVER IT.


the wineage is calling.

Friday 11 June 2010

Language and educational performance.

I almost misspelt and published "performance" missing the N. We'd have a case of perfor-mace, like i could spray it in your eyes and, yes, i do believe you performance would be lowered. Sadly this post is not about macing people, although i think that might a be a fun topic.

This is about our capacity to use and understand language, and it's relationship to educational performance/attainment.

A sociologist Bernstein did a study which illustrated the use of Restricted and Elaborate language which are the ideas, the impetus from where i am drawing on. His ideas cover the implicit meaning in language, which, when kept implicit constitute restricted code.

i don't think this is a fair presentation of Bernstein and by google(ing) or just clicking here, you can read about him.

Lucky for Bernstein, his fans, and by causality, me, this is not about Bernstein.

Through socialization, of family, media, school, reading books playing games - essentially- through our remembered experiences we collect, learn and disseminate language.

But it is the case that certain groups are less fortunate than others in their control over language, i mean, typically, i'm talking about class, but that doesn't explain it.

Instead, ill introduce the idea of social capital (in this sense, the collected "social" - here, language) and say there is a correlation between class and social capital.

But my actual point is simply that it is not over, and we still have (no matter the class) a big problem with language and educational performance.

A few days ago, and this is the reason for writing this, (just to provide a small explanation) an English question used the word "provocative" and the student didn't understand.

Language is a serious barrier to educational performance, and i'd even go as far to say, some ones understanding of the world.

Tuesday 8 June 2010

The Eras of History

The aim of this blog is to give people a better understanding of what it is historians actually do and how varied their area of study can be. It is also worth noting that its not just era historians tend to specialise in but also geography, historical school (historiography) and the type of history as well. For example I would class myself as a Late Modern/Contemporary Marxist Historian of European Socio-Political History, with a main focus on Britain, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. I also often look into the 'Great Man theory' of history. Indeed, a historian is very specific and never general about what he/she studies unless they work within the Annals School of history.

Prehistory - history from the beginning of life on Earth up until the first accounts of written in history. Which is roughly between 5000BC and 3500BC. Can be narrowed down to:
- Stone Age

- Bronze Age

- Iron Age



Note: some have argued that the Big Bang itself is the beginning of prehistory.



Antiquity - This tends to cover Mesopotamia right up until the end of the Classics. For example it includes:

- Ancient Egypt

- Ancient Rome

- Ancient Greece

- Persian Empire

and many others.



Middle Ages (Medieval) - Subsequently at the end of the Roman Empire, the Middles Ages begins around roughly 500ad. It can be divided into three sub eras:

- Early Middle Ages approx. 500ad - 1000ad (Dark Ages)

- High Middle Ages approx. 1000ad - 1300ad

- Late Middle Ages approx. 1300ad - 1500ad (Renaissance)



Modern - You then have Modern history which again can be narrowed down to three sub eras:

- Early Modern approx. 1500ad - 1750ad (Enlightenment approx 1637ad - 1804ad) (Debated)

- Late Modern approx. 1750ad - 1989ad (Industrial Revolution approx. 1780ad - 1890ad) (World War I 1914ad - 1918ad, World War II 1939ad - 1945ad and the Cold War 1946ad - 1989ad) (Industrial Revolution and Cold War dates are highly debated)

- Contemporary Modern 0r Post-Modern approx. 1989ad - present (Collapse of Communism)



Note: this is highly debated by historians and therefore this should not be taken as dogma. For example some argue that the Contemporary era begins in 1900ad. I can agree to this to some extent as their are still people alive from that date. (Or there was when I last checked). Therefore we can argue that Contemporary history begins with the birth date of the oldest person on the planet as Contemporary means to 'be there' or 'eye witness'.



Some Historians debate all of this, this is the 'popular' and also my accepted eras of history.



The reason I have done this is because people often make the mistake of thinking historians study all history. this is not so, it would be impossible. Indeed I do find pretty much all history interesting. However as an Academic I only tend to study the Late modern and Contemporary Eras.




Note: This is all due to change as new evidence is uncovered everyday. For example it is hypothesized that there was a civilisation before Mesopotamia in Greenland or Antarctica.




- So now the question is, whats next? There is a subject within history known as Futurism. This is the study of what possibilities may occur in the future, be it immediate or distant. Futurists tend to see Post Modern as a different era to Contemporary History.

Monday 7 June 2010

Competitative Markets, A Fault In Design?

This idea is not mine and although i haven't read any literature about it, no doubt someone has been able to illustrate this faaaaar clearer than me:


In any competitive preference catching system (of units, e.g. votes/money), occupation of the centre of preference is, tactically, the best decision. In real life, this is an abysmal flaw.

This was a Facebook post.

The idea is that where the collection of units is needed, the collector will sit in the most effective area for that collection.

Take, for example, an idea from a book called something like: dumbing down. The book argues that media (as it is within a market) occupies the centre (in terms of what it shows and the complexity of what it shows) because this is where the market share is.

You don’t buy a paper if it appears to complicated, you don’t buy a paper if it is mind numbingly simple.

Now, the effect of this is… an average of STUPIDITY!

Why?

People are reading magazines, newspapers and watching news, films and television... that have been designed to occupy the centre and collect the most money.

In a competitive market challenging the way a reader thinks and challenging their ability to read is monetary suicide. There is a market for it, but it is NO where near as big.

An example in politics shouldn't be difficult. After all, in the UK and the US, the main political parties occupy the centre: Mediocre language complexity and hazy policy commitments (unless useful), avoidance of divisive issues (also, unless useful).

Look at the debates, after all, there wasn’t an in depth discussion using complicated language… it was politicking.

The centre is more or less, the status quo. It is the area the majority occupy.

The status quo is an IQ near 100.

A preference of hedonism (pleasure/entertainment).

And finally an implicit acceptance of capitalism.


The effect of this, i think, to some extent, is a dumbing down (or, simplification) of language and media. A slimming of choices where a group has monopolised the centre. A homogenization of culture. And a replication of the status quo, e.g. capitalism and IQ averages. Overall, a replication and simplification of ideas.

Not really a good thing.