Well I'm not going to argue that this study is solid, but my personal opinion is that working monotonous jobs, doing the same thing over and over, to the exclusion of variety in life, getting enough time outdoors, in bed sleeping or not sleeping (wink), playing with your kids or writing that book or whatever--cannot be optimum for the human organism.
I know people have to do what they have to do, but it does not strike me as implausible that spending ten hours a day shuffling papers would atrophy the brain and curb vitality a bit. At another time in history, a typical day might look something like: prepare food, dig in the earth, tell stories around a fire, build something, etc. That picture, I think, engages more of the full human being rather than denying certain parts of it, as the common modern lifestyle could be argued to do.
This probably sounds kind of new agey, but whatever. Doing the same thing over and over, especially in a noncreative realm that doesn't have any direct personal meaning, for the majority of your waking life does not seem like the surest route to health and happiness.
I don't know. Isn't the point of bookshelves that they store books in an efficient way? This seems like form over function, rather than a creative marriage of the two.
Yeah, I think it might serve people well to spend at least a little time living in a city where it's a no brainer to lock your car (and turn off the ignition and take keys, obviously). I lock my car even if I'm just going around to the other side to fill up with gas.
ew. also? way to eschew the utility of opposable thumbs and general digital dexterity in favor of a time when lesser life forms just pawed uselessly at things.
True, no British English, but as an ignorant American with a British boyfriend, I have to say that for about the first week I spent with my now-partner, I couldn't understand easily half of what he said. I got embarrassed saying "what?" more than twice, so I really lost quite a bit entirely.
Then a funny thing happened on the way to where ever: after a short while, my ear grew up or something and now there's never a time I don't understand him--ever, even while others do. Nice to know I can still adapt. Now he's the one who can't understand fast Southern or muttered speech or Hispanic accents in dialog in movies or whatever. It's weird, the whole thing of speaking a same language that is simultaneously totally different.
We even have idioms that take the same pattern but use different terms, like "throw a wrench in the works" versus "throw a spanner in the works."
Sorry...any excuse to talk about my cute boyfriend.
Ted, I don't think it's condescending to make the case that people need to pay more attention. And if it is, I guess that's okay with me. You seem to argue for the idea that it's alright for people to not inquire, not have their bullshit detectors on, etc., and that satirists and their ilk should cater to that incuriosity instead of challenge it or ignore it.
I think that sounds like protecting ignorance, and I don't think there's anything valuable about that.
And with regard to "rewriting history," well, that's not what satire is. It is not an attempt to corrupt actual history for advantage, but a tool (in theory) for pointing out things like hypocrisy or simple absurdity (and sometimes just for fun, which is perfectly legit). It can be funny because of its very distance from reality--the humor is in the contrast between the two.
And if occasionally satire is lost on people, well, I don't think that's an argument for getting rid of satire; I think it's an argument for becoming more aware.
I know people have to do what they have to do, but it does not strike me as implausible that spending ten hours a day shuffling papers would atrophy the brain and curb vitality a bit. At another time in history, a typical day might look something like: prepare food, dig in the earth, tell stories around a fire, build something, etc. That picture, I think, engages more of the full human being rather than denying certain parts of it, as the common modern lifestyle could be argued to do.
This probably sounds kind of new agey, but whatever. Doing the same thing over and over, especially in a noncreative realm that doesn't have any direct personal meaning, for the majority of your waking life does not seem like the surest route to health and happiness.
Anything can happen. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Then a funny thing happened on the way to where ever: after a short while, my ear grew up or something and now there's never a time I don't understand him--ever, even while others do. Nice to know I can still adapt. Now he's the one who can't understand fast Southern or muttered speech or Hispanic accents in dialog in movies or whatever. It's weird, the whole thing of speaking a same language that is simultaneously totally different.
We even have idioms that take the same pattern but use different terms, like "throw a wrench in the works" versus "throw a spanner in the works."
Sorry...any excuse to talk about my cute boyfriend.
I think that sounds like protecting ignorance, and I don't think there's anything valuable about that.
And with regard to "rewriting history," well, that's not what satire is. It is not an attempt to corrupt actual history for advantage, but a tool (in theory) for pointing out things like hypocrisy or simple absurdity (and sometimes just for fun, which is perfectly legit). It can be funny because of its very distance from reality--the humor is in the contrast between the two.
And if occasionally satire is lost on people, well, I don't think that's an argument for getting rid of satire; I think it's an argument for becoming more aware.