22 August 2007
CASE I:
There was a rather interesting Nova special last night covering the possible 'Origins of Life on Earth ' - beginning with the first micro-organisms. The host explains that for the first thirty or so million years, Earth suffered a tempestuous nascence, constantly bombarded by meteors and other quasi-planets. This occured to such an extreme extent that Earth appeared as a planet of sulfuric acid, carbon dioxide, and other very toxic chemicals, exploding at every turn and suffering many explosive attacks in the process.
Interestingly, the first cosmic meteors striking this planet were actually analyzed to contain amino acids. The big question then arises: 'Did the amino acids contained in the meteors survive the impact of their collision on Earth?' When scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories of UC Berkeley simulated these same meteoric attacks to determine the answer, they learned the explosions actually catalyzed the amino acids into peptides.
Well, Duh!
With all the evidence we have of life on Earth, does it not stand to Reason that the explosions were very necessary to foster and to sustain a viable life form? (Think about large hedron collidors splitting the atom...)This type of explosion is a semi-visual representation of chi - the life force energy - at the heart of all potentiality. Quite literally then, the very first collisions of meteors on Earth are the active, real and necessary powers of creativity, creation, and potential itself...
CASE II:
Today, The New York Times published Miguel Helft's article, "Google Aims to Make YouTube Profitable with Ads". In the article, Helft explains Google's answer to a new type of advertising on YouTube as a possible means of 'getting a return' on their hefty billion+ dollar investment. The new video ads are described as "unobtrusive" and "user-controlled" whereby the viewer has the option of waiting ten (10) seconds for the ad to disappear or just to close it. In addition, the ads themselves only occupy one-fifth of the screen and are overlays, rather than actual pop-ups.
In this manner, Google has found a way to turn the annoying into the engaging in the form of ad-invites. For the first time, the viewer has a great deal of control over just how invasive an ad should be during his/her viewing experience of YouTube content.
Again, Duh!
Although we can not get rid of ads altogether because this is a capitalist society, it is good to know there are actually brains in the industry that use their common sense REASON, at least once in a while.
Long overdue!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When will Reason 'return' as a foundation for our choices, behaviors, and actions? When will we finally choose to allow our common sense be our guide? What is the obstacle? Why the hesitancy?
CASE III:
On 14 August 2007, The New York Times published Nicholas Bakalar's article, "If It Says McDonald's, Then It Must Be Good". In the article, Bakalar describes what does not even seem to be a silver standard research study about the psychological effect of the visual on taste preference. The study can not be statistically significant or conclusive because it is completely based on individual bias, with no level of gold or silver standard study protocols. Moreover, red as a very distracting color and as the predominant color theme of McDonald's packaging (reds surrounding 'golden arches'), further skews the results of the study. (If anything, it suggests the effective influence of the color red and of familiar labeling on children's appetites.)
Of course Walt Riker, McDonald's VP, extols the study as "important".
Important?
Maybe for advertising. However, for the study to be statistically significant or conclusive in any way is not sound by any stretch.
The only thing the study suggests is that McDonald's is an effective label with packaging that entices children to believe they prefer anything wrapped in McDonald's paper. The better study might be to use similar packaging - red with golden arches - but to vary the arches in a way so the second packaging is clearly NOT McDonald's - and then to test what the children prefer. Until then, as it is - a study comparing children's food preferences for packaging in McDonad's wrappers over plain white wrappers - it is not worth reporting.
Rather than reporting news, Bakalar has stated the obvious and in so doing, uncovered a deeper level of the banal, mundane, oblivion that is sub-par research today. Rather than help marketers find ways of advertising healthful solutions for children, researchers are increasingly churning out validations of the obvious. Indeed, this is increasingly becoming the level of social science research today: publishing for the sake of publishing and communicating nothing more than the obvious, the obvious being what can be derived from the use of common sense reasoning.
When will this futility stop? When will the cacophany, the strident chattering jumble, subside? Who will dare not merely to tap into, but to grab hold of the explosive powers of potentiality - and make use of it?
Are we never to revisit an Enlightenment, despite the omnipresent technologies?
In this reality, please leave me to virtuality!
