![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bookzombieI haven't watched Horizon (once the BBC's flagship science program) for many years, but pennskipointed out last night's program, being about how we make decisions and how to make them better, as worth a look.
That's 50 minutes of my life I'm not going to get back.
pennskipointed out last night's program, being about how we make decisions and how to make them better, as worth a look.That's 50 minutes of my life I'm not going to get back.
Rant behind cut
There were some interesting elements of the programme, but the whole thing had a scatter-shot approach that spent a few minutes on each topic, just enough time to give a quick overview and then on to the next thing. Some of those segments where also a waste of time.
You had a young yuppyish mathematician who had put together equations to help make good decisions, trying it out on a) four techies trying to get a girlfriend and b) advising shoppers on whether to buy a particular pair of shoes. I can't even list the number of ways these experiments were scientifically invalid, as well as asinine and pointing out the bleedin' obvious (apparently the key part of the equation regarding whether two people will go out together is the relative attractiveness of the couple. Who'd have thought...?)
To end the program we had a 'scientist' (I'm really trying to avoid the word 'nutter') who believes that one reason that some people have better reaction speeds, or can anticipate better than others, is because they are getting information from the future. Oookay. There was a potentially interesting experiment show, but it was shown in isolation, with no controls discussed, and what is more no counter-argument presented from reputable scientists (by the way what used to be psionics or parasychology is now 'noetics').
There were two interesting segments: one about a test that shows the brain post-justifying choices and another about 'priming', where decisions can be strongly affected by environmental issues.
Now Horizon has always been a 'pop science' programme, but it used to take the science seriously and go into depth. The segments that I found interesting would have each been given an entire programme in the past, enough to really examine the science in detail. But now it just seems to be aiming entirely for a 'gosh wow!' effect.
On a serious note, when a programme like this, with a reputable history, starts giving pseudo-science unargued access to screen time then it is no wonder that the general public seems to be so ill-informed.
There were some interesting elements of the programme, but the whole thing had a scatter-shot approach that spent a few minutes on each topic, just enough time to give a quick overview and then on to the next thing. Some of those segments where also a waste of time.
You had a young yuppyish mathematician who had put together equations to help make good decisions, trying it out on a) four techies trying to get a girlfriend and b) advising shoppers on whether to buy a particular pair of shoes. I can't even list the number of ways these experiments were scientifically invalid, as well as asinine and pointing out the bleedin' obvious (apparently the key part of the equation regarding whether two people will go out together is the relative attractiveness of the couple. Who'd have thought...?)
To end the program we had a 'scientist' (I'm really trying to avoid the word 'nutter') who believes that one reason that some people have better reaction speeds, or can anticipate better than others, is because they are getting information from the future. Oookay. There was a potentially interesting experiment show, but it was shown in isolation, with no controls discussed, and what is more no counter-argument presented from reputable scientists (by the way what used to be psionics or parasychology is now 'noetics').
There were two interesting segments: one about a test that shows the brain post-justifying choices and another about 'priming', where decisions can be strongly affected by environmental issues.
Now Horizon has always been a 'pop science' programme, but it used to take the science seriously and go into depth. The segments that I found interesting would have each been given an entire programme in the past, enough to really examine the science in detail. But now it just seems to be aiming entirely for a 'gosh wow!' effect.
On a serious note, when a programme like this, with a reputable history, starts giving pseudo-science unargued access to screen time then it is no wonder that the general public seems to be so ill-informed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-13 02:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-13 06:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-13 08:04 pm (UTC)You're much better looking, mind.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-13 04:12 pm (UTC)Another problem is the structure that comes from allowing space for advertising: you know:
Here's an idea and this happened and there was a crisis. (Fade to black)
Once there was an idea and this happened and a problem was solved but led to a cliff hanger. (Fade to black)
So there was an idea and some problems, but then they faced the biggest test of all. (Fade to black)
There's about twenty minutes of content, stretched out to fifty minutes. And it's all docs, really, not just science ones.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-13 06:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-13 07:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-13 08:32 pm (UTC)I've sort of stopped watching documentaries recently. I'm particularly irritated by the apparent need to ask the same question again and again... which I know is based on re-introducing new viewers after the ad-break, but makes me feel as though the programme-makers think we've all got five-minute attention spans.
Not heard of "noetics". My new word of the day!