Flipnosis

“’Flipnosis’ is a special kind of persuasion. It has an incubation period of just seconds, and can disarm even the most discerning mind… it is black-belt mind control”

That’s what the back cover of this glorious book states. It’s a bold claim. In fact, they originally thought of calling the book:

“Jedi Mind Tricks for Dummies.”

Does it deliver?
Why are you asking me that? Do you really think if I had mastered Jedi mind tricks I would be wasting time writing pointless blogs?
It does, in fact, fall very disappointingly far from delivering.

It starts slow. It introduces persuasion techniques in nature. How certain features make a person appear more trustworthy etc. All well and good, but I’m stuck with the face I have, so this does not aid me in my quest for world domination.

It then goes on to introduce example after example of how other people have used Flipnosis. OK, better, but all these examples are very specific, and the techniques used would almost certainly not work elsewhere. Even in a similar situation. Here’s an example of an example:

“A flight runs into turbulence. Word that passengers are nervous reaches the cockpit. A few moments later, the pilot’s voice is heard.
‘Jesus, we’re all going to die!’ he screams. ‘Oh, shit! That was the intercom light not the engine light...’
The plane erupts with laughter and calm is restored.”

... huh? So if someone is nervous, the correct thing to do is try to freak them out and hope they find it funny? I could be wrong, but I’m fairly certain that could backfire.

The book then kind of tails of, as if it’s done its job and now just needs to wrap up.
But I’m not a bloody Jedi Knight yet!! Get back here!

The real disappointment, however, is that Dr Dutton felt the need to make such silly claims in the first place. There are actually a lot of interesting little facts and experiments in the book, but they’re spoilt by Dutton’s desire to try, and fail, to weave them all together into some elusive “Flipnosis” techniques.

Particularly as the final summary at the end basically says:
“Sometimes you’ll fudge things up, sometimes you won’t. Good luck with that.”

Then again... perhaps the book works perfectly, but I’ve just used its tricks to persuade you all not to read it.

The world is mine.

13 Things That Don't Make Sense

They say you should never judge a book by its cover, and, thinking about what the cover generally has on it, that would suggest not judging by the title either. This book may be a bit of an exception to that rule:

"13 Things That Don't Make Sense" - by Michael Brooks

What's it about? Well, surprisingly enough, its about... 13 things that don't make sense...

Michael Brooks provides a list of 13 things which, in his opinion, science has not yet provided a satisfactory explanation for. These include the likes of dark matter/dark energy, gravity, life, death, sex and aliens. His discussion on each is generally well rounded, informed and thought provoking and makes for a good bed time story.

Although the topics are all highly varied, one common theme does unit the majority of the book. A theme that makes less sense than any of the topics explicitly mentioned.

The fact that many scientists treat science like a religion.

The book is mostly about the silly behaviour of scientists known as the "paradigm shift".

"Scientists work with one set of ideas. Everything they do is informed by that set of ideas. There will be some evidence that doesn't fit, however. At first that evidence will be ignored or sabotaged." Only when the evidence builds up to critical mass does the whole system break down and a new law is put in place.

However, this new order generally requires alot more than new evidence. It requires a new set of scientists with a new set of beliefs and a new set of followers. In other words, a new religion.

So powerful is the force of religious science that the writer himself, despite the majority of the book providing countless evidence of it, falls foul of it himself in his debate on free will. On rather flimsy evidence he declares, "We do not have what we think of as free will." The rest of the debate then takes this statement as fact, and the "thing that does not make sense" is that so many people believe we do. True, it can be argued that free will does not exist and there may not be any strong logical arguement as to why it should, but the evidence he bases his conclusion on is inconclusive at best.

The book therefore leads to an interesting debate on the 14th thing. Why is the human mind so strongly wired towards religion, that even those who go out of their way to find an evidence based, logical alternative to religion still just end up with another religion?

Love Actually

Nope, its not a review of the film, but rather a review of an article recently picked out by Zhang Yi designed to scientifically answer

"What IS love, actually?"

Scientists have been studying brain activities and chemical levels in all kinds of animals to try and answer this very question. In summary, they've discovered its basically oxytocin and vasopressin.

Glad thats cleared up...

...

... what? You wanted more details?.. FINE.

Many mammals have a connection between parent and child. In evolutionary terms, such a connection improves the odds the child will survive and thus is better for the species. This connection, in females at least, is produced by a large amount of oxy released during childbirth. In simple terms it produces a kind of addiction, in a similar way as cocaine or heroine, and associates it with the child.

Long term connections between lovers is far less common in mammals, and serves much less purpose in terms of survival. Studies in humans show that the chemical reactions and brain activities that take place when lovers see each other is in fact disturbingly similar to those that take place when a mother sees their child. Love between partners is basically a mutation of the bond of a mother.

Sexual activities release more of these chemicals and may, therefore, improve relationships.

OK, thats oxy, what about vas?

Well vas is the male equivalent. Similar to oxy, it promotes bonding and paternal instincts. Unlike oxy, it also encourages violent tendencies towards potential rivals. Interestingly, the effect of vas on males is NOT always guaranteed. Some males seem to have a certain gene which seems to greatly reduce the chances of them being happy in a long term relationship with anyone.

Some males are actually, physically and mentally, not able to feel "true" love. Ever.

The other interesting (aka worryingly scary) fact is that since scientists are learning more about the chemicals responsible for love, it suggests the mystical "love potion" may not stay so mythical. Theorectically, it may be possible to drug someone to love you, and weirdly they might not even get upset about it.

In fact, they'd probably love you for it...