Audiobooks vs. Reading, what different studies have to say

In today's world of expedient and relatively cheap exchange of information thanks to the appearance of new devices and platforms (not to mention , many fear that new technologies may end up rendering art worthless and artists flat broke. 

However, movies are still being made, music festivals seem more popular than ever and many renowned writers still relish the delights of stardom and popular recognition. How can both worlds coexist?

The following article specifically focuses on how audiobooks can compare to traditional, paperbook reading according to different criteria:

AUDIOBOOKS VS READING: THE RULES ARE, THERE ARE NO RULES

This other article expands on the same idea:

To Your Brain, Listening to a Book Is Pretty Much the Same As Reading It

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? (or the nauseating stench of the post-truth era, fake news and the like)

"Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?" Those were John Lydon's (aka "Johnny Rotten", his stage name at the time) infamous words during Punk Rock icons The Sex Pistols' last gig in San Francisco before an outraged, booing audience (They had just played a shambolic rendition of the Stooges' "No Fun" for around 15 minutes and left the stage with no further explanations, so, yes the attendants did have a good reason to be outraged!). Maybe John wanted to make some sort of artistic statement with such a confrontational attitude, maybe they just couldn't stand each other anymore on the stage and thought "ahh...fuck it" and called it to quits.

Anyway, it's not The Sex Pistols we're discussing here (though I wouldn't mind doing so, as I love them and cannot get enough of their 1977 epochal "Never Mind the Bollocks, here's the Sex Pistols"), but the concept of the Post-Truth, the era of the fake news and, more importantly (in this very article of mine), people's willingness to swallow whatever they want to believe, no matter the facts blatantly proving otherwise. And this is especially true as a consequence of the "democratization of the information on the Net", which is, of course, a euphemism for "thanks to the social media, just about any ignorant, pathetic, misinformed yokel, reveling in their own ignorance, patheticism and misinformation, thinks they are entitled to teach a lesson to the rest of the world and shut everybody else up". And that, as you may infer from the harsh nature of the words two lines above, pisses me off a little bit.

Ok, let's have some historical background here: the today's ubiquitous "Post-truth" (chosen "word of the year" in 2016) term was allegedly coined (or at least popularized) in Ralph Keyes' book (incidentally) titled "The Post-Truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in contemporary life"), centered on the institutionalized expressions of the post-truth phenomenon (how modern politics, finances and the media intersect as means of indoctrination and manipulation). Another notable work is James Ball's "The Post Truth: how bullshit conquered the world" (one of whose most striking introductory lines is "Bullshit gets you noticed. Bullshit makes you rich. Bullshit can even pave your way to the oval office"). Both pretty solid reads, from what I've heard.

Early examples of the post-truth phenomenon include the 1985 political scandal "Irangate" (to cut a long story short, the US government and different senior officials of the Army, including lieutenant Oliver North, were accused of selling arms to Iran so as to fund the rebel guerrillas in Nicaragua -"Contras"-fighting to overthrow the Sandinista regime). Against all odds (well, not really), president Reagan got reelected and lieutenant North was hailed as a national hero. Hypocrisy? Nope: patriotism. The "Brexit" referendum outcome and the election of Donald Trump as the US president are also notable cases of totally deceitful and misguided information being ingrained in people's minds and leading to, well, pretty questionable consequences. An even more recent and closer example of this openly accepted and welcome misinformation is, of course, the pro-independence campaign promoted by nationalist and separatist political parties and championed by a great deal of the people of Catalonia, dubbed "procès". Good God, does that whole "procès" have the word "BULLSHIT" written all over it. It never, in my opinion, fails to shock, amaze and daze with its never-ending array of too-phony-to-be-funny and stomach-turning news and initiatives, but I think the extent of its all-out demagogy was exposed in this video, were a pouting young woman (speaking impeccable English, I must say) tried to warn the entire world about the unbearable, sadistic and paramilitary-like repression a nation of peaceful, democracy-laden and good-willed citizens were suffering at the hands of a murderous, oppressive state. You bet many believed it, for it was, no qualms about it, a fine production; the problem is, it could never stand up to a minimally serious analysis and scrutiny. It was so obviously full of shit that this young American pal was able to debunk each of the lies therein included (the moment when he calls the lady in the video "you lying piece of shit" is gold haha). The video and the completely-devoid-of-any-critical-thinking adherence of those many who were besotted by the song of the Siren and wanted to rise in arms before such an injustice is a great example of the components of the post-truth mindset: ALWAYS appeal to emotion, NEVER to reason. FACTS cease to matter and the TRUTH is always arguable and relative. EVERYBODY can be a journalist. YOU can be a journalist. The MAINSTREAM MEDIA is manipulated, unless they second your views, in which case, you should NEVER cast doubt on their information. By no means will you EVER leave room for concession and acknowledgment of dissenting arguments, for those supporting them are wrong and are probably evil. They want to hurt you and all you and your people stand for, so go ahead and strike first. You get it right? 

 

Post-truth also, in my view, engages in the most convoluted and warped processes of language alteration and bastardization. Words and concepts change their meaning at the stroke of a pen, no need to remain coherent with one's words and true to the most basic principles of humanity. "Freedom", "peace", "democracy" are just concepts flawed by, oh, a nature of transience. Ok, enough about being ironic: listen, whenever someone refers to the systematic ethnic cleansing on the grounds of racial and cultural supremacy (i.e.: nationalism) perpetrated for decades by those E.T.A. mass murdering bitches as a "conflict" (between two equally legit sides), I just wish they would have a heart attack. Conflict, my ass. This also reveals the post-truth bearer's bent to ONLY feel sensitive, compassionate and sympathetic for the like-minded ones. Think like me, be like me or screw yourself.

I don't think that the social media are to blame for the suffocating spread of the post-truth mentality. I just think we're not ready for them yet, but we can surely find a lot of illustrative examples of it: apparently, rebutting someone's arguments on Twitter making some believe you ridiculed and showed your dialectical opponent up ("zasca" in Spanish) is like the greatest personal and intellectual accomplishment some dream of (Do these cats have all the time of the world on their hands? huh?) .

Groups on Facebook are kind of funny too: an eye-opening sign of how individual consciousness is completely insignificant and defenseless against the unstoppable force and pressure of that juggernaut that is the collective mindset, our inalienable desire to belong, the group pressure. Meat-eaters vs. vegans, keto vs. paleo vs. flexible dieting zealots, tearing each other apart (and that's just about dieting and nutrition, but examples exist aplenty in just any field), never ever wanting to take scientific evidence and decades of conclusive empirical research (thermodynamics? seriously?) into account. Because, why would they? What is "the truth" if not a malleable, ever-changing construct which adopts its meaning depending on who speaks it? I will tell you, folks: they don't want the truth, they can't handle the truth.

I'm pretty sure there's a Chinese proverb or something which goes along the lines of "if your words are not more beautiful than silence, refrain yourself from uttering them" and sure mom would scold me for using such negative, bitter and misanthropic language in this post.

Well, sorry mommy. I'm not an angry man, but this was an angry rant.

PS: You may not agree completely with the information stated here or may even think that my examples of the post-truth phenomenon are sort of biased and deliberately selective. Well, I understand your feeling but, hey, this is my blog and, of course, I welcome and would appreciate any sort of (approving and disapproving) comments in the comments section!

Unit 9. Recommended Watching! Glengarry Glen Ross

Hi there!

The unit we're about to finish has dealt with work and careers, basically trying to make a living for oneself and our loved ones in our daily grind.


The term "Rat Race" (aka: brutally fierce competition usually taking place in the workplace, but also in life, in general) came up in one of our sessions and I just cannot think - now, at least- of a film which more ruthlessly depicts one than this.

I guess many great movies have been made about this very topic; however, one of the ones that really struck a chord with yours truly (i.e.: me) is 1992 Glengarry Glen Ross. The plot is as simple as it is so callous in its depiction of reality: different salesmen need to compete in a company's sales contest. The hapless one who loses in such a contest will be fired. Not a very intricate story, I suppose, but, man, when you have blokes like Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Jack Lemmon, Kevin Spacey or Alec Baldwin in the cast, you bet you're gonna witness a true performing tour de force. 

One of my biggest beefs with Spanish movies is that the actors are rarely this convincing and good. The best Spanish actor/actress just CANNOT hold a candle to guys like the ones you'll see in this SUPERB film. But, again, maybe that's just my opinion, and you know what happens to opinions, don't you?

;-)

Enjoy!

What price happiness?

The concern of whether money can make you happier or not has been a never-ending debate. Ask whoever about how money correlates with joy and blissfulness and the answers may vary quite a bit, but most will be in the line of "it depends...". Very few are likely to downright deny any link whatsoever between wealth and happiness and not that many may be able to state that yes, the more you earn, the happier you'll be. The link appears not to be that obvious, or so it seems.

But it turns out, as the article I'm copying and pasting below, that studies have been carried out about that very issue, research which tries to shed some light - and apparently, they have succeeded, for they come up with some definite figures- on the good-old query: how much money do you need to be happy? 

The article in question:

People say money doesn't buy happiness. Except, according to a new study from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, it sort of does — up to about $75,000 a year. The lower a person's annual income falls below that benchmark, the unhappier he or she feels. But no matter how much more than $75,000 people make, they don't report any greater degree of happiness.

Before employers rush to hold — or raise — everyone's salary to $75,000, the study points out that there are actually two types of happiness. There's your changeable, day-to-day mood: whether you're stressed or blue or feeling emotionally sound. Then there's the deeper satisfaction you feel about the way your life is going — the kind of thing Tony Robbins tries to teach you. While having an income above the magic $75,000 cutoff doesn't seem to have an impact on the former (emotional well-being), it definitely improves people's Robbins-like life satisfaction. In other words, the more people make above $75,000, the more they feel their life is working out on the whole. But it doesn't make them any more jovial in the mornings.

The study, by economist Angus Deaton and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, who has won a Nobel Prize for Economics, analyzed the responses of 450,000 Americans polled by Gallup and Healthways in 2008 and 2009. Participants were asked how they had felt the previous day and whether they were living the best possible life for them. They were also asked about their income.

The authors found that most Americans — 85% — regardless of their annual income, felt happy each day. Almost 40% of respondents also reported feeling stressed (which is not mutually exclusive with happiness) and 24% had feelings of sadness. Most people were also satisfied with the way their life was going.

So, where does the $75,000 come into play? Researchers found that lower income did not cause sadness itself but made people feel more ground down by the problems they already had. The study found, for example, that among divorced people, about 51% who made less than $1,000 a month reported feeling sad or stressed the previous day, while only 24% of those earning more than $3,000 a month reported similar feelings. Among people with asthma, 41% of low earners reported feeling unhappy, compared with about 22% of the wealthier group. Having money clearly takes the sting out of adversities.

At $75,000, that effect disappears. For people who earn that much or more, individual temperament and life circumstances have much more sway over their lightness of heart than money. The study doesn't say why $75,000 is the benchmark, but "it does seem to me a plausible number at which people would think money is not an issue," says Deaton. At that level, people probably have enough expendable cash to do things that make them feel good, like going out with friends. (The federal poverty level for a family of four, by the way, is $22,050.)

But in the bigger view of their lives, people's evaluations were much more tied to their income. The more they made, the more they felt their life was going well. The survey asked respondents to place themselves on a life-satisfaction ladder, with the first rung meaning their lives were not going well and the 10th rung meaning it was as good as it could be. The higher their income, the higher the rung people chose. "Importantly, the same percentage increase in income has the same effect on evaluation for everyone, rich or poor alike, even though the absolute dollar amounts differ," the authors write. So every 10% rise in annual income moves people up the satisfaction ladder the same amount, whether they're making $25,000 or $100,000. "High incomes don't bring you happiness, but they do bring you a life you think is better," conclude the authors. Might it be time for Oprah to give these guys their own show?

Past research on money and happiness has also found that it's not absolute wealth that's linked with happiness, but relative wealth or status — that is, how much more money you have than your neighbors.

It's no surprise, then, that when the same polls are done in different countries, Americans come out as a bit of a mixed lot: they're fifth in terms of happiness, 33rd in terms of smiling and 10th in terms of enjoyment. At the same time, they're the 89th biggest worriers, the 69th saddest and fifth most stressed people out of the 151 nations studied. Even so, perhaps because of the country's general wealth, they are in the top 10 citizenries where people feel their lives are going well, beaten out by such eternal optimists as the Canadians, New Zealanders and Scandinavians.

Right. Now that Princeton researchers have untangled that life mystery, maybe someone at MIT can look into the optimal amount of money required to buy us love.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's 6 rules for Success

Hi there!

When discussing examples of people who could embody each one's ideas about accomplishment/success, the name of Austrian ex-bodybuilder/Hollywood Icon/busineman/politician Arnold Schwarzenegger came up amongst others. I guess it came across as a weird choice for some, as he may strike many people as this rather cartoonish/easy to dismiss/parody guy. I read something about Arnold's background and have no doubt about his natural talents, but especially his inspiring work ethic and determination.

Here you can find a SUPER inspirational speech where he goes through his 6 rules for success. Make sure you make some time to watch it. Words of wisdom, I have to say.

A few great men (and women)

"You're either making progress or you're losing ground"

So reads the extract of one of Mike Matthews's podcast series "Motivation Monday" which I would religiously listen to every Monday as soon as the audio file (scheduled for Mondays first thing in the morning, USA EDT) would make it to the iVoox app of my cellphone (6 hours later, obviously owing to time zone differences). 

"By doing the work that very few are willing to do, you will get the results that most  can only dream of..."

This one was another. See? These lines, not unlike sweet morning caffeine, would provide me with a much-needed kick in the butt and propel me throughout the week. Mr. Matthews is, no doubt, endowed with the gift of the gab and knows how to deliver the message in a way that the listener feels empowered enough so as to quit all their lazy, unproductive habits, cut the crap about all sort of (material, emotional, whimsical) banalities and futile ruminations and take for once the reins of their otherwise trivial, unremarkable and meaningless lives (if no actual desire to take control of it existed). 

One is forced to think that, yes, living a fulfilling existence/ living righteously a) is not that complicated, b) in fact, it shouldn't be complicated provided one is willing to put in the right amount of work and discipline, focusing on what really matters in life- health, self-confidence, realization and, yes... money-  and c) 95% (roughly) of the time, this endeavor will depend on ourselves.

To take this idea further, he kickstarted a different podcast series dubbed "Book Club", in which books about namely personal development/productivity strategies/time management and biographies are briefly reviewed, broken down and interesting conclusions derived to help us in our everyday life actions and decisions. With regard to biographies, Mike passionately dissects and goes through incredibly inspiring fragments detailing aspects of the lives and works of diverse extraordinary people and the actions and creations which made them so extraordinary. We get to listen to the anecdote in which the otherwise maligned Alexander the Great (on many occasions portrayed as a mass murderer), when stuck with his sick and beaten, thirsty, moribund troops in the middle of the desert, without the slightest hope of escaping alive, these found a minuscule spring of natural water, managed to fill a helmet with it and offered to their leader- as a sign of respect/devotion/admiration-; Alexander grabbed the helmet and just emptied the liquid gold on the sand. If his soldiers couldn't quench their thirst, he wouldn't either. This is only a hint and an evidence that men like Alexander were just a couple cuts above the average, weren't they?

Similar stories and curiosities are dispersed about different entrepreneurs, inventors and creators or strategists like Benjamin Franklin (he seriously despised material wealth and ostentation, apparently), Elon Musk (during one period in his professional career, he would lock himself in his office, work 20 hours a day, to the point where his employees doubted whether he showered at all), Rockefeller ("the best way to never become an alcoholic was to never try a single drop of alcohol" he would say) or Napoleon Bonaparte (he would draw and sketch his empire to be on a large map, sequencing which armies he would defeat first and which ones would follow, meticulously devising on paper any detail of battle strategies). I mean, by hearing stories of these great men (most of whom had to endure any kind of hardship in their beginnings or downright came out of abject poverty) one cannot but feel really humbled, no matter how self-accomplished or satisfied we feel about our lives, no matter whether we actually believe we have pulled something worth being noted off.

I understand that, next to the works and legacy of great men and women like Curie, Einstein, Wagner, Napoleon, Edison, Joan of Arc, et al, any one of us would be decimated and obliterated to sheer insignificance and such a comparison is way too harsh and rather unfair; the point I'm trying to get across here, however, is the following: the unrest, discomfort, hardship, adversity, misery that all these people had to endure at some point in their lives played a crucial role- in my own, uninformed opinion- in their exceptional nature. 

Innate ability/talent or good luck will only get you so far. When that is paired with hardcore work ethic and unbreakable determination, the results are bound to be nothing short of astonishing (in any field of life, from parenting to athleticism to artistic creation). And, to my view, said work ethic and determination tend to stem from a genuine desire to overcome adverse circumstances (fleeing pain/deprivation/sorrow/poverty...) or overturn a current unjust/bound-to-be-changed situation (sheer non-conformity). And that's the reason why we have so few outstanding men and women in our current age.

"Satisfaction is the death of desire"

Think for a while: how many truly great, say, politicians/political activists from the past can you think of? The names of Kennedy, Churchill, De Gaulle, Rosa Parks or Luther King may come to mind. How many contemporary counterparts could even dream of holding a candle to any of them? Well, next to zero (if you know any, I'll be happy to be enlighted). Misery, war, and injustice may breed violence, but also a desire to change things. Comfort, convenience, TV and free Twitter accounts breed the insufferable bunch of mediocre, ignorant, inarticulate opportunists, disguised as politicians/communicators/influencers we have to stomach and are supposed to look up to nowadays. The worst thing is that they have (or think they do) the right to tell us what to do and have the power (or want such power) to force us to. Screw them very much, sir.

"20% of our actions are responsible for 80% of the results"

So states the Pareto Principle (with proven applicability in all sort of fields, from sports to science to finances), meaning when extrapolated to our daily life, that only a handful of really effective actions and habits will lead us to our goals and aspirations. The remaining 80% has rather negligible effects if any at all. This means that we could get much more of life, there's much more we'd be actually capable of, if we relinquished our bad ways and capacity to lose focus and give in to distraction, our desire to take part in debates and arguments where our scope of influence is NIL (I mean, what can you really fucking do about Donald Trump, uh?) and focused instead on the things we actually have control of and which can lead to living better, happier, more righteous lives. When thinking about myself and the things we do, I always conclude that the difference in time invested in doing things half-assed and do them WELL is probably insignificant. It is most of the time a question of establishing priorities, thinking straight and just ditch the rest. 

"If it is important to you, you will find a way; if not, you will find an excuse"

And yes, most of the time we struggle to even devise the way around even the most accessible activities, plans, and tasks. Everything seems so damn unattainable until one day we decide to get off our ass and start doing it, at once.

"To begin, begin"

So, if in theory, all seems so uncomplicated, if we know that in the end hard work and determination eventually pay off, why do most people fail to get what they really want (or more accurately, need) and deserve? Has anyone else ever felt like "what am I doing with my life?"

"You can have results or excuses, not both"

It is kinda funny I came up with this rather lengthy and wordy diatribe about taking the reins of one's life, taking control and making a difference, because it is precisely how I feel. 

I really don't like seeing days going by and having the impression that there aren't enough hours on a 24h day, feeling overwhelmed and yet, having little-to-nothing to show for. And I really hate being aware of it and still doing nothing.

I used to be once concerned about excelling in my profession. Not just being good enough and definitely not just going through the motions. I mean, living up to the standards and expectations created by equally experienced and more experienced teachers and then think of burying them in hot manure (metaphorically, of course!). If someone told me "this/that teacher we had last year was the best/ the standard is set rather high, good luck!"), I used to think "give me just one month and you won't even remember them". I guess that this is a rather puerile way of thinking (as you will NEVER please everyone and each one has their own, legitimate approach from which anyone can learn and grow), and probably a consequence of my own insecurities and evident limitations, but these insecurities and limitations made me work my ass off, like a trouper, striving for excellence or, at least, for the satisfaction of a job well done.

Have I stopped caring, then? Well, not completely, but I guess at some point I lost focus. Feeling safe because of my recently earned condition of lifetime public worker probably didn't help. Feeling rather self-confident about my performance of my teaching duties possibly didn't, either. The thing is that I was not completely happy about the bulk of work I had pulled off lately, especially compared to that in the past, and wanted to write about it (Heck! I also hadn't written for quite a while, how come?)

Comfort and contentment can (or may) lead to self-complacency and self-indulgence, which can lead to apathy, which may lead to just seeking pleasure and fulfillment in external, excitement and hedonistic recreation- or recreational hedonism- (you know, video games, porn, alcohol, food, sex, drugs, shopping, gambling...), which in turn can lead to a pretty dangerous and self-destructive path. Wow, am I sounding rather cryptic here haha. Well, I may, but I'm not completely wrong, or so I think.

The social media is full of stories of ordinary people who, out of real talent and, especially, iron discipline (ditching, for sure, many of the transient pleasures described four lines above) have actually SUCCEEDED, I mean, making a living of what they really love in life; guys and girls I actually have to take my hat off to, out of pure admiration. Do I regard them as our modern day Alexander the Great/Einstein/Edison? Well, Jesus, no, but not unlike these, I find them equally inspiring. Just like Homer Simpson realized when at the age of 38 he was comparing his achievements with Edison's, I realize I came a little bit too late for the game of becoming an actual great man (just maybe!). It may be time to go back to those rousing and energizing podcasts again!

Recommended Watching # 3!

Ssup, folks?

Find here the third instalment on the Recommended Watching series, a section on this very blog which aims at linking the discussion topics we see in class with really cool movies for all of you to expand on those topics, find ideas, insights and different perspectives in the matters previously debated in the class context and attain the ultimate, holistic and all encompassing learning experience. Maybe I overkilled it, huh?

Well, anyway, I just wanted to tell you about a couple (actually TWO this time) of movies heavily dealing with the topic we just finished (Relationships); chances are that you may have not seen either, as I would say they are RATHER obscure choices. I mean, you didn't expect me to recommend watching "Titanic" or "Love Story", did you? (not that there's anything inherently wrong about those, just that you may have seen both already and there's no chance for me to brag about my knowledge bla bla...).

The first one is Neil LaBute's Your Friends and Neighbors, a pretty ruthless depiction of the feeble nature of certain romantic relationships and "friendships" (yes, between quotations). I missed LaBute's debut (and allegedly, his best film), 1997 "In the company of men", but this one (released the following year) is a standout flick in its own right (IMHO). Betrayal, deceit, cynicism, callousness and all sorts of cheery and gay things occur in this smart, indie movie. Its stellar cast? another reason to track it down: it stars Ben Stiller, Jason Patric, Aaron Eckhart and none other than Nastassja Kinski. God, I can't get enough of Nastassja Kinski. Give me the latest 3 hour and a half piece of crap coming from overrated so-called genius Wes Anderson and, if it features a cameo from the German goddess, I'll sit through it. I promise.

Be my second shout-out for a more recent choice, 2010 Blue Valentine, with Michelle Williams and the polifacetic and always competent and convincing Ryan Gosling; if I had to describe this one, I guess that using the term anti-RomCom wouldn't be an awkward thing to do, because it is precisely the opposite of what films like "When Harry met Sally", "Before Sunrise", "Up in the Air" or even "Amelie" intend to do. Not that it wants to bury you in the dirt and suck your will to live and lose faith in humankind, like Von Trier's or Haneke's works , but this love story is not a happy one. But it is worth seeing it, mark my words. You just want to grab the fearless, impassible stunt-cum-revengeful vigilante guy from Drive and hug him and comfort him and kiss him for being such a great person and partner. The story of a relationship collapsing and people being torn apart. But, please, do not let this description discourage you. It is a GREAT film, greatly acted, which is saying something. Do yourselves that favor!

Well, these are my two choices. Do you know of any, non-obvious picks dealing with relationships? If so, please tell us about them in the comments section!

Enjoy!