"Small Talk" by Someone Who Doesn't Get It.

Small talk is a fickle thing. It is not taught or preached but is one of the most useful tools that anybody can have in life. It is key to maintaining and starting relationships. Its utility is unrivalled in acquiring what is most valuable in this world; friends. However, it can too easily become one of the most constrictive forces of nature: habit.

If we are to take small talk as idle conversation that serves no greater purpose than to while away the dreary hands of time, then it becomes odd it should ever have developed in the first place. As the most intelligent species on this earth, it's reasonable to assume our conversing would be equally as grand. Instead, it is mostly small talk. The reason this makes small talk odd is that other animals do not partake in it. The finches do not chat about the weather, nor the bulls about the breeze. All animal communication serves some greater purpose, whether it be a warning about predators or the finding of a mate. From this we can determine that we aren't living up to our potential as better developed beings, instead filling the potential with small banal comments (but this view is pre-slanted with the bias that small talk is bad). Equally, we could also argue that idle conversation is a result of our better developed nature (which casts small talk in a better light). I, for one, don't know which prospect is more terrifying.

I shall thus shamefully cower away from that avenue of thought, and move towards the rules that bind small talk, on which there is no real agreement. Depending on the persons involved conversation can be as free and flowing as a river; becoming banter but also becoming more likely to offend. At the opposite extreme, it can be stifling and stiff, full of awkward pauses as each party searches for that spark the conversation needs. A conversation where safety and propriety are two important elements. The place where a piece of small talk lands on this spectrum not only depends on the people involved but how well they know each other and, perhaps, how drunk they are. The people involved, having taken all those factors into account, then act according to their version of common sense. You and I will have done this many times. A sense of appropriateness this advanced is a purely human trait and given how much idle conversation relies on it, supports the idea that small talk is a result of our highly developed nature, not a failing within it. For those that doubt these unspoken and changing laws of small talk exist,  to which we respond, they should first consider social anxiety, which stems from not knowing these rules and how to act accordingly.

At this point it would be appropriate to mention that the rules and regulations of small talk, along with the accompanying burden of what is proper, is what has made the English so historically good at it. I am, of course, referring to the great English knack of structuring sentences like onions; where the true meaning is covered by layers upon layers of lines. Although this innate and unfortunate talent is slowly dying, an innocuous comment such as "With the greatest respect..." can be interpreted (correctly) among the wrong people as "I think you are an idiot." This example, while extreme, highlights the danger that adding too many nuances to small talk can bring. Small talk too easily becomes important big talk, which we attach greater importance to and thus becomes inherently more dangerous. If small talk is the result of our stronger and more creative human intellect, we can see that building on it in the way we have other things, is more harmful than beneficial.

Small talk is a fickle thing. At the start of this post, I said it's habitual nature was one of it's most constrictive qualities. I was wrong. The constrictive qualities of idle conversation lie not in habit, but the hidden rules we must unconsciously tread whenever we engage in it. I still believe, however, that small talk is a fickle thing. It is fickle because of the way it is essential but not taught, and how it can quite easily convert into larger, and more dangerous conversation. It is fickle because how to deal with it changes from circumstance to circumstance. However, the most frightening thing about small talk is not how tricky it is, but how it stems from our intelligence, and is not a failing of it. If this rule-stricken and only occasionally joyful process is one of the few things we can use to separate humanity from animals, that is a scary thought.

Skyfall: Review

"Skyfall," put simply, is the best Bond movie yet. From the offset it provides purposeful action and exciting dialogue masterfully tempered by the humour ever present in Bond films. There are no other Bond films that can compare with "Skyfall." and only a few other big budget thrillers.

Gone are the convoluted plots of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace; plots and action that owed more to Bourne than Bond. "Skyfall" drops gimmicks and loops for a simple plot, subsidised by development of 007's iconic character. The ageing, gaunt Bond and M face a new threat from a skilled computer hacker. That's it. Bond has gone back to his roots. "Skyfall" is a minimalist Bond; no dialogue is wasted and every line serves a purpose, whether it be to build a tension, or a character. The action is frantic and exciting, not slick and superfluous as normal, bringing a sense of realism to the now grittier, grounded world of espionage. The only thing that stops this film becoming depressing in places are deft strokes of humour carefully placed within one-liners and a few action scenes.

It is that masterful construction of this film, along with a constant contrast of old and new (shown most through the characters), that lifts the film above your normal 4-star action blockbuster. For example this theme allows the introduction of an inspired new Q. The Quartermaster is no longer a twee old-man dishing out gizmos and wearing a lab-coat but a twee fresh-faced twenty-something year old. After a quick-witted exchange of one-liners, the only gadgets that Bond receives are a pistol and radio, proving the new Q says less and gives less. However, like many things in this film, less truly does turn out to be more. The controlled dialogue, that only occasionally slips, gives Q a sense of young but mature intellect that contrasts the old cynics of MI6 beautifully. This Bond blockbuster is Bond blockbuster with a theme. Young and new set against the old and grey. An idea that's also, more subtly, added to by the juxtaposition of stunning sets ranging from the old and archaic Bazaar of Istanbul to the sleek, sophisticated skyscrapers of modern Shanghai before venturing back to a crumbling deserted island. This is Bond, a smart and subtle Bond.

It would be remiss of me, however, to point out the subtle nuance and clever fineries without pointing out the obvious: the acting is tremendous. Daniel Craig portrays 007 with his usual aplomb, using his somewhat more grounded charms to fit into the film's gritty and minimal atmosphere. Meanwhile Judi Dench continues to serve as M, head of MI6 and the one girl who isn't afraid to kick James up the backside when he needs it. However, this matriarchal and demanding figure allows "Skyfall" to create a classic villain. The combination of Javier Bardem, the skilled hacker whose deranged mind seeks revenge from M as well as her love results in what is a disturbingly brilliant performance, one reminiscent of Heath Ledger's Joker in "The Dark Knight". Again, extravagant under-water bases made of ice in a volcano are not present; it is the character that holds the staying power, not cheap gimmicks. Such skill in script and performance is why the writers Neal Purvis and John Logan, along with director Sam Mendes, should be on cue for a major award. It would be a crime if neither of them were nominated by the Academy, and certainly by the BAFTAs.

Granted, "Skyfall" still fails to drop the outdated reliance on glamorous girls. The bond girl played by Bérénice Marlohe feels more of a bolt-on and a burden than a character that significantly adds to the plot. All for the sake of a "Bond-girl" and all made stranger by the fact that Naomie Harris' confident Agent Eve makes an excellent counter-part to 007's assured nature, and thus fulfils the role adequately.

However, such a small piece of turbulence barely blemishes the flight of this magnificent film. The outdated mantra of "girls, guns and gadgets" has been taken from the core of "Skyfall" and been placed on the sidelines, being replaced by a new minimalist ideal, where the grounded substance becomes it's style, not the other way round. Rather than fall, James Bond has picked himself up and, true to his nature, is carrying on. The result is a triumphant success.

Green Eggs and Ham-let

The scene is Elsinore Castle where the young Danish king is debating a dilemma as taught to him by his tutor: Dr Seuss.

"To live or to die
Is the question I cry
To suffer green eggs and ham
Or to connive and plan
or simply fight back
against that culinary crap
Bringing the matter to attention
But putting my life in contention
To die?
To eat?
To forsake the mundane pains
and reach heavenly gains
Tis a consumation to be wished
Unlike that dreaded dish
Of green eggs and ham,
As proposed by Sam I Am.
To die?
To eat?
For who'd endure this crime?
This breakfast-like slime?
If it weren't for fear
Of losing our what's dear
In replacement for a journey
That is itself non returning
A move to an unknown place
Empty of a friend's face.
Yet the more I think upon death
The more I turn to second-guess
And that broken breakfast
Looks more steadfast
And so my dear Sam I Am
I will eat Green Eggs and Ham
because my thoughts scare me
and turn me excessively wary
Of that that path I could take.
Mine death I could make.
My sins be remembered
To you I've surrended.
My dear Sam I Am
I will eat green eggs and ham."

Exams Aren't Getting Easier

I got my GCSE results yesterday. My friends got their GCSE results yesterday while older friends got their A and AS level results two weeks ago. Most of us were happy about our results with #Englishgate only upsetting a few. What did upset me however was the few minor mutterings of "Of course they did well; exams are getting easier". I understand the skepticism facing better grades year on year, (with them falling this summer for the first time in 24 years). I would be skeptical myself had I not just sat the exams and invested two years of hard work into them. However, the explanation is not easier exams but improved teaching, better resources, smarter kids and most important of all; hard working kids.

We Have Improved Teaching
Teachers are awesome. No matter your views on their pay and working hours, you cannot deny they do a job fundamental to our society; they educate the young. Education is so important to our society that we are constantly seeking to improve it. There is the entire field of educational research; a science dedicated to improving education. Teachers also do this in the course of their career, honing what works and dropping what doesn't work to deliver knowledge in the most efficient manner. Teacher's also have to teach more now. This is because of the way exams have changed from the previous O-level qualification in which you used to regurgitate everything you know in a way that made sense. Instead, GCSEs not only test knowledge but "skills". For example, my History exam wasn't just having to show vast swathes of knowledge, but being able to organise and present that knowledge in a clear, structured way. This results in teachers having to teach both knowledge and skills. While, in some cases this has led to the lazy practice of "teaching to the test", for most teachers it is an extra task that they perform admirably.

We Have Better Resources
Most people who claim easier exams are over 30 years old. I.e, they grew up without the internet and the many new resources it contains. Pupils can now watch videos and play educational games to break the tedium of revision, enabling them to do more of it without dying of boredom. Those who don't understand a subject can easily text their friends to ask for an explanation or read a blog on the subject. Teacher's can use Youtube to create educational webcasts and share resources with each other. Since the advent of league tables, schools have been under pressure to achieve at or above the grade C threshold, and exam boards (since they are regulated by Ofqual) can't make easier exams, so they race to create more resources for their exams that help pupil's obtain an A*- C. Pupil's can now buy shiny revision guides and textbooks tailor-made to their course as well as downloading vast quantities of practise and past papers with mark-schemes. Finally, since the internet and the past-paper archive is growing every year, the resources are improving in quality and increasing in quantity, thus explaining (along with the other reasons) the high grade inflation we face.

We're (maybe, on average) Smarter Than You!
That ostentatious sub-heading is due to a theory called the Flynn effect which stipulates children are (on average) getting smarter year upon year. There is not yet a scientific consensus on why this is and it's nowhere near being fully explored by science so it should be treated with a small pinch of salt. However, it is still a variable that offers an alternative explanation to the old and crusty adage "exams are getting easier".

We work hard.
There are always those that don't work hard, and their grades reflect that. Most of us do work hard however: we listen in class, we do the homework, we revise and we try our best. Some of us even have break-downs because of the pressure in those final months before the exams (due to the modular form of courses recently, we've had some pressure sustained through the 2 years as well). This hard work allows us to capitalise on the improved teaching and resources mentioned above.

Finally, we've never sat O-levels and don't know what it was like in "the good old days". To us, who are constantly reminded how important they are, whether easier or harder, is irrelevant; we can only do the exam we are given. When you suggest good results were served to us on a plate, you belittle and undermine those who did well while further shaming those who didn't. It's fortunate us teenagers are reasonable and emotionally stable, otherwise we might find that incredibly offensive.

Learning from the Riots

The BBC recently aired the first in a series titled "The Riots: In Their Own Words", where it reconstructs interviews conducted by the Guardian and the LSE. These interviews were held because they wanted answers as to why the riots happened. It appeared the program solved little however, as the politically minded still can't find a consensus on what led to the Tottenham Riots.

As always, the "Left" (a horribly vague generalisation) more or less decided the riots were the result of underlying socio-economic problems and a prejudice towards the rioting classes. This argument fits nicely with their ideology of increased social security for the poor. Meanwhile, the more conservative "Right" (see Left) argued it was because of a lack of values and the weakening of law and order, which complements their argument for tougher prison sentences.

However, neither of these ideologies seem to account for all the behaviour shown during the riots. A demand for justice by the rioter's for their ills does not account for extreme arson and looting. A lack of adequate policing does not explain why there are no riots now that police cuts are in full swing. Despite this, the parties still hold their ideas as fact. Nowhere have I seen someone change their views because of the events during the Riots, I have only seen existing views re-enforced.

It is because of this we are unable to create a consensus towards what caused the riots, as we can only see it as between one reason or the other, ignoring the fact they might both be contributing factors. There will have been some rioting because rioters felt indignant at injustice. Some rioters will have rioted out of opportunism and greed. Some will have rioted just for an exciting night out. Most will have rioted for all these reasons combined.

Ask any historian what the cause of World War One was and he will give you many. Ask any historian what the cause of the French Revolution was, and he will give you many. Remarkable events rarely have one cause and this is the lesson we have to learn before we can learn from the riots.

Back To Reality

It has finally come to an end. After 3 weeks of nothing but sport ruling the media and conversation, the "greatest show on earth" has ended. The stadiums have been filled (towards the end), the medals have been won and all the sports that are too dull to receive more than quadrennial media attention have been remembered. All that remains is for the Paralympics to step out of the shadow, accept it's mostly hand-me-down venues and have it's games.

As you may have already guessed from my possibly over-critical analysis, I am an Olympo-skeptic, and like the misanthropic sober kid at the party, I have been one throughout the Olympics. The main reason for this is that I don't really enjoy watching sport. I can get wrapped up in the excitement of a good book, drama or Apple Keynote speech easily, yet sport has alluded my enthusiasm. I can muster up a bit of cheer and emotion for occasional, special matches but not every saturday, let alone everyday for three weeks. Just imagining it makes me want to nap.

This sense of detachment has made me realize that despite the hype about the games being inclusive, the very nature of them is exclusive. Think about it; the athletes train for four years before competing in events better than any of us could, while we watch. The Olympics is a spectator event from it's core; the sport. There is only so much inclusivity you can provide by a comprehensive Torch relay and community volunteers. This problem was then compounded by the ticket scandal and empty-seat-gate at the beginning of the games, further frustrating us mere mortals who had to use the official site. Finally, we reach the issue of the Draconian copyright laws set by the IOC and LOCOG which prevent anybody other than the Olympic partners and a few exceptions from using the logo as advertisement. Copyright laws should apply to the Olympics, but to make the Olympics a special case and add further restrictions and sanctions, with heavy enforcement, seems contrary to the spirit of the games.

Then there's also, as always, the money. We could always afford to put on the Olympics because we're an economy with a GDP of 1.6 trillion, of which the Olympic budget of £9 billion is only 0.7%. However, as Liverpool learnt when they bought Andy Carroll, just because you can afford to do something doesn't mean you should. We could have used that money as a financial stimulus or for more permanent and less localised infrastructure upgrades. Unfortunately the country is stuck between a rock and a hard place; the Olympics were bid for when times were good and to go back on our obligation to host the games, now that times are bad, would cause international scandal. Therefore, we have to host the games. In my mind however, there was a silver lining; we were told the Olympics would bring tourists and investors, who would spend money, and therefore help our woeful growth.  This hasn't happened. Our economy is going to keep trundling along the path of stagnation for the forseeable future.

However, all that is now over and we can't change the past. The focus now is on "securing the legacy", the only problem being that no-one seems to agree what the legacy is and how we should go about securing it. One of the suggestions at the forefront of the politicians' lips is by learning from the spirit of the games and encouraging competitive sport in schools. What they don't understand is that competition in sports can often put the less able kids off sport rather than enduring until they find one they enjoy. Every child is different and therefore cannot solve the school sport problem with a "one-size-fits-all" solution. Instead, my experience as a teenager tells me we should not aim for gold medals in the future by emphasising competition, but aim for a healthy next-generation who all exercise by emphasising the importance of doing a sport you enjoy. A slight amendment to the old liberal cliche: "It's not the winning that counts, it's the enjoying taking part".

The Olympics wasn't that great for me because I didn't find the games as exciting, cost worthy and spectacular as everyone else. If I'm honest, I found them a bit ghastly. However, on a brighter note, I did like the Opening Ceremony and I am looking forward to watching the Paralympics, which I personally find more inspiring and enjoyable.

Capitalism's Green Evolution?

The Great Depression of the 1930s revolutionised the political and economic world, having followed a period where libertarian economic ideology reigned, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s series of economic “New Deal” policies involved much greater market regulation, an exponential growth in social programmes and an increase in power for labour unions. In 1936 John Maynard Keynes' General Theory greatly changed the way people thought about the role of the state in employment and economics. Economic collapse produced a profound political shift, leaving the old ideas to be discredited for over a third of a century.

Once again we find ourselves at the mercy of a great recession. Our politicians are denouncing Capitalism's flaws at every opportunity and the recent "Occupy" Movement shows widespread discontent with the system at most levels of society. People aren't spending as much as they used to and business’ are therefore struggling. However, this time there has been no radical ideological revolution. Economic ideology appears stuck. Instead, Capitalism is seemingly undergoing a green evolution. The question is, to what extent is this an ideological shift in Capitalism, or is it merely an alignment between Capitalism and the green movement?

There are many reasons for this, the first of which is the profit motive. It is often cheaper to invest with a view of decreasing costs than to try and increase income. The rapid increase in energy costs has greatly impacted on corporate profit and has hence become a target for cost reduction. Energy efficient light bulbs, programmable thermostats, energy efficient doors and windows are all effective, and businesses have taken notice. For example, Marks & Spencer’s is now incorporating energy saving LED lights and other energy saving features into the company's standard store build specifications (the first of which opened last year). There is also the "closed door movement" where retailers are shutting their doors to minimise energy usage, rather than keep them open and look more inviting. Businesses are also taking advantage of the carbon trading laws which allow the buying and selling of "carbons credits," each of which allow them to produce one ton of carbon dioxide or an equivalent gas. Therefore, if a business produces less carbon dioxide than its quota as set by Carbon Credits, it can sell the spares to other companies, creating a new income stream. Another option is to stockpile excess credits, meaning they don't need to purchase as much in the future, thereby reducing costs. Finally, Companies are not only saving by producing less waste like carbon dioxide, but by recycling and re-using, as sending waste to landfill can be very costly. Therefore many companies like Unilever are recycling waste instead, with the un-recyclable waste being converted into usable energy.

The second reason for Capitalism’s green evolution is that the buying decisions of consumers and their perception of "green" brands is based on of how environmentally responsible a brand. Thanks to advances in measurement technology and the flow of information, we now have much greater knowledge of the environmental costs of production processes, or the social cost of sourcing practices. Take the recent example of Apple, whose supply chain recently came under scrutiny by a social-justice watchdog and was found to be lacking. This growing factor in the consumer’s spending has been highlighted by the recession, in which many people’s faith in the capitalist system was rocked. People became angry at the “vulture-capitalists” that they perceived as only taking, and started to demand they “give back”. Businesses that are seen to voluntarily give back, such as Starbucks, are incredibly popular, and are mostly doing well despite the hard economic times. However, a strong environmental brand not only attracts customers, but investors also. For example, the Co-operative bank will only invest in ethical companies.

Sustainability in business isn’t just a moral cause; it can be a business benefit too. In the current climate, economics needs to take on a new idea…and it is. Capitalism may be evolving, into a greener, hopefully better form.

However, can we be sure this is a genuine change of corporate thinking? Or is it just companies recognising an increase in sales and an opportunity to cut costs, that happens to align with green thinking?

Could the Media Prevent Us From Going Beyond Party Politics?

A growing school of political thought is emerging: many people are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the politics and the parties of today. Many people seek change and want politics to evolve beyond what they believe is a charade. They want politics to go beyond the traditions, notions and parties of the past.

However, can this evolution of politics truly ever take place when we have an opposite trend running in parallel? The Media are increasingly receptive to information in short, memorable phrases that will quickly provide their audience with what they deem the key points. The result of this is that politicians are more likely to get on prime time media if they provide the media with policies in sound-bite format, if not the politicians run the risk of not being heard or facing criticism for being unclear. This may not be because the politician is actually unclear but because the media, in their preferred format, can’t represent them properly.

The most recent example of this is Ed Miliband, and whilst neither supporting nor opposing his views, this is a man who has been criticized for not taking the Labour party in a clear direction despite declaring his intent to change the party. He has adopted many varied policies from different parts of the political spectrum. He has taken left-ideas and declared war on “boardroom excess” but also taken what many to see as a right-wing view and declared another war on “benefit scroungers.” This has been massively criticized, as not being true to traditional Labour values nor being clear as to whether Labour seeks to change these values. The media appear to be unwilling to allow him to be flexible in his policies and demand that Labour keep to sound-bite politics where the party and the policies can be easily summed up. Is this why Ed Miliband plans to mobilize grass-root activists rather than use sound-bite media to generate party members?

This again raises the question, can politics ever evolve from it’s current state or will sound-bite reporting of politics remain dominant? I for one hope that it doesn’t; for the political world has become less structured since the 1900’s and will become less structured. Ever better communications means that our interest in politics covers a bigger area in terms of foreign policy and ideas, and the speed of reporting of global and domestic events is increasing due to better access to information. This information-explosion has resulted in the public having much more to sift through in a decreased amount of time to do so. The media has then responded by preferring sound-bite politics to combat this, as many people have neither the time nor inclination to wade through the information jungle. In a political world that is becoming more complex and less structured the mainstream media is reporting it in two short sentences or a sound-bite. The two factors are moving in opposite directions and working against each other. This runs the risk of the complex and progressing politics of today’s world not being fully understood by the public, with the result that they are increasingly unable to make informed decisions.

How far can the media reflect the complexity of modern politics accurately in this format? Can the two develop together without the media alienating the public from the evolving politics?