Descartes' Legacy: The Century of the Self

[gek-opel]

I love Curtis, (and am enjoying this series) but I feel he's somewhat overreached his grasp with this one, which is a shame. His conclusions are totally and 100% sound, but the amount of ground he tries to cover in just three hours means that some of the material appears to be a bit unconvincing (as much for lack of clarity as anything else)... the mental illness stuff that he has attempted to weave in doesn't mesh that well (perhaps it could do, but that might take another few hours of explanation and more careful analysis of the evidence). He's obviously on firmer ground with politics, but still the tiresome "the numbers are evil" schtick is well, a bit tiresome- I'm no expert on Game theory but I have a funny feeling his presentation of it is completely one dimensional... Also his attack on the treatment of humans as if they were computers (a point he returns to via economics, DSM psychiatry and Dawkinsian Genetics) seems to lack a key thread- an analysis of the power in the popular imagination of the computer as metaphor... basically a lot of his conclusions could have been reached by simpler means and therefore afforded better explanation, without necessarily sacrificing the grandiose sweep which characterises his films (ie- the century of the self certainly felt a lot more measured than this). Its still good to see this kind of ambition (and unabashedly polemical political voice) in a television documentary, the music and visuals are superb as ever, and I'm hoping he will pull it together a bit more in the third part... I kind of wish the BBC had allowed him twice as many episodes really...

 

[Guybrush]

One thing I found odd about his idea of people self-medicating to be able to work more (= like robots) is that it seems to be, at least partly, gainsaid by the report described below.

In 1965, the average man spent 42 hours a week working at the office or the factory; throw in coffee breaks, lunch breaks, and commuting time, and you're up to 51 hours. Today, instead of spending 42 and 51 hours, he spends 36 and 40. What's he doing with all that extra time? He spends a little on shopping, a little on housework, and a lot on watching TV, reading the newspaper, going to parties, relaxing, going to bars, playing golf, surfing the Web, visiting friends, and having sex. Overall, depending on exactly what you count, he's got an extra six to eight hours a week of leisure—call it the equivalent of nine extra weeks of vacation per year.

For women, time spent on the job is up from 17 hours a week to 24. With breaks and commuting thrown in, it's up from 20 hours to 26. But time spent on household chores is down from 35 hours a week to 22, for a net leisure gain of four to six hours. Call it five extra vacation weeks.

...

But not for everyone. About 10 percent of us are stuck in 1965, leisurewise. At the opposite extreme, 10 percent of us have gained a staggering 14 hours a week or more. (Once again, your gains are measured in comparison to a person who, in 1965, had the same characteristics that you have today.) By and large, the biggest leisure gains have gone precisely to those with the most stagnant incomes—that is, the least skilled and the least educated. And conversely, the smallest leisure gains have been concentrated among the most educated, the same group that's had the biggest gains in income.

Aguiar and Hurst can't explain fully that rising inequality, just as nobody can explain fully the rising inequality in income.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Er, so workaholic high-flyers have little leisure time while people on the dole can sit about all day watching Trisha...

How is this news, exactly?

 

[hundredmillionlifetimes]

I love Curtis, (and am enjoying this series) but I feel he's somewhat overreached his grasp with this one ... I'm no expert on Game theory but I have a funny feeling his presentation of it is completely one dimensional...

Yes, there is a sense in which Curtis is over-extending himself based on the success of the narrative structure formula that worked so well in The Century of the Self series ...

His over-emphasis on Game Theory, as you say, is one-dimensional: actually, the development of such an approach has its foundation, not in or during the Cold War, but as a result of the confluence of classical micro-economics and acognitive behavioural science that originated with the Hawthorne Experiments in the 1930s.

Still, who else is making superb, urgent documentaries like these?

[Judging from the soundtracks, Curtis seems obsessed with De Palma's Carrie, Hitchcock's North By NorthWest, Malick's Days of Heaven , Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13, and ...].

 

[matt b]

Er, so workaholic high-flyers have little leisure time while people on the dole can sit about all day watching Trisha...

How is this news, exactly?

the article doesn't say that though, does it?

do you know anything about the 'dawning of the leisure society'? etc- the assumption being that those with wealth could afford to have more time off?
doesn't appear to be happening

 

[Guybrush]

Matt B is right: there is nothing in the article suggesting that unemployed persons were included in the different surveys. I think they link to the original report, though, so you can examine that yourself.

 

[Mr. Tea]

the article doesn't say that though, does it?

do you know anything about the 'dawning of the leisure society'? etc- the assumption being that those with wealth could afford to have more time off?
doesn't appear to be happening

Well OK, I extrapolated the bit about unemployed people - but surely they have the most 'stagnant' incomes of all?

 

[matt b]

Well OK, I extrapolated the bit about unemployed people - but surely they have the most 'stagnant' incomes of all?

i don't know (i'd guess you'd actually see a reduction since the mid60s), i just tire of your constant assertions that people are poor due to their own laziness.

 

[Mr. Tea]

i don't know (i'd guess you'd actually see a reduction since the mid60s), i just tire of your constant assertions that people are poor due to their own laziness.

That is not what I was getting at all. Is it not the case, though, that unemployed people (NOT people in low-paid jobs) generally have more 'leisure' time (even though they may not have any money with which to indulge in leisure activities beyond watching TV) than people with jobs?

I'm also at a loss as to when I made these 'constant' assertions about poor people. I remember talking about the anti-academic culture among certain social groups in the 'what's going on in London' thread, but that's quite clearly a different thing from simple laziness.

 

[matt b]

"For an experience to qualify as leisure, it must meet three criteria: 1) The experience is a state of mind. 2) It must be entered into voluntarily. 3) It must be intrinsically motivating of its own merit." (Neulinger, 1981)

therefore, the unemployed have very little leisure time.

 

[matt b]

I'm also at a loss as to when I made these 'constant' assertions about poor people. I remember talking about the anti-academic culture among certain social groups in the 'what's going on in London' thread, but that's quite clearly a different thing from simple laziness.

well the general feeling i got from your responses on that thread was that 'basically its their own fault, they should work harder'

your comment about the unemployed watching trisha compounded it.

 

[Mr. Tea]

well the general feeling i got from your responses on that thread was that 'basically its their own fault, they should work harder'

My argument in that thread was that there is not some immovable, hostile Establishment keeping these kids from achieving at school (though that's not to say there wasn't in the past), but that a culture has arisen, born of both the get-rich-quick culture of Thatcherism and a general distrust of authority, that impels many of them to crime rather than academic achievement and an 'ordinary' job. Simply saying "well then it's their own fault, they should study hard and stay out of trouble" is about as useful as telling a chronic depressive to cheer up. My thesis was on the nature of the barriers people face, not that there were no barriers.

your comment about the unemployed watching trisha compounded it.

Well, a lot of them do watch Trisha. Although I accept that my comment could have been seen as inflamatory, fair enough - all I was getting at was that someone with no job has a lot of 'free time', if you want to distinguish that from leisure time per se.

 

[vimothy]

All sounds pretty stupid if you ask me, which you probably don't.

Ditto "the Trap", and "the Power of Nightmares".

 

[vimothy]

"how a simplistic model of human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic, creatures led to today's idea of freedom."

- I selfish because of Corld War game theorists in the Rand corporation? Because of (spluttering) Freidrich Hayek? Nonsense. If I am selfish it's because I am selfish - nowt to do with the bloody Rand Coorporation.

For example:

This episode shows how in the 1990s politicians from both the right and the left tried to extend an idea of freedom based on the freedom of the market to all other areas of society. This had never happened before and the basis of this new 'freedom' was Game Theory, a system which reduced people to calculating, self-interested robots led by incentives rather than any idea of public duty. The result was the opposite of freedom; new forms of control, greater inequalities and the return of a rigid class structure based on wealth.

What?! Give me a break, sheesh...

 

[matt b]

vimothy, you really don't understand, do you?

go back to your friends who make comments like this:

"Linux is just an anarchy and we need to ensure that all computer motherboards sold prevent Linux from being installed. We need a licensing scheme, headed by the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization, for all programming tools so that only trusted individuals may use them, and that inappropriate use of them is communicated via the internet to the government. To put it simply, either Linux dies - or the whole of human creativity will become a stagnant swamp. Anyone who disagrees with this is a communist."

 

[vimothy]

vimothy, you really don't understand, do you?

go back to your friends who make comments like this:

"Linux is just an anarchy and we need to ensure that all computer motherboards sold prevent Linux from being installed. We need a licensing scheme, headed by the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization, for all programming tools so that only trusted individuals may use them, and that inappropriate use of them is communicated via the internet to the government. To put it simply, either Linux dies - or the whole of human creativity will become a stagnant swamp. Anyone who disagrees with this is a communist."

No, no of course, I understand nothing - I wouldn't be able to see a joke if it were staring me in the face, for instance, even if it were explictly tagged HUMOUR.

[roflmao?]

 

[matt b]

but its not funny, see?

 

[vimothy]

I'm not laughing at the Samizdata post.

 

[vimothy]

For Adam Curtis there is always a conspiracy to uncover, always a grand plot, a hand steering humanity down the road to ruin...

It's comforting.

 

[Guybrush]

Vimothy: Since it’s very clear you haven’t seen any of the documentaries mentioned, I suggest you do that before commenting on how supposedly conspiratorial they are.