There's something about the #DowningStreetParty furore that's been bugging me since it kicked off, and I finally figured out what it is
All the media types/platforms condemning Johnson for disrespecting grieving relatives? In my experience, they've not treated us much better
/1
I lost Dad to Covid very early in the pandemic, so I've been part of the 'grieving relative' demographic for nearly 2 years. This government has essentially spat in our faces on a weekly basis since then.
Much the media now going all fire-and-brimstone didn't bat an eyelid
/2
It might be just my subjective experience, but as someone from the grieving relative community with a pre-existing media profile, I figured mainstream media types would be interested in my perspective.
Nope, not so much.
/3
It's not like I didn't try. I figured I should make some attempt to speak up on behalf of those of us who've lost someone to the pandemic, to stop us being overlooked.
Didn't seem to make much difference, sadly.
/4
I was on a radio show just the Barnard Castle incident. In the pre-interview, they asked my feelings on the subject
I'd avoided all friends and family during the worst emotional pain of my life, while Cummings jaunts about and Johnson says it's 100% fine. Yeah, I had 'views'
/5
I expressed my views.
Producer: "I understand, but we can't use any of that sorry. We've had enough anti-government contributions already"
That's balance for you, I guess. 95% of the country is appalled by the government, so the 5% on their side need much more airtime
/6
A year after my father died, I touted round many media contacts to see if anyone was interested in a piece about the experience of a year of grief in lockdown. Something countless other people would be experiencing at that point, and psychologically interesting, I thought.
/7
Nobody wanted it. The few who were kind enough to bother replying said they were "Trying to move on to more optimistic angles and stories", or some variation of that.
Us grieving relatives didn't fit the upbeat narrative. We were an inconvenience. Old news.
How considerate
/8
I've extensive experience in the media by now, I know how a lot of it works. You can't produce the same story over and over again and stay in business (unless it's about Princess Diana if you're with the Express).
But still... that's pretty harsh, right?
/9
I'm also not one of the 'boo to the LAMEstream media!' types. I know the majority of journos/media types are good people trying to do an important job well, and much of the content in news publications is dictated by powerful vested interests for personal gain.
/10
But even so, a decision was clearly made by much of the media at some point that the experience of those who lost people to Covid was no something that needed to be taken into account. Even though it was still happening to people every day.
/11
So, while I loathe the man in every conceivable way, when certain papers/reporters point at Johnson and condemn him for being callously inconsiderate to people who lost family members, I can't help but think "So were you for most of the last year, guys. What's your excuse?"
/12
Not got any solution for this. I just wanted to make it clear that us grieving relatives deserve more than being used as a convenient stick to beat an out-of-favour politician with when the prevailing narrative makes that a useful media strategy, thanks.
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's reminiscent of the scaremongering news stories that you still occasionally get, the ones which argue that [Insert latest technological thing] is bad, because it 'changes children's brains'.
Yes, that's true. But so do books, and playing outside, the 'healthy' stuff
/2
EVERYTHING brings about changes in our brain. If it were static, rigid, unchanging, it would be completely useless. Might as well lodge a coconut in our skulls and have done with it. The brain changing in response to our experiences is the default norm.
/3
Ok, the legendary @elisjames asked why he struggles to remember new info in his forties but can still readily recall countless minor details from childhood
I could only really answer this if I'd done a PhD in memory retrieval mechanisms. And I did. So here we go
As a rule, the memories we acquire during childhood are more impactful, more enduring, than those we acquire later in life. For various reasons.
First and foremost, things are just 'newer' then. The experiences we have, the info we take in, makes a bigger impression
/2
After all, childhood is the part of our life where we're figuring out how... 'everything' works, in the world around us. So anything we take in then will form the basis of everything we acquire later on. First impressions, and all that.
/3
OK, seen this Tweet shared a lot lately. I get why; it implies some scary, but cool, stuff. But it's misleading by omission, and a good example of why Evolutionary psychology is regularly co-opted by those with ideological agendas.
I'll say up front; as far as I'm aware, nobody knows with 100% certainty why the Uncanny valley effect exists.
BUT, it doesn't automatically follow that there were shapeshifting human-resembling predators in our deep past. There are far more logical, and likely, explanations
/2
For instance, the uncanny valley effect may be the result of corpses.
A dead human looks just like a live one, but without all the subtle cues and animations that living humans give off constantly. Much like 'realistic' androids, animations etc.
/3
This Sunday is #WorldMentalHealthDay2021, so here is a #BrainStuff thread about one of the less often discussed, and more readily stigmatised, disorders; addiction.
What happens in the brain to make addiction so harmful? Suffice to say, it's not 'just a matter of willpower'
/1
At present, practically all 'recognised' forms of addiction concern a type of psychoactive chemical substance. Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, heroin, cocaine, etc.
The only 'official' non-chemical type of addiction so far is gambling.
As landlord of a valley pub, Dad, a gregarious larger-than-life sort, was always putting on community fundraising events with the guys from the bar. They were often sporting events, usually rugby, but one time it was a charity tug of war match.
/2
It took place by the nearby river, next to the (now disused) railway track. Dad and all his mates from the bar on one team, a load of guys from a 'rival' pub on the other. The river between the two teams, so whoever loses gets dragged into the river and soaked. What larks.
/3