Science Saturday: Celestial Couch Potatoes (John Horgan & George Johnson)

[Bloggingheads]

[Cain]

I don't post often, but I'll miss you guys.

[Robert Wright]

For the benefit of those who might read the comments without watching this diavlog, and draw unduly dark inferences about the future: As George says, John and George are free to keep doing science diavlogs as often as they want. We hope that will be very often.
More generally: There's a fair amount of misinformation about the future of Bloggingheads floating around, some of it resulting from my own insufficiently careful statements, and some of it resulting from the fact that prospects have changed a bit since I made those statements. In hopes of clarifying things, I've arranged to tape a Commenter Klatch this week with commenter jimM47, who earned much praise for his previous interrogation of me. If all goes well, it will be posted by Wednesday p.m.
Meanwhile, I join all other John 'n George fans in lobbying them to return--and, indeed, to realize, as Nietzsche put it (in a somewhat different context), eternal recurrence.
--Bob

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Robert Wright

For the benefit of those who might read the comments without watching this diavlog, and draw unduly dark inferences about the future:

So the misinformation is a result of you being insufficiently careful and that prospects have changed. I'm not feeling it, Bob. Pretty much every head who has appeared has talked about BHtv coming to an end and yet it continues!

If it were I and I had put as much effort into this enterprise as you have I'd be quite careful about how I presented the immanent end. What is happening is unneccessarily confusing and perhaps you imagine more interest in the affairs of BHtv than exists. Maybe there is some wisdom to how they get rid of talk show hosts...one day they're not there. Right now there's a bit of crying wolf in the air.

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by Robert Wright

For the benefit of those who might read the comments without watching this diavlog, and draw unduly dark inferences about the future: As George says, John and George are free to keep doing science diavlogs as often as they want. We hope that will be very often.
More generally: There's a fair amount of misinformation about the future of Bloggingheads floating around, some of it resulting from my own insufficiently careful statements, and some of it resulting from the fact that prospects have changed a bit since I made those statements. In hopes of clarifying things, I've arranged to tape a Commenter Klatch this week with commenter jimM47, who earned much praise for his previous interrogation of me. If all goes well, it will be posted by Wednesday p.m.
Meanwhile, I join all other John 'n George fans in lobbying them to return--and, indeed, to realize, as Nietzsche put it (in a somewhat different context), eternal recurrence.
--Bob

For what it's worth, much as I lack knowledge of the technical, financial details, etc., your main point seemed pretty clear to me, and I hope everything will work out so that as many as possible of the BHTV diavloggers will coninue to appear.

I especially like George and John and I want to see them again. I'm also looking forward to your diavlogs, the more the better, as far as I'm concerned.

Have to rush, but good luck to you, and best to everybody for the holidays and New Year.

[Richard from Amherst]

Bob:

I for one would miss blogging heads if it disappeared and would especially
mis Science Saterday. I look forward to hearing from George & John and their insights and personal travails.

While I wish you well with your endeavors at at the Atlantic Monthly I hope you will find a way to keep Bloggingheads.TV on line.

Richard from Amherst

[Robert Wright]

I'm afraid I have to amend this promise. JimM47 and I *did* tape a Commenter Klatch, but it turned out that only one side of it actually got taped in intelligible form, owing to gremlins that have yet to be identified. Whether a re-tape can be arranged is uncertain. Meanwhile, I have some very heartening news: John and George, in an email exchange prompted by this diavlog, professed a willingness to do more Bloggingheads dialogues--"now and then" as John put it. So stay tuned to find out what exactly "now and then" means. I hope it means a lot.

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by Robert Wright

I'm afraid I have to amend this promise. JimM47 and I *did* tape a Commenter Klatch, but it turned out that only one side of it actually got taped in intelligible form, owing to gremlins that have yet to be identified. Whether a re-tape can be arranged is uncertain. Meanwhile, I have some very heartening news: John and George, in an email exchange prompted by this diavlog, professed a willingness to do more Bloggingheads dialogues--"now and then" as John put it. So stay tuned to find out what exactly "now and then" means. I hope it means a lot.

Thanks for this hopeful news. You know, Bob, with a few more posts you may succumb to Commenting Addiction.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Robert Wright

I'm afraid I have to amend this promise. JimM47 and I *did* tape a Commenter Klatch, but it turned out that only one side of it actually got taped in intelligible form, owing to gremlins that have yet to be identified. Whether a re-tape can be arranged is uncertain. Meanwhile, I have some very heartening news: John and George, in an email exchange prompted by this diavlog, professed a willingness to do more Bloggingheads dialogues--"now and then" as John put it. So stay tuned to find out what exactly "now and then" means. I hope it means a lot.

Maybe some of us should "poke" them every now and then to remind them of their promised responsibilities.

[uncle ebeneezer]

I'm somewhat surprised that Discovery Channel or other sciencey cable outlets have never put together something similar to Sci Sat (with more graphics/video etc.) John/George, might wanna start talking to your agents about exploring possibilities to hit the big time.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

I'm somewhat surprised that Discovery Channel or other sciencey cable outlets have never put together something similar to Sci Sat (with more graphics/video etc.) John/George, might wanna start talking to your agents about exploring possibilities to hit the big time.

There are lots of science talks/presentations on the internet. But the unique feature here is that Sci Sat is a mix of science-related people (scientists, scientist-wanna-bes, science journalists) being interviewed and the friendly, and definitely more personal conversations with John and George. Like any informal conversation, they share enough to be informative, and yet the areas that are lacking or controversial are the ones that inspire individual researching of the subject (when we all go googling trying to get additional evidence to support our point or to learn) and discussions among commenters. It's a great format and particularly because there shouldn't be much of a political agenda behind (although as we know there's always a political agenda popping up somewhere), the discussions can be more honest and with fewer talking points.

Or so I imagine.

[uncle ebeneezer]

The point I was trying to make, is that it seems to me that a weekly science roundup type program, wold work pretty well on cable. It would be a niche market, but I would think alot of NOVA viewers and BBC watchers would tune in. Even with slightly less gabbing (which I love) and tighter focus I could imagine John, George, Carl Zimmer, Sean Carroll etc., doing an excellent job with that sort of thing if they ever wanted to supplement their writing and could find an outlet willing to take a chance on some broadcast geekery.

[added:] I do agree with you on why it is far better suited for online but don't think that a tv crossover would be totally impossible.

[Hume's Bastard]

Thanks for the encouraging news.

How about just sending a Facebook or short email notice about bh.tv's future? It only takes a little composition, and then compiling the list of commenter emails. A few clicks and it's done.

[Globalcop]

I never fathomed that BHTV would go in this bizarre direction. I guess I was completely off-base in my assumptions about what this site was all about.

It appears that everything that I enjoyed about BHTV is exactly what Wright is determined to eliminate. I suppose there are viewers who come here for Bob and his ego-centric nonsense, but I can't imagine it is anywhere near what Bob himself thinks the numbers are.

Good luck guys, I'll continue to follow you on your blogs and in your writing.

I know that I took a lot of heat for speaking my mind regarding Bob's decisions over the years. I can only imagine that I've been vindicated. Just based on my reading of the forums for a long time, I know that, despite what people are saying now, it is exactly the most popular guests and shows that Bob is canning.

Sad, sad, sad.

[Peter Sibley]

Oh, for heaven's sake.

[Peter Sibley]

What is George slurping? Some kind of flax-seed broth?

[George Johnson]

Just a caffe latte, homemade.

[fredsbreakfast]

George - One of my happiest communication media experiences these past few years has been watching you and John do Science Saturday. I sincerely hope you two can find a way to continue with this cool format of Bob's. I don't understand why more people aren't watching - you two guys are fascinating, and your enthusiasm for science is inspiring. It's also quite a pleasure to see how the two of you interact and connect with each other. Most of the others doing Science Saturday have been fun and interesting too, but it'd be wonderful to see you and John together regularly. There must be some way to attract new viewers. Seems to me the problem is marketing; too few adults and children are aware of this thing you do.

[cbjones1943]

1. Too bad Horgan & Johnson won't appear in future on BH dot com. Good things never last.
2. I understand that online NYTimes is planning to feature Bob Trivers in a front-page video and, later, a Science Times highlight.
3. Sorry I'll miss the Horgan review of Trivers' new book. I no longer read the NYTimes. Find The Enquirer to be a pretty good substitute.

<http://twitter.com/cbjones1943>

[thprop]

Science Saturday was the best thing about BHtv. I doubt that I will be checking the site that much in the future. I find Bob to be annoying and can only take him in small doses.

Here is the first Science Saturday.

[BNH]

Best part of Blogging Heads is Science Saturday. Best part of Science Saturday is these two guys. I can only hope popular demand will bring them back.

[thprop]

The first comment on the first Science Saturday was from Garbage Cowboy (in the old forum):

Hooray science!!

Thank you Bob, this is great and I hope this becomes a regular or semi-regular feature.

[ohcomeon]

This has been my favorite recurring feature of this site by far. It was usually the very first activity of my weekend. I will miss it enormously. I have been introduced to so many new aspects of science and have bought mumerous books recommended here. I feel the way I imagine fans of soaps must feel when they are cancelled. John and George are like very interesting friends who I am always happy to see. I sincerely hope they will continue to post videos and that science will remain a topic of this site.

[Alyosha]

BNH wrote on 12/24/2011 at 08:54 AM

"Best part of Blogging Heads is Science Saturday. Best part of Science Saturday is these two guys."

So true. So true.

[ohreally]

These guys have my vote. Horgan and Johnson are a good model of what works in the bhtv format. Same with Loury and McWhorter. Not so much with McArdle, Althouse, Lake, etc.

The adversarial model doesn't work. Debaters invariably rehash known ideas while trying to score points with viewers. The ideal format has the heads all but forgetting the presence of an audience. Take Horgan and Johnson: these are two friends having a smart conversation at a cafe, kind enough to let us in on their discussion. But they don't need us in their mental frame. We're irrelevant, which is why it works. We observe their wavefunction but we don't collapse it. Horgan and Johnson are post-quantum -- a compliment, by the way. But in the adversarial mode, especially when the chemistry sucks, the participants' urge to score points with us makes them collapse their wavefunction in quick ill-tempered utterances with no particular connection to truth or logic.

Right-left pairings look good on paper but they favor performance over reason. And performance gets tiresome.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by ohreally

And performance gets tiresome.

over time, everything gets tiresome.

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by ohreally

These guys have my vote. Horgan and Johnson are a good model of what works in the bhtv format. Same with Loury and McWhorter. Not so much with McArdle, Althouse, Lake, etc.

The adversarial model doesn't work. Debaters invariably rehash known ideas while trying to score points with viewers. The ideal format has the heads all but forgetting the presence of an audience. Take Horgan and Johnson: these are two friends having a smart conversation at a cafe, kind enough to let us in on their discussion. But they don't need us in their mental frame. We're irrelevant, which is why it works. We observe their wavefunction but we don't collapse it. Horgan and Johnson are post-quantum -- a compliment, by the way. But in the adversarial mode, especially when the chemistry sucks, the participants' urge to score points with us makes them collapse their wavefunction in quick ill-tempered utterances with no particular connection to truth or logic.

Right-left pairings look good on paper but they favor performance over reason. And performance gets tiresome.

The left/right pairings sometimes seem like dialogs of the deaf, as they say, but they don't have to be. It really is possible to have good discussions between people who consider themselves to be on the opposite side, "right" or "left", "conservative" or "liberal", where people find common ground and explore their differences. The same is true of discussions between people who see themselves as being on the same "side" in those terms. They can be boring if all they do is agree with other, rather than discussing their common ground and their differences.

Somthing that fascinates me is, what makes two people who can seem to disagree on so many things, even very important issues, still feel they are on the same "side" of something so vague as the line between "right" and "left", or even, "conservative" and "liberal". And why is the opposite true, i.e. two people who can think of themselves as being on the "same side" can disagree on so much. And, BHTV has been, hopefully will continue to be, a good place for finding ideas about that.

This, btw, is why someone like Christopher Hitchens was so interesting, and, even now, some people are convinced he abandoned the left, so to speak, while it seems so obvious to me that he didn't. Matt Lewis said Huntsman, no matter how conservative he is, doesn't "sound" like a conservative. And, that's what I think about Hitchens, no matter what he said he still "sounded" like a leftist to me, if you listened enough. And it's interesting to think about what that really means.

PS: I disagree about Eli Lake. He's my favourite "neo-conservative".

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

The left/right pairings sometimes seem like dialogs of the deaf, as they say, but they don't have to be.

I have not found this to be true, but I suppose there are probably a few exceptions. I think it is in the comments section that one experiences this kind of discord. But that's pretty typical of comments sections on the internet. People identify with those who share their views and fight with those who don't. Also, there is the ever popular one-ups-manship that inevitably goes on. C'est la vie.

The same is true of discussions between people who see themselves as being on the same "side" in those terms. They can be boring if all they do is agree with other, rather than discussing their common ground and their differences.

Yes, I get a little impatient with people who say stuff like "conservatives are anti-science" and don't get any pushback from their interlocutor. I had to hand it to Andy Revkin recently when he challenged the guy from Grist for saying stuff like that.

This, btw, is why someone like Christopher Hitchens was so interesting, and, even now, some people are convinced he abandoned the left, so to speak, while it seems so obvious to me that he didn't. Matt Lewis said Huntsman, no matter how conservative he is, doesn't "sound" like a conservative. And, that's what I think about Hitchens, no matter what he said he still "sounded" like a leftist to me, if you listened enough. And it's interesting to think about what that really means.

I was not an avid reader of Hitchens but read enough to know that he was a fine writer. The most vivid thing I noted about him was his utter disrespect for religion which I thought, although he explained it exquisitely, was quite overblown. But it got him attention which I think he enjoyed quite a little bit. And BTW, he explicitly said he was not a conservative.

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I have not found this to be true, but I suppose there are probably a few exceptions. I think it is in the comments section that one experiences this kind of discord. But that's pretty typical of comments sections on the internet. People identify with those who share their views and fight with those who don't. Also, there is the ever popular one-ups-manship that inevitably goes on. C'est la vie.

Yes, I get a little impatient with people who say stuff like "conservatives are anti-science" and don't get any pushback from their interlocutor. I had to hand it to Andy Revkin recently when he challenged the guy from Grist for saying stuff like that.

Right you are, BadHat. OhReally has overstated the problem. The best diavlogs have an element of disagreement that causes the participants to illuminate the topic from different angles.

In this diavlog, George rightly pushed back against John's nihilistic comments on the value of the Higgs hunt.

I agree the discord of trying to score rhetorical points is a problem. But I learn best when friends with different opinions have a friendly exchange of views.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

And, that's what I think about Hitchens, no matter what he said he still "sounded" like a leftist to me, if you listened enough.

And if you listen even more you might find a clip of him on C-SPAN talking about how refreshing it was that, in America, there are these people called Objectivists, disciples of Ayn Rand, who thought that there was too much pity and welfare for the poor.

Pretty WTF for a leftist I'd say.

[db63]

Ok, I listened to Bob's comments with Mickey about the future of Bloggingheads, but I am really just confused. Can someone just plainly say what is going on with it?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by db63

Ok, I listened to Bob's comments with Mickey about the future of Bloggingheads, but I am really just confused. Can someone just plainly say what is going on with it?

oh no, it will take a commenter klatch episode to explain all of the intricacies.

[David Edenden]

Originally Posted by db63

Ok, I listened to Bob's comments with Mickey about the future of Bloggingheads, but I am really just confused. Can someone just plainly say what is going on with it?

As far as I can understand, Bob is saying that if any regular contributors can continue if they organize themselves into a regular show. That is why "This Week in Blog" will continue ... because Bill, Kristen and Matt are interested and self-motivated to organize themselves.

My suggestion is that John with his friends at Stevens and George, with his friends at the Sante Fe Institute develop a protocol whereby Science Saturdays will continue to exist.

It seems that Bob does not have the administrative staff to continue to support BHTV by recruiting talent, scheduling, and training new contributors etc.

Suggestions to John and George:

1. Market YOUR show, Science Saturdays, to publishers ... at least you will get some free books!

2. Keep it to 30 minutes ... short and sweet.

3. Possible topics ... Science of sex, Science of pornography, evolutionary basis of infidelity , science of penis size ... (does it really matter?) ... you get the drift.

Suggestions for Bob:

1. Market Bloggingheads.tv to think tanks, public policy institutes and universities that are willing to fund a discussion on a regular basis as a way of promoting their organizations to the general public as a means of increasing their exposure to the mainstream media. Long story short ... main stream media is the big leagues, while Bloggingheads is the "feeder" leagues.

Slate Gabfests and other media experiments at the Think tanks.

2. Get former politicians who are not afraid to throw a few bombs.

3. One on One with candidates for president ( 4 years for now)

4. Celebrities and politics ... chose your pick!

[Mr. Morden]

Originally Posted by David Edenden

As far as I can understand, Bob is saying that if any regular contributors can continue if they organize themselves into a regular show. That is why "This Week in Blog" will continue ... because Bill, Kristen and Matt are interested and self-motivated to organize themselves.

Really? The sense that I got from this:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/402...4:03&out=18:43

is that Bob would still welcome the regulars to come on rather sporadically, and it wouldn't have to be weekly or even monthly. Just that they can come on if they're willing to set things up themselves, and be more self-reliant.

[consider]

I think the idea of Bloggingheads is great, but I almost never watch anything but Science Saturday, and especially Horgan and Johnson. Corn and Pinker were also really fun to watch for politics -- and I thought Pinker was completelty nuts when he talked about science. "Just build the damn force field against North Korea!" (and he was serious....)

I think one reason Science Saturday is interesting is that the political topics are discussed all the time among friends and on news shows.

[jacksonian]

I've seldom posted over the years, but wanted to join others in expressing my appreciation for George and John, and BHTV more generally. But really, (although I know the posters on this thread speak only for themselves) the criticism of Bob is absurd. There wouldn't be a BHTV without him, and the conspiracy theory suggestion that he's "canning" popular shows merely to increase his own airtime hardly deserves a response. I'm sure Bob is well aware of what diavlogs get the most hits, but the problem, as has been explained, is that that doesn't translate into enough money to keep the site going in its present form. It does seem like a number of 'heads (George and John, as well as Megan McArdle earlier this week) believe that the site is almost totally shutting down, so perhaps there has been some miscommunication with regular guests. Still, we've certainly gotten a lot more than we've paid for over the years.

[uncle ebeneezer]

I sincerely hope that John and George will try to continue doing something akin to Sci Sat discussions on a semi-regular basis. Losing Carl Zimmer and Sean Carroll was awful, but losing you guys would be even harder. You guys have been consistently the best, as far as bhtv goes. Always fun and very informative. I have a whole stack of books that I got at your suggestions, still waiting to be read.

Re GarbageCowboy: my best recollection is that he got a job and no longer had time to comment here, which was a sad loss because he was very well thought of even among those of us who often disagreed with him.

[jhorgan]

Geez, you guys, give Bob a break! He made a wonderful thing here and worked his ass off for years to keep it afloat, not for money but because he actually believed that BHTV could help make the planet a better place. He's a true idealist, in a world where that ain't easy. I was honored that he tapped me to participate in BHTV, and I wish him all the best in his new ventures. And those of you who are saying all these nice things about me and George, we'll miss you too!

[Wonderment]

Amen to that, John. Thanks to all three of you -- George, John and Bob -- for greatly enriching my life over the past few years.

[thprop]

Originally Posted by jhorgan

Geez, you guys, give Bob a break! He made a wonderful thing here and worked his ass off for years to keep it afloat, not for money but because he actually believed that BHTV could help make the planet a better place. He's a true idealist, in a world where that ain't easy. I was honored that he tapped me to participate in BHTV, and I wish him all the best in his new ventures. And those of you who are saying all these nice things about me and George, we'll miss you too!

But John - what has Bob done for us lately? I mean he has not done anything to make my life better in the past five minutes. Maybe we could use one of your favorite topics, evolutionary psychology, to study this complete lack of awareness on the part of some of the commenters.

I was going to say thank you for all the pleasure you have given me over the past almost five years on BHtv but that sounds weird and subject to misinterpretation. So thank you. I hope this is not goodbye.