Cinemorphosis

Author: Jeffrey McMahon

  • Why My Neighbors Saw a Man in Pajamas Pointing a G-Shock Frogman at the Heavens

    Why My Neighbors Saw a Man in Pajamas Pointing a G-Shock Frogman at the Heavens

    Last night I went to bed wearing my trusty G-Shock Frogman GWF-1000, fully expecting it to perform its quiet nightly miracle: synchronize itself with the atomic clock in Colorado and glide effortlessly into Daylight Saving Time. The watch is, after all, marketed as a technological marvel—solar-powered, radio-controlled, and rugged enough to survive the Mariana Trench. Surely a modest seasonal time change would present no difficulty.

    At three in the morning I woke up for my traditional pilgrimage to the bathroom. Alexa informed me it was 3:00 a.m. My Frogman, however, insisted it was 2:00. The great amphibian had failed. The atomic signal from Colorado had apparently skipped my wrist entirely. When I woke up again at six for breakfast, the Frogman still clung stubbornly to 5:00. My heart sank. The watch I had imagined as a cybernetic superhero was, in fact, a mere mortal—another electronic device at the mercy of radio reception.

    After breakfast I decided to intervene. I confirmed the watch was set to receive the signal automatically and then attempted four manual syncs. Each attempt ended in humiliation: ERR. The signal indicator stubbornly displayed L1, the horological equivalent of a whisper. I tried the front patio. I tried the backyard. Still L1. At that point the situation escalated from casual troubleshooting to full-scale field operation.

    With the Frogman draped ceremoniously over my daughter’s oversized yellow duck squishy, dressed in blue plaid pajama bottoms and a grey T-shirt, I marched into the middle of the street like a man conducting an amateur radio experiment. I walked slow circles, rotating the watch like a sacred artifact, watching the signal meter with the concentration of a NASA engineer awaiting telemetry. At last the screen flickered: L3. Full signal. While a group of worm-eating crows nearby cackled at the spectacle, I wondered if my neighbors were peering through their curtains thinking, “I knew he was crazy all along. This confirms it.”

    Five minutes later the watch synchronized. Atomic time flowed once again from Colorado to my wrist, and the harmony of the cosmos was restored.

    Still, the episode leaves me with questions. Would the Frogman have corrected itself within a day or two if I had simply left it alone? Or was my early-morning expedition into the street the necessary act that secured the precious L3 signal?

    Another thought occurs to me. This operation was manageable with a single G-Shock. But what if I owned half a dozen Multiband-6 models? Twice a year I might find myself conducting a small civic ceremony in the middle of the road, rotating watches toward the northeast like a priest consulting celestial omens. The ritual would deserve a proper name: The Atomic Pilgrimage—the journey undertaken by the devoted G-Shock owner who abandons the domestic safety of patios and kitchens in search of the elusive WWVB signal.

    The experience has made me reconsider expanding my G-Shock collection. And yet, if I’m honest, a small part of my inner child found the whole adventure glorious—like standing in the backyard with a toy rocketship, waiting for mission control at NASA to say, “Signal acquired.”

  • Frogman Monstrosity Acceptance

    Frogman Monstrosity Acceptance

    I’ve tried to be candid about where my watch hobby is headed. For years I lived in the land of mechanical divers—those charming little machines that require winding, adjusting, and periodic visits to a watchmaker who looks at you the way a veterinarian looks at a sick horse. Lately, however, I seem to be drifting toward a different ecosystem: Multiband 6 atomic time delivered by my G-Shock Frogman, a watch that feeds on sunlight and quietly synchronizes itself with atomic clocks while I sleep. It is difficult to compete with a device that performs its duties with the calm efficiency of a Swiss train conductor who never needs coffee. The responses to this confession have been varied. Some readers nod knowingly and say they went through the same conversion. Their mechanical watches now sit motionless in drawers like retired prizefighters who once thrilled crowds but now spend their days remembering the old days. One friend is currently wandering around Thailand with a GW-5000U on his wrist and reports a level of contentment normally associated with Buddhist monks. Others have taken the opposite path and begun collecting Frogman models the way medieval villagers stockpiled shields before a siege, as if surrounding themselves with these massive amphibious contraptions might repel the chaos of modern life.

    And then there are the critics. They inform me—sometimes gently, sometimes with theatrical alarm—that I have lost my mind, contracted a disease, and strapped a grotesque monstrosity to my wrist. I concede every point. I am indeed crazed with enthusiasm, and the Frogman is unquestionably a monstrosity. But it is the most magnificent monstrosity I have ever encountered. I appear to have entered what might be called Frogman Monstrosity Acceptance: the psychological stage in which the owner stops apologizing for the watch’s outrageous proportions and instead embraces them with pride. Yes, it is enormous. Yes, it looks like a small amphibious armored vehicle designed by engineers who distrust gravity. But once you surrender to its scale, the Frogman ceases to be embarrassing and becomes something far better—a gleefully excessive titan among polite timepieces.

     

  • The Frogman Fidelity Oath

    The Frogman Fidelity Oath

    Dear God, hear the humble prayer of a watch addict who is trying—heroically, if imperfectly—to stay faithful to his G-Shock Frogman. Grant me the strength to appreciate the magnificent amphibious creature already on my wrist and to resist coveting other G-Shocks, especially the cheaper ones that whisper seductive promises of practicality and convenience. Protect me from the restless itch that sends me wandering through YouTube at midnight, where cheerful reviewers with macro lenses and enthusiastic voices assure me that the next watch will transform my life, my character, and possibly my posture.

    Please quiet the anxious machinery in my brain that insists on researching watches I do not need. Help me understand that the Frogman already fulfills every rational requirement a man could have for a digital timepiece: it is solar, atomic, indestructible, and built like a submarine designed by an engineer with trust issues. Remind me that my obsessive excursions into the G-Shock ecosystem are not noble acts of research but rather neurotic pilgrimages through a desert of comparison charts and unboxing videos.

    And please, dear God, intervene quickly, because the temptation is growing stronger by the hour. I can feel myself drifting toward the purchase of a GW-7900—not because I need it, but because my mind has begun whispering the most dangerous phrase in the collector’s vocabulary: “backup watch.” I tell myself the 7900 would merely protect my Frogman from harsh conditions, as though the Frogman were a delicate orchid rather than an armored amphibian designed to survive the Mariana Trench.

    If this prayer sounds familiar, you already understand the Frogman Fidelity Oath: the solemn pledge made by the watch enthusiast who believes he has finally found the perfect G-Shock and now begs for the strength not to betray it. The oath is heartfelt, sincere, and deeply moving—and it usually lasts right up until the moment the addict watches two enthusiastic YouTube reviews and convinces himself that buying a second watch is not an act of infidelity but an act of responsible stewardship.

  • From Muscle Monsters to Ken Doll Tyrants

    From Muscle Monsters to Ken Doll Tyrants

    When I was a teenage bodybuilder in the 1970s, the weight room was full of boys with the same secret: we were trying to fix ourselves. Our cure for insecurity was iron. We trained like men preparing for war, convinced that if we grew large enough—huge traps, bulging biceps, necks like bridge cables—we could terrify the world into respecting us. We fantasized about becoming “monsters” or “gargoyles,” grotesque statues of muscle that would scare away humiliation and banish our private doubts. Of course, the plan never worked. Just as the chronic overeater cannot outrun gluttony, we could not out-muscle low self-esteem. The demons we tried to crush with barbells simply followed us out of the gym.

    Nearly fifty years later, bodybuilding’s old delusion has been replaced by a stranger one: looksmaxxing, the obsessive attempt to engineer physical perfection through cosmetic intervention and digital-age narcissism. In Becca Rothfeld’s New Yorker essay “The Captivating Derangement of the Looksmaxxing Movement,” we meet a new breed of self-improvement fanatic embodied by an influencer who calls himself Clavicular. Testosterone injections, rhinoplasty, double-chin surgery, pharmaceutical regimens, manic diet protocols, and relentless “biohacking” have sculpted him into something resembling a laboratory-grown Ken doll. The goal is not merely attractiveness but algorithmic perfection: a human face optimized to survive the merciless scrutiny of social media.

    Yet beneath this glossy surface lies something dark. Rothfeld observes that the movement often overlaps with the internet’s most antisocial subcultures—incel forums, misogynistic grievance factories, and communities obsessed with ranking human worth according to facial symmetry and bone structure. Technology theorist Jaron Lanier warned years ago that social media algorithms reward content that appeals to our most primitive impulses, dragging public discourse downward toward the brain stem. Looksmaxxing appears to be the logical endpoint of that descent: a digital coliseum where identity, masculinity, and human dignity are reduced to metrics of jawline geometry.

    Ironically, the men who pursue this transformation claim they are trying to become more attractive to women. Instead, they often cultivate the personality of a malfunctioning action figure: narcissistic, performative, and incapable of genuine intimacy. They rehearse “alpha male” poses, brag about their surgical upgrades, and sneer at the supposedly inferior masses who lack their aesthetic discipline. What emerges is not confidence but solipsism—individuals who can admire their reflection indefinitely but seem constitutionally incapable of love.

    When broken misfit toys acquire millions of followers and begin shaping cultural and political attitudes, the spectacle stops being merely ridiculous. It becomes ominous. Movements fueled by resentment, aesthetic purity, and tribal grievance have a long and ugly history. The looksmaxxing phenomenon, with its blend of cosmetic obsession, internet radicalization, and juvenile power fantasies, bears the unmistakable scent of decadence—and perhaps something worse. A healthy society cannot thrive when its young men aspire not to become human beings but to become action figures.

  • The Digital Purist’s G-Shock Manifesto

    The Digital Purist’s G-Shock Manifesto

    When I bought my G-Shock Frogman and experienced the peculiar bond that many G-Shock owners describe, I began hearing from other enthusiasts who spoke about their watches with the same kind of fervor usually reserved for religion, motorcycles, or properly cooked brisket. Curious, I started watching G-Shock videos online. What struck me was not the technical analysis—though there was plenty of that—but the sheer affection people felt for these watches. It was humbling to see someone speak with genuine reverence about a $100 resin timepiece with the same poetic intensity that others reserve for ten-thousand-dollar Swiss luxury watches. Apparently joy does not scale with price tags.

    After enough of these videos, I discovered something about myself: my lane in the G-Shock universe is extremely narrow. My watches must be digital. They must be Tough Solar. They must be Multiband 6. And they must come on straps. The moment a watch wanders outside those borders—analog hands, shiny bracelets, smartwatch features that make it look like a Garmin auditioning for a triathlon—it falls off my radar. Limited editions that feel like marketing departments squeezing collectors for lunch money also fail to stir my soul. My tastes are simple: give me the rugged, atomic-synchronized machinery of the late-20th-century Casio imagination.

    And that is where the magic happens. Casio is the undisputed curator of the 1980s and 1990s technological mood: efficient, unapologetically digital, and blissfully free from the surveillance culture of modern smart devices. A Tough Solar Multiband 6 G-Shock does everything you ask of it without demanding attention in return. It is competent, quiet, and oddly comforting. Once you step into that retro-technical atmosphere, you discover the purest G-Shock vibe: a blend of practicality, nostalgia, and cool restraint.

    Based on this revelation, I created what I now consider my essential G-Shock quartet:

    G-Shock Frogman GWF-1000
    G-Shock Rangeman GW-9400
    G-Shock Rescue GW-7900
    G-Shock GW-5000U

    I already own the first one. The other three remain safely outside my possession—at least for the moment. My strategy for maintaining discipline is simple: I try to read books and articles like a normal person. Unfortunately, every fifteen minutes my browser opens a new tab where I begin “researching” the Rangeman, the 7900, or the GW-5000U with the dedication of a graduate student preparing a thesis on atomic timekeeping. So far the watches remain unpurchased.

    But I would not advise betting against them.

    The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches is my book about the watch madness that many of us share. It is now on Amazon Kindle:

  • The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches

    The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches

    The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches is not a book about watches. It is a book about obsession—the kind that begins with a single innocent purchase and metastasizes into spreadsheets, late-night forum debates, and existential dread over lume brightness. What starts as an appreciation for craftsmanship becomes a full-blown psychological expedition into masculinity, consumer desire, envy, tribal belonging, and the strange belief that the right object will fix what’s unsettled inside. If you have ever convinced yourself that one more acquisition would finally complete you, this book is already about you.

    The watch obsession is told in lexicon entries. Each term for some facet of the watch addiction exposes the watch enthusiast who descends into the glittering underworld of timepieces—divers, bracelets, straps, limited editions—only to discover that the chase for the “perfect watch” is really a chase for certainty in a world that offers none. The deeper he goes, the more absurd the quest becomes. He compares millimeters as if they were moral virtues. He debates dial legibility as if it were a constitutional right. He imagines that mastering reference numbers will somehow grant him mastery over time itself. Instead, he finds himself trapped in a hall of mirrors where identity is reflected in polished steel.

    And yet this is not merely satire. Beneath the laughter lies a serious question: why do intelligent, disciplined adults hand over their peace of mind to objects? The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches is a confession, a cautionary tale, and a strangely hopeful map back to sanity. It exposes the machinery of obsession while refusing to sneer at it. Because in the end, the watches were never the enemy. The illusion that perfection could be purchased—that was the real complication.

    I have published this book on Amazon Kindle, but you do not need a Kindle device to read it. Once you purchase it, you can read the book directly on your computer screen using the Kindle app or the Kindle cloud reader. If the book gains meaningful traction and sells well, I will consider releasing a paperback edition as well.

  • Mechanical Atrophy Prevention

    Mechanical Atrophy Prevention

    I wear my G-Shock Frogman GWF-1000 almost every day. It has become the default setting of my wrist, the horological equivalent of gravity. Twice a week, however, I stage a small act of resistance. I slip on one of my Seiko divers. If I don’t, the Frogman will quietly suffocate the rest of the collection. It already has, to a degree. The moment I first strapped that Frogman on, it felt less like a purchase and more like a declaration: this watch had my name written across it in thick permanent ink. It fit my life with such ruthless competence that every other watch in the box began to look like an understudy waiting for a call that will never come.

    So twice a week I impose discipline. The Seikos get their turn. Think of it as horological cross-training. Most days I’m on the exercise bike or doing yoga, but I still force myself to swing the kettlebells twice a week so my muscles don’t dissolve into decorative noodles. The Seikos perform the same function. They are my defense against mechanical watch atrophy.

    This ritual belongs to what I call my Mechanical Atrophy Prevention program: the deliberate act of wearing a mechanical watch just often enough to preserve one’s emotional bond with gears, springs, and that hypnotic sweeping second hand. Without this intervention, the human brain quickly adapts to the ruthless efficiency of digital timekeeping. Soon you’re living in a world of solar charging, atomic synchronization, and clinical precision, and the charming little clockwork creatures in your watch box begin to feel quaint—like writing letters with a quill.

    Wearing the Seikos twice a week is my version of lifting weights so my body doesn’t evolve into an ergonomic office chair with legs. The practice keeps alive the fragile illusion that I am still a “mechanical watch person,” not a man who has quietly surrendered to the cold efficiency of quartz.

    Does this sound crazy to you?

    Welcome to my world.

  • You Can Squander Your Entire Life on the Review Treadmill

    You Can Squander Your Entire Life on the Review Treadmill

    Over the past twenty years, something subtle but decisive has happened to our brains: we have stopped reading and started watching. The printed page asks for patience and solitude. Video, by contrast, offers a human face. We no longer want arguments delivered in paragraphs; we want a narrator standing before us, explaining the world with hand gestures, eyebrow raises, and the occasional conspiratorial smile. The writer has quietly stepped aside. In his place stands the “creator,” a figure who performs knowledge rather than merely writing it down.

    There are, to be fair, some remarkable creators who produce philosophical video essays—long, thoughtful meditations on culture, politics, or technology. These people still believe ideas deserve oxygen. But they are the minority. For the vast majority of viewers, the preferred form of knowledge is far more practical and far less exalted: product reviews. Comparisons. Rankings. Side-by-side verdicts on the minor differences between things we may or may not ever purchase.

    I am not immune to this gravitational pull. Suppose I want to understand the fine distinctions among solar, atomic G-Shocks—their legibility, antenna performance, charging efficiency, module behavior, and overall build quality. That path leads to a rabbit hole deep enough to swallow a decade of one’s life. I could earn a doctoral degree in G-Shock Studies and still emerge unsure whether the GW-7900 or the GW-9400 possesses the superior atomic reception. Doubt becomes the justification for further research. And further research leads to what might be called the Comparative Infinity Loop: a condition in which every answer breeds another comparison. The 7900 versus the 9400. Module 3193 versus module 3410. One display’s legibility versus another’s contrast. Each conclusion merely opens another door.

    The deeper irony is that the search for “absolute knowledge” can easily replace the experience itself. A person could spend an entire lifetime watching product reviews without ever purchasing the product in question. The mind remains entertained, stimulated, and convinced it is progressing toward certainty. But nothing actually changes.

    The metaphor that best captures this condition is the shark. A shark must keep swimming to force oxygen through its gills. Stop swimming and it suffocates. Our brains now behave the same way. We keep feeding them review after review, comparison after comparison, as if the next video will finally reveal the decisive truth. But we are not swimming toward a destination. We are circling the same patch of ocean.

    In this sense, modern consumer knowledge has become a form of exercise equipment: the Review Treadmill. The viewer burns mental energy at a heroic rate, accumulating ever finer distinctions between products, yet never actually moves forward. The belt keeps turning. The videos keep playing. And the horizon of perfect knowledge remains politely out of reach.

  • The Semester When Students Got Tired of AI Slop

    The Semester When Students Got Tired of AI Slop

    My critical thinking class this spring has produced something I have not seen in several years: essays that sound like they were written by human beings.

    The first two mini-essays show almost no signs of AI cheating. Students wrote about the theme of “optimization without integration” in the Black Mirror episode “Joan Is Awful,” and about toxic positivity and infantilization in “Rachel, Jack, and Ashley Too.” These are not easy concepts. Yet the writing has been thoughtful, uneven in places, occasionally clumsy—in other words, unmistakably human.

    Part of the explanation lies in the design of the assignments. I structured them as hybrids. Students begin with a single analytical paragraph about the episode itself. Then they pivot and connect the theme to their own lives. The second step is the key. AI can summarize television episodes all day long, but it has a harder time fabricating the peculiar messiness of someone’s actual life.

    But the assignments alone do not explain the shift.

    Conversations with students suggest something more interesting is happening: they are tired of AI. Not ethically troubled, not philosophically conflicted—simply exhausted. They complain about what they call AI slop: bloated paragraphs that say everything and mean nothing, prose that sounds like a motivational speaker trapped inside a thesaurus.

    They are burned out on the smooth, inflated voice of the machine.

    What they seem to want instead is something refreshingly primitive—authentic expression. The Black Mirror episodes help. The themes are sharp, strange, and slightly disturbing, which gives students something real to react to. They also appreciate that the assignments are short—well under 1,000 words. These essays function as warm-ups before the larger research papers later in the semester.

    The result, at least so far, is encouraging.

    After four years of watching AI creep into every corner of student writing, I may be seeing the beginning of a recalibration. Students appear to be treating AI less like a magic genie that produces instant essays and more like what it actually works best as: a tool for editing and cleanup.

    I could be misreading the moment. Trends in education are famous for evaporating the second you start feeling optimistic.

    But for now, the classroom sounds different.

    The paragraphs have fingerprints on them again.

  • Dessert from the Department of Cybersecurity

    Dessert from the Department of Cybersecurity

    Yesterday I endured my college’s annual cybersecurity training program, a ritual as joyful as renewing your driver’s license at the DMV. The course came complete with a quiz—an “opportunity,” they called it—to demonstrate that I had absorbed the essential lesson of modern digital survival: pause before you click.

    The training was earnest, repetitive, and soaked in the bureaucratic optimism that a thirty-minute slideshow can transform ordinary humans into elite cyber-defense agents. The core commandment appeared again and again like scripture: use common sense and do not click suspicious emails.

    I completed the training, collected my imaginary gold star, and moved on with my day.

    The following morning the universe presented its practical exam.

    An email arrived addressed to everyone in my department. The subject line screamed with theatrical desperation: “Please! I need some assistance!” The sender was a student who had never taken my class, never spoken to me, and almost certainly had no idea who I was. Attached to the email were several transcripts, as if she had dumped a stack of paperwork onto the digital sidewalk.

    Her message contained a four-paragraph narrative describing the tragic injustice that had befallen her: she had not been admitted to the university of her dreams. She wanted me—a total stranger—to read the attachments and vouch for her qualifications. The request carried the confident tone of someone who had mistaken mass-emailing professors for a reasonable life strategy.

    My reaction was immediate and uncharitable. This was not a cry for help. This was hubris wearing sweatpants. The entire message radiated a level of absurd entitlement that made the delete key glow with moral clarity.

    So I deleted it.

    Later that day I was in the garage swinging kettlebells, grunting my way through a set, when a thought crept into my mind. What if this email had been the cybersecurity department’s final exam? Perhaps after forcing me through their mandatory training, they had decided to test whether I would actually apply the lesson.

    Pause before you click.

    Did I pass because I exercised common sense?

    Possibly.

    But if I’m honest, I passed because the email offended me. Its sheer stupidity triggered the one defensive system that never fails: irritation. Suspicion might falter. Curiosity might betray you. But righteous annoyance is a powerful cybersecurity tool.

    So thank you, Department of Cybersecurity. You were not content to burden me with a half-hour training session. You also sent along dessert.

    And I did exactly what you hoped I would do with it.

    I sent it back to the kitchen.