Cinemorphosis

Tag: science

  • When Distrusting Experts Becomes Its Own Dogma

    When Distrusting Experts Becomes Its Own Dogma

    In his Atlantic essay “Everyone Hates Groupthink. Experts Aren’t Sure It Exists,” David Merritt Johns challenges the reflexive idea that groupthink is always harmful. He notes that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the MAHA movement accuse public-health experts of groupthink in order to undermine trust in institutions. Their narrative is familiar: elite scientists misled the public on masks and lockdowns, so now vaccines must be suspect too. But this rebellion against “consensus” doesn’t eliminate groupthink—it simply creates a rival version of it, one driven by conspiracy, resentment, and selective skepticism.

    Johns argues that not all group alignment is created equal. Sometimes consensus forms because experts evaluate evidence and converge on the best available guidance. Other times, conformity produces catastrophic choices. The trick is to distinguish disciplined collaboration from unthinking obedience. Irving Janis gave groupthink its negative reputation as the enemy of independent thought, but scholars like Sally Riggs Fuller and Ramon Alday complicate the picture, noting that what we often label “groupthink” may actually be bureaucratic opportunism—people following political incentives, not blind loyalty.

    The term has since been weaponized. Political commentators now dismiss peer-reviewed science as “groupthink” whenever it clashes with their ideology. Johns argues this is sloppy and dangerous. Blaming pandemic missteps on a mystical force called groupthink distracts from real causes, while assuming “lonethink”—the rebel outsider posture—automatically produces better decisions is equally foolish. Expertise demands rigorous debate, scrutiny, and correction, not reflexive suspicion or anti-institution bravado.

    Following conspiracy movements like MAHA and their crusade against vaccines reveals the stakes. Lives saved through immunization are treated as evidence of corruption, and public-health systems are condemned for doing exactly what they are designed to do: evaluate data, revise strategy, and protect citizens. When political identity replaces critical thinking and “groupthink” becomes a lazy insult for any professional consensus, the result is not liberation—it is reckless decision-making disguised as independent thought.

  • Thou Shall Not Skip Gravity Day

    Thou Shall Not Skip Gravity Day

    When I was fourteen, I read in The San Francisco Chronicle that the future of humanity was apparently doomed to unfold inside a giant space terrarium. The article, steeped in optimism and mild insanity, described how overpopulation and resource depletion would eventually force us to evacuate Earth aboard lunar shuttles and live in “closed-ecology habitats in free orbit.” The prophet of this plan was Princeton physicist Gerard K. O’Neill, whose forthcoming book The High Frontier promised solar-powered utopias floating blissfully through the void.

    The paper ran lush illustrations by Don Davis: rolling green hills, placid lakes, couples in flowing white linen strolling past solar panels, all living in a pastel Garden of Eden. But something about those inhabitants unsettled me. They all looked frail—thin, pale, gravity-deprived stick figures with the musculature of boiled linguine. That’s when the horror struck me: in space, there would be no gyms. No dumbbells. No pumping up. No gravity—no gains. My future would be a floating hell of atrophied muscles and existential despair. The very thought made my biceps twitch in protest.

    At the same time, a girl at school named Jennifer slipped me a birthday card with hearts on the envelope. Inside, she’d written that she liked me and wanted me to ask her out. But how could I ask her out when civilization was on the brink of being exiled to a zero-gravity tofu colony? What was the point of romance when dumbbells were about to become obsolete?

    I tore up the card, retreated to my room, and did what any hormonally charged doomsday philosopher would do: I consulted Master Po.
    “Master Po,” I said, “how can I go on living if bodybuilding dies in orbit?”
    “Grasshopper,” he said, “you live too much for yourself. You must empty yourself of self-interest.”
    “But I’m obsessed with myself.”
    “Exactly. And it shows in your quest to make your body beautiful.”
    “But bodybuilding is my life.”
    “And that,” he said, “is your curse. You train your body but let residue accumulate in your soul.”
    “So I should quit working out?”
    “Not quit. But see your body as not belonging to you. It is part of something larger.”
    “You mean, like the universe?”
    “Yes, Grasshopper. The body of the world.”
    “So, what—you want me to start picking up trash on the freeway? That’s your cosmic wisdom?”
    “Once again,” he sighed, “you are far from The Way.”

    I looked at my reflection in the mirror that night—fourteen years old, terrified of zero gravity—and realized that maybe Master Po was right. I wasn’t afraid of space. I was afraid of floating away from myself.

  • Why You Prefer Your Radio to a Streaming Device

    Why You Prefer Your Radio to a Streaming Device

    880 and 660 with MM300

    If you’re like me, listening to classical music on your Tecsun PL-990 or PL-880 while reading a book is a real pleasure. You could listen to the same radio station on a computer or streaming device and it wouldn’t feel the same. 

    Your preference for listening to content on a high-performance radio rather than an Amazon streaming device likely stems from a combination of tactility, ritual, and authenticity.

    1. Tactility and Presence – Your radios are physical instruments with dials, knobs, and antennas, requiring interaction to fine-tune the signal. This act of engagement makes the listening experience feel more intentional, compared to simply clicking on a streaming app.
    2. Ritual and Skill – Tuning into a hard-to-get FM station on a high-performance radio, especially under varying atmospheric conditions, feels like an acquired skill. When reception is challenging, getting a clean signal feels like a small victory—something a streaming device doesn’t provide because it simply works or doesn’t.
    3. Authenticity and Directness – With FM radio, you’re receiving a direct broadcast, a real-time transmission from a tower to your receiver, unmediated by algorithms, compression, or internet connectivity. It feels like you’re catching a live signal out of the air, whereas streaming feels filtered through corporate infrastructure.
    4. Immediacy and Atmosphere – FM radio has static, subtle signal fluctuations, and environmental influence—all of which make the sound feel more alive compared to a clinically perfect digital stream. There’s a romance in the imperfection, much like the sweep of a mechanical watch’s second hand versus the precise ticking of a quartz.

    Connection to Your Watch Preferences:

    If you’re a radio person, you may also be a watch enthusiast, in which case  there’s a strong parallel between your love for high-performance radios and mechanical watches:

    • Mechanical watches and FM radios require physical mechanisms to operate—whether it’s gears and springs or ferrite antennas and signal processing. Quartz watches and streaming services, on the other hand, rely on microchips, batteries, and external data to function.
    • Both require skill and engagement—adjusting a radio for the best reception is akin to winding a watch, adjusting its timing, or understanding its movement. There’s an art to it.
    • Both provide a sense of tradition and independence—A mechanical watch keeps ticking without batteries, just as an FM radio pulls a signal out of the air without needing an internet connection. Both feel like they give you a direct, unfiltered experience rather than a pre-packaged digital one.

    Your attachment to radio over streaming—and mechanical over quartz—likely comes from a deeper appreciation for analogue, self-sufficient technology that requires a human touch. It’s about the process as much as the result.

  • Astroganda

    Astroganda

    When I was five, I was the proud herald of my father’s superhuman abilities. I told the other kids at the Royal Lanai apartments playground that my dad, an IBM engineer, was basically Tony Stark with a day job. I pointed to the giant playground spaceship and swore that when he got home, he’d slap rocket launchers on it and we’d all blast off to Mars. Naturally, the kids, hungry for cosmic adventure, followed me to the carport, where my dad’s red MGB was parked like the space shuttle awaiting launch. We munched on Pillsbury Space Food Sticks—because apparently, astronaut snacks were the pinnacle of pre-launch cuisine—as we waited in breathless anticipation.

    When the MGB finally roared into the carport, we erupted like we’d just seen the second coming of the space shuttle. But my father, in his somber gray suit that made him look like a budget Bond villain, crushed our dreams faster than a meteorite. “Sorry, kids,” he declared, “but flying to Mars without FAA clearance would land me in the slammer.” Our little faces fell as we imagined Dad in prison for attempting to breach the celestial airspace. Our sense of civic duty suddenly made us feel like unsung heroes, following the rules by not flying to Mars. The thrill of not going to Mars was almost as exhilarating as the thought of actually going there.

    The real blow to my father’s godlike status wasn’t his failure to launch us into space. No, it was his red MGB. This flashy little convertible was more temperamental than a teenager with a broken phone. It had a pathological aversion to warm weather and its engine seemed to overheat if you so much as looked at it sideways. Frustrated by its chronic hot flashes, my father finally traded it for a turquoise Chrysler Newport. The MGB’s breakdowns were like a public confession that there were engineering limits even he couldn’t defy. If he couldn’t conquer a car, how could he possibly conquer the cosmos?

    Meanwhile, we ate our Space Sticks, hoping these chewy abominations might turn us into astronauts. Those days introduced me to the food industry’s sugary, astronaut-themed scam that sold space-age wonder in chewy, shrink-wrapped form. The term for this manipulation is Astroganda–The slick marketing tactic that wrapped ordinary snacks—like Pillsbury Space Food Sticks—in a shimmering cloak of interstellar cool, convincing kids that chewing one made them honorary astronauts. A hybrid of “astro” and “propaganda,” Astroganda is the strategy of linking mass-produced consumer goods with galactic ambition, NASA prestige, and the promise that you too could eat like Buzz Aldrin while sitting in your corduroy overalls.

    Space Food Sticks were less about nutrition and more about narrative—chewy cocoa logs of powdered optimism, packaged for Earth-bound dreamers with moonshot imaginations. They didn’t just taste like chocolate; they tasted like potential.

    Victims of Astroganda could often be found in carports, licking space dust off their fingers, eyes fixed on a dented MGB convertible, waiting for liftoff and quietly ignoring the radiator steam as a mere launch delay.

    It wasn’t food—it was future cosplay in a wrapper. And we bought it. Literally and figuratively.