It’s no secret that dystopian fiction is beyond popular, especially for teens and young adults. Hunger Games, Divergent, The Power, The Road, The Giver, The Maze Runner, and thousands more. It isn’t a new genre – 1984 and Handmaid’s Tale are two of the most well-known examples.

There’s also a trend in many of the newest and most popular dystopian stories — that older women are some of the worst villains out there. As Jessamyn Neuhaus wrote in 2015, quote:

YA dystopian fiction in particular is having its moment right now. Last year saw the release of at least four dystopian films based on young adult fiction containing some pretty dire visions of future societies. All four featured an almost identical female leader character. She’s coldly calculating, middle aged, icily beautiful, and a villainess—or, at the very least, a highly misguided leader whose blind devotion to a rigidly depersonalized or somehow “perfected” world forms the basis of the conflict with the main characters. Unfortunately, I don’t think these four “cold, intelligent women” are illuminating “problematic mechanisms of power” at all. Rather, they are expressions of the persistent distrust of female authority in our current culture. These characters serve as a type of sexist shorthand for a society gone terribly, terribly wrong. Though not necessarily the sole “purveyors of this dysfunctional culture,” their pitiless rule symbolizes just how bad it’s gotten, because when women hold the kind of power and authority that renders them coldblooded killers, there’s something awfully amiss. But it’s essential to note that we’re talking here only about the power and authority of older, non-motherly, women.

Of course, women aren’t the only villains in dystopian fiction. The thing about this particular genre is, no matter how complex the situations, there’s usually always a hero and a villian. More often than not, the villain is someone that has all of the power and is trying to maintain strong control. After all, dystopia is by its nature an underdog story. And we all like to believe that we are the underdog.

As Charley Locke wrote in Wired, quote:

Either way, people are reaching out to dark visions to make sense of an increasingly unrecognizable country. A well-told narrative, truthful or not, can awaken a reader’s imagination and push them to action—and a neat dystopia is often more satisfying than a complicated truth.

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

I tried – for a very long time – to find a good working definition of bravery to use for this episode. Instead what I found was one of the most complex interplays of cultural, social, emotional, psychological, and physical acts and reactions that I’ve encountered. I’ll let an extensive quote from Kugel, Hausman, Black, and Bongar’s article Psychology of Physical Bravery from July of 2017 explain some of the difficulty:

Documentation of this interest in bravery and heroism begins as early as 420 BCE with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and continues to the modern age with some prominent psychologists such as Rachman and Zimbardo. While we have many words, including “bravery,” “courage,” or “heroism,” to describe it, physical bravery remains a widely elusive phenomenon. This notion is illustrated in the differing operational definitions used by researchers within the field, along with variations among occurrences and experiences of heroism. For example, bravery is often described as “overcoming fears for no purpose other than the act itself” . Thus, crossing a rope bridge over a deep gorge is considered to be a brave behavior, but it does not have any additional components that are commonly inherent in courage and heroism. The definition of courage appears to be more elusive: Plato points out at the end of Laches, “We have not discovered what courage is”, and Miller, in his book The Mystery of Courage, writes, “No single theory, for none I have seen, nor none I can come up with, will work”. The difficulty in defining these concepts stems from the various intertwined layers that construct courageous and brave behavior. For example, Aristotle tied courage to the serving of an honorable and morally just cause. However, to the professional soldier, who chose a lifestyle that demands courage, it is irrelevant whether he fights for spreading freedom and democracy, to protect oil and resources, or for the fame, adventure, or money. Furthermore, culture and society have a dynamic and ever-changing influence on the definition of courageous behavior. Thus, an individual might be perceived as a coward and traitor in a certain time and place and as a courageous individual in another.

And all of this is only when talking about physical acts of bravery, and doesn’t begin to touch the idea of something non-physical.

The one conclusion that nearly every source I could find agrees on is that, no matter how large or small the act, bravery is really just the act of facing down something you fear. Which means that for each person and in each situation, bravery will look a little different, because our respective relationships with fear look a little different.

Or, as Nelson Mandela put it:

“I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.”

This week, we’ve got a short announcement — it’s harvest season! Plums are ripe and falling off the trees, our apples are at the perfect point to start cidering, with hazelnuts, walnuts and grapes following shortly thereafter, This is the time of year when the little minifarm that serves as A Thousand Things to Talk About HQ starts producing like no tomorrow, and we need to preserve the bounty f

Calendar management. As someone that regularly looks at about eight different calendars when having my family’s weekly scheduling meeting, calendar management is seriously life.

Which I’m not alone at. I’ve seen more business coaching and executive coaching and personal development focused pieces of advice about calendar management than you can shake a stick at. The overarching theme is that managing your calendar is the written (or digital) manifestation of managing your time, and therefore managing your life. Was this always the case?

There’s a number of arguments that when human beings started tracking and predicting the movement of time is when humans started planning ahead, which plays a huge part in everything that came before.

Up until a few years ago, modern theory was that timekeeping and calendar-keeping in earnest around 5,000 years ago.

In 2013, however, an analysis of an excavation site from 2004 suggested that the set of 12 pits aligned to the planet’s cycles from about 10,000 years ago was an early calendar that not only measured the lunar months, but also corrected the calendar on the winter solstice to correct for the differences between solar and lunar timekeeping..

This early calendar was far from the shared Google calendars of the day, but do show the shifting relationship that our species was developing with time long ago — and a shift that eventually led to the way we calendar, and view time, today.

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

For the last several years, in the first part of March, the National Day of Unplugging comes around, and you’re likely to find a few thousand articles and discussions of how important it is to put your digital devices in a bag that blocks all signals, and quote “reconnect with the real world around you.”

There’s plenty of people claiming plenty of benefits of removing yourself from technology for some length of time. One chunk of research asked students to not use their phones or interact with media at all for a day by the The International Center for Media & the Public Agenda. Those students reported that they were able to focus more, studied more, read more books, studied more, and basically used the quote-unquote extra time to do things that they enjoyed.

A 2011 study from the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology in 2011 also argued that disconnecting from communication devices and work in general while at home — in the words of the study, segmentation – improved emotional and psychological health of employees.

There’s also plenty of claims that unplugging — from technology or from your everyday life — can be the magic pill that improves just about anything that ails you.

Yet, as Casey N. Cep points out in an article in The New Yorker, quote:

And yet the “real” world, like the “real” America, is an insidious idea. It suggests that the selves we are online aren’t authentic, and that the relationships that we forge in digital spaces aren’t meaningful. This is odd, because some of our closest friends and most significant professional connections are people we’ve only ever met on the Internet, and a third of recently married couples met online. It’s odder still because we not only love and socialize online but live and work there, too. Is it any less real when we fall in love and break up over Gchat than when we get fired over e-mail and then find a new job on LinkedIn?

Pope Benedict XVI, after he started tweeting, delivered a message on social networks. “The exchange of information can become true communication, links ripen into friends, and connections facilitate communion,” the Pope said. He added that, with effort, “it is not only ideas and information that are shared but, ultimately, our very selves.”

The power of quote-unquote unplugging may come more in the chance to reset and gain new appreciation for the choices we do make — much like travel gives us a chance to see the home we have with new eyes.

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

If you go to conventions or are a particularly ardent fan of … well, pretty much anything… you’ve probably heard the horror stories. Celebrities or creators interacting with fans that are… well, fangirling. I’ve done it myself in the past, and it never fails to be a somewhat awkward and totally embarrassing experience. Probably on both sides, honestly.

Experiences like this are why it can be really tough to tell the people that you admire that you, well, admire them. But even if they’re a huge celebrity (even if it’s only in your mind) then taking the time out of your day to say nice things is probably worth it. So… how?

Lily Herman wrote a great guide in The Muse that I would suggest reading in its entirety. The very short version is:

1 – Keep it short. Don’t pour out your life story, just tell them that you appreciate them or their work, and why.

2 – Be specific about what you love or appreciate.

3 – Don’t ask for anything.

4 – Let it stand on its own. Don’t keep following up and expecting something.

Of course, all of these rules could be made to be broken in certain situations. There are times telling people exactly what it is about your life that connected you with their work could mean pouring out your life story, for example.

The big thing is, just respect the rules of whatever space your in. And if you’re not sure what the rules are, err on the side of old-fashioned basic etiquette and say thank you.

After all, as Victoria McNalley wrote in Revelist, quote:

If you find yourself at a conversation with someone you really admire, there’s no point in pretending you’re not a huge fan and that they didn’t have an impact on your life. If hearing about Jared Padalecki’s battle with depression, for example, helped you get through your own dark time, don’t be afraid to tell him that if you find yourself standing in front of his autograph table. Everyone likes to hear that they’ve made a difference in someone else’s life, no matter how cheesy or dorky you might think it sounds. Trust me, they’ll be happy to know they had such an impact on you.  

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

Kindness isn’t a new topic on this show – we’ve talked about even random acts of kindness specifically in episodes 409 and 559. What we didn’t cover in those episodes, though, and what I find a very intriguing effect – is one called kindness priming.

This particular effect, which has been studied in some form since the 1980s, theorizes that when we recall or experience something kind or nice or affirming or positive (depending on which study you read), the more likely you are to notice the kind or nice or positive things around you.

What I find particularly interesting about this is the fact that, depending on where you look, you can find arguments that humans remember either positive or negative events more strongly. In a 2012 article of The New York Times article, the author explains in support of the idea we remember negative events better, quote:

“This is a general tendency for everyone,” said Clifford Nass, a professor of communication at Stanford University. “Some people do have a more positive outlook, but almost everyone remembers negative things more strongly and in more detail.” Roy F. Baumeister, a professor of social psychology at Florida State University, captured the idea in the title of a journal article he co-authored in 2001, “Bad Is Stronger Than Good,” which appeared in The Review of General Psychology. “Research over and over again shows this is a basic and wide-ranging principle of psychology,” he said. “It’s in human nature, and there are even signs of it in animals,” in experiments with rats.

However, a 2014 article from the BBC argued the opposite, saying, quote:

Researchers suggest it could be that good memories persist longer than bad – helping to keep the human race happy and resilient. Psychologists say that holding onto our good memories – and leaving the bad ones behind – helps us to deal with unpleasant situations and retain a positive outlook on life. The authors believe this study shows that the faster fading of unpleasant memories is a pan-cultural phenomenon and this helps individuals to process negativity and adapt to changes in their environment whilst retaining a positive outlook on life.

So no matter which thing we remember better – bad or good – taking the time to think about kindness that you’ve experienced would likely not hurt. So…

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

It’s not quite October, but that doesn’t mean that celebrations of all things Halloween aren’t ramping up. As a part of that, there’s plenty of talk, once again, about the number of people who may or may not have seen or interacted with something not quite of this realm at some point in their lives.

Which, frankly, I find fascinating for the fact that the “oh, wow, REALLY” factor of many of these stories seem to be concentrated in majority white, first-world countries like Sweden, the US, and the UK. Read articles based in Mexico, Thailand, China, or Japan and ghost encounters are basically a foregone conclusion, because culturally ghosts or spirits are a part of the fabric of existence.

Meanwhile, an article from The Local in Sweden in 2015 reads, quote:

According to a new survey, the number of Swedes polled who believe in ghosts has increased from 12 to 16 percent since 2008. Meanwhile 37 percent people asked for the study said that they believed in “paranormal phenomena” that could not be explained by science, up from 33 percent seven years ago.

Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center wrote in 2015, quote:

Nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (18%) say they’ve seen or been in the presence of a ghost, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center survey. An even greater share – 29% – say they have felt in touch with someone who has already died.

I’m less interested in if a belief is more or less rational, or correlated with (or maybe caused by?) a change in how many believe in other things, at least for this discussion. Instead…

Looking for something to listen to this weekend?

May I suggest Palimpsest, since we’re talking about ghost stories anyway. Personally, I love this podcast, but I’m going to share with you part of what got me listening to it in the first place, even when horror isn’t my particular favorite genre – a selection from Wil Williams’ review of the first season:

Palimpsest isn’t a podcast that will necessarily make you feel afraid if you’re listening to it alone at night. It doesn’t try to make your heart race, though there are moments of unnerving suspense throughout. Palimpsest isn’t a scary story that happens to have a plot: it’s a rich, deep story that uses its genre to tell a truth. It’s a ghost story about being haunted in many ways–a trope that feels tired in most works, but feels correct here. Oftentimes, horror as a metaphor can feel forced or navel-gazing. Here, there’s no sign of that back-patting; the ghost story at its core, when listened with no further analysis, is still deeply rewarding as a narrative.

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

Pretty universally in the United States, say “student loans” and you’re likely to hear groans, perhaps a few tears, and a lot of opinions.

But the US is not the only place in the world that has student loans. While there are many countries that offer free or nearly-free post-secondary education, free tuition isn’t the rule everywhere — and even where it is, there is still a need for student loans of some kind. Many different countries handle this in different ways, though..

For example, in Australia, the entire student loan structure was recently re-worked, but still is a system that doesn’t require any repayment from students until after they earn more than AU$45,000 (roughly equivalent to US$29,683) per year, and payments are on a sliding scale, automatically deducted from an individual’s taxes. The average student loan debt in Australia is just over AUS$20,000, or about US$14,500.

Meanwhile, average debt in Canada and Sweden is currently sitting just slightly below that, while students in Germany, where tuition is free, owe an average of $2,400 for their education, in total.

In the UK, total student loan debt is sitting around $100 billion. As US News and World Report reported in 2018, quote:

Surveys of English graduates and students in recent years indicate that around a third express “buyer’s regret” over having taken out loans to earn degrees they now doubt will propel them into financially rewarding careers.”

Buyer’s remorse isn’t something just felt in the UK. In 2016, Business Insider reported, quote:

57% of millennial graduates regret taking out as many loans as they did, and 36% even said that they would not have gone to college if they knew how much it was going to cost them, according to a survey by Citizens Bank.

And given that the average debt per student who graduated in the US in 2016 was around $37,000, that number starts to make a lot more sense. With all of that, though, there’s also the paired statistic that Georgetown University found: only 36 percent of the job openings will not require education beyond high school by 2020.

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

Way back in Episode 70, I included a quote from the National Council of Teachers of English. And while I’m not usually a fan of repeating sources and keeping each episode new, it’s powerful enough I think it’s worth repeating. Quote:

“The right of any individual not just to read but to read whatever he or she wants to… is basic to a democratic society. This right is based on an assumption that the educated possess judgment and understanding and can be trusted with the determination of their own actions. In effect, the reader is freed from the bonds of chance. The reader is not limited by birth, geographic location, or time, since reading allows meeting people, debating philosophies, and experiencing events far beyond the narrow confines of an individual’s own existence.”

Reading – not just in any one format, but in any format – is a skill that’s certainly not universal, but is pretty widely understood. As Our World in Data pointed out, quote:

From a historical perspective, literacy levels for the world population have risen drastically in the last couple of centuries. While only 12% of the people in the world could read and write in 1820, today the share has reversed: only 17% of the world population remains illiterate.

That rate of who is capable of reading and writing, though, doesn’t have a direct correlation with the choice to (or time or ability to) read books in just about any form. One source I found estimated worldwide hours spent reading, and the top five countries were India, Thailand, China, Philippines, and Egypt by the number of hours spent reading.

Digging deeper into stats, the mean average of books read for pleasure by adults in the UK is around 10 each year, with a median of around 4. Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center estimates that

“Americans read an average (mean) of 12 books per year, while the typical (median) American has read 4 books in the last 12 months.”

These, however, are all just statistics. Really, I’m curious what you all are reading, or would suggest. So…

This script may vary from the actual episode transcript.

In May of 2017, Michael Rothman wrote for ABC News, quote:

Are there more remakes than even before, or are they just being advertised more? While the answer for TV seems somewhat clear, movies are a little more nebulous. The ever-growing presence of reboots and remakes in film is a mix of branding, safety-conscious studios and quality work based on older ideas but with new faces.

First off, it’s important to define what’s a remake, a reboot and a revival. A remake is an older story line with fresher faces, like last year’s “Magnificent Seven.” A reboot can have familiar characters but a new story line, like “Star Wars: Episode VII — The Force Awakens.” A revival is mainly for TV and brings back the main cast of a show for a new run years after its original run, like “X-Files.”

It’s also important to know and understand exactly what is at the heart of all this: intellectual property.

Intellectual property, or IP, is any storyline, franchise or character that a studio or production company owns — often familiar from years ago. IP can also be scripts and adaptations of books, something successful that can be adapted into a film or TV show.

“Risk aversion has really paid off, and studios and production companies have noticed this,” said Walt Hickey, a pop culture expert at FiveThirtyEight. “Recently the industry has seen a solid string of success born out of rebooting or upgrading content from the past. This is a risk-averse strategy. You bank on content where people already have a sense of the characters, they have a sense of what the plot is, what the story is.”

This risk aversion in the TV and film production worlds has created an interesting tension within the industry, because while there’s a drive to make old material new again, it’s (rather ironically, in my mind) creating an opportunity for more and more diverse representation within existing franchises.

As Olivia Mazzucato pointed out, quote:

By revamping classic material with an already present, built-in fanbase, projects that feature diversity are able to sidestep some of Hollywood’s movie hurdles – a sort of Trojan horse that might help projects sneak diversity through the gates of Hollywood backlots without the usual scrutiny and skepticism. Diverse reboots have provided leading roles to underrepresented demographics in genres that have been typically dominated by white men. I personally can’t call to mind any all-female heist movie, especially one that includes women of color, which is part of what makes “Ocean’s 8” so exciting. What’s more, the diversity doesn’t have to serve the plot or theme – instead, the film just happens to be diverse, which is thrilling in and of itself.

Even with this, though, there is also plenty of room to question if reboots, remixes, or relaunches of old properties is really good