Continuing Education on YouTube

Stefan Milo is a British archaeologist who lives with his family in Murrka and has a great YouTube channel called, wittily enough, Stefan Milo: 

Well. There was supposed to be a link to Stefan's YouTube channel here. But we seem to be having even more technical difficulties. I repeat: it's on YouTube, it's called Stefan Milo and it's great.

I don't know what sort of archaeologist Milo is. He's very self-deprecating about his intellect and his academic accomplishments -- too much so, I would guess. He regularly talks to world-leading archaeologists on his channel, and he seems to keep up them pretty well. He has a degree in Archaeology from the University of Sheffield, but I don't know whether it's a Doctorate or some lesser degree.

I don't know whether he's published a lot of peer-reviewed papers. He's published a children's book about archaeology; he talks about that book a lot on his channel. 

I do feel that I've learned a lot about archaeology from Milo's channel after a few weeks of binge-watching his videos. That is in large part because I find his videos pleasant to watch: he has an engaging personality and his videos have good production values. 

For just a little while I said to myself: since Milo didn't make a career in academia, now he has to be an academic and a performer as well. And then suddenly it struck me: all teachers are performers. Some are good performers, some aren't. Milo is one of the ones who are more effective because they're more engaging and likeable.

I don't know why it took me until I was 62 years old to grasp this, but it's been grasped. Of course teachers who fascinate their students are more effective than those who repel them. And some teachers started showing slides decades ago, if not centuries, and some of them have been very good with the visual aids, and that doesn't hurt a bit when it comes to actual task of education.

Milo makes a great contrast here to Bart Ehrman, probably the world's most famous living academic authority on the subject of Jesus and early Christianity. Ehrman can be seen as having at least three separate careers: as an author of academic books, which contain footnotes and multilingual bibliographies and are peer-reviewed; an author of popular books, which eschew the footnotes and bibliographies, are aimed at the "general public," and sell several times as much as the academic books, routinely making bestseller lists; and also as a teacher who stands in front of students and talks.

Nowadays, of course, teaching is done not only in classrooms, but also in front of cameras, in the making of various kinds of videos. I've watched quite a few of Ehrman's videos lately, and... and I like his academic books very much.  So do many academics. And his popular books must have hundreds of thousands of ardent fans among the "general public" by now. If not actually millions.

Ehrman also appears on many YouTube channels, some seem to be run in part by him, and he's a guest on many others, and the videos get millions and millions and millions of views.

Would they get so many views without the books? I really have to wonder. There are probably some people who find Ehrman to be the epitome of charisma, because when there are millions and millions and millions of views, there will be every conceivable opinion. 

I watch the videos for Ehrman's knowledge. I have to put up with a lot of teeth-grittingly annoying behavior in order to get to that knowledge. One channel which Ehrman seems to at least partly control, is actually hosted by a British woman, and every video starts with her asking "Bart" about the latest in his private life, and why?! "Bart" never says anything edifying or remotely interesting in these intros, and I've taken to skipping ahead to where they're actually talking about Jeebus.

What a huge contrast to Stefan Milo's video, where the occasional glimpses of his wife and baby girl are actually charming, and sometimes even tied in relevantly to to the archaeological content.

Ehrman has said many times that his students in North Carolina are from North Carolina, and therefore are often fundamentalists, and therefore are often quite astonished by what he has to teach them. He's said this many times just that I've seen. How many times has he insulted his students in pretty much the identical way in his entire life?! It boggles the boggles. Why not try some new material for a change, and tell the world about the most surprisingly clever things he's heard from his students lately? 

And his laugh. Ehrman's laugh just sets my teeth on edge. it literally sounds like "Hyuck hyuck hyuck!"

Anyhow. Stefan Milo's videos on YouTube, and Bart Ehrman's academic books, the ones with the footnotes and bibliographies, are what I recommend. 

Also, since I'm sure some of you are wondering now that I've mentioned Ehrman: no, I am still not convinced that Jesus existed. I agree with Ehrman that most of the most prominent living mythicists, Price and Carrier and Freke and Gandy and Fitzgerald et al, are bozos as well as unpleasant people, I agree with him that Atlantis was not real and that the Egyptians and Mayas built all of those amazing buildings all by themselves, with no extra-terrestrial help whatsoever. I will almost always side with the academic consensus in the sciences and humanities. "Academic cover-up" strikes me as an oxymoron. I agree with Ehrman that there is no reason to doubt that Socrates and Caesar and Alexander the Great and Pilate and Herod Antipater and John the Baptist and Saul/Paul of Taurus were real people, and I trust Ehrman's opinion about which of the Pauline epistles were written by Paul and which of the Platonic dialogues were written by Plato, and about many, many other things. 

But I still haven't had that  "AHA!"-moment where it suddenly makes sense what Ehrman and almost all other academics say about Jesus: that he certainly existed. I'm also not certain that he never existed, the way I am with, for example, King Arthur. When it comes to Jesus' existence, I'm on the fence, where I've been for at least 30 years.

gshock highfashion on YouTube

There are many channels devoted to wristwatches on YouTube. A popular form of video on these channels is the unboxing video. That's where the host of the channel, with a POV camera on his head or pointed over his shoulder, takes a package which has arrived in the mail, and removes a watch from it. 

Sounds dull? Oh man, you have no idea. I'm fascinated by watches, obsessed with them, and even I started to find this sort of thing unbearably dull after 2 or 3 times. I know what a USPS or UPS or Amazon package looks like. I know what the box that holds the watch inside the mailing package looks like. I actually tuned in to get a look at the watch, maybe even hear a description of it. But in an unboxing video, it might take the guy 5 minutes or so to get to the watch.How could it possibly take 5 minutes? you're wondering. The answer is: some people aren't just very dull, they're also very slow. 

But the host of gshock highfashion is so interesting, he can even make an unboxing interesting. Partly because he intercuts the unboxing with video of  watches and other things. Partly because his excitement is audible and contagious -- this guy is really, really into G-Shocks -- but also because he's very knowledgeable. Now, obviously, a lot of guys -- mostly guys -- are fascinated by the boxes that watches come in, or these unboxing videos wouldn't be a thing. But not everyone is good at communicating the excitement they feel. As far as knowledge goes: in one video he points to the logo on the G-Shock box, names the man who designed the logo and has interesting things to say about that man's life.  On this channel, believe it or not, I watched a dozen unboxing videos before I started to find them dull. And luckily, this channel is not ALL unboxing videos.

So what's the name of this interesting, knowledgeable YouTube host? I don't know, he doesn't say. I don't know what his face looks like either, he never shows it. His forearms are thin and wiry. There's always a G-Shock on his left wrist. Sometimes he wears G-Shocks on both wrists. That's about as well as I can visually ID him.

One of the few things he says about himself is that he repairs and services watches for a living. That's very easy to believe, because in many of his videos he's taking G-Shocks apart and putting them back together, looking and talking like a guy who knows what he's doing. I also get the impression that he is originally from Japan and now lives outside of Japan.

Now, as far as why the channel is called gshock highfashion, I'm not sure. The G-Shock part is easy enough: almost every video is entirely about G-Shocks. The few exceptions have to do with other Casio products: other watches by Casio, and a Casio alarm clock and a Casio Wall clock. But for the most part, this guy is all about the G-Shocks. 

 

Now, about the high fashion part. Maybe high fashion has different connotations in Japan than in other parts of the world. To me, high fashion, haute couture, suggests very exclusive products, very expensive, often with only one of each type ever made. G-Shocks are made in huge quantities, and they're very affordable. The most expensive G-Shock costs less than the least expensive Rolex, and the average G-Shock costs about 1/100th as much as the average Rolex. A G-Shock will run you somewhere between $40 and $3,000. As far as availability is concerned, even the "exclusive" limited edition G-Shock models are made in quantities of hundreds or thousands each. And the host of gshock highfashion will complain if he thinks that Casio has priced an item too high. Even if we're talking about an MSRP of $100 which he thinks should have been more like $80 or so. 

The fashion part of the channel's name makes sense. In addition to being able to fix G-Shocks, this guy knows a lot about their appearance, and the technical aspects of how the appearance is achieved, and he talks very intelligently about aesthetics and fashion and design, as for example in the discussion of a logo on a box described above.

Maybe the name of the channel is meant ironically, because the host likes G-Shocks, among other reasons, because they are NOT exclusive or expensive.

The channel has gotten better over time. In particular, the host's delivery, in videos released in 2020 and 2021, is much more relaxed, and therefore much more relaxing. Did he consult a vocal coach? Whatever caused the change, it came suddenly and made a huge difference.

And as if all of this wasn't already wonderful enough, the host also has a cute little kitty who sometimes wanders into the frame and does cute kitty stuff. The biggest disagreement I have with the host is that he prefers an all-black color scheme on watches more than than I do. I like the colorful, sparkly G-Shocks more than he seems to. But that's just a matter of a couple of numbers or letters in a watch's model designation.

So. Watch this channel, even if you don't care about watches, because this guy appears to be a good guy and a genius who should be famous and powerful so that he can have a greater positive influence on the world. You'll probably find it interesting, even if you don't care about watches.

ASMR

It's has been less than 3 months since I discovered that there is a name for what happens to me -- and millions of other people, but apparently not most people -- when we hear certain sounds. It's called ASMR.

Scientists haven't explained it yet. Its full name, Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response, might sound science-y, but it's not. It was coined by non-scientists. Apparently it doesn't happen to most people. One theory is that it is small seizures. I was surprised to learn that. I was mostly familiar with large, dangerous seizures -- not personally, but through knowing people who have experienced them. I don't know whether the theory that ASMR is seizures makes sense. Kinda doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway: I've experienced it my whole life. "It" is certain sounds which make me tingle, starting with my scalp and moving down my body, and which make me very relaxed. And I'm not talking about the wind in the trees or a burbling brook. They can be pleasant, but they don't give me The Sensation. Music doesn't do it either.

What does? Often, it's people's voices -- not singing, but speaking softly or whispering. The earliest example I can remember was a chess master who had a program on public television. This may have been earlier than 1970. I loved that show. I didn't pay any attention at all to what he was saying about chess, I have no idea but his voice made me feel great. Another example is the actress Lynne Gordon in the movie The Hot Rock, released in 1972, with Robert Redford and George Segal. Lynne Gordon plays the hypnotist Miasmo, in a short scene which I, and perhaps others who react to ASMR, wish was much longer. Hypnotists in general seem to set off my ASMR response. I can't honestly say that I've ever been hypnotized. I gather that some scientists claim that NO-ONE has ever actually been hypnotized. That seems like a bit of a stretch to me. But whether hypnotism is real or not, perhaps some of its fascination is due to the ASMR response.

Some people just naturally speak in a way which triggers the response in me. More than once, I have known someone personally who was psychotic, but whom I sought out and spent time with, because they tended to talk non-stop for long periods of time, and they had one of those voices.

Benny Hinn can definitely trigger that response in me. But not all of the time: just when he does those murmuring segments with soft background music. The times when he sounds like his mentor, Kathryn Kuhlmann. The problem with people like Hinn and Kuhlmann is, I'm not always able to ignore the content of what they're saying, content which is deplorable and disturbing. Much more disturbing than anything any of those psychotic people said.

It doesn't have to be a human voice. Here, for example, is a YouTube video from a woman who calls herself WhispersRed, with three and a half hours of ASMR, with no talking. There's a lot of sounds of fabrics being rubbed and crinkled and such. It works for me, and it seems to work for a lot of people, judging by the fact that it has 18 million views.



But more commonly, it's a human voice. And now ASMR has become big business on YouTube, with many people doing it deliberately. And some people do it much better than others. Or perhaps I should say: some ASMR performers work much better on me than do others. Perhaps it's as subjective as music. The following video, one of my favorite ASMR videos, is an example not only of something which makes me very relaxed, but also an example of something which, at least on YouTube, very often comes along with ASMR: Reiki. The lady who made this video, who goes by the name Cutebunny992, says in its title that it is "roleplay," and in the video description she says, "I am pretending to be a Reiki therapist."



The role-playing and pretending in this video doesn't bother me at all, but in many ASMR videos it puts me off. For example: Cutebunny992's native language is Greek, and other than this one video, I prefer the ones where she speaks in Greek, because I can't understand what she's saying, because the role playing of being in a doctor's office or a travel agency or whatever, is just a big distraction from the tingles and relaxation I came there for.

Some others who combine ASMR with Reiki on YouTube are most definitely not pretending. Or should I say: they most definitely SAY that they are not pretending, but are actually performing Reiki, which is a method of cleansing your aura and chokras of negative energy and replacing it with positive energy. I could write at least one blog post on Reiki on YouTube, and I found out about it even more recently than ASMR.

Beer Videos on YouTube: Chad'z Beer Reviews

I'm talking about afficianados of fine beers, as opposed to people who drink a lot of Bud Light or Miller High Life before making their YouTube videos, or videos about drunken parties, or something like that.

Okay, let's get something out of the way: Yes, I was in Alcoholics Anonymous for a while, in the mid-90's. And a good thing I was: I had been drinking much too much, and with the help of AA I dried out for a couple of years. I also met a lot of wonderful people through AA. I have absolutely no regrets about the AA period of my life. And maybe there are some people who really can't drink moderately. Turns out, I'm not one of them. Turns out, I enjoy drinking one or two beers and then stopping for the day. This was something I had never even tried before joining AA. Before that I had always drunk much too much. "Having a beer or two" had been a euphemism, for me, for having a dozen or two.

Also, these days, besides meaning it literally when I say I'll have "a beer or two," I don't have a beer or two every day -- or even every month. I think it's been about six months since I drank any beer. I had a beer -- literally. One -- to celebrate having survived major surgery. Does my looking for interesting beer critics mean I'm going to drink more? Not sure that it does mean that.

Onward: yesterday I finally did something I'd been meaning to do for a while: looked for videos on You Tube featuring beer connoisseurs. WARNING: There's no particular reason to think that I might be good at telling a beer connoisseur apart from a non-connoisseur. Keeping that in mind, and keeping in mind that I've been looking for less than 24 hours now, my favorite YouTube beer channel so far is Chad'z Beer Reviews:



Yes, that's Chad'z with a z instead of an s for some reason. Chad has a lot of videos in which he has one glass of one brand and variety of beer and describes it in-depth. Then there are some yearly ten-best and ten-worst videos. In these Chad does not list what he considers to be the very best or very worst beers in the world, but the ten best or worst which he had for the first time during that year. And Chad, although he definitely seems to enjoy fine beers, also reviews mass-produced beers and tells you how much worse they are than the good stuff. (One thing I remember from one of the year-end videos is the warning that the word "Ice" in a beer's name is always a bad sign.)

I'm curious about the good stuff. But I will defintely not be drinking a lot of the very finest (according to Chad) beer soon, unless, of course, I suddenly become wealthy very soon: a lot of the stuff on the ten best list goes for $10 or $20 a bottle or up. That's right: $10 or $20 or more, not for a 6-pack, nor a 4-pack, but for one (typically 24-oz) bottle. In the 2018 ten-best video, Chad named Samuel Adams Utopias, 2013 vintage, number one. It sells for hundreds of dollars per 28-ounce bottle. It's also 30 percent alcohol by volume. That's 60 proof. That's almost 10 times stronger than some beers. That's stronger than most wine, as strong as some hard liquor.

Most of the top-ten stuff Chad reviews, that stuff going for $10 or $20 or more for a 24 oz bottle, has more typical alcohol content: 4.5 to 7% by volume, around in there.

Some of the beer Chad considers the best is available at prices more familiar to us Joe 6-pack types: Sam Adams New England IPA made one of his yearly ten best lists, and in February 2018 Sam Adams announced a suggested retail price of $8.99 to $9.99 for 4 16-ounce cans. According to Chad, Sam Adams is the best American mass-produced brand, head and shoulders above most of the others.

It is becoming less unusual for the finer beers to come in cans instead of bottles. That may be news to you if you're old like me and haven't been a beer-hound lately, like me.

Yesterday I saw a beer-tasting video from Epicurious which I will not link here, because it made me angry, and I don't want to make my readers angry in turn. It was series of comparisons of a less expensive vs a more expensive beer: a cheap IPA vs an expensive IPA, a cheap barrel-aged beer vs an expensive one and so forth. The labels were removed from the bottles and cans to make it a blind tasting. I have nothing against the beer critic. He seemed very knowledgeable. He preferred the more expensive beer every time. Prices ranged from under $1 per bottle or can to over $10.

What made me angry is that they never showed the labels! We were never told what beers this guy described in such depth and with such know-how! At the end the beer critic encouraged us viewers to "get out there and have some fun!" Well, I have more fun when I have more helpful information, there's no question about that. I'm TIRED of thrashing around in the dark with no clue, with beer as with life in general. Again, I'm not mad at the beer critic. One piece of information which I do not have is whether he realized that Epicurious, who presented the video, was never going to show the labels.

TV Series About Art

Since I got rid of my TV last August, I've watched a lot of TV -- on YouTube.

In a recent post I reviewed Kenneth Clark's 1969 TV series "Civilisation." Since then I've seen about 15 minutes each of two series regarded as replies to Clark: John Berger's "Ways of Seeing" from 1972, and "Civilisations" from 2018, with multiple hosts. 15 minutes of the first episode of each of these series has been all that I've been able to stand so far. However, if I review them without watching them in their entirety, I'll be repeating exactly the same mistake which I finally rectified in the recent post about Clark's series. I can say truthfully, however, that the thought of watching either "Ways of Seeing" or "Civilisations" in its entirety fills me with sadness and dread.

15 minutes of the first episode is also about all that I could stomach of Robert Hughes' 1980 series about modern art, "The Shock of the New." I will not review it without watching it all. But I will say that if Robert Hughes ever said anything about art which was new even as long ago as 1980, it would come as a shock to me.

However, I have found one more show about art besides Clark which I enjoyed watching in its entirely and which I can therefore honestly recommend: "This is Modern Art," a six-part series hosted by Matthew Collings, first aired in 1999.



I'd never heard of Collings either, but I found his show quite informative and satisfying. I like the way that Collings can appreciate aspects of the work even of artists with whom he has major disagreements. Notably, Matisse.

Collings asks rhetorically what Matisse's art is about, and answers: beauty. His paintings are very beautiful. Collings then asks: what else are they about, and answers: nothing, and it turns out that this is a problem, not only for Collings but also for many modern artists and modern art critics.

I hadn't realized that this was a problem. But then, I've never been to art school. The fact that for modern artists general, beauty is not enough, that their art is expected to engage with society in some other way, is a great help in explaining some conversations I've had with artists which had puzzled me.

Back to Collings and Matisse: despite Matisse doing things wrong in what is, to modern artists generally, a very major way, Collings spends a lot of time in his series on Matisse, and finds very much to praise in his work. He finds depth in beauty alone. Although it's entirely clear that this is not really Collings' kind of art, an entire episode of the series, entitled "Lovely Lovely," is devoted to artists who only want to make their art pretty. The openness which Collings shows to these artists is quite impressive to me. Finding things to agree about with those with whom you fundamentally disagree: to me this is a sign of a very sharp mind.

Other artists to whom Collings devotes a lot of time, and who seem to be more up his general alley, include Dali, Warhol, Goya, Pollack, Judd and Koons. He manages to be quite witty and quite deep at the same time. Not very many of us can do that, it's sometimes harder than it looks.