Another Useless Study

I know that I'm always saying that we're doomed. It's only because we are. Do you need another example of how I know that to be true? Because I have one. And I'm going to share.

The Post-Gazette.com has an article which goes over a study by some sort of think tank called Rand Corp. Their study found "...that couples who scored well on a short test of math skills accumulated more wealth by middle age than couples who scored poorly." It goes on to say that "...when both spouses correctly answered three math questions, family wealth averaged $1.7 million. That compared with $200,000 for households where neither spouse answered any question correctly." Wow. 200 grand when you don't get anything right? That really doesn't seem like such a horrible consolation prize, does it?

No, not at all. Which is kind of why this study is seeming a) ridiculous, and b) useless. But if there's a shred of reality to it, we're doomed. Even if there isn't a shred of reality to it, just that we're being subjected to it as if it is fact is rather dooming. But at this point of the article, I'm still fairly intrigued and wondering about the type of questions which will determine future wealth. Naturally, I was also wondering how I would fare with the questions. I stopped wondering after I read them and instead began wondering how a dog would fare, as I can't imagine a human being who is capable of earning $200,000 at the very least not being able to answer these questions.

Seriously, if these are the determining factors of wealth, then something has gone seriously wrong in this country. But maybe you should decide. Question One: If the chance of getting a disease is 10 percent, how many people out of 1,000 would be expected to get the disease? Uh, really? That's the sort of question that, if I can noodle it through, is indicative of my ability to earn money? Even more extraordinary is that that's the sort of question that would be indicative of my ability to do math. Come on! What is that? Fourth grade level? Third?

Maybe they get harder as we continue. Let's look at the second question: If five people all have the winning numbers in the lottery, and the prize is $2 million, how much will each of them get? Hmm. No. No, I don't see these getting harder. I sort of see them getting a little easier. And I definitely see myself getting more annoyed with this study. (Seriously, how do I get a job at a think tank? Wait. First let me ask: Is it really a tank? Because I don't know if I'd like that very much. I'd like all of the thinking, but the thought of being in a tank all day is a bit off-putting.)

The last question (did I mention it was a really short quiz?) reads as follows: Let's say you have $200 in a savings account. The account earns 10 percent interest per year. How much would you have in the account at the end of two years? Oh, for cryin' out loud. Are you kidding me?! First of all, what sort of savings account is going to earn 10 percent interest per year? None! There isn't one! Not a single one! I mean, really, the lottery question was pretty far-fetched. I'd have to believe that if I held a winning lottery number, I'd be able to figure out EXACTLY what my share was in a split-second after learning that I had won. That's a no-brainer. But this question is just completely baseless. Why not make it more realistic? I guess because then it might actually be somewhat relevant? Nah, that can't be it. The whole idea of this study having any relevance at all is completely preposterous.

See? We're doomed. Is anyone paying any attention to stuff like this? God, I hope not. What a waste of time. But seriously, how do I get a cush gig with a think tank? Anyone? Anyone?

Can't We Work Through This Rationally?

I've had it with all of this talk about whether or not people who are gay should be allowed to openly serve in the military. Do you want to know why this topic now only serves to irritate and annoy me whenever it is brought up? It's because no one is using any factual basis for their opinions at all and the whole debate is solely based on what people feel would be best.

I'm not going to pretend that I know what would be best in this situation. Do I think it would be great if folks who were gay were allowed to serve in the military openly? Sure, but only under one condition. That condition being that it won't lessen the chances of success for any given task and/or mission that the troops are on. Now, you might be asking yourself, "How could it possibly be a detriment for folks who are openly gay to serve in the military?" To which I would answer, "I don't know." But that's what my answer would be. Other people, those who are running their lives based solely on what they feel, might answer, "It's a ridiculous policy! It should immediately cease and desist! Gays should be out and about in the military because it's the right thing!" OK, OK. Hold on a minute there, cowboy.

I don't know anything about the military other than they keep me and my country safe. Oh, and I also know that they can kick some serious ass. That's what I want my military to be. If the safety of myself and my country means that those who are gay cannot serve openly in the military, then so be it. However, if that is, in fact, the case, I'd like it to be backed up by some sort of facts based on some sort of comprehensive study which is conducted by folks who know what they're dealing with military-wise.

Is that so much to ask? Look, that's all I want. I want some sort of factual basis which determines it to be perfectly OK to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and that the result isn't a compromised military. That's all. Do you think that devising policy based upon how you feel instead of based upon some sort of facts or investigation is really the way to go? I can't imagine that it is. Yet, if you'll look around at a lot of the fiscal problems that many states and the entire country are in the throes of, you'll start seeing a trend in the number of "feel good" programs that require a great deal of money. Are they necessary programs? Are they effective programs? Are they being implemented correctly? Who knows? All a lot of folks know is that it makes them feel good that those sort of programs are in place. And it's caused me to lose my WTL (will to live) on occasion.

Just wait for the study, folks. If you're so confident (even though you have no basis to base your confidence on) that it's just fine for gays to serve openly in the military, then what is the harm in waiting for this huge, comprehensive study that the Pentagon is conducting to wrap up? Seriously, do you really want to risk the safety of the troops that protect you just because you're all thumbs up for diversity? I can't imagine that people would, but yet, they do.

I'm going to need a prescription for some Xanax soon. I'm just saying

Thank You, Captain Obvious

Where do I sign up to get a job that studies the completely obvious? I know that such jobs exist. In fact, I'm positive of it after reading in Psychology Today that a one Nicolas Guéguen did a study "...on the likelihood of a female hitchhiker being picked up, by either a male or female driver, as a function of her breast size." Sooooo...let me get this straight. He wanted to know if a hitchhiking woman had larger breasts, would it increase the chances that she would be offered a ride? Really? There needs to be a study for this? Can't we all just agree on some things without the study?

The author of the article at Psychology Today is a one Gad Saad (pronounce that however you'd like). Mr. Saad muses about Mr. Guéguen that he "...could not help but notice that he possesses a talent for conducting naturalistic experiments about issues that many people have wondered about and yet few (if any) have tested." Really? Do you really think that many people have wondered whether or not chicks with large hoots get preferential treatment? Or do you think that many people already know that chicks with large hoots get preferential treatment? Can't we just agree that some things don't need to be proven, that they're just intrinsically known and we're all good with that?

The guy, Mr. Guéguen actually did a little test where "...an average looking female confederate" with either A cup, B cup or C cup sized breasticles "...stood at the side of a road and actually hitch hiked (i.e., put out her thumb as cars whizzed by)". Someone counted how many guys and how many girls drove by and also counted how many guys and how many girls stopped to pick this chick up. (They make of point of telling us that the "female confederate" did not actually get in any of the cars. I wish that would have made a point of telling us why she is called the "female confederate" instead.)

Now, this may shock you to learn that more men stopped to pick up the chick with bigger breasts. This is summarized in Mr. Saad's article as "If a woman has large breasts, men are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior." You think?! Are you freaking kidding me? How about next time, instead of sending some chick out on the side of the road and having her thumb rides, what say you just ask guys what they would do? "Excuse me, sir? If you saw this woman hitchhiking (show picture of voluptuous female, preferably Pam Anderson because, well, who doesn't like Pam Anderson?), would you give her a ride?" Then give the man a tissue to wipe the drool coming out of his mouth. Repeat as needed. (I realize that "as needed" makes it sound as if it is necessary to ask someone else to see if this is, in fact, an actual phenomenon. You and I both know that it's not. You and I both think that this study was about as stupid as it can get in the first place. Then again, some guy managed to figure out how to study how women's breasts cause different reactions in society. OK, that guy might be a genius, but this study certainly is not.)

And just in case you were wondering, here is the picture that Psychology Today included along with their article. You know, just in case you were unfamiliar with the concept of a fairly attractive, large breasted woman. Behold!

Good Lord....

Quails, Cocaine and Sex

Our tax dollars are hard at work, aren't they? Don't we have faith and confidence in the government to use our money wisely? To use our money in a productive fashion? To use our money to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of the Japanese quail? Wait. What now?

Correct. According to something called CNS NEWS, "The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $181,406 this year to a researcher at the University of Kentucky to study how cocaine enhances the sex drive of Japanese quail." Um, how...how much? One hundred and eighty one grand? To give coke to birds? Are you dry shaving me? Whose idea was this? Were they on the aforementioned cocaine at the time that this idea cropped up? WTH?

According to the article, there have been previous studies done on just this sort of thing. So if you're upset about your tax money being used to give cocaine to Asian aviary creatures, it's not the first time that it has happened, so just calm down. It's not like it's new or anything. Now, the other studies did end up showing that "...prior repeated exposure to cocaine enhances sexual motivation and behavior.” Why, yes. Yes it does. Do these researchers never go to the movies? People on cocaine like to fornicate like crazed bunnies.

It also says that "The goal of the proposed experiments is to utilize an animal model whose sexual behavior system has been well-studied, Japanese quail.” Uh, couldn't you just study the sexual behavior system of a frat boy or something? A lonely businessman? Porn stars? I find it difficult to believe that the Japanese quail is a good representation of humans. Have you seen a quail lately? Unless you're an FLDS woman, there does not seem to be a lot of similarities.

When asked how something like this could be justified, a one Don Rabolvsky who is a NIH spokeshole explained that "...the research has value because many cases of HIV/AIDS are spread through drug-related sexual behavior." Uh-huh. Sooooo...where do the birds come in? That's hard to say. He continued with "Human behavior accounts for almost 40 percent of the risk associated with preventable premature deaths in the United States,” Rabolvsky said in an e-mail. “Health-injuring behaviors such as smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and drug abuse, as well as inactivity and poor diet are known to contribute to many common diseases and adverse health conditions.” That doesn't really seem to address the cocaine or the bird sex very much, though.

I looked on the webpage of the researcher, a one Dr. Chana Atkins. Here is just a portion of what was listed under "Research" and "Goals": " ...in humans, there appears to be some relationship between drug taking behavior and risky sexual behavior". Appears to be? Appears to be?! Look, this person is a doctor, so I'm assuming that they went to college. But how could one go to college and not KNOW that drug taking behavior is DIRECTLY linked to risky sexual behavior?! APPEARS?! Good Lord, man. Of course there's a relationship between the two. When was the last time you got laid, anyway?

And here's my favorite part of this inexplicable study. "Japanese quail are “ideal” animals to use....because the “birds readily engage in reproductive behavior in the laboratory.” You know, birds aren't the only creature that will readily engage in reproductive behavior. And it certainly doesn't have to be in just a laboratory! I'll readily engage in reproductive behavior right now! You don't need no stinkin' quails!

I am left with more questions than I am answers with this one. But I did find out why they're using the Japanese quail. One word: Variety. That's right. They were just trying to shake things up a little bit in the ol' lab there, as the website reads: "...quail provide a convenient and interesting alternative to standard laboratory rats and pigeons.” I can think of a heck of a lot more animals that would have been more interesting than freaking quail. Elephants, perhaps. Maybe the narwhal. What about a bald eagle? (There have to be ways around all of that protected species stuff, right?) Ever consider kangaroos? Walk around the zoo sometime and see how many people are clamoring to see the quail exhibit and then tell me that this was a good choice.