Showing posts with label bad science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad science. Show all posts

Wednesday, 27 April 2011

Put a smile on her face


When The Big Bang Theory was first launched four years ago, it proved to be something of a surprise hit. Because although its creators came with a track record of successful comedies, there were doubts about whether or not science could actually be funny. After all, Stephen Hawking might win plaudits for his theories on quantum gravity, but no-one's ever asked him for his take on The Aristocrats.

The scientific community is more likely to study the effects of light particles travelling from A to B, rather than a nun and a rabbi entering a bar. Like those two old joke staples, I guess comedy and science aren't supposed to mix. So maybe we shouldn't be surprised that Lazar Greenfield, M.D. president-elect of the American College of Surgeons and inventor of the Greenfield Filter, has been pilloried for attempting to make light of a serious scientific subject.

Writing in Surgery News about the physiological symptoms of love, he began by discussing the mating habits of fruit flies, before moving onto the 'therapeutic effects of semen'. Citing research in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, he asserted that studies had found a link between unprotected sex and lower incidences of depression. Basically, he was arguing that "human semen has the potential to produce profound effects on women", beyond just fucking up their hair.

Although no-one seemed to be in disagreement with his theories about the mood-altering potential of spaff, they took exception to his romantic conclusion that "there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates." After the article was published, a number of women's groups threatened to protest. But it's not clear whether that's because they found his assertion to be sexist, or were simply suffering from a mass case of pink-eye.

Following the outcry, Dr Greenfield stood down from his role as the editor of the offending publication, and gave up his stewardship of the ACS. I just hope he's taking the opportunity to pitch his ideas to Nestle, just in case they ever want to shake-up their Quality Street line-up with a new soft centre.

But the fact remains that the study Greenfield was referring to, confirms that many women have indeed attested to "the anti-depressant effects of semen exposure". As Jennifer Aniston used to say, pay attention, here comes the science bit: "Only 5 percent of the ejaculate is sperm. What's left is seminal plasma, which is a rich concoction of chemicals, including many that have the potential to produce mood-altering effects derived from hormones, neurotransmitters, and endorphins. Within a hour or two after insemination, you can detect heightened levels of many of these seminal chemicals in a woman's bloodstream."

By all means, try using this rationale next time you feel like being Banksy in the bedroom. Just remember that, although your pistol paste might momentarily elevate her mood, leaving her with the wet patch will get you dumped quicker than a Scottish fiver.

Friday, 30 July 2010

iHate

I had a boss once who came back from a seminar with a new phrase that she just loved using - 'neg ferret'. It sounds like some kind of grim sexual proclivity that has no place on a family-orientated blog such as this.

In fact, it's a name given to people who wallow in negativity. It doesn't matter how good an idea is, or how happy people are - they'll somehow find a way of pissing on everyone's picnic.

There's even a branch of journalism dedicated to neg-ferretery. Stories that are written solely to irritate and upset. I'm sure you can imagine which papers they tend to proliferare in, I don't need to mention them by name.

Yesterday there was a great example of 'neg ferret' journalism, and it didn't pull any punches in insulting its readers. It opened with: "Are you wealthy, sophisticated and smart but don’t care about anybody else? The chances are you own an iPad."

Now, my own experiences of iPad ownership are well documented here. So needless to say I was horrified to find out that I'm "unkind and have little empathy for others." I know my writing can be a little snarky at times, but 'unkind' seems a little harsh.

There's no sense arguing the point either, since it's all scientific fact. At least that's the way Tim Koelkebeck of MyType sees it. He carried out a Facebook poll of 20,000 consumers and came to the conclusion that we iPad owners are just not very nice people.

The survey claims that "iPad owners are six times more likely to be wealthy, well-educated, power-hungry, over-achieving, sophisticated, unkind and non-altruistic 30-50-year-olds. They are self-centered workaholics with an overwhelming interest in business and finance who cherish power and achievement and will not cross the street to help others." It's true, I am 35. So the rest of it must be pretty accurate too.

Or is it? In amongst the staggeringly insulting generalisations, there are also some worryingly obvious assertions. For instance, would it shock you to learn that the iPad is popular with "people who enjoy interacting with new technology"? Hold the front page, we have an exclusive.

When the iPad was first launched, Steve Jobs promised that it would revolutionise our lives, from the way we travel to the way we read. Clearly, he neglected to mention that it would also provide a shiny black mirror, allowing us to gaze blankly into the gaping chasm where our soul should be.

If you're chuckling to yourself, thinking that Koelkebeck is onto a winner, and that iPad users are all mindless, morally questionable wankers, I have some bad news. You're a hopeless inadequate, with neither the versatility nor the sex appeal to handle such a stylish piece of kit. Don't blame me - that's Koelkebeck's opinion.

So, what have we learned today? I've learned that surveys are largely worthless. I've learned that some people consider stating the obvious to be proof of their own expertise. And I've learned that you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

I'm happy to be someone who always does. Even if that makes me a moral vacuum.