Some academics have too much free time
The scientific community, in its continuous effort to tell us things we already know, recently announced the results of a behavioral study _ men are like dogs.
OK. Women have been telling us that for years. What's next? A study to prove women are like cats and monkeys are like little nervous people with fur coats?
The study, published in the journal of "Evolution and Human Behavior" _ a must for coffee tables everywhere _ showed men will growl and whine like dogs to determine dominance among other males.
Like dogs, if we think we're the Alpha in the crowd, we lower our voices and drive sports cars. If we know we're a weenie, we raise our voices, avoid direct eye contact and vote for the Green Party.
My problem with this study? Somehow, some way, I had to pay for it.
The study leader was David Puts of the University of Pittsburgh. Depending how his name is pronounced, this may give us some insight on the reason for the experiment.
But, much like another recent study that found men are nervous around attractive women, why do academic types insist on proving the obvious?
The argument goes something like this: as scientists, it's our responsibility to take accepted cultural preconceptions, test them, and either prove or disprove them for the good of society.
Yes, that sounds pretty noble, but given that premise, I could probably get a hefty federal grant to investigate if jiggling by Hooters waitresses encourages tipping in adult males. Heck, thinking about it, I want to leave a fiver on the table right now and I haven't even ordered.
But, I too am guilty of academic Federlineism*. It was during my senior year in college, sometime in August 1987, or 1924, or however old I'm feeling today. My goal was to disprove the cliché that a watched pot never boils.
My hypothesis? If water boils when exposed to heat of above 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 degrees Celsius for our Canadian friends), then it shouldn't matter if the pot is observed or not.
My method? Pure observation. I placed a pan of water on a hot burner, pulled a chair in front of the stove, sat and stared at the water.
My findings? Yes, a watched pot boils.
Was this experiment for the betterment of society? No. I was just drunk.
My point? Academics _ if you're bored, tipsy and the cable's out, try a crossword puzzle or something. Better yet, go discover a new species, work out that cold fusion problem or cure a disease.
But if you insist on studying something stupid, use your own money, OK?
*Federlineism, translated from classic Greek, meaning complete waste of time, ink, and what does Britney seen in him anyway?
