A rchive Date
[ 03-10-2005 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Mass Media ]
|
[http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Whitney_Paul/2005/10/02/1245568.html
Studies show what we already know
By Paul Whitney
Mon, October 3, 2005
Yale University and the Carnegie Research Institute have conducted a study concluding that volunteers failed to recognize photos of the White House when they were randomly interspersed with pictures that contained erotic material.
Well, you flash me a bunch of pictures of the house of George Bush interspersed with Playmate centrefold snaps, and my most intelligent reaction would be, "Gee, the Playboy mansion sure looks a lot like that building where the president makes speeches before he gets into the helicopter."
As unstunning as it may sound, the study concludes that the closer the erotic pictures were to the White House photos, the more participants said that they failed to see the building at all.
Scientists explained that erotic images or any image that is potentially emotional causes us to ignore the neutral image that immediately follows it.
Really? Does this mean that I will forget watching Home Shopping Network after viewing Fatal Attraction? There's hope for my credit card yet.
The study goes on to further prove that advertising billboards that contain sexual or violent content can divert a driver's attention.
Oh, for crying out loud ... if they didn't distract your attention, they wouldn't put them up in the first place! Get a life! Here's a study: "If more scientists looked at billboards more often, there would be fewer studies like this."
I may be wrong in my frequent unscientific condemnation of intellectual research, but too much seems to be focused on real scientists proving what we amateur non-scientists already have proved: "There is considerable conclusive common sense knowledge already existing - even if it can (and should) never be proven."
Here are some topic areas that do not need further research:
- Do women with large breasts get employed in television more because of their intelligence or their personality?
- Do cellphone companies give away evening and weekend minutes for the same reason that bars hold Happy Hour between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m.?
- Why do couch potatoes find it difficult to get employment as models for Speedo swimsuits?
- Who do women trust more: politicians, TV talk show hosts or ex-con home-and-garden mavens?
- Why do average working people watch Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, eat no-name brand mac and cheese and buy lottery tickets?
I could go on, but then I don't want to be accused of having all the answers without any evidence to prove what we already know.
In general, science is a good thing, but it should at least attempt to remain within the boundaries of science. That is to say, seek out something that we don't already see on TV, read in the paper, or find on the back of a bubblegum wrapper.
Science should be asking really good questions like, "How long does it really take to make a three-minute egg if your kitchen is in the Rocky Mountains and you are using Omega 3 eggs?" or "If my vote can't be bought, why am I cashing this oil revenue cheque for $400?"
In the end, it's the knowledge of what you don't know that is the real measure of intelligence.
And the best part? You don't have to be very smart to do that.
Letters to the editor should be sent to mailbag@edmsun.com.
Copyright © 2005, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
Cross-Indexed:
|
|