CovOps
 Location : Ether-Sphere
Job/hobbies : Irrationality Exterminator
Humor : Über Serious
 |  Subject: Funny: Call a gender truce: It's scientists who're wrong  Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:55 am | |
| I am in favor of any government-funded scientific study that proves me right. The ones that imply I might somehow be wrong, however, are probably based on flawed methodology and are certainly a waste of money.
Take, for example, a recent experiment where a "wet paint" sign was taped to a wall that was painted with a glossy finish so that it appeared that it might be wet paint. In point of fact, the paint was dry, so the sign was sort of a really poor practical joke.
The purpose of the experiment was to see how people would react to a "wet paint" sign under such circumstances. If, for example, they all threw themselves to the ground and curled into the fetal position, we might be able to quell riots or thwart enemy invasions simply by posting a few signs here and there. (Probably equally effective would be signs that say "no riots" or depict an enemy invasion with a red circle and a line through it.)
What the researchers discovered surprised them — but then, these are people who sat all day looking at a "wet paint" sign, so probably they are pretty easily excited.
Women, they found, tended to glance at the sign and keep walking. Men, on the other hand, often stopped and, after carefully evaluating the situation, would reach out and touch the wall to see if the paint was indeed wet. (A small minority of people fell to the ground in the fetal position and are considered poor candidates as soldiers or rioters.)
I told my wife about the experiment, and she nodded. "What idiots," she said.
"Well," I cautioned, "I don't think we can conclude the women were idiots. I just think they lacked initiative."
She gave me a look that I have learned means she isn't admiring my point as much as it deserves. "The women? I'm talking about the men! Why would anyone touch a wall with a 'wet paint' sign on it?"
"To see if it was really wet," I explained patiently. My wife is very smart, but sometimes these studies are too scientific for her to grasp right off.
"The sign said it was wet! What more do you need?"
That one was easy. "You need to touch it to make sure."
"Why?"
"To see if the sign is correct," I answered scientifically. "And, in this case, it turned out that the sign was a lie, so, you know, it was the women who were wrong."
"You're actually saying to me that if a wall looks like it is wet paint and there is a sign on it that says it is wet paint that people would be wrong not to touch it to see if it is wet paint?"
"Well, women people. The men people didn't fail the test."
"What if the wall had been wet?" she demanded.
"Then," I said, "the sign would have been correct."
I was still way ahead of her in debate points, but when you're served up an easy one like that you simply have to hit it out of the park.
"No, I mean, isn't the whole point of posting a sign that says 'wet paint' so that people won't touch the surface?"
"No, it was to see what people would do and whether women would fail."
"I don't mean in this instance, I mean in general. Are you saying that men react to a "wet paint" sign by touching the paint?
"Of course not. Men won't touch the paint if it is wet."
"How would you know it was wet? Oh, wait, let me guess, you would read the sign."
"Read the sign and then verify with a touch."
"But only if it is dry."
"Exactly."
"Which you would only know by touching."
I opened my mouth, and then realized that somehow the conversation had gone off track in such a fashion as to make it appear that I was being illogical.
"In your opinion, when women don't touch wet paint to see if it is wet, they fail. That's what you're saying, right?"
Put that way, I could see what she was getting at. "You're right," I replied. "The study was obviously flawed."
ANCAPS: ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS |
|
