mellowtigger (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mellowtigger) wrote2011-07-25 12:05 am
mellowtigger) wrote2011-07-25 12:05 am
there, i'm helping.
Every time I make a boneheaded programming mistake or fail to remember a math formula that I once knew, I wish I was living my life doing something that kept me focused on a single task and technology instead of needing to dabble in so many different and distracting things. I increasingly notice that I forget the skills that I don't use daily. Still, though, I can do small things that help the people who actually do the hard research.
A month or two ago, I read a curious story about an observation of a brand new kind of chemical reaction. Instead of a reaction being driven by the traditional energy and motion in these molecules, they found that quantum mechanical tunneling caused some chemical reactions. It means (I think) that some reactions can occur while needing much less energy than expected. This story was something quite new to me, and I forwarded it one of my ex-boyfriends ("the chemist") via email. He emailed back quickly to agree that it was an interesting story. A few weeks later, though, he emailed again to say that exactly such a project may enter his lineup of research soon! Yay!
Yesterday, I encountered a story so absurd that I had to submit it as a nomination to the Ig Nobel committee. I got an email reply within 30 minutes, stating, "Thanks, Terry. A worthy nominee." The story was about a doctoral student at the University of Helsinki who compared male penile length to economic performance in various countries. Within a single year (1985), there didn't seem to be much correlation, but when comparing growth from 1960-1985, the data suddenly shifted into a very nice arrangement.
How unexpected a correlation is that?! Could we guess that male ego insecurity might increase economically aggressive pursuits, while the less threatened are more complacent? The whole thing reminds me of the stereotypical monster truck (or sports car) and its inverse relationship with male "ratings" in bed. I hope the author wins an Ig Nobel prize from the nomination and thereby gains some attention for the work. It's certainly no less absurd than the nonsense that mainstream economists are babbling these days. *laugh*
A month or two ago, I read a curious story about an observation of a brand new kind of chemical reaction. Instead of a reaction being driven by the traditional energy and motion in these molecules, they found that quantum mechanical tunneling caused some chemical reactions. It means (I think) that some reactions can occur while needing much less energy than expected. This story was something quite new to me, and I forwarded it one of my ex-boyfriends ("the chemist") via email. He emailed back quickly to agree that it was an interesting story. A few weeks later, though, he emailed again to say that exactly such a project may enter his lineup of research soon! Yay!
Yesterday, I encountered a story so absurd that I had to submit it as a nomination to the Ig Nobel committee. I got an email reply within 30 minutes, stating, "Thanks, Terry. A worthy nominee." The story was about a doctoral student at the University of Helsinki who compared male penile length to economic performance in various countries. Within a single year (1985), there didn't seem to be much correlation, but when comparing growth from 1960-1985, the data suddenly shifted into a very nice arrangement."Economic growth between 1960 and 1985 is negatively associated with the size of male organ, and it alone explains 20% of the variation in GDP growth. With due reservations it is also found to be more important determinant of GDP growth than country's political regime type. ... Although all evidence is suggestive at this stage, the 'male organ hypothesis' put forward here is robust to exhaustive set of controls and rests on surprisingly strong correlations."
- https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/27239/HECER-DP335.pdf
- https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/27239/HECER-DP335.pdf
How unexpected a correlation is that?! Could we guess that male ego insecurity might increase economically aggressive pursuits, while the less threatened are more complacent? The whole thing reminds me of the stereotypical monster truck (or sports car) and its inverse relationship with male "ratings" in bed. I hope the author wins an Ig Nobel prize from the nomination and thereby gains some attention for the work. It's certainly no less absurd than the nonsense that mainstream economists are babbling these days. *laugh*