Do we really need scientists to tell us the obvious?
On the one hand, but on the other: Medical Xpress wrote in a bold headline, “Some see work as a calling, others say it’s just a job.” Maybe a team at University of Michigan was bored with nothing to do when they decided to research that. Perhaps some on the team saw it as a calling. Maybe to others on the team it was just a job. Hypothesis proved!
Good workers work better: “Conscientious people more likely to provide good customer service.” That’s the headline on Medical Xpress. Psychologists figured this out. The body of the article doesn’t add any surprises.
Gamblers like money: With all the authority of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Science Now tells us, “Gamblers More Attracted to Money Than Sex.” Maybe that’s true if a scientist measures the amount of time spent on each. In the study by Netherlands psychologists, participants were asked the technical question, “Do you gamble a lot?” Unsurprisingly, the psychiatrist’s bible, the DSM-5, came into the story (see 5/10/13).
Illegitimacy is illegitimate: Stephanie Pappas was apparently rushing to press with a hot news scoop when she informed Live Science readers that “Bisexuality Seen by Some As Illegitimate, Study Finds.” Actually, that article and another on Science Daily, “Who Counts as a Man, Who Counts as a Woman” were worded in ways that put traditional heterosexual monogamous couples on the defensive, as if some mental disorder prohibits them from understanding the normalcy of promiscuity and gender confusion. Why else would they get uptight when a man enters a women’s bathroom? Since conservatives (advocates of traditional values) obviously suffer from hoarding “stigmas,” maybe they need a little re-education. Pappas said, “Even though science has made strides in finally accepting bisexuality, public opinion still hasn’t entirely caught up.” This wording appropriates the authority of “science” to immorality, and visualizes the race to the bottom of the slippery slope as progress. Another Live Science article presented “pansexuality” – sex with anybody, regardless of sex or gender identity – as a new category of “sexual orientation.” Elizabeth Palermo wrote very matter-of-factly about this phenomenon. A photo of happy-looking whatevers opens the article. Mustn’t be judgmental; after all, this is live science. Can necrophilia and bestiality be far behind? Will Live “Science” draw the line at polygamy? or at pedophilia? On what evolutionary basis?
Don’t wag your head too hard as you read these articles. You might hit something.