By: JeffT

JeffT — Sat, 19 May 2012 17:42:00 +0000

ABSTRACT
The evolutionary origins of
shitty, subdiscipline-blindered science are much debated. One theory
holds that the ability to produce complicated but dubious
pseudoscientific research that manages to oversimplify and insult an
entire academic discipline might reflect
qualities that are relevant in mate choice contexts and hence, that
this is functionally analogous to the sexually-selected acoustic
displays of some animals. If so, women may be expected to show
heightened preferences for more complex pseudoscientific bullshit when
they are most fertile. Here, we used computer-generated bullshit and
ovulation predictor kits to test this hypothesis. Our results indicate
that women prefer more complicated scholarship in general; however, we
found no evidence that their preference increased around ovulation.
Consequently, our findings are not consistent with the hypothesis that a
heightened preference/bias in women around ovulation could have played a
role in the evolution of this style of scholarship. We go on to suggest
future studies that could further investigate whether sexual selection
played a role in the evolution of this universal aspect of research
university culture.

By: Biggie

Biggie — Fri, 18 May 2012 18:21:00 +0000

Followup investigation: Do women prefer maxis or tampons when listening to Brian Ferneyhough?

By: Paul Hembree

Paul Hembree — Fri, 18 May 2012 17:53:00 +0000

ZOMG they introduced SYNCOPATION in LEVEL 5, therefore it must be MORE COMPLEX! Nevermind the fact that, although MAYBE they could harmonize that drivel with those chords, they clearly have NO IDEA what modulation means.

Comments on: NCBI ROFL: Do women prefer more complex music around ovulation?

By: JeffT

By: Biggie

By: Paul Hembree