The Last Two Research Studies Ever

Bad news is that there won’t be any news studies for us to pick on. With the two papers presented below, all scientific research has officially come to a close.

It’s over. Close down the institutes, cover the projectors, give one final dusting to blackboards (the other boards are white supremacist tools).

Paper 1

The environmental footprint of academic and student mobility in a large research-oriented university by Julien Arsenault and some others in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters.

Abstract:

Academic mobility for field work, research dissemination and global outreach is increasingly recognized as an important contributor to the overall environmental footprint of research institutions. Student mobility, while less studied, also contributes to universities’ environmental footprint. Universite de Montreal (UdeM) is the largest university in Montreal, Canada. It has a research budget of 450M$, employs 1426 full-time professors, and has a total student population of 33 125 undergraduate and 12 505 graduate students. To assess the footprint of academic mobility at UdeM, we surveyed the research community (n = 703; including professors, research professionals and graduate students) about their travel habits. We also measured the contribution from travel undertaken by sports teams and international students as well as students engaged in study abroad and internships programs using data provided by the university. While the average distance travelled for work and research purposes by the UdeM community is around 8525 km/person, professors travel more than 33 000 km/person per year. We also estimated that the 5785 international students or students enroled in study abroad programs travel annually around 12 600 km/person. UdeM’s per capita annual travel-related C and N footprints vary, with international students generating for example 3.85 T CO2 and 0.53 kg N while professors generate 10.76 T CO2 and 2.19 kg N. Air travel emissions are the main contributors to these footprints. We provide insights into the distribution of travel-related environmental footprint within the university, the main reasons for travelling, the most frequent destinations, and the factors preventing researchers from reducing their travel-related environmental impact.

That’s it. There’s nothing else to this. They put a survey together and discovered—a scientific discovery!—what none heretofore even suspected. That professors fly more than students. They calling flying “mobility”, which is more scientific than “flying”.

They have a map, which I use above, that shows that some people fly here, and some there, and that here and there are separated by geographic distances. If any airline executive gets hold of this before his competitors, why, I have to think of what could happen.

It was also shocking for our penultimate researchers to discover that planes use fuel, and fuel has carbon in it, and carbon is too frightening to contemplate.

I’ll leave the authors the final word “Although we did not explore the deep motivations of researchers and students for travelling…”

Paper 2

Oppression or Opportunity? Sexual Strategies and the Perception of Sexual Advances by Lisa Klumper and Sascha Schwarz in the peer-reviewed journal Evolutionary Psychological Science (thanks to Dan Hughes for the tip).

Abstract:

From an evolutionary perspective, the perception and interpretation of sexual advances depend on sex-specific mechanisms, individual differences in the perceivers’ mating strategies, and the actor’s attractiveness. In two studies (N = 1516), participants evaluated hypothetical situations of sexual advances from a coworker varying in attractiveness (study 1) and physical appearance or status (study 2). In both studies, men perceived sexual advances as less negative than women, especially when the advances arise from a (physically) attractive actor. Furthermore, the higher the sociosexual orientation of the participants, the less harmful these sexual advances are perceived. Finally, the same behavior from an attractive or physically attractive actor is perceived as less harmful than from an unattractive actor. Results are discussed from an evolutionary perspective on the perception of sexual advances.

You might have only thought you knew that women liked rich hot men hitting on them, and that poor ugly men hitting on them resulted in an automatic call to HR, but that’s because you’re not a scientist. Your anecdotes don’t constitute scientific evidence, which is defined as evidence collected by scientists in need of a publication.

Nobody also knew that men didn’t mind hot women of any monetary status hitting on them. We had to wait to learn that men being open to such encounters had something to do with mating, and that mating had something to do with evolution.

This paper also explores the phrase “grabs your butt”.

After the one above, and considering this new one, it is clear this is the last research paper ever needed. There is nothing left to learn.

Fair as always, I leave the authors with the final last word “In everyday interactions, flirting behavior can lead to the onset of a romantic or sexual relationship, but only if the cues to sexual interest are interpreted as flattering.”

To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here

8 Thoughts

  1. I would think employers can’t wait for Brave New World, where babies are grown in test tubes and men and women bang whomever they want as often as they want. The return to VICTORIAN morality (which is EXACTLY what this is) is killing the workplace. Not to mention society. Until men and women are disease-free and encouraged to bang what moves, this problem will exist. No study needed.
    A. Huxley, seer of the future

    Studies will still be needed. How else can clueless losers make money? You want MORE homeless tents on your sidewalks?????

  2. So, if John asks Mary to go to surfing in Maui this weekend, and skiing in the Alps next, she’s a lot less likely to be offended (more likely to say yes) than if Duane asks her to come over to his apartment to eat popcorn while watching Thunder Force on Netflix? Really? Who knew?!

    So, the bigger his carbon footprint, the more likely he’ll get the date? Sounds like those two papers are just different articles in the same pulp fiction magazine.

  3. At last the mystery has been explained! A scientific explanation of how Donald Trump was able to marry three beautiful women.

  4. Well darn it. When I saw the phrase “environmental footprint of research institutions” I thought it would be a discussion of the environmental damage done by the institutions.

    I could write a book about the pollution generated by colleges and universities: their hazardous physical plants, sewage overflows, mountains of garbage, poorly maintained “research” nuclear reactors, asbestos-filled buildings, and rat-infested cafeterias, as well as the mindless sheer destruction done by “field” researchers to farms, forests, meadows, streams, and wherever else they quack-hack around. Ever seen “scientists” mist net birds? Or sea-lions? Blood, guts, and dead critter litter…

    Instead it’s the commuting to and from their ought-to-be Super Fund disaster campuses. What a let down.

  5. “Why haven’t any Universities studied why the English eat Marmite?” – Amateur Brain Surgeon

    I think it’s to maintain that healthy yellow color of British tooth enamel.

    Research is a lot easier to do when you know the answers in advance. Why waste time on the hard stuff you don’t know, when you can publish endlessly and never be wrong. Great carrier move.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *