Advertisements

Mendin’ broken hearts and making…WEIRD SCIENCE!

This might be short. Well, let’s be honest, short for ME. Which is still long for NORMAL HUMANS. I have about an hour and a half to write this or else I’m going to miss MY PROGRAM. My program (shut up, I call the shows I watch “my programs,” I do that because my grandmother does and it makes me laugh and laugh, WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST LAUGHTER) is Justified. There is no WAY I’m missing Justified. Sorry. Even though I love you all ’til my face hurts, Raylan takes precedence. I mean, look. LOOK.

Honestly, he makes me make that "humuna humuna" noise, you know?

So, in order to make my weekly date with Raylan, I’m giving you all short shrift. SORRY.

Oh, and before I forget, HAPPY LEAP DAY. According to 30 Rock, nothing we say or do today counts. So I guess do whatever you want. Make out with strangers. Eat tainted meat products. IT IS YOUR DAY.

Also, we’re supposed to get like 5-6″ of snow here over the next 24 hours? So I went to the store? And it was STOREMAGEDDON. Things I saw: a man lying down in the bread aisle throwing lower-level bread to his wife who was filling a cart with it; people yelling at each other at the deli for “cutting line,” a woman screaming into her cell phone about the upcoming storm in the ice cream aisle; and a woman randomly weeping in the cereal aisle. Also, they were out of my favorite popsicles. WHAT THE HELL. Less than a foot of snow makes people stock up on sugar-free popsicles? THOSE ARE MINE BITCHES. I felt like I’d entered a madhouse. I was scared. SCARED FOR MY LIFE.

Anyway, I totally have a theme and shit today, don’t even think I don’t. I mean, I stole it from Ken, but I still have a post idea. I think that counts.

Last week, Ken went to a one-man show which was probably not all that interesting for him, since he had to sit through it, but it was a hell of a lot of fun for those of us who follow him on Twitter because he tweeted the one-man show, so that was the best thing. It was like I got to go to the theater while sitting at work. I mean, how many people get to do that? Well, I guess people lucky enough to get paid to work in theaters. But other than that, NONE. So, thanks, Ken, for the awesomeness.

Anyway, at the end of the one-man show, the man (there was only one of him, hence the moniker) told a story about a rat. Well, some rats, I guess. Ken blogged it. You’re totally not going to click that, are you? I’m torn. I want you all to click, because you will all fall madly in love with his blog and then he’ll get CRAZY-ASS BLOG TRAFFIC which, let’s face it, he deserves. All my people that I follow do. I don’t follow just any yahoo, come on. What do I look like here, just some random blog-follower? NO I AM NOT. Anyway. Torn. OH YES. But if I DON’T put it here and you don’t click, then your’e going to be lost and nothing I say from now on will make sense and you’ll be all, “whaaa?”

OK, I’ll happy-medium this, how about that. I’m going to give you a TASTE of the story. You need to click the link I have OH SO HELPFULLY ADDED ABOVE and read it on Ken’s blog because it is awesome. The blog. Also Ken. Listen, I totally set my blog up so that it opens links in a new tab and everything, you won’t even lose me, I promise. You can just come right back.

OK, in a nutshell: scientists put a rat in water that it couldn’t get out of. It swam for 45 minutes and drowned. Then they did the same thing with a second rat, only after a little while, they put in a platform so the rat could climb out.

The next day, they did it again to that same rat, only they NEVER PLANNED ON PUTTING IN THE PLATFORM. But the RAT didn’t know that. So it kept swimming. And swimming. And swimming. For seven hours. Until it drowned. Waiting for that platform to appear.

OK, I’m not here to be all “animal testing bad” because I know there are scenarios where animal testing is important. There are some scientific discoveries we could not have found without animal testing. Some drugs that we’d have never known if they worked or not. There are situations where it’s necessary. I get that. Listen, I eat meat. I’m totally not crunchy-granola-hippy-commune-peace-love-dope. Don’t get all up in my grill, homeslice.

HOWEVER.

WHAT THE HELL SCIENTISTS.

This is CRUEL and UNUSUAL RAT TORTURE. That poor rat! Waiting and waiting and paddling and all, “where’s my platform? Guys? Guys? Did you forget me down here?” Ugh.

I get what they were going for? That, with the carrot (even imagined) at the end of the stick, an animal (human or otherwise) is capable of more than it even imagines? But this seems INSANE to me. An INSANE way to get there.

So then I thought, what the hell other shenanigans are scientists up to? I’d have asked Andreas but I was worried he’d tell me something I didn’t want to know like “grafting puppies onto kittens!” or something and I just don’t want to know that, Andreas, even if you ARE Lucy’s Football’s official science guy. But he’d totally say it in such an enthusiastic way I couldn’t be mad. I CAN’T BE MAD AT YOU ANDREAS! Wait, I was just thinking, maybe you should be Lucy’s Football’s science dude. I kind of like that. ANDREAS. What say you? Science GUY or Science DUDE? You could also be Science Guru but I think that makes you sound old and a little creepy, to be honest. But I’ll leave it up to you.

So I found this site that had some random scientific experiments on it and one was SO GROSS that I’m totally not even going to link to the site. But one was the funniest so I researched it and am linking to ANOTHER site because it’s too funny not to link to, seriously.

This is a recap of something from New Scientist. I think Andreas may have warned me against New Scientist. Or told me it was ok. I’ve already forgotten. A lot of shit comes in and goes out of my brain on a daily basis, it’s hard to process it all, honestly.

OK, this one’s only a wee bit cruel. There’s a little animal death. And there are some…um…little deaths. That will make sense if you like euphemisms. Or Sondheim.

So scientists (I’m not sure why. Because they could?) wondered, “what revs a turkey’s engine?” So they made a fake female turkey with removable bits and a male turkey humped the shit out of it because apparently male turkeys are horny as hell, I don’t know.  Then they thought, “hmm, what if the lady didn’t have wings?” The turkey still did the nasty. No legs, tail, feet, etc. – that didn’t matter to our feathered lothario. The only thing the turkey needed to do his business? A HEAD AND GENITALS ON A STICK. Nope. I’m totally serious.

Yep. I TOTALLY FOUND A PHOTO. Is this not the worst thing? I know. You're welcome.

Then they did the mandatory “we’re scientists, might as well kill something” portion of the program by – well, here, I’m just going to quote this:

“Schein and Hale then went on to investigate how minimal they could make the head before it failed to excite the turkey. They discovered that a freshly severed head on a stick worked best. Next in order of preference was a dried-out male head, followed by a two-year-old ‘discolored, withered, and hard’ female head. Last place went to a plain balsa wood head, but even that elicited a sexual response. They published their results in 1965 in a book called Sex and Behavior.”

Um. This…seems like they thought it out. A LOT. I also like that they just HAPPENED to have a withered, discolored, and hard two-year-old turkey head just HANGING around like that. “Hey! Hale! CHECK IT! I KNEW this shit would come in handy, and you were all, ‘Schein, you’re such a HOARDER!'”

I guess my biggest question here is…who funded this? And how did it further science? Did we need to know these things? And if so…why? I bet Andreas knows. That’s why he gets paid the big bucks.* (*the big bucks are Twizzlers. I pay Andreas in Twizzlers. I have yet to pay him. Don’t remind him, ok? I can’t be sending Twizzlers overseas every five seconds, am I MADE of Twizzler money?)

So then I did FURTHER research because I love you so much my little popcorn balls. Guess what I found. NO GUESS. Fine, fine, I’ll tell you.

Do you know about the Milgram experiment? I’m down with the Milgram experiment because a., it was on humans, b., I think it’s fascinating, and c., IT INVOLVES ACTING. OK, so in the Milgram experiment, which took place in 1961, there are three people. A subject, an actor, and the scientist. The subject is told that the actor (who the subject is unaware even IS an actor) is going to answer some questions. For every question the actor gets wrong, the subject has to give the actor a painful electric shock. The subject sees the shocks happening. The actor acts the shit out of the shocks. The subject thinks they are causing someone serious pain. With each question wrong, the voltage increases. The scientist keeps encouraging the subject to keep working.

What do you think the subjects did? Did what they were told – continued shocking the actors? Or conscientiously objected?

65% did as they were told. Sure, they were all questiony and “I don’t know, this seems wrong” and “um…I’m a little worried about that guy” and whatever, but 65% kept on keepin’ on, you know? Milgram thought this was fascinating and said a lot about obedience and command and authority. I totally agree. I am blown away by this experiment and have been since I was young and first read about it. (Also, women were more likely to follow orders than males. I’m curious if this was recreated today, the results would be the same.)

HOWEVER.

Were you aware that a few years later, a couple of other scientists were all, “Shit, we can top that” and recreated it?

WITH PUPPIES?

No, I’m totally serious. Only, the puppies? WERE NOT ACTORS. And the shocks? WERE REAL.

Yep. Totally scroll to the bottom of that Wikipedia page up there, I’m not making anything up.

I mean, the scientists SAY the shocks were harmless. But the subjects were forced to SHOCK A PUPPY if the puppy didn’t stand in a certain part of a room. And the subjects got VERY UPSET. And cried. And tried to air-traffic-control the puppy through the glass separating them. And the puppies were YELPING.

But 50% of the men and 100% of the women participated until the very end.

ZOMG SERIOUSLY WTF.

No no no. No shocking puppies, please. I get what this was trying to prove – much as I get the rat thing – but PLEASE STOP IT.

Also, I know people are all “I would NEVER” yet the results prove you…well, would, you know? But you could not make me shock a puppy. Nope. Yes, I know. I put animals to sleep at the humane society. Totally different scenario; that was not PUPPY TORTURE. This was PUPPY TORTURE. And 75% of the people TOTALLY TORTURED BABY PUPPIES WTFFFFF. I don’t care WHAT scientist-dude was all, “this is important you must do this.” I don’t care if it was ANDREAS. My OWN BLOG’S Science Dude or Guy or Guru or whatever he decides. I AM NOT TORTURING A PUPPY.

OK. It’s Raylan time. Seriously, YOU GUYS. Boots. Hat. Gun. Last week HE TOTALLY TOOK HIS SHIRT OFF I AM SO NOT EVEN JOKING.

I know, I know. There are a LOT MORE THINGS we can talk about with weird animal testing. I’ll talk about it another day, promise. Until then, go back and look at the turkey sex photo. Seriously, I’ve been giggling about that for like an hour, no joke. THOSE TURKEYS ARE IN LURVE.

Advertisements

About lucysfootball

I'm not the girl with the most cake. Someday. SOMEDAY. View all posts by lucysfootball

46 responses to “Mendin’ broken hearts and making…WEIRD SCIENCE!

  • zippy219

    I get what you mean about your show. My show is NCIS, I will leave meetings early, not answer the phone or the door…unless its Mark Harmon. He’s my Raylan, my humuna,humuna guy.

    Like

  • Mister Doctor Professor Susurrus M. Chiaroscuro, Esquire

    A couple things.

    1) You should never be allowed to say “short” before you start writing. Because then I’m like. . . okay, i have time to read this before my meeting or whatever, and then by the fifth topic change I realize what’s happening and i’m like “WTF! She said this was short!” and I realize I’m 3/4 of the way through so I may as well finish even though I’ll be late for the meeting and then I’m fired and I have to beg for money on the curb to support my family.

    2) Lothario. People (you and many others) paint Lothario as this huge slut. . . but he pretty much wasn’t. I remember reading his story and thinking. . . okay, the dumbass in this situation is Anselmo. I think you should edit this piece and insert Casanova. Because Lothario only fits if there’s another turkey egging him on to have sex and Lothario keeps saying NOOOOO! But finally just goes, “Ugh. . . Fine, i’ll do it, then falls in love.”

    3) i love how you glossed over the fact that 100% of the women tortured the puppies but only half of the men did by saying “75% of the people”. Your readers are smart. We noticed all the women tortured puppies but only half the men did. Don’t try to trick us. Also. . . to keep the math straight. . . you can only say 75% if there were an equal number of men and women participating in the study. So if 10 men participated, but only 8 women, then you have to adjust that to 72%

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m late for band practice. “Whinge Buckets and the Ghost of Noonie” have our first gig coming up.

    Like

    • Andreas Heinakroon

      Where can I get tickets for that? I love a good whinge!

      Like

    • lucysfootball

      It WAS short! Well, short-ER. Less than 2,000 words! That’s, like, a mini-entry! That’s like a Tumblr post! :) (Please don’t resort to begging. I’ll start a collection for you or something. I’d hate to think of you begging, that would just be the worst.)

      I don’t even know Lothario’s story! I just use that word to mean someone who’s indiscriminately slutty, I guess. Now I have to research it. DAMMIT JIM. You KNOW I hate research. HA HA. I couldn’t even TYPE that with a straight face!

      I didn’t gloss over the ladies! I mentioned it in the section about torture ABOVE the puppies! I’m wondering if it was a generational thing – since this was done in the early 60s – and if women today would be more apt to speak up and opt out, or if it’s a gender thing, regardless of the era, and women are just more apt to go along when someone in authority gives them an order? I’m honestly curious about that. I would have thought, if the victim was a puppy, more women would have said no – since we’re “traditionally” predisposed to be kind to cute cuddly things, you know? But nope, still 100%. It’s really interesting, from a psychological perspective.

      I guess I just assumed that, in order to make it a fair study, they’d have to have an equal number of men and women. Wouldn’t they? Otherwise, wouldn’t the statistics be skewed?

      Ooh, have fun at band practice. I’m going to be late, but keep my triangle warm for me. Since that’s all I’m able to play. Can’t carry a tune on anything else. But I’ll ROCK that triangle.

      Like

      • Andreas Heinakroon

        Wouldn’t it also matter what sex the scientist leading the experiment was? I’m sure a lot of men would do almost anything if asked by an attractive woman. A sciency woman. Wearing glasses. (humuna humuna)

        Like

        • lucysfootball

          That’s a good point. I’d be more apt to take direction from a woman, honestly. (Not a sexy one, just that I tend to respect women in authority because I’m proud they got there.) Gender does play a part in it.

          Like

  • Andreas Heinakroon

    Oh! So many comments in my head! I cannot begin to type them all! *goes away to cook dinner instead*

    Like

  • sj

    I think Andreas may have warned me against New Scientist. Or told me it was ok. I’ve already forgotten.

    This is totally me. “What? You TOTALLY told me to check it out! Wait, you said not to? Are you sure? I definitely remember [insert whatever it is here] and the words ‘check it out’ coming out of your mouth. If there was a ‘never’ in there, I can’t be bothered to remember that.”

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      Yep. Me all the time. ALL THE TIME. “I knew it came up in conversation. Are you SURE you said not to? But I remember you mentioning it. Oh, you said NOT TO. Not TO. Damn.” Only so many things can be remembered at once. I tend to screen out the things I find extraneous. Which often are the most important, unfortunately.

      Like

  • lahikmajoe

    First of all, Germany’s playing France in a football friendly, so I can’t comment long.

    Met three Germans today who all insisted they LURVE Breakfast at Tiffany’s. One guy said he loved Cat on a Hot Tinned Roof even more, but that it didn’t interfere with his love for Audrey Hepburn and her Huckleberry Friend.

    Hey, thanks for linking to my blog and all the kind things you said. Am honoured.

    As is often the case, you took a funny (funny curious not funny ha ha) scenario then you did a bit of research and wrote a comical wrap-up of multiple logical tangents.

    The turkey thing is comical. Maybe that easily-excitable turkey simply has an active imagination. Or even better…he remembered his beloved and the ‘withered, discolored, and hard two-year-old turkey head’ simply reminded him of it.

    We should be applauding the creativity and amorousness of your turkey lothario. We really should.

    Ok, footy’s on…gotta go.

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      What’s a football friendly? I mean, as opposed to a football unfriendly? Are people happier when they lose?

      Hmm. So now we have three meh’s and three lurve’s about this “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” thing. This is curious.

      “Cat on a Hot Tinned Roof” made me laugh so hard I had a coughing fit. Because it reminded me of Spam. Or Vienna Sausages. (I’ve never seen “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.” And I love Tennessee Williams. I really need to get on that someday.)

      I’m telling you. IT IS A COMPLIMENT CHAIN LETTER. We can’t break the chain letter or else BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN. Since you said something nice about me on Twitter today now it’s my turn again. Dammit. I don’t have anything nice to say stored up. I’ll have to work on something.

      I told my dad about the turkey and he said “that’s just like the government, to fund a scientific experiment like that that wastes my hard-earned tax dollars” and I said, “but, Dad, it didn’t even SAY it was a government-funded scientific study” and he said, “THEY ALL ARE.” So now we know. NOW WE KNOW.

      Hee! Footy. I love that. It sounds so friendly. I don’t even like sports but I would totally watch sports if we called them fun names like footy.

      Like

      • Kris Rudin (@krisrudin)

        Wait, WAIT! You haven’t seen “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”? And you call yourself a theater geek??? I’m at TECH geek and I’ve seen it! (OK, full-disclosure: I am related to a former professional actress and a current professional actress, so I may have a few theater geek tendencies not usually found in a tech geek)

        At the very least, watch the movie with Liz Taylor and Paul Newman. You won’t be disappointed.

        Like

        • lucysfootball

          I know, isn’t that weird? And I love young Paul Newman, too! I don’t know how I haven’t seen that one. It’s odd. I’m a huge Williams fan, too. I’ve just missed some things. I had never seen a John Wayne movie until about a year ago. I’ve still never seen The Godfather. (Well, all of it. Bits and pieces, yes.) It all comes from growing up in a house where we weren’t allowed to watch anything over PG-13 until I graduated HS and moved out. Don’t ask. (And WHOO, was THAT a rude awakening when I saw my first real grown-up movie!)

          Like

  • Andreas Heinakroon

    Hmm.. Guy, dude or guru? This is indeed tricky. Science guy sounds friendly and approachable but Science dude sounds like ‘The dude’ as in The big Lebowski which I really liked. I don’t have a peed-on carpet though. Science guru sounds creepy, you say? But perhaps I am creepy? Creeeeepy.. No. Sorry, that’s as convincing as when I played Count Vladimir Dracula in a home video production from the 1980s: ‘I vant blaaaaad!’.

    I can’t decide. Think of me as either your Science guy or Science dude. Or! Perhaps as your Science Fellow. Yes, I’d like that. I’d like that very much!

    Best regards,
    Your Science Fellow

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      Science Fellow it IS. I’m totally putting up a “meet the people I talk about too much” page someday. Like many things I have grand plans for, it just hasn’t happened yet. But when it does: you will be introduced as “Andreas, The Lucy’s Football Science Fellow.”

      Also, you’re so not creepy. I have a finely-tuned creep-o-meter, which goes off with even the slightest HINT of creepy. You’re not at ALL creepy. And? I WANT TO SEE THAT VIDEO SO BADLY NOW.

      Also, ALSO, I told my mom I was going to pay you in Twizzlers but I hadn’t sent you any and it was kind of a gigantic ruse and she was SO MAD and said, “your nice friend probably really, really wants Twizzlers! Maybe they can’t GET Twizzlers over there! You don’t know! Think of all the science help he gives you! YOU HAVE TO SEND HIM TWIZZLERS.” So, my mom says I have to send you Twizzlers, Andreas. I HAVE TO.

      (I totally would have sent them anyway, if you wanted them. Care packages are my favorite.)

      Like

      • Andreas Heinakroon

        Aw, you’re too kind! But I don’t even know what Twizzlers are; I’m guessing some kind of sweets?

        Luckily, that video was on the now extinct betamax format and would be impossible to play today. It might also be lost.

        Like

        • lucysfootball

          My parents totally have a working Betamax VCR. TRUE STORY! But I think a videotape of the TV show “Beauty and the Beast” with Ron Perlman is stuck in it.

          Twizzlers are red licorice that don’t taste like licorice. They taste sweet, mostly. And strawberry-like. There are also black Twizzlers but I haven’t tried those so I don’t know what they taste like. That’s what my mom SAID! That you probably don’t even HAVE Twizzlers there! (You would probably hate them, since you like black salty licorice. You’d probably say, “THIS IS NOT LICORICE. What is WRONG with Americans?”)

          Like

  • Andreas Heinakroon

    I won’t even tell you what kind of experiments have been conducted on kittens. Seriously. It’s not for squeamish.

    If you want to be a biologist it’s expected that you have a heart of stone and an utter lack of respect for living things. Which is ironic, really.

    Like

  • Andreas Heinakroon

    I have nothing against New Scientist. In fact, I browse that site daily. Highly recommended.

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      But when I tried to read another article on the site, it wanted me to LOG IN to read it! I didn’t care for that at all. I have to get a code or something. I don’t care for being made to log into things to read them. It seems totalitarian to me.

      Like

  • Andreas Heinakroon

    As I already commented on lahikmajoe’s blog post, I’m not sure that the rat drowning experiment is real. It just doesn’t make scientific or financial sense.

    I do remember reading something about the same experiment being conducted on humans, but I think that was in a book of fiction. Yes.. I’m sure it was fiction.

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      I love that you put thought into it and decided it’s not real. I mean, I also thought, “this seems odd,” but I just thought, “eh, scientists, they are a wacky bunch, what can you do?” I trust your judgment on this. IT IS NOT REAL. Our Science Fellow says so! Done.

      Like

  • Andreas Heinakroon

    Turkeys aren’t the brightest of birds, this is true. And they are known to react to key triggers, just like many other animals (including humans). In their case it’s heads (to determine that the potential partner is of the same species), and genitals (to facilitate mating).

    Humans have similarly comical triggers. Like black stockings on mannequin legs (Mmm.. Black stockings..).

    Like

    • Andreas Heinakroon

      Anyway, the point of the turkey experiment could have been to isolate and identify sexual triggers, in order to understand how the brain process information. So it definitely had a point, and could well be the foundation for some more advanced theory on human behaviours currently being researched.

      Like

    • lucysfootball

      Wait, that’s a thing? Black stockings on mannequin legs makes men hot? On MANNEQUIN LEGS? Ew. Like that leg lamp in “A Christmas Story?” I mean, black stockings are hot, no question. But mannequin legs. So plasticky!

      Wasn’t the head on a stick just so funny, though? And that turkey looking at it was so seductive-looking. That was his soulmate. The head on a stick. Hee!

      Like

  • Andreas Heinakroon

    Further extensions to the Milgram experiment has shown that a significant percentage of subject are prepared to administer (what they believed to be) lethal doses of electric shocks, if encouraged by the leader of the experiment.

    I find this fascinating and it would explain a lot of all the weird and horrible stuff we see happening around the world. We are pack animals, and we are genetically programmed to obey a pack leader. Or, if strong enough, take over and become pack leaders ourselves.

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      Isn’t it just fascinating? I have always dug this experiment. I never once questioned why this experiment was being done. This one TOTALLY makes sense to me.

      What about those of us who seem just INCAPABLE of following a pack leader, though? I mean…not anyone we…know…or who is typing this right now…or anything…ahem…

      No, but seriously, I can’t be the only one who encounters authority, in almost any way, shape, or form, and IMMEDIATELY wants to either run the other way screaming or do the exact opposite of what they’re telling me. And usually do, if it doesn’t mean I’ll lose my job or end up in jail. I just can NOT seem to make myself follow the leader. Even when it’s to my detriment. It’s not always a good thing, even though it SOUNDS all, “awesome screw the man.” It’s not. Sometimes it’s better to do what you’re being told, because it’s for the best. So what’s wrong with me? Antiauthoritarianism? Is that a thing? Or is it because I want to be pack leader? I mean, I don’t always. Sometimes I just want to do my own thing, and sometimes I just want to rebel for the sake of rebelling. I might just be a weirdo, though.

      Like

      • Andreas Heinakroon

        No. You’re not alone. In fact, there is this theory that our species of humans was the first (only) species to to accept and welcome creative rebellion. That is, in a tribal scenario we would accept that creative people are different and welcome their contributions to the group. In other species of humans this might never have occurred, which could explain the rapid increase in innovations seen in our species.

        Like

  • Andreas Heinakroon

    (I’ll stop spamming your blog post now. But thanks for the mention!)

    Like

  • Rod (@airigoagain)

    I had never heard that puppy version before! That’s, weirdly, sadder than people (fictionally) killing other people. (I wonder if it’s been done with human babies?)
    It does remind me of a bit in The Men Who Stare At Goats (the book, I didn’t watch the movie) about how they originally used sheep for the medical training (where they broke a sheep’s leg and then had to fit it and nurse it back to health) but that they had to change to goats because the soldiers (marines? I can’t remember) found it easier, emotionally and psychologically, to break the goat’s leg than the sheep’s leg.
    (If you’ve read the book, then you know that they did weirder things to those goats later. If you haven’t, they stared at them, trying to make their hearts stop, just with their thoughts. Yep. )

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      I always meant to see “Men Who Stare at Goats.” Didn’t it have my (sigh) Ewan McGregor in it? I have to get that from the library one of these days.

      I wouldn’t be able to break a goat OR a sheep’s leg. I like all the animals. I’d fail all these tests.

      I bet they could never do it with babies. People would never shock babies. (Right? Oh, crap, they wouldn’t, right?)

      Like

  • kitchenmudge

    Any list of weird experiments would be incomplete without the Stanford Prison Experiment. Surprised I’m the first one to mention it:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

    Like

  • Roz

    How many blogs can boast of having a Science Fellow? I’ve learned so much from this post and the comments, not to mention the usual laughing fit: “Hey! Hale! CHECK IT! I KNEW this shit would come in handy, and you were all, ‘Schein, you’re such a HOARDER!’”

    Like

    • lucysfootball

      I know, right? SCIENCE FELLOW. I mean, some days, I think, I have a blog WITH A SCIENCE FELLOW. And I could NOT be more jazzed. Also, I have the BEST science fellow. Isn’t he just the best? :)

      I also have to agree – I love, love, LOVE my comments. They just make my day. I get a new one and I just get the biggest grin. Sometimes the best part of the post is the comments!

      Like

%d bloggers like this: