? ?
Notes from a Medium-Sized Island [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Jason

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Sep. 6th, 2004|03:25 pm]
Jason
Oh no! Maybe having, like, 500 babies isn't such a great idea after all.

Over lunch at PDC with "no, seriously, set on fire" tom murphy and "dean of student extramarital affairs" mike murphy and "I can't think of a quip to go with" heather "but whose last name is, I think spelled" hendrickson, some discussion on over the insano specialization in the academic world revealed what my lifelong ambition has been pointing to all these years: computational medieval biology. I don't know what that is, but it sounds obscure enough that I can totally corner the market once I figure it out.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: skamille
2004-09-06 12:31 pm (UTC)
Only if you stick around to raise them ;)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jcreed
2004-09-06 12:36 pm (UTC)
Well, but presumably I'm having the babies with some brilliant scientific megababe, and I don't want her getting dumb either. I suppose we could hire someone else to take the IQ hit, but it's hard to see the point in having kids if you don't get to interact with them.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: susancalvin
2004-09-06 12:51 pm (UTC)
It's all about spreading your (massively superior) DNA. Or something.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: vamp_pirate
2004-09-06 01:05 pm (UTC)
I suppose we could hire someone else to take the IQ hit

No need!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theadana
2004-09-06 04:59 pm (UTC)

But... babies!

I wonder if it would apply to raising adopted kids- because if it didn't, we could just have some and swap them.

Now -that- would be a cool experiment. :D
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jcreed
2004-09-06 05:08 pm (UTC)

Re: But... babies!

Well, seeing as how they assert that this applies to the father as well as the mother and so conclude that it's not all in postpartum hormones or something, it seems possible that it would happen with adopted babies, too.

But if this is about overwhelming cuteness diminishing our powers of rational thought like so much coca-cola dissolving middle-school science-fair baby-teeth, then I evilly encourage you all to look at http://kittenbreak.com. In the kingdom of the kitten-brained, the one-neuroned man is king! Which will be me! As long as I don't click the... awwww, such tiny widdle paws!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: susancalvin
2004-09-06 08:59 pm (UTC)

Re: But... babies!

Gah! I thought I could resist but.. You fucking broke me. Oh, the widdle paws!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: theadana
2004-09-06 09:03 pm (UTC)

Re: But... babies!

Aiiieeeeeeee!

OMG! OMG!!!1!

That reminds me- I saw a tiny yorkie puppy today wearing a little "FBI" hat with little fuzzy ears poking up. It was beyond cute. It was extradimensional non-euclidean cuteness.

Auuuuuuuiiiieeee!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: easwaran
2004-09-06 05:16 pm (UTC)
Wow, the tone of that article is so Onionesque. Interesting that the study was done by the Kinsey Institute.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jcreed
2004-09-06 05:39 pm (UTC)
Yeah, it really is. I had to check out the rest of the site to make sure it wasn't parody, but... most of the articles seem kind of weird and unserious without actually being funny exactly.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: vamp_pirate
2004-09-06 07:09 pm (UTC)
The link at the bottom said it was a satire site.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jcreed
2004-09-06 09:06 pm (UTC)
Oh wow. Then it's really just not very well written then.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ssaiscps
2004-09-06 10:24 pm (UTC)
I've been fooled by them before. The line between terrible satire and reality is thin.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: subpar
2004-09-07 07:07 pm (UTC)
yeah, like when Kaustuv posted that article from Yahoo News that claimed women with larger breasts tended to have higher intelligence which implored me to reorganize my preconceptions of women only to realize later that it was a Weekly World News excerpt posted in the Entertainment section causing me to go back and reorganize my preconceptions of women back to the way they originally were.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: neurochemistry
2004-09-07 11:52 am (UTC)
I sent the article to my mother and she sent this reply
(14:49:30) CraftyMommaDona: Of course, I didn't lose any objectivity- my baby was the most beautiful, smartest and sweetest.

I was amused.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: madmadammim
2004-09-10 10:16 pm (UTC)
“This explains why every parent thinks their child is the smartest kid in class or the best athlete, even if that child is as dumb as a box of rocks or needs a calendar to time their forty-yard dash. People who before were intelligent and open-minded turn into raving lunatics who want to blame a teacher or coach every time their mediocre child fails,” said Lee

HAHAHAHAH. So inappopriate, but ha ha ha! I think just BEING around kids makes you stupider. You start talking all goo-goo ga-ga. I think it's a state of mind. This study's data is inconclusive. They should test again years down the line. Like when the kids are all over 18 and out of the house. Being around babies just makes you think more like one. That's my SUPER SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION.

And you can't hire someone else to take the hit for your intelligence because the point is that you will be SO ENAMOURED of your TINY LITTLE SOCIALLY INEPT BABIES that you will slowly stop thinking about math!
(Reply) (Thread)