Studies show that using the phrase ‘studies show’ is one of the most effective ways to appear like you know what you are talking about. For example, if I were to say, “I can eat pudding through my nose” you might acknowledge my statement as somewhat nauseating. But if I were to say, “Studies show I can eat pudding through my nose” you would have to acknowledge my statement as a scientific fact that is somewhat nauseating.
In today’s society, it is important to be taken seriously if for no other reason than to appear informed when debating cacophonous cultural issues like abortion or the definition of cacophonous. This is why it is absolutely necessary to study things that the common citizen takes for granted. We must be able to demonstrate for certain that the item taken for granted should not be taken for granted, but is true anyway.
Exactly. You can’t argue with science. If anyone knows anything about science and its related scientific facts it is a scientist, whereas the typical layperson just lays there.
Take breakfast cereal. The average person tends to think that sugar-laden cereals are laden with sugar. But this is an assumption based on nothing more than personal intelligence and reading required government labels. Fortunately for us, the Environmental Work Group has already spent an exorbitant amount of money and studied this issue in depth with surprisingly predictable results. Thank you, EWG. We can now say with certainty, “Studies show that sugar-laden cereals are laden with sugar” rather than just spouting off with ‘informed supposition’ or ‘common sense.’ (Lynx!)
“But,” you may say, “I don’t plan on marrying my breakfast cereal. What I need is a study that proves the obvious about my personal relationships.” Well, prepare to exhale a proverbial sigh of relief. According to the good folks at Northwestern University, studies show that when searching for a mate, men and women prefer someone who is rich and really, really, really, really good-looking over someone who is destitute and grotesquely deformed. (Lynx!) It’s good to see that the $42,000 per year it costs to attend Northwestern is being used wisely.
Important research like this goes on all the time without us even knowing it, which is a tribute to the skill of accountants keeping track of funding. And while such studies may seem like an extravagant use of limited resources, it really doesn’t matter because most of them are funded by taxpayers through the National Endowment for Somethingorotheruntraceable.
“Butt,” you may ask, “aren’t there more important things we could study that are equally obvious, like whether pop stations playing Gotye every 7 minutes contributes to middle-age suicides, or whether old people smell funny?” While your question is a good one, you have used the word ‘butt’ incorrectly.
Luckily for us, a study was published just a couple of weeks ago that proves old people do indeed smell funny–not so much a ‘haha’ funny mind you, but more ‘who’s-cooking-cabbage’ funny.
What these forward-thinking researchers at the Institute For Proving Things Taken For Granted did was have people sniff body odor that was generously donated by other people. These selfless malodorous philanthropists were divided into age groups and wore special stinky-absorbent nastypads under their arms for five days (perhaps it is more appropriate to refer to them as selfless malodorous philanthro-pits?).
These pads were then cut up and put into jars. Under the watchful eye of the highly trained researcher, the subjects would then sniff the jars to ascertain the ‘intensity and pleasantness’ of the odors they inhaled and see if they could determine the age group to which the foul stench belonged.
The results demonstrated that a majority of the participants found the experience more nauseating than watching someone eat pudding through their nose. It also demonstrated a statistically significant number could indeed identify the ‘old person odor.’ (Lynx!) And it is noteworthy to note that 74% of the persons whose job it was to collect and cut up the stinky-nasty-pit-pads were likely to change career paths.
“Derriere,” you might cry, “what about the federal government itself? This sounds right up their alley. Shouldn’t they be producing these studies instead of wasting money on infrastructure and border patrol?”
Studies show that the institution most adept at publishing studies is the U.S. Government. In fact, the government produces so many studies, they often have to commission studies to study the studies, as was recently done by the Pentagon (from the Greek ‘Penta,’ as in ‘5,’ and ‘gon,’ as in ‘our money is…’).
The Pentagon determined it was necessary to review how much it cost to produce all of last year’s commissioned studies and so commissioned a study to study their commissioned studies. This of course prompted the Government Accountability Office (GTO) to commission a study of this study about these studies as they suspected the study of studies was unstudious. They recommended further study. (Lynx!)
While a significant number of taxpayers are up in arms about such waste, studies show that most people think ’up in arms’ is an odd saying and don’t even know what it means. Perhaps I should study that for next time. Studies show that I’ll get right on it just as soon as I finish my pudding.