Amazon.com Widgets
I’m not mad.  Really.

About Ramblings of a Hopeless Khowaga

Welcome to my Web site. My name is Chris, and I’ll be your host. I\'m an opinionated, snarky, gay academic with a predilection for the history, the Arab world, languages, photography, food, and music. I live in Austin, Texas. You can read more about me, learn 100 random things about me, and if you’re wondering what the heck a khowaga is, click here. Feel free to browse, read, and leave comments!

Tag: ‘studies’



Not Aztec … Olmec!

Monday, October 27th, 2008

Nothing says fall in Texas like the arrival of a gigantic Olmec head.

One of my favorite riffs from the Simpsons is from the episode where Mr. Burns, in an attempt to curry favor with the Simpson clan for … yet another reason that I don’t particularly remember … arrives at the house of our erstwhile clan with a gift: a gigantic Olmec head.  

“This fellow is Ixtopolopopetl,” he says cheerfully.  ”The god of war.”

I love that bit.

Anyway, our Institute of Latin American Studies has received a gift of their very own (reproduction) Olmec head.  This fellow is, lamentably, not Ixtopolopopetl.  He is, as I’m sure you will all remember from my Flickr gallery that I’m just sure you’ve all been through from front to back, Colossal Olmec Head #1.

We saw him last at MAX (the Museo de Antropologia de Xalapa):

Colossal Olmec Head # 1

We’ll call him cohone for short.  Ha.

I’ve been a bit delinquent of late — I moved my blog to a new server and in among running off for a conference and being generally stressed at work, I have been ironing the kinks out.  There are always kinks.  Fortunately, I think (keep yer fingers crossed) that I may have it all up and running now …

On the 1st day of Christmas, my publicity company gave to me: a shameless attempt to get people interested in economics

Monday, November 26th, 2007

The gifts described in the fabled Christmas carol The 12 Days of Christmas would cost $78,100 if one followed the song and purchased the various gifts multiple times, according to the annual Christmas index published by PNC Wealth Management.. If you’re a cheapskate and decide to just give the new gift each day, it would cost you $19,507.

Seriously. I’m a little awestruck that people take the time to figure this out. I clearly need to hire Puxatawny Phil’s publicist.

No instruction is offered on what to do if you’re not Christian.

Another “Duh” Moment

Wednesday, August 1st, 2007

There’s never a dull moment when you work for a major research university. Someone is always publishing major research findings and students are running about and shouting and protesting and it’s all higgledy-piggledy and that’s the reason I like working here.

Then there are times when things get publicized that just make me kind of want to hide under my desk, because I know that it’s going to pop up on John Stewart, and we’re all going to be embarrassed for a while to tell people where we work.

Today’s post concerns one of these.

Two of our esteemed faculty in the Department of Psychology (read: gets lots of funding) have engaged upon what the Office of Public Affairs enthusiastically describes as one of the “most comprehensive studies about why people have sex,” and they have uncovered … I kid you not … 237 distinct motivations for doing the nasty.

Now, I pause for a moment to quote from the actual press release announcing this particular study:

[The researchers] conducted two studies. In the first, they asked more than 400 men and women to identify reasons people have sex. In the second, the researchers asked more than 1,500 undergraduate students about their experiences and attitudes.

The Texas psychologists identified four major factors and 13 sub-factors for why people have sex:

  • Physical reasons such as to reduce stress (“It seemed like good exercise”), feel pleasure (“It’s exciting”), improve or expand experiences (“I was curious about sex”), and the physical desirability of their partner (“The person was a good dancer”).
  • Goal-based reasons, including utilitarian or practical considerations (“I wanted to have a baby”), social status (“I wanted to be popular”) and revenge (“I wanted to give someone else a sexually transmitted disease”).
  • Emotional reasons such as love and commitment (“I wanted to feel connected”) and expression (“I wanted to say ‘thank you’”).
  • Insecurity-based reasons, including self-esteem (“I wanted the attention”), a feeling of duty or pressure (“My partner kept insisting”) and to guard a mate (“I wanted to keep my partner from straying”).

“Why people have sex is extremely important, but rarely studied,” Buss said. “Surprisingly, many scientists assume the answer is obvious, but people have different reasons for having sex, some of which are rather complex.”

I guess there’s a science here, but it really just sort of codifies what desperate creatures we human beings are.

Sex is … let me be perfectly honest, here: sex is, in my mind, one of the clearest signs that, if there is a God, he (she/it) has a profound sense of humor. Sex is ridiculous. Think about it! Sometimes when I’m being deep (but not too deep), I wonder who the first human was that thought to him or herself, “Hmm. Let’s see what happens if I put Tab A into Slot B … wait, there’s a Slot C, too. Hmm, I wonder …. Hey, you! Hold still. I want to try something.”

And shortly thereafter, the first early precursor of pepper spray was invented.

I dunno. I guess it’s nice that someone out there gave our Psychology faculty loads and loads of money to study this, but we know what the ultimate result of having sex is, and — with all due respect to my much better paid colleagues over in Psych — we probably could have saved them a lot of trouble by putting a bunch of guys in a room with a bottle of vodka and a 12 pack of beer and had them brainstorm — the list would have looked pretty similar to the one their exhaustive study came up with, doncha think?

What we ought to be researching is why people are so freaking uptight about sex, and what we can do to get them to unclench.

Well, duh

Tuesday, July 10th, 2007

Yahoo! at least had the good sense to file the following headline under the heading of “Oddly Enough:” “Women drawn to men with muscles.” After doing a double-take and making sure that I hadn’t accidentally stumbled across the headlines from this week’s issue of the Onion, I clicked on the title and was brought to a perfectly legit news article.

as1525.gifYessir, ladies and gentlemen. That prestigious academical institution, the University of California, Los Angeles, has published the results of an absolutely groundbreaking study that reveals – ta da! – that muscular young men are likely to have more sex partners than their less-chiseled peers. Lead scientist David Frederick reports that after interviewing 99 male undergraduates about their sexual histories, muscular men were twice as likely to have had more than three sex partners than less-built types. (Interestingly, I can’t actually find the article in the journal cited in the article, but never mind.)

Now, it strikes me that they could simply have asked the less-built types who would have told them point blank that they weren’t getting as much action. Heck, most of the scientists themselves probably came up with the idea to prove it using scientific methodology. I can’t imagine who would fund this kind of research, but it strikes me that a group of willing scientists might just relish the idea of doing hands-on research involving hunky undergraduates talking about their sex lives, and they’d probably do it solely for the fringe benefits.

All for the greater scientific good, of course. :wink:

Confessions of a Temporary Front-Desk Diva

Wednesday, June 13th, 2007

I’m IT today.

There’s something I thought I wouldn’t be able to say convincingly since I ceased to be a hyperactive nine year old running around the playground during a vicious game of ‘tag.’

However, those of us who came up with the system to relieve Beverly, the ‘front desk diva’ (or rather, the front-desk anti-diva, as she steadfastly refuses to embrace the diva-dom that Michael and I attempted to bestow upon her) have the mental age of a bunch of nine year olds when we’re sitting around the conference table, so we named it the ‘IT’ system. And today, I’m IT. And Bev had a doctor’s appointment to go to, so I’m exiled up at the front desk, away from my iPod, my instant messenger, my RSS reader … I mean, all of that pressing work I need to get done. Yeah, that’s it. :lol:

I have very little to confess today, in all actuality. I’m starving because I haven’t eaten much (OK, I’m obsessing about my belly. I have mother issues. I’m Greek. All Greek men have mother issues), and there’s a lot of little fiddly bits to get done, but nothing really meaty to pick up and savor as you suck the juices out of it like a nice piece of barbeque … man, I’m hungry.

I ran across this article in the Austinist in which Austin is identified as the Number 3 city in the nation for singles aged 25-29, after DC and Denver. Now, the funny thing is that the poll identifies cities where it’s fun to be young and single — it has nothing to do with the likelihood of finding a partner. Well, phooey. I could have told you that – I know people who are miserably single in all three places.

What amuses me the most about this is that Kiplinger — the company who did the survey — apparently has a “Bohemian indicator” that was taken into account when compiling these rankings. WTF is a “Bohemian Indicator”?? Oh, Brian, my Urban Bohemian friend? Can you shed any light on this?

Past that. I have a boring front page on the blog, but I don’t have any photos to post today. Poo.

Tomorrow, Natalie and I are off to Kilgore, which I have been informed is in the one county in East Texas that isn’t dry. Well! My excitement just got kicked up another notch – bam! We’re still bringing our own bottle of wine, as I’m not entirely convinced I’ll want to get out and explore greater Kilgore at night.

I will be bringing my camera, so if anything amusing or interesting passes by, I can share it with you all …

 

Blog Theme by LJP & SLR Lounge