Studies have shown that studies are bunk.

Whenever I hear someone utter the dreaded phrase, “studies have shown,” I invariably reach for the barf bag. The way I see it all of our troubles could be solved if everyone committed this to memory – “studies have shown that studies are bunk.”

The use of studies have shown as some sort of deference-to-authority-clause to win arguments is the laziest and most dishonest trick in the book. The more you use studies have shown then the more you grow to depend on it. It’s crack cocaine for left wing talk show hosts everywhere, (are there are other kind?)

So today it gives me great pleasure to quote from a piece which is smothered in great gobulous chunks of studies have shown. Because I like cocaine too.

Study: Being alone can be good for your mental health, sparks creativity.

When it comes to seeking solitude, many people often blame mental health issues as an underlying cause. But a new study finds that being alone has its benefits too, particularly when it comes to people looking for a surge of creativity.

Researchers at the University of Buffalo interviewed 295 privacy-valuing individuals who reported a variety of reasons for their tendency to spend a lot of time alone, ranging from feeling fear or anxiety around others to preferring to use spare time working on a craft.

Maybe studies have shown is old hat now. All the cool kids are using a new study finds.

Anyway, faithful readers of this blog will no doubt have twigged as the reason why I am quoting this study. Pat yourself on the back if your first thought was to check the 28 traits of the modern man. Because sure enough at trait number 11 we find the following title:

The modern man has spent time alone.

It’s important to understand why solitary time is necessary for a man. It is through solitude that a man learns who he is. Being constantly distracted by outside attention draws a man away from contemplation. And contemplation is a requirement for inner growth. Being alone gives a man time – time to work out who he is and where he fits in the outside world. Time to develop himself as a person that he likes and wants to be.

For this reason it is crucial for a man to have lived alone at some point in his life. His own apartment, his own rules and world. In the early days he will inevitably be a slob, luxuriating in the freedom of doing whatever he wants. But as he matures he will come to understand the benefits of cleanliness and order. He learns how to take care of himself.

A man who knows how to take care of himself is self-sufficient.

“Science” is only just catching up with the modern man; to whit, moi.

But these science charlatans are really quite shameless. They might be saying now that being alone is cool and all that, but what were they saying previously?

Although research has traditionally suggested that excessive time alone can be unhealthy, some seclusive pursuits, such as trying to connect to nature or get a better sense of self, can be constructive, the researchers found.

Get that? Research has traditionally suggested that excessive time alone can be unhealthy. Traditionally means all of it. All of the research up to this point, all of it, stated that being alone was bad for you. You must be distracted all of the time! Run around! Talk to more people! Consume more! Get more stuff! Just whatever you do, don’t be alone!

And now they’re saying the opposite. Which to me says two things: they want to have it both ways, and all of their research is worthless. Studies such as this one abound for the simple reason that governments give taxpayer’s money to universities and they have to justify receiving it. So they do studies, which are worthless, but then governments take the studies seriously, (because they gave all of our money to them), so they take the studies and use them as the basis for public policy.

This is one reason why governments got into the game of telling people what to eat. 50 years later and obesity and diabetes rates are through the ceiling, and only now they’re admitting that cutting out fats might have been a very bad idea. But they’re still going to spend lots of our money to investigate what they should be telling us to do with our own lives.

You don’t need to listen to governments. You just need to listen to me. Being alone is good for you. Another thing that is good for you is learning the fine art of lying on the couch all afternoon and not feeling guilty about doing it. The fine and noble art of doing sweet bugger all. If only more so-called scientists would do it then we might be spared further editions of studies have shown.

11 thoughts on “Studies have shown that studies are bunk.

  1. purge187

    You mean to tell me that having peace and quiet and being without distractions has its benefits?Shiver me timbers!

    I have a quiet apartment in an idyllic town, a Mustang convertible and plenty of spare cash. Marriage would put a serious dent in all of that.

    Like

  2. Dan Flynn

    Adam, while I agree that mindlessly following the ‘latest studies’ without using our own experience and common sense is fraught, I do think that studies can be valuable. Consider this paragraph I stumbled across moments after reading your post:

    ‘Admitting that you were wrong, especially when the original decision has huge ramifications, is a painful and destabilising experience that the brain tends to resist. Research into this kind of denial has given us concepts such as cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias’ (The Guardian)

    Many people, including you, have often used terms like ‘cognitive dissonance’. These terms do not arrive out of nowhere, they are created by people who conduct studies and then seep into our vernacular. I would suggest that many of our opinions are heavily influenced by studies without us being fully aware of it.

    Food for thought.

    Like

    1. Adam T

      I don’t think you need to read the Guardian to realise that people don’t like admitting they are wrong…but its kind of ironic considering that the Guardian is almost always wrong about everything.

      The existence of terms like cognitive dissonance is not in any way evidence that studies are valuable and i don’t understand how that can even be argued. Some people made up terms that other people then used and this provides value how exactly?

      Like

      1. Dan Flynn

        The results of certain studies give rise to particular terms that help us describe and understand human behavior i.e. cognitive dissonance. If someone, like Adam, then uses these specific terms to help him understand people’s behaviors, he is in fact validating (indirectly perhaps) the original study.
        I cannot enjoy eating apples and then say that apple trees have no value.

        Like

  3. Pingback: Linkage: 28 November, 2017 #TheTriggering » Cynical Libertarian Society

  4. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 11.29.17 : The Other McCain

  5. Andy in FL

    It’s a good thing lefties never conduct studies with predetermined outcomes to fit their agenda.

    Like how all their research conveniently fits the tautology that is Darwinian Evolution.

    if you take away DE, you take away their religion and their raison d’etre. So, they stick to their monkey theory like religious fanatics and label those who have actually conducted non-predetermined scientific research that has utterly disproved DE as religious fanatics.

    One can read Stephen Meyer’s books Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt for more information (as well as numerous other books by other authors, like Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box.)

    A couple of years ago I interviewed a recent biology college grad and she had not once heard mention any theories that contradicted DE.

    Like

  6. Finrod

    Study Warns That Science as We Know It Is Evolving Into Something Shoddy And Unreliable:

    http://www.sciencealert.com/study-warns-that-science-as-we-know-it-is-evolving-into-something-shoddy-and-unreliable

    In the model, devised by researchers at the University of California, Merced, all the simulated lab groups they put in these scenarios were honest – they didn’t intentionally cheat or fudge results.

    But they received greater rewards if they published ‘novel’ findings – as happens in the real world. They also had to expend greater effort to be rigorous in their methods – which would improve the quality of their research, but lower their academic output.

    “The result: Over time, effort decreased to its minimum value, and the rate of false discoveries skyrocketed,” lead researcher Paul Smaldino explains in The Conversation.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s