The 6 Biggest Dick Moves in the History of Science
Science can be an ugly business. Progress requires smart people to do nasty things, like cutting up bodies or electrocuting animals. It's just part of the price we pay for advancement.
But sometimes, scientists come up with experiments that seem to serve no other purpose than to fuck with unsuspecting test subjects for their own amusement.

Say you find yourself in a public restroom and notice a man standing at the mirror taking an obsessive interest in combing his hair. At the same time, an overexcited guy tries snuggling up to you in the adjacent urinal, getting as close as possible to share in your moment of dick-wielding intimacy. On top of all that, you get the eerie feeling that someone is secretly staring at your gigglestick through a periscope.
Sound like paranoia (or a David Lynch film)? Wrong. You've been caught in a urination shyness sting. Yes, that's a real thing, done by actual scientists.

Though, clearly, it could be worse.
That guy at the mirror groping his coif is actually intently listening to your pee and trying to determine how fast it's being jettisoned from your chubmarine. The eager beaver next to you is fucking with you on purpose, diligently working to increase your level of discomfort. And yes, there is someone inside the wall, monitoring your urine stream through the world's filthiest viewmaster. All in the name of science, of course.
Here's the paper the three researchers published on their experiment-slash-Porky's reenactment. They wanted to know how an invasion of personal space would affect the speed and flow of someone's urine stream. Really, do we need to list all of the thousands of reasons that information could be important in an emergency?

Their mind-blowing discovery? It takes a guy longer to pee when he's creeped the fuck out. Perhaps even more mind-blowing is the fact that the experiment was likely made possible by grant dollars, which means somebody read this proposal and decided to invest in it, presumably before going on to invent several Japanese game shows.

Back in the 60s, 10 soldiers boarded a military aircraft for what they were told was a routine training mission. After reaching an altitude of 5,000 feet, the plane suddenly lurched and began to plummet back down to Earth.
The pilot took the intercom and informed the soldiers that the aircraft was experiencing catastrophic engine failure, and that everyone aboard should probably start kissing their asses goodbye while they still had lips. But before they could bend over, a steward passed out insurance paperwork and explained that the forms had to be completed in order for anybody's family to be paid a death benefit.

So there they were, rocketing towards a jagged metal resting place by way of fiery explosion, trying to find a flat surface to write on. Then, just as impact seemed imminent, the pilot said, "LOLZ, just kidding about that emergency, folks" and righted the plane. Once safely back on the ground, we like to think the soldiers showed their appreciation for this fine joke by repeatedly sodomizing the pilot with their rifles.
What was the point? To see how extreme stress affected a person's "cognitive ability," measured in this case as the ability to do paperwork.

Also, we might as well test out the new puke bags.
In a revelation that surprised no one ever in the history of anything, researchers determined that errors in cognitive reasoning occur more often if a person is being exposed to unusually high levels of stress. So under no circumstances should you whip out a job application in the middle of a car accident or attempt to file a tax return while being stabbed to death.
It's worth noting that the researchers were unable to repeat the experiment because the soldiers involved had written warnings to future subjects on the plane's airsick bags. The only option at that point would have been to collect all the bags and then crash the plane for real. Which they probably would have done, if they could figure out how to make sure the paperwork survived.

John Watson established the entire psychological field of behaviorism by gallantly conducting experiments on babies. Evidently, getting an baby to work on back in the 20s was easy: You just grabbed one that belonged to one of the hospital's employees... an employee who, it should be noted, was not involved in the experiment. Apart from their relationship to the subject/lab rat, of course.
For this particular experiment, Watson took a baby named Albert and exposed him to rats, monkey masks and burning newspaper. Then he stopped fucking around and began the actual experiment.

Little Albert would be introduced to a series of fluffy white objects, such as a white rat, a white rabbit and a swatch of white fur. Initially, Albert possessed no fear of these things. During subsequent exposures to the same objects, Watson would hammer a steel bar, creating a terrifying racket. In time, whenever Albert saw anything white and fluffy he cried with fear. This is science.
Watson's goal was, of course, to see if it was possible to condition fear in an infant. You know, because prior to this infants were regarded as cold, unfeeling machines, incapable of emotion.
Working tirelessly alongside his assistants, he scared a child for 31 days before returning it to the hospital drenched in terrified excrement (evidently it was just a rental). Unfortunately, Watson spent the entire experiment scaring the shit out of Albert with the hammer of Thor and never got around to actually correcting any of the tremendous psychological damage he was causing, thereby dooming Albert to grow up as a man who pissed his pants at the sight of a cotton ball.

"Who doesn't have a chance at a normal life, is it you? Yes it is! Yes it is!"
As if this wasn't enough, it turns out Watson had wanted to do more. He lamented that he didn't have the time to condition both fear and arousal in Albert by stimulating the child's erogenous zones during the experiments, because back then getting an infant to shit all over his own boner was considered the pinnacle of behavioral research.








Holy f**k, #4 sounds like Brave New World.
ReplyOr Clockwork Orange... Scary either way.
Hi
ReplyI would like to submit a few candidates that weren't on this list, seriously, look these up, they're totally fucked up.
ReplyTHe Milgram Obedience Experiment.
The Zimbardo Prison Study.
Both easily messed up enough to have made it on this list.
While Milgram is considered a benchmark in ethics (particularly in psychology), the study wasn't actually that bad; no physical harm, subjects weren't expected to suffer psychological harm (they did, naturally), they were all given therepy and a followup study found that most of them were fine (and glad that they took part).
The Zimbardo prison study doesn't count either, since the results (the source of most of the bad parts) came out of left field (giving people power over others can make them jerks; who knew?).
Most of the Milgram studies, from the outside, look like completely screwed up attempts at science, but you need to remember that the negative implications weren't from the scientists in the study, they were from the participants. For example, in that one particular study where the participant was to give electric shocks for wrong answers, there was no "other party". It was set up where the learner was a recorded message and no one was actually receiving shocks, yet people got up in arms because they "tricked people". Tricked people into what exactly? NONE of the participants were forced to deliver the shocks, even in some of the deviations where there was that illusion. The participants were 100% in control of the situation, it just didn't seem that way.
It's not proper to yell at the Milgram studies because all they did was reveal negative aspects of the human mind. If we can't critically look at our flaws and say "Wow, that's screwed up", we're never going to change. You're not yelling at the Milgram studies, you're yelling at human nature.
Little Albert probably didn't have a crippling fear of rabits because he would have eventually learned not to associate fluffy things with loud noise. It's called extinction, when the first stimulus (rabits) is not associated with the second (loud noises). After not hearing the wrath of god every time a rabit shows up, he re-learns they aren't really hate fueled terror machines
Reply"So under no circumstances should you whip out a job application in the middle of a car accident or attempt to file a tax return while being stabbed to death."
ReplyAnd under no circumstance should you do both at the same time.
The difference between scientists and real people is that scientists will, given cause, stop and think "Why does this happen? Does it happen every time?" and then, the scientist will experiment to find out. And morality is only tangentially related to the art of science.
ReplyAfter the research on baby Albert: Studies in Australia, find out more!
ReplyEmm... no thanks
In colonial era India, a lot of babies were born in the bathrooms on trains, ans quite a few of them fel through the hole in the toilet and out of the train, however most survived.
ReplyOne scientist therefore decided to experiment, by throwing orphans out of trains ans seeing if they survived. With the exception of those ones that got splatted aginst a bridge or something, most lived, and this was attributed to the bones of the skull not setting yet and making the babies less suseptible to injury.
That's just awful.
We cannot cure the gays from their flashy and stylish lifestyle! It'll decrease the number of available women for me!
ReplyAh, but keep the lesbians in mind.
Yes, but statistically a woman is more likelly to identify as bi than lesbian, where as a man is more likelly to identify as gay, so in other words, there are more women out there willing to sleep with men than there are men who are willing to sleep with women.
I feel so bad for albert, he got all the fear put into him and none of the arousal :(
ReplyI'm surprised that "revoking Pluto's status as a planet" isn't in here.
ReplyMostly because no one sane is giving a f**k already.
#2 is horrible D:
ReplyUnit 731 in WWII. Look it up on Wikipedia.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesEven cracked can't make that thing funny...
._.' damn japan WTF!
they could fill this list over and over, together with the nazis
That's a wee bit less of a 'Dick move' and more of a 'cold hearted experimentation and genocide'... I guess it depends on what you're opinions are on the subject...
(re.: Little Albert)i do not supose author you ever heard annything about Harry Kim...
ReplyJohn Watson was about to begin the process of removing the fear of white fluffy things from Albert when a family member of his came to the orphanage that Watson found him in.
ReplyBut yeah, he's pretty much a stain in the psychiatric community.
I studied this in uni, that baby died 5 years later of hydrocephalus.
Electroshock therapy isn't traumatic, and in most cases actually is beneficial. So minus ten points for inaccuracy on that count, but the rest of the article was a good read.
Reply Hide All See All 6 Repliespretty sure electroshock therapy in the 50s, without the patients knowledge or consent, in not beneficial
Are you serious? Saying "I don't want this" won't magically change how electricity affects your brain. Ignore Cuckoo's Nest and all those other movies. They lie worse than Hitler when he said "Ok Britain, I'm done expanding. Oh, hey Poland, can I come over for a visit? LOL."
Apparently you skipped the "losing memory" part. Sound not much "beneficial" to me.
No he's really right. We give electroshock treatments at the veterans hospital that I work at. It helps patients with depression and is used in hospitals worldwide. We've moved on past the evil use of the therapy...
It's beneficial for severe treatment-resistant depression, for which it can be a Godsend. (It works. Nothing else does for some people. Depression is hell. Even mild depression is no fun, and severe depression is like a torturer getting medieval on your emotions. Or so a (former, now dead) friend of a friend told my friend before she killed herself. They tried to stop her but she kept trying. She was too afraid of electroshock to try it, which is really a shame because it could not possibly have screwed her brain up more than the gun she used on her head and quite probably would have helped a lot.)
OTOH I've never heard it's useful for schizophrenia -- sounds very dubious -- and because it does cause memory problems should be done only with the person's consent and for things it actually works for.
(But it shouldn't be demonized either. People with severe depression are unable to remember pleasurable things or their past in a positive light and can't imagine things feeling better in the future, and of course their present sucks; which is why they are at risk of doing things like removing all their memories with a bullet. And if they don't they spend a lot of time wishing they could or someone else would. So not much lost if they do lose memories since they're all negative memories; it's often temporary; and it's always partial. Nobody ever got amnesia from electroshock, or forgot who their wife was, or anything that took some huge essential part of them. Unlike severe depression, which really renders people not themselves and not in any good way.)
Some electroshock is good. The way these experiments did it was bad. Quit making everything black and white.
Probably should've included that the Little Albert kid died like 2 years later, so he never did actually grow up to be a man who pissed his pants at the sight of a cotton ball.
ReplyDon't forget "Putting a test subject through a bunch of test chambers and then eventually trying to kill her with Neurotoxin" for science. You monster.
Reply Hide All See All 3 Replies+1 For portal reference.
And an orphan, no less.
And there wasn't even any cake...
In the case of "Little Albert" it wasn't the experimenter's fault that he couldn't correct the behaviour. In fact Albert's mother withdrew him from the experiment, making it her fault that her son would have grown up fucked up, if he had grown up at all that is.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesAre you actually blaming a parent for withdrewing a child from that kind of experiment? I would have done the same, plus shotguns.
It's understandable that the mother took her baby out of the experiment, but it did more harm than good. They didn't have the chance to reverse his fear (it's not that hard). So yes it's her fault.
Well it's not really her fault she didn't trust the guy when he said, "Wait, you must let me continue working on him because I've inflicted horrible psychological damage on him on purpose really thoroughly and that has to be fixed because, you know, I really fucked him up but good."
I would probably have withdrawn my baby and then given the guy a permanent fear of women with sharp objects because of a learned association with abrupt testicular loss.
Then found a different psychologist to try to fix the baby. But leaving him with Herr Mengele would not have been the clear right thing to do.
Pavlov experimented on children to explore learning behaviours as well, what he started with the dogs he finished with a bunch of russian orphans/ kids who were sold to him by their parents. The films he made will give you nightmares.
ReplyAlso it should be noted that patient B-19 became a sex addict after his 'treatment'. Despite being 'trained' with only heterosexual porn he still preferred men, but he'd have sex with women if he could get it.
pavlovs videos are nothing compared to galvin's
What is Galvin's full name? I can't find him.