You start to realize that PhD is useless when...

Researchers at the University of Leuven recently concluded the "Royalty Society B' study (pretentiousmuch?); the outcome came at great expense and involved 176 test subjects, relentless game-playing, and world-renowned academic and empirical expertise. The result? Before I tell you, keep in mind that the study has not yet been peer reviewed and we can't be sure that the conclusions are reliable, but here it is...

Men are distracted by beautiful women.

Men about to play a financial game were shown images of sexy women or lingerie.

The Proceedings of the Royal Society B study found they were more likely to accept unfair offers than men not been exposed to the alluring images.

The suggestion is that the sexual cues distract the men's thoughts, preventing them from focusing on their task - particularly among those with high natural testosterone levels

Was anyone confused about this? Is this really press-worthy modern science? I would posit that the grant was made and the stories were written for the simple reason that it gives everyone an excuse to talk about sex without feeling perverted or inappropriate. What is the obsession?

And it is an obsession, why else would any respectable university sanction what appears to be a scientific process modeled on methods of a 3d grade science class? We've seen that the more testosterone a guy has the more dramatic the distractive effect of a woman is. So how did they measure the subjects' levels of testosterone? Did they use a blood test? A pee-in-a-cup test? No, they used the technologically advanced and supremely accurate method of measuring the guys' index and ring fingers to see which was longer. A longer ring finger means testosterone at the 'high' level.

All you guys are checking out your hands right now, aren't you.

Does the same go for women?

The researchers are conducting similar tests with women. But so far, they have failed to find a visual stimulus which will affect their behaviour."

Curious. I wonder if it's possible that women have less testosterone then men. Also curious is that the study rather needlessly restricted the scope of their potential findings by excluding gay men from the subject pool.

Any concluding words?

"If a man is being asked to choose between something being presented by an attractive woman and an ugly man, they might not be as dispassionate as they could be."

This was the very last statement in the article. While true, it doesn't really have anything to do with the study. The findings suggests only that the man would have an easier time understanding the ugly man's presentation than the presentation by the woman. The reason he chooses the attractive woman's idea has nothing to do with how well he understands the presentations.

I'm guessing, I mean I'm not a doctor or anything and could be totally full of crap. But I have a feeling not.