Does the internet change adolescents into aggressive assholes? Or do socially incompetent teens naturally gravitate towards spending time on the internet?
In a research paper published by the Journal of Adolescent Health, researchers at Kaohsiung Medical University in Taiwan said that they had found evidence that teenagers addicted to the Internet exhibited more aggressive behaviour than their non-addicted counterparts.
In a study polling 9,405 Taiwanese teenagers about their Internet activities and behaviour, the researchers found that those with signs of “internet addiction” were more likely to say they had hit, shoved or threatened someone in the past year.
This link remained, even when the investigators accounted for other factors — including the teenagers’ scores on measures of self-esteem and depression, as well as their exposure to TV violence.
Based on their responses, twenty-five percent of male respondents and thirteen percent of females were diagnosed as being addicted to the Internet – which according to the research team was described as being a preoccupation with online activities, “withdrawal” symptoms like irritability or moodiness if unable to access the internet for a while and skipping real life activities in order to devote more time to online ones.
Among those people considered to fit the “addicted to the Internet” profile, thirty-seven percent had reported aggressive behaviour the previous year. Although, the type of Internet activity also appeared to be a factor.
Online chatting, gambling, gaming, and spending time at online forums or pornography sites were all linked to aggressive behaviour. In contrast, teens that devoted their time to online research and studying were less likely than their peers to be violence-prone.
According to the researchers, certain online activities may encourage adolescents to “release their anger” or otherwise be aggressive in ways they normally would not try in the real world. Although, whether this eventually pushes them to be more aggressive in real life is not yet clear, the researchers said.
So, the findings do not prove conclusively that Internet addiction breeds violent behaviour in teens. Since, “it is possible that violence-prone teenagers are more likely to obsessively use the Internet”, explained lead researcher Dr. Chih-Hung Ko.
However, Dr. Ko recommends that parents and teachers talk to children about their Internet use and their general attitudes toward violence, and then intervene as early as possible to prevent teenagers from becoming addicted to the Internet.
We’ve all heard about how photos of gorgeous models are often retouched to make them look even more beautiful, correcting any stray hairs or skin blemishes, before they appear in magazines etc.
In this amusing video, a somewhat overenthusiastic artist demonstrates their retouching skills with a picture of a plain looking fat girl, turning her into a more attractive skinny girl, using just the Power of Adobe Photoshop.
Men and women sin in very different ways, according to an article published in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.
In an article headlined: “The Unsuspecting Resources of Weakness”, Monsignor Wojciech Giertych, personal theologian to Pope Benedict XVI and the Papal household, says there is “no sexual equality when it comes to sin“.
Addressing the century-old question of why people sin, Monsignor Giertych offers the simple and straightforward answer that women are prouder than men, but men are more lustful.
Details of the methodology are sketchy, and little information is given as to how the conclusion was reached, but it seems that this view was formed by his own experience of the Confessional, and was supported by an analysis of confessional data carried out by 95-year-old Father Roberto Busa, a Jesuit scholar who has also carried out a computerised study of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Monsignor Giertych said:
When one looks at vices not from the view of their opposition to grace but at the difficulty they create, it is clear that men experience them differently from women.
Traditionally, the seven deadly sins are considered: Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Greed and Sloth (although they are not actually listed anywhere in the Bible) – As opposed to Chastity, Temperance, Charity, Diligence, Patience, Kindness and Humility – However, in the Middle Ages, Pope Gregory I drew them into the Catholic Church’s teachings, and they were also widely spread by Dante Alighieri in his Divine Comedy.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into Hell“. So, Catholics are supposed to confess their sins to a priest at least once a year, whereupon the priest absolves them in God’s name.
The full list of sins, as ranked by the study, is as follows:
Feminists would certainly claim it was obvious that men perceive sexy women in bathing suits as objects, but now there’s some science to back this theory up.
New research shows that, in men, the brain areas associated with handling tools and the intention to perform actions light up when viewing images of women in bikinis, suggesting that sexy images can shift the way men perceive women, turning them from people to interact with, to objects to act upon.
The research was presented this week by Susan Fiske, Professor of Psychology at Princeton University, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Professor Fiske said:
This is just the first study which was focused on the idea that men of a certain age view sex as a highly desirable goal, and if you present them with a provocative woman, then that will tend to prime goal-related responses.
The study focused on a region of the brain just above the eyes, called the medial pre-frontal cortex, which, when activated seems to damp male tendencies to express hostile sexist thoughts about women.
Professor Fiske continued:
Men who express the strongest sexist tendencies tend to have a less active medial cortex. It becomes deactivated in men who are the most hostile to women, but only for women in bikinis.
So basically they are particularly likely to treat these women as objects, at least that is the interpretation of the data we have so far. It is a preliminary study but it is consistent with the idea that they are responding to these photographs as if they were responding to objects rather than people.
It was shocking to find that the pictures of scantily clad women deactivate the medial pre-frontal cortex. The only other time we’ve observed the deactivation of this region is when people look at pictures of homeless people and drug addicts who they really don’t want to think about what’s in their minds because they are put off by them.
The participants, twenty-one heterosexual male undergraduates at Princeton University, first took questionnaires to determine whether they harbour “benevolent” sexism, which would include the belief that a woman’s place is in the home, or “hostile” sexism, a more adversarial viewpoint which includes the belief that women attempt to dominate men.
The volunteers were then placed in a fMRI brain scanner whilst viewing a set of images of women in bikinis, women in clothes and men in various types of clothes. The scientists also used “sexualised” images, where the head of each semi-naked photograph was digitally removed, so that only the torso was visible. The men were given memory tests afterwards, concerning what they had remembered about each image, with and without the heads.
The results showed that men had the best memory for the sexualised bodies of women (the ones with the heads digitally removed) even though they had only seen the bodies for 200 milliseconds. In the men who scored highest on “hostile” sexism, the part of the brain associated with analyzing another person’s thoughts, feelings and intentions shut down while viewing the scantily clad women.
A supplementary study of both male and female undergraduates found that men tend to associate bikini-clad women with first-person action verbs such as I “push,” “handle” and “grab” instead of the third-person forms, such as she “pushes,” “handles” and “grabs.” On the other hand, men associated fully clothed women with third-person forms, indicating that these women were perceived as being in control of their own actions. The females who took the test did not show this effect.
Professor Fiske said:
The broader purpose of the research was to explore circumstances under which people treat one another as the means to an end.
Taken together, the research suggests that viewing certain images is not appropriate in the workplace; when there are sexualised images in the workplace, it’s hard for people not to think about their female colleagues in those terms. It spills over from the images to the workplace.
I’m not advocating censorship, but people need to be aware of the associations people will have in their minds.
Women may also depersonalize men in certain situations, but published research on the subject has not been carried out, experts say. But, Evolutionary Psychology would theorize that men view women as objects in terms of their youth and apparent fertility, while women might view men as instrumental in terms of their status and resources, Fiske noted.
Women have traditionally been viewed as being more social and cooperative than men. However, recent evidence shows that this may not in fact be the case.
Psychologist Joyce F. Benenson from Emmanuel College and colleagues from Harvard University and the Universite du Quebec a Montreal wanted to compare male and female levels of tolerance towards same-sex peers.
Other studies have shown that men maintain larger social networks with other males, when compared to women, and tend to have longer lasting friendships with members of the same-sex than do women. So, for this study, the Psychologists recruited male and female college student volunteers, and asked them to complete surveys about their relationship with their roommates.
The findings, reported in the journal Psychological Science, revealed that males are more tolerant than females of unrelated same-sex individuals. Further, the males in the study rated their roommates as being more satisfactory and less bothersome than females did. In addition, the researchers found at three different collegiate institutions that females were more likely to switch to a new roommate than males were.
Then, in a further experiment, the participants read a story in which a the main character’s best friend was described as being completely reliable until one day when they promised to hand in a paper and didn’t. After reading the story, the participants were asked to judge the best friend’s reliability – The results of this experiment (which only related one negative behaviour of a formerly reliable hypothetical friend,) showed that women downgraded the best friend’s reliability significantly more than men did.
The researchers caution that their definition of tolerance may be limited and more work needs to be done to uncover the fundamental processes suggested by their findings; but they surmise that gender differences in tolerance may be based on the different functions and expectations that same-sex friendships serve for males and females.
Dr Benenson said:
At the most primitive level, females may have lower thresholds than males for sensing negative visual, auditory, or olfactory information in unrelated same-sex individuals.
She went on to explain that the effort that we put into relationships with unrelated same-sex individuals may also depend on our short and long term needs during that specific time in our lives.
Females may simply weight negative information more heavily than males do, because negative information disrupts the establishment of intimacy, which serves a more important function in same-sex relationships for females than for males.
Browsing the internet, you could easily get the impression that talking to girls was somehow equivalent to Brain surgery or Rocket science.
But now, it seems that Alec Greven, a 9-year-old kid from Castle Rock, Colorado, has managed to cut through the accumulated crap of wacky theories and spaced-out Love gurus, by releasing his own book of home-spun wisdom entitled “How to Talk to Girls“.
Alec Claims that he got the idea for his book after he “saw a lot of boys that had trouble talking to girls”.
Now, you might laugh, but the book does in fact contain some excellent advice. In fact, the advice is so good that young Alec has been doing the celebrity circuit; appearing on “The Early Show” and being interviewed by Ellen Degeneres and Meredith Viera. Even 20th Century Fox were impressed, and have since optioned the film rights to this future best seller.
So, for anyone that thinks they have trouble talking to girls, here’s what Alec recommends:
Many boys get crushes on girls. But it can be very hard to get a girl to like you. Sometimes it takes years!
Whatever happens, just don’t act desperate. Girls don’t like desperate boys.
Many boys who have crushes don’t know how to act around a girl. Some boys tease girls they like and are mean to them. Some boys say silly things to girls and act goofy. Some boys think they are acting cool by showing off.
This is not a good approach.
Make sure you have good friends who won’t try to take the girl you like.
Finally, you have to be able to get over a crush if it doesn’t work out. A crush is like a love disease. It can drive you mad.
Try not to let it get you down.
The right thing to do when you have a crush is:
Never show off too much
Don’t be silly and goofy
Control your hyperness (cut down on sugar if you need to)
Other hints and tips include:
Comb your hair and don’t wear sweats
Don’t be the class clown
Go easy on the compliments to avoid looking desperate
… and be wary of “pretty girls.”
But, what’s the best way to approach a girl?
Alec recommends:
Keep it to a simple “Hi”.
If I say “Hi” and you say “Hi” back, we’re probably off to a good start.
So, with the basics out of the way, and obviously leaving the door open for a further best seller in a couple of years time, Alec comments that Dating (which he defines as going out to dinner without your parents).
[...] is for “kind of old” people, who are 15 or 16.
I was interested to discover recently that Playboy magazine has been keeping brief records concerning the girls that appeared as centrefolds in the publication every month, since about 1959.
Unfortunately, these records are all fairly brief, don’t seem to stick with a consistent format and often have pieces of information missing. However, I can’t think of any other similar source of information that goes beyond simple anthropometric data.
Thus, examining the Playboy information, it seems that some of the most frequently asked questions are concerned with the girl’s turn-ons, turnoffs and ambitions.
Therefore, anyone interested in seducing model types might find these short compiled lists a useful starting point to meeting the girl of their desires.
Top ten turn-ons.
Music
Animals
Food
Clothes
The beach
Dancing
Speed
Rain or Thunderstorms
Flowers
Sense of humour
Bonus: other turn-ons that were mentioned at least twice: baby oil, blue eyes, bubble baths, candlelit dinners, chocolate, considerate people, conversation, cuddling, cute butts, diamonds, good friends, hairy chests, Harleys, honesty, horseback riding, hot tubs, intelligence, jazz, kissing, lingerie, love, manners, massages, men, money, mountains, nature, nudity, poetry, shopping, sincerity, sleeping late, stargazing, strawberries, summer, sunsets, the ocean, travel, walks on the beach, wine, working out.
Top ten turnoffs.
Egotistical / Arrogant people
Liars
Jealousy
Rude or pushy people
Getting up early
Smokers
Pollution
Traffic
Hairy backs
Judgemental people
Bonus: Other turnoffs that were mentioned at least twice: bad breath, Beatniks, “being asked what my turn offs are”, being rushed, bigotry, bills, cats, closed-minded people, cold weather, crowds, cruelty, dirty bathrooms, dirty fingernails, drugs, drunks, housework, hypocrites, ignorance, insecurity, insensitive people, laziness, liver, loud people, miserliness, “men who offer to ‘make me a star’”, “men who think they can buy love”, “men with long hair”, pessimists, poor dressers, procrastination, rock and roll, sloppiness, slow drivers, spiders, tardiness, violence, vulgarity, waiting, war, white socks, winter clothes.
Top ten ambitions.
Acting
Modelling
Happiness
Starting a family
Travel
Career success
Marriage / Relationship
Further education
Health
Wealth
Bonus: Other ambitions that were mentioned at least twice: becoming a flight attendant, becoming a hair stylist, becoming an Artist, dancing, fashion design, “learning something new every day”, “living life to the fullest”, owning a home, owning an expensive car, singing, teaching, winning an Oscar, working with children, writing.
Forget sugar and spice and all things nice, women smell of Onions and men smell of Cheese – or at least their armpits do – according to Scientists at Firmenich, a company in Switzerland that researches flavours and smells for the food and perfume industry.
The researchers took armpit sweat samples from 24 men and 25 women after they had spent time in a sauna or ridden an exercise bike for 15 minutes.
Then, after the samples had been analysed, the team found that those from women contained ten times as much of an odourless sulphur-containing compound, which when mixed with bacteria commonly found in the armpit, was transformed into a thiol – a previously discovered odour from armpits that is similar to onion.
The sweat of men was different, since it had relatively high levels of an odourless fatty acid which turned into a cheesy odour when exposed to the same types of bacteria.
Christian Starkenmann, whose team’s results appear in Chemical Senses said:
Men smell of cheese, and women of grapefruit or onion.
Bacterial enzymes turn the otherwise odourless precursor into the malodour. Then, the balance of “oniony” to “cheesy” precursors in women’s sweat made it smell worse than men’s as rated by independent smell assessors.
The team now believe that their research could lead to the development of new ingredients for deodorants that are aimed specifically at men or women.
Starkenmann said:
We could make inhibitors that neutralise the precursors, or block the bacterial enzymes that do the conversion.
But, some scientists are sceptical that gender is the deciding factor, and point out that outside of Switzerland people have different diets and genetic backgrounds.
Professor Tim Jacob, who researches the science of smell at Cardiff University, told New Scientist magazine:
Other factors include what you eat, what you wash with, what you wear and what genes you inherit.
Body language is a very tricky subject, because although the guidebooks might state that a certain action means that a women is sexually interested in a man, or a Salesman’s customers are getting bored – even when they’re wrong, the ‘experts’ will still claim that they’re right.
The get out clause for these supposed ‘experts’ is to claim that the woman was interested, but not interested enough to go on a ‘date’ with the man or that the urgent needs of the customers out-weighted the boring sales pitch. Further, the ‘experts’ might even claim that the situation altered the outcome – perhaps because the woman wasn’t in a Bar or somewhere where she might expect to be propositioned, so she didn’t care to take the man’s offer seriously. Or, maybe the Salesman’s customers were uninteresting people themselves, so the dull sales pitch resonated with them, instead of putting them off.
Basically, every time Body language fails, its practitioners will have a dozen or more excuses as to why any given scenario was an exception. Thus, a more clear-cut test is needed, and it occurs to me that in cases of people lying under pressure, we have just that. Because:
The subjects are either telling the truth or they’re lying, there is no ambiguity, such as confusing love with like, or even different degrees of liking.
Since the subject is under pressure, they are very likely to care about being caught out, and thus the excuse of “not taking the situation seriously” can’t be used.
Now, this situation might initially seem impossible, but as it happens, these situations do arise occasionally; such as when Criminals pretend to be the victims of crime, and then make televised appeals for help to solve the case. In those instances, the people are definitely lying, because either they later admit that they lied, or are found to guilty by a Court after the Police found new evidence and charged them. Further, since these appeals are televised to the public, the ‘experts’ will be fully aware that they have a golden opportunity to prove their expertise, especially since they can record the appeal and watch the subject forward, backwards, in slow-motion, or as many times as they care to, before making any final decision.
Then, if the oft quoted 7-38-55 rule is applied, 93% of what these criminals are communicating will be giving them away. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, and even after thoroughly searching the Internet, there seems to be no evidence of Body language ‘experts’ going on record and stating that a Person involved in a TV appeal was or wasn’t being truthful.
So, here are some examples of cases where Body language ‘experts’ had the chance to show sceptics how well their ideas work, but skipped the chance, and instead just continued selling their untested ideas to the public, as articles of faith.
The Crime: In 2008, 9-year-old Shannon Matthews disappeared after a School trip.
The Lies: Karen Matthews reported her daughter Shannon missing to the police, and went on to make a number of emotional public appeals for her Daughters return, begging for anyone holding Shannon to let her go.
The Truth: Shannon was found alive, hidden in the base of a bed, at a house belonging to Michael Donovan (Karen’s Boyfriend’s Uncle) – The family were supposedly planning to claim the £50,000 that Newspapers had put up as a reward for Shannon’s return.
The Verdict: Michael Donovan was charged with Kidnapping and False imprisonment, while Karen Matthews was charged with Child neglect and Perverting the course of justice. They were both jailed for eight years. Julian Goose QC said Karen Matthews “lied and lied and lied again”. Detective Superintendent Andy Brennan branded Karen Matthews “Pure evil”.
The Crime: In 2006, Nisha Patel-Nasri was stabbed with her own 13-inch kitchen knife, and bled to death outside her home.
The Lies: Her husband, Fadi Nasri, made a televised appeal for information in the days after his wife’s death, crying crocodile tears, and begging anyone with information to contact the Police.
The Truth: Fadi Nasri wanted to claim his wife’s £350,000 life insurance policy, in order to pay off his debts and continue an affair he was having. So, he arranged for his wife to be at home while he was away, and hired a Drug dealer to organise the killing.
The Verdict: Fadi Nasri, was eventually arrested, and shortly afterwards found guilty of organising his wife’s murder. He was jailed for life.
The Crime: In 2006, A Dog walker found the decomposed remains of Kirsi Gifford-Hull buried in a shallow grave, in woods.
The Lies: Just a few days earlier, her husband Mike Gifford-Hull, had told his children that he’d had a massive argument with his wife and that she had left with her Passport and a substantial sum of money. He then contacted Police claiming that his wife had left him – and later made a TV appeal pleading for his wife to get in touch because their children had made a banner for her birthday.
The Truth: Mike Gifford-Hull had strangled his wife during a row over the state of their marriage and his having had sex with Prostitutes. He then concealed her body.
The Verdict: Mike Gifford-Hull was found guilty of murder and jailed for 17 years. Superintendent David Kilbride said: “Michael Gifford-Hull told lie after lie to the police, to her family in Finland and their two children. He deliberately and carefully laid a false trail involving the apparent disappearance of clothes, money and her Passport.”
The Crime: On Valentine’s Day, in 2005, Joanna Nelson vanished. Police launched a massive search but Miss Nelson’s body was not found until over a month later.
The Lies: Shortly after her disappearance, her Boyfriend Paul Dyson, appeared on television acting very concerned.
The Truth: Under interrogation by Detectives, Dyson eventually cracked and admitted he was responsible for his Girlfriend’s death, saying that he had strangled her after a row about housework.
The Verdict: Paul Dyson was sentenced to life in prison, and Judge Tom Cracknell, highlighted his appearance on the TV appeal for information, saying “You went on TV and displayed breathtaking and nauseating hypocrisy.”
The Crime: In 2002, two 10-year old girls, Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman disappeared. They were later found dead in a ditch, and their bodies had been burned.
The Lies: Ian Huntley pretended to help search for the girls, and offered words of sympathy one of their Fathers. He was also broadcast telling reporters: “While there’s no news, there’s a glimmer of hope. I think that’s all we’re clinging onto. It’s just very upsetting to think I might be the last friendly face that these two girls had to speak to before something happened to them.”
The Truth: Huntley later admitted that the girls had died in his house, but claimed that he had accidentally knocked Holly into the bath while helping her control a nosebleed, and then accidentally suffocated Jessica when she started to scream. The police suspect that Huntley killed the girls in a fit of jealous rage, and suggest there may also have been a sexual motive.
The Verdict: Ian Huntley was found guilty of Murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, but the High Court ruled that this crime was so serious that Huntley must remain in prison until he has served at least 40 years. His Girlfriend Maxine Carr, who provided a false alibi, was convicted of perverting the course of justice.
The Crime: Sharon Malone vanished in 1999, and was later found bludgeoned to death in nearby Woodland.
The Lies: Her husband, Garry Malone, had participated in a televised police press conference to appeal for her return, pleading “We missed you over Christmas… The boys missed you and asked after Mummy. Please put our minds at rest… Come home”. He later invented a story about his wife having been killed by a gang, because of an unpaid debt.
The Truth: Mr Malone fleeing the country confirmed the suspicions of Detectives, who had since discovered that his marriage was on the rocks, and Malone facing being financially crippled by a divorce.
The Verdict: Garry Malone was convicted of his wife’s murder, after being extradited from Spain, where he had adopted a new identity. Judge Stephen Kramer sentenced Malone to a minimum of 18 years, and said he was “manipulative, calculating and deceitful”.
The Crime: In 1997, 9-year-old Schoolgirl Zoe Evans went missing from her home. Zoe’s naked body was found six weeks later, in a badger sett.
The Lies: Her Mother, Paula Hamilton, and Stepfather Miles Evans appeared at a press conference, begging for her to come home.
The Truth: It transpired that Zoe had been taken her from her bed and sexually assaulted by her Stepfather – A post-mortem examination showed she died from asphyxiation.
The Verdict: Evans was arrested and eventually convicted of Zoe Evans’ murder.
The Crime: One night in 1996, Lee Harvey was stabbed to death on an isolated road.
The Lies: His Fiancée, Tracie Andrews, told Police that he had been attacked by a motorist after a “road rage” incident. The former Model later appeared at a Police press conference looking distraught and begging for help in catching the killer, claiming a “fat man with staring eyes” had attacked her boyfriend, stabbing him more than thirty times.
The Truth: Detectives became sceptical of the story after it emerged that the couple had a stormy and often violent relationship.
The Verdict: Tracie Andrews was charged with murder, and at her trial a jury was told she had stabbed him to death after a row. She was sentenced to life in Prison.
The Crime: In 1994, Susan Smith told police in South Carolina, USA that she had been Carjacked by a black man who had driven off with her two young sons still in the vehicle.
The Lies: Smith appeared on television appealing for the man to return the children.
The Truth: Nine days later, Smith confessed to Police that she had driven the car into a lake, with her children still inside. It then emerged that she had been having an affair with a man, and had killed her two boys because he had said that he didn’t want any children.
The Verdict: She was convicted of murder, and given a life sentence.
The Crime: In 1994, Carol Wardell, the Manager of a Building Society was murdered and about £15,000 was stolen from the branch.
The Lies: Her husband, Gordon, appeared at a press conference and told reporters that he had returned home from the Pub on Sunday afternoon to discover his wife being held captive by a man who was wearing a clown mask and armed with a knife. Wardell alleged he had been punched, forced to the ground and rendered unconscious after a chloroform-soaked cloth was pressed over his face. He went on to tell journalists: “A man got hold of my wife and was threatening her with a knife.” He further claimed he had been tied up by the gang, who took his wife off to the Building Society, early the following morning.
The Verdict: Within a month police realised his story was a pack of lies and he was arrested.
The Result: Wardell was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the Judge told him that he had gone to elaborate lengths, including tying himself up and inflicting injuries, to make it appear as if the couple were the victim of Robbers.
The Crime: In 1991, the Boyfriend of Rachel McLean reported her missing to Police.
The Lies: John Tanner not only appeared in a press conference appealing for help but also took part in a televised reconstruction. He claimed Miss McLean had seen him off at the Railway station, and said a long-haired stranger had offered to give her a lift home. Tanner told reporters his Girlfriend had been “a lover of life” and even asked people to help “out of sheer consideration for her Mother and Father and myself”.
The Truth: A few days later, Police discovered Rachel’s remains under the floorboards of her flat, and Tanner was immediately arrested. His story crumbled, and he was charged with her murder.
The Verdict: At his trial, Tanner changed his story and said that he had ’snapped’ and killed his Girlfriend after she admitted that she had been unfaithful. He was convicted of murder and jailed for life.
So, here are plenty of cases, where Body language ‘experts’ could have used their supposed ‘expertise’ to save the Police and lot of time, money and effort. They would have also saved the real victims a lot of grief and heartache by pointing out these terrible lies, as well as proving that their system works. Then, they would almost certainly go on to achieve personal fame and fortune.
However, in each of these cases, just like Crystal energy quacks and Snake oil salesmen, they chose to remain silent, instead of rising to the challenge.
Therefore, next time someone makes an appeal for help in solving a crime on TV, perhaps these ‘experts’ would care to demonstrate that there is even a grain of truth behind what seems to me like untested, lunatic ramblings.
Subscribe
Does the internet change adolescents into aggressive assholes? Or do socially incompetent teens naturally gravitate towards spending time on the internet?
Men and women sin in very different ways, according to an article published in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.
Feminists would certainly claim it was obvious that men perceive sexy women in bathing suits as objects, but now there’s some science to back this theory up.
Browsing the internet, you could easily get the impression that talking to girls was somehow equivalent to Brain surgery or Rocket science.
Forget sugar and spice and all things nice, women smell of Onions and men smell of Cheese – or at least their armpits do – according to Scientists at Firmenich, a company in Switzerland that researches flavours and smells for the food and perfume industry.
Body language is a very tricky subject, because although the guidebooks might state that a certain action means that a women is sexually interested in a man, or a Salesman’s customers are getting bored – even when they’re wrong, the ‘experts’ will still claim that they’re right.