Wildlife TV = Deep Psychological Problems.

I realized yesterday that since I have been single I have been watching significantly more wildlife and nature shows. And when I say “significantly” I mean about a hundred thousand million percent more. Are these two things connected? Or am I making a false correlation?

Is it:
Being single = watching more wildlife programming

Or is it:
Being single = having more free time = watching more wildlife programming

Or am I looking at it wrong? Maybe it’s this:
Being single + having more free time = watching more wildlife programming

The difference between the last two would be that I have more free time because I am single, whereas the second one says that those two things are true independent of one another.

Or maybe it isn’t about free time at all. Here is the nightmare scenario:
Being single = having to think about dating = fear of having to date = preparing for the vicious dating world by watching wildlife shows

Is my subconscious really so afraid of the prospect of dating – which I have not done very much of in my life – that it is trying to prepare itself this way? No way!

Here is one that’s completely different, but which I would be comfortable with:
Sudden interest in nature & outdoor activities = interest in television programming about nature & outdoor activities = watching more wildlife programming

See, that would be okay and make sense, right?

But wait! What about this:
Being single = sudden interest in nature & outdoor activities = interest in television programming about nature & outdoor activities = watching more wildlife programming

Or worse, this:

Being single = having more free time = sudden interest in nature & outdoor activities = interest in television programming about nature & outdoor activities = watching more wildlife programming

That would be awful! Because it would mean that both my interest in outdoorsy natureness AND my watching of wildlife programming are all derived from my boredom caused by being single! Oh no! I think that would mean that I have lost all capacity to be genuinely interested in anything! My whole life is a lie! This is just shameful and awful! My life is so hard! (Though not as hard as a penguin’s. Man, those poor little bastards have it rough.)

.
.
.

Your Mom is a False Correlative!

So My Brother the Kinesiologist had his first statistics class today and his professor gave out some extra credit and so he called me because – although I am a writer – I quite enjoyed statistics and there was a while when I wouldn’t shut the hell up about it.

I thought that you might enjoy mulling over the etra credit question. I don’t know what the answer is, BTW, so this whole post is really just an exercise in disappointment (much like my love life).

Anyway, the professor gave them this link to a CNN story titled “Love makes teen sex less academically harmful, study says” and the extra credit question is: read the article and figure out what is wrong with the title.

Here’s a hint, it is NOT that the title is awkwardly worded and that the editor who came up with it should be chastised. Feel free to give it you best guess. Mine is down below.


If you want to send your suggestions to My Brother the Kinesiologist, then send me your email and I will send you his. I will also send you his social security number, if you want it.



*** My guess: the title implies a correlation between teen sex and poor academic performance and that ALL teen sex is academically harmful, but that “romantic” teen sex is less harmful. The article, however, seems to use virgins as the control group and does not make the case that “romantic” teen sex is harmful, only that the non-loving “hook up” kind is. I believe that is called a false correlative.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it, My Brother the Kinesiologit’s professor!



.
.
.
.