Hypothesis:
H0: Men do not realize when they are being stared at intensely
H1: Women realize the same in less than 10 seconds
Testing Methodology:
Identify a sample set and stare (what else)
In order to give leeway to starees:
Ensure that more than one tester stares at the man or the woman so as to increase the intensity of the stare and help them notice
Procedure and Findings:
- Pick up a sample (in our case – 4 men and 1 woman) which is happily standing and chattering away to glory.
- Identify the first bhakra (Manage)
- Next
- Now, stare at the only girl in the group (Tuls) who is standing right opposite the testers, at a distance of 12 feet. Keep in mind the fact that the girl is not having direct eye contact with the testers but is actually doing some hyper animated conversation with the rest of the sample. In 10 seconds, the girl turns behind her to check whether there is anything else worthwhile to stare at, and then gives us a questioning glance.
- Observe the guy who is standing opposite the testers (Samba). Stare right in to his sun glass worn eyes for 1 minute, then 1 more minute, then even more for a minute (that's totally 3 friggin' minutes!)
Conclusions:
- Men cannot multi task; that is, if they are talking, they can do just that and do not have the capacity to notice if anyone stares at them
- Men are not as used to being stared at as women are
Implications:
If this was not just two nut-cases testing their hypotheses
Credits:
Rohini – For conceiving these brilliant hypotheses
Tuls – For assisting in execution (by not bursting in to hopeless giggles when she was told about why she had been stared at)
19 comments:
:D. Hence proved.
WTF!
You make those spelling mistakes of hindi words deliberately, don't you? Bhakra is actually a tasty snack, while bakra (the proverbial sacrificial lamb) is probably what you intended to write. :-)
Funny post, btw!!
I've observed myself...not just the stares...we generally go abt observing some n^2 no. of things around us which guys generally do not seem to notice...
@ Shrutz: Totally :D
@ Samba: Exactly what I am asking :)
@ AP: Thanks :) And, no, never do I make deliberate spelling mistakes, just happens with the flow ;)
@ Archu: Guess you do have a point there, I have noticed this phenomenon too1
There you go generalizing again... You atleast have one exception to that rule :).. I hereby accuse u of selective analysis, using a very faulty sample set and deriving a biased and faulty hypothesis :)..
We do not consider outliers as part of sample sets. And, we all along knew that if at all anyone in that group finds out, it would be you!
appreciate ur hypothesis... it is so damn true :P.. poor bakras who became samples though :P
Will never ever make the mistake of pitying those chaps :D and stop testing my many other hypotheses on them :P
No wonder!!! Sigh
@ Banjo: There is still time, you know :)
Haha. Worth thinking about - if your sample set had not been too painfully aware of the fact that none of the women who had so kindly agreed to accompany them to the North and the East had the slightest interest in staring at them, or even if staring was incidental, would then follow it up with anything substantial, they may have been more tuned in to such mating calls, which undoubtedly, would have been the interpretation of a stare had it emanated from the eyes of a stranger woman ;)
@ Shreya: How can one assume such "painful awareness"es? :P
That's true. I forgot the Katrix angle :P
Scandalous!
< embarrassed look and all that>
But, then, I should never have replied to your previous comment in the first place!
Dangerous lady you are :D
You dint know that the guy in coolers was actually ogling around ;-).
Its not guys arent multitasking ;-).
curious to know who this anonymous soul is... adding more to the existing scandals :D
@ Jags: Totally! Am intrigued too, as to who this could be now :D
Wierd but True !! :))
Post a Comment