Ramisa Fariha1,2*
1 Department of “I wrote this paper to pass my English Non-Fiction class”, The Penssylvania State University, State College, PA
2 Department of “I am procrastinating by editing this instead of writing my dissertation”, Brown University, Providence, RI
* Corresponding Author
Abstract
In a world of “monkey see, monkey do”, researchers are posed with the question of whether male human primates are capable of using the brain- an organ of soft nervous tissue contained in the skull of vertebrates, functioning as the coordinating center of sensation and intellectual and nervous activity. It is theoretically used when interacting with human primates of the opposite biological gender, females according to some antiquated theories. As a result, one researcher (read: superhero) took the responsibility of investigating this matter and answer whether boys are stupid and should we be throwing rocks at them.
Keywords: Dating, Cognitive Development, Dumb Boys, Psychology, Mating Rituals, Girlz Rule
1. Introduction
Boy /boi/ n. a male child or young man. pl. boys
Example: The tallest boy in our class is 6 feet.
Girl /ɡərl/ n. a female child or young girl. pl. girls
Example: Jenna is the prettiest girl in our class.
While the respective definitions are very descriptive and vivid, when it comes to describing the two biologically divided populations of planet Earth, these creatures can be categorized into many more subcategories and sub-subcategories across the globe. Owing to the delay in transparent peer-reviewing process, a “whole-ass global pandemic”, and a series of unfortunate events called “graduate school”, this paper reports the data from a study conducted at Penn State’s Imagination Amplified Lab in 2016 to analyze the primate called boys, in an attempt to enhance the understanding of how their brains function around girls. In order to increase the credibility of our study, some statistics are included in the supplemental section that were performed based on the data obtained from experimentation for a population size n=4. Even though the population size has increased since the initial study, the author is too lazy to report those data in this paper. As one data point is an anecdote, two is a trend and three is a distribution, we believe one extra data point is over-achieving anyway.
It is important to note that the author does not mean to offend all other primates, including but not limited to monkeys, lemurs etc., who may frown upon the use of the word ‘primate’ to describe this male archetype of homo sapiens.
Boys, within the limitation of the definition, are supposed to be ‘male’ children, i.e., biologically those with penises (or dicks, as referred to in popular culture) with limited understanding of the words ‘maturity’ and ‘responsibility’. Although arguments can be made showing statistical outliers such as the former President of the United States Mr. Barack Obama, but for the purpose of this study the use of the term boy(s) was limited to describe males between the ages of 0 and 30. For the experiments, a random group of college boys were looked at, i.e. male children between 19 and 28 years old, and the randomness generated for this experiment depended completely on the visual aesthetical preferences of the scientist conducting the experiments. Just like any scientific experiment, this project had some novelty that are listed below:
• Enhancing the understanding of the so-called boys, and their brain functioning (or malfunctioning) via observations.
• Use the results obtained to conduct real life social experiments on the randomly selected subjects and perform statistical analysis on those results.
• Combine the results to derive the conclusion on whether or not this archetype of homo sapiens should have rocks thrown at them.
Since the beginning of time, the world and its functioning has been a mystery. From discovering the force of gravity to discovering stem cells, science has come a long way today trying to explain the universe. According to late Professor Stephen Hawking, this understanding is important because, “We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.” However, as average they may be as homo sapiens, humans generally like to believe that they are far superior than accredited by Professor Hawking. While all the aforementioned advancements have been made, there is still a lot to learn and discover. Add to this laundry list the existence of boys and you have yet another pointless publication (such as this one) trying to answer an unsolvable problem. It is often said that men are usually ‘boys’ because ‘Boys will be Boys’ irrespective of their age. This phenomenon has been in existence for as long as our writer has been in existence, or even longer according to some fossil evidence. In an attempt to solve some of the mysteries of this universe, our expert scientist, 22-year-old at the time of data collection, Ms. Ramisa Fariha has extrapolated some conclusions based on data collected from real-life interactions with the body(/ies) of interest..
2. Methods and Materials
Our scientist hypothesized that boys biologically have brains being primates, however, not all boys use them equally. Like all other homo sapiens, they over or underuse this vital organ based on academic and general biological needs. However, when it comes to interacting with homo sapiens of the opposite gender, i.e., girls, boys tend to almost never use this organ, or only use it to plot and play overly complicated mind games with the girls- there is no in-between.
For the first 2 sets of experiments to enhance the understanding of male brains, 4 boys (i.e., population size n=4) were selected at random:
- Subject 1: A 21-year-old college student of Caucasian ethnicity- blonde hair and beautiful features- with brilliant academic records, well-mannered, and musically blessed, relationship status- unknown.
- Subject 2: A 28-year-old college student (representing the ‘older boy’ category) of South Asian heritage- luscious brown eyes and attractively tanned features- with an expert grasp of mathematics, working full time as well, rather nonchalant in behavior, musically blessed, relationship status- single and active (in other words, looking for love in hopeless places).
- Subject 3: A 22- year- old college student of African-American heritage- dark, long hair, and gorgeous features- with extraordinary academic records, well-mannered, introverted in nature, physically active but non-musical, relationship status- single as a Pringle.
- Subject 4: A 24-year-old college student of South Asian heritage- average looking but has beautiful hazel eyes- with excellent academic records, well- mannered, introverted, physically inactive and non-musical, relationship status- “he a playa” (in other words, flirts with anyone and everyone).
The data obtain were compared to the data analyzed for the former US President Mr. Barack Obama and wrestler and actor Dave Bautista, both of whom were rendered outliers eventually because of how flawlessly awesome they are!
Figure 1: Outlier Male Species
For the experiments, the scientist interacted, reported, analyzed, and did whatever she wanted to with the data (as most scientists do). Initially, each subject was observed from a distance. This meant that the scientist had to take note of who wore what to class on which day of the week, who they sat next to in class, how they talked to people etc. Based on all these observations, the scientist then strategized the phase 2 of the experiment.
2.1 Subject 1
Subject 1 was an easy access due to the scientist and Subject 1 being lab partners. The sole reason for choosing this subject was him being distractingly good looking and soft-spoken. Upon silent observation over time, it was initially concluded that this subject is an introvert. The scientist and the subject got closer and officially became ‘friends’ using the ‘accept’ key on Facebook and Instagram, photographic evidence suggested
Otherwise- he a wild child! Anyway, although the total number of interactions per subject tallied up to a 100, only a few significant ones are reported in this paper. For instance, one-day Subject 1 wore a ‘salmon’ shirt to class, gracing his 5 foot 9 inches fit body that made his Caucasian face glow in a pink hue, his blonde hair was neatly combed, and his chin dimple was still visible beneath a shallow layer of facial hair. The scientist, amidst all ‘science talk’ worked up the courage to flirt with the subject via complement, jokes, and slight consensual physical contact.
The interaction was such that:
“Hey nice shirt by the way!” the scientist said in a cheerful tone at one point while working with micropipettes.
“Thank you,” Subject 1 replied in full gratitude unaware that the scientist was not a salmon (pink) person but was being nice. The scientist later admitted, though, that he did look great in that shirt.
“So how was your weekend?” the scientist continued casually.
“It was good, did a bunch of homework and nothing else,” the subject replied looking at the scientist right in the eyes, unaware of the impact of his blue eyes on the scientist- it made her ooey-gooey, like a Hershey Kiss left outside on a hot-summer’s day, on the inside.
“Me too! By the way, I thought of a really good joke this weekend,” the scientist continued her small talk.
“Oh yeah?” he said, “What is it?”
That is how girls often suck boys into their traps. Had the subject been using his brain, or nose to smell the scientist’s pheromones, he would have never ‘asked for it’.
“A hug without ‘U’ is just toxic,” the scientist replied with a mischievous grin.
“Wait, what?” he asked, confused.
Observation: Even the smartest ones forget to use their brain around girls every once in a while, although they may be the one charming the crap out of the girl.
“A hug, without ‘U’ is Hg, which is Mercury,” the scientist replied, disappointed.
“Hahaha that is actually funny,” the subject replied flaunting his dimples, to which the scientist oh-so-casually hugged the subject before moving on with whatever experiment they were doing.
Observation: The silliest and dumbest jokes can enable ‘huggable’ opportunities to girls since boys simply don’t use their brains to read between the lines.
In binary of 1= true and 0= false, the conclusion from this, thus, was:
Boy used his brain= 0.
2.2 Subject 2
Now, interacting with Subject 2 was rather tricky. Afar observations showed that he was a player and a smooth talker, and thus checking whether he used brain or not required our scientist to be fully equipped with jokes, flirts, and banters.
This interaction went such that:
“…Well, I need you to give me proper directions to your place,” the subject said one fine afternoon when the scientist and the subject planned to ‘chill’.
“I mean I will try, but I am horrible with directions,” the scientist blatantly replied.
“Yeah, you’ve always been bad at that. Don’t worry, soon you’ll have someone in your life to help fix it,” the subject replied.
Observation: Boys tend to be a sly when they actually use their brain for a change. This also means that their flirtation thrives on ambiguity. Under such circumstances girls often find themselves in an anxious state, overanalyzing situations and under-analyzing statements, just like a pile of methane-guzzling bacteria in a mud puddle.
“Yeah right, like that’s ever going to happen,” the scientist replied, still unaware the googly ball thrown at her direction.
“Trust me. I swear upon Pythagoras,” the subject replied on the phone.
“Hahaha Pythagoras, really? Could have said Newton!” the scientist replied, completely unaware that her laughter was the ‘green signal’ the subject was looking for.
Observation: Boys who use their brain for a change are well aware of their person of interest, and thus, they exactly know when to say what. They often sweet-talk their way up to the girl’s heart, relying on jokes as a weapon of choice.
Boy used his brain= 1.
2.3 Subject 3
Interacting with Subject 3 was a challenge because he was nonchalant to anything and everything in life:
“Hey!” the scientist said.
“Hey,” he replied in a rather monotonous voice.
“Did you see what happened at the lab yesterday?” the scientist asked.
“Mhm,” he replied.
“What do you think?” the scientist went on.
“Meh,” was all he said.
On another occasion:
“I am having the worst day of my life!” the scientist yelled.
“Yeah? Awww,” was all the subject said, and hugged the scientist close in his well-muscled arms, without inquiring any further.
Observation: This subject is a nice person, but clearly doesn’t care about anything in the world, including a walking-talking, curvaceous, fine-AF lab mate. Traditional methods of poking, hugging, using terrible jokes etc. all were returned with a gracious smile and not lasting conversations for this subject, unlike Subjects 1 and 2. Therefore, it was concluded that Subject 3 just did not like to interact with people. And thus, anyone who doesn’t like to interact with the ever-so-stunning scientist with a beautiful humerus clearly does not use brain.
Boy used his brain= 0.
2.4 Subject 4
Interacting with this subject was rather fun because unlike the other subjects, this subject was highly interested and attracted to the scientist owing to his nature of liking anyone and everyone. It might be good to mention that the subject and the scientist once dated in the past, and thus using this subject for this experiment seemed very befitting.
One of the most notable occasions was such that:
“Hi!” the subject said.
“Hey! How are you?” the scientist replied.
“I am good, how are you?” he asked in return.
“I am good, just a little tired,” the scientist answered, yawning, hoping that the subject would leave her alone.
“I can tell. I am really worried about your dark circles. You need to get proper sleep woman!” he said, almost as an order.
Pissed, the scientist got up from her chair to look at the nearby mirror in the hope of seeing major bags under her eyes that she clearly failed to hide using the concealer. Unable to notice anything significant, the scientist returned to the subject and asked, “Where exactly are you seeing these dark circles?” Using his cell phone, the subject made the scientist look at the front camera, he pointed out exactly what he was talking about.
“That is my eyeliner.”
Observation: Exes are exes for a reason. And boys would do anything to carry out a conversation with a subject of their interest, despite being oblivious to makeup, or simply ‘acting dumb’.
Boy used his brain= 0.
He has no brain, or else he would have never cheated on the scientist to begin with.
3. Results
It was seen that when it comes to interacting with females, Subjects 1, 3 and 4 behaved somewhat similarly, i.e., did not play mind games, and did not use their brains at all. This was understood when our scientists interacted with the subjects consistently throughout the week from 9 am on Mondays to 3 am on Thursdays. Subjects 1 and 3 seemed immune to the existence of beautiful girls around them, and for further verification, the same experiment was repeated using the scientist’s friend (anonymous). Attempts of signaling how ‘cute’ or ‘hot’ the subjects were resulted in no reaction from the Subjects 1, 2, and 3. Subject 4 was excluded from this round of experiment due to his lack of self-control, and dangerously abundant testosterone. The subjects being tested were unable to fathom the experiment they were going through. The results obtained at both rounds were consistent.
The scientist experimented pre, at and post friendzone moments, and it was interesting to see how the subjects completely failed to take subtle hints about the impact of their charm and good looks on the girls. This, therefore, concluded that boys tend not to use brains when it comes to female interaction.
Additionally, Subject 2 represented rather interesting results, by behaving differently at different times with the girls. Based on geographical location, time of the day (morning or night) and day of week (weekends versus weekdays), the subject showed a wide range of behavioral traits. Subject 2 showed traits of being an intelligent gentleman, to a complete idiot; from being super nice to being super rude, and from being a total flirt to being immune to flirtation. Thus, it was concluded that this subject was an avid mind game player, i.e., overused his brain, with the additional experience of age, and knew his game well with girls.
Subject 4 was simply an established stupid and thus, no verification was needed to realize he had no brain.
Table 1 shows the outcome of this study in binary (1= true, 0= False).
| Subject | Used Brain around girls | Did not use Brain around girls |
| Sub. 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Sub. 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Sub. 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Sub. 4 | 0 | 1 |
Another round of experimentation was conducted where the subjects were asked intelligent questions about life, ambitions, and death. All subjects had answers along the same line: highly ambitious, looking for love, never thinks about dying, never thinks about anything except ‘getting it’, respectively, further verifying the availability of brain and its use in each one of them.
Occasionally the subjects were treated to incentives in the forms of hugs, chewing gums (specifically mint flavored), virtual flirtations and late-night heart-to-heart conversations. It was seen that subjects behaved well and were more aware and respectful of the ladies under the influence of mint chewing gums.
One of the interesting discoveries was how each subject dressed and how it correlated to their behavioral traits:
Subject 1 is an elegant dresser: he was often spotted in proper button-down shirts, khakis, jeans, or pants, with loafers or sneakers. He occasionally wore sunglasses depending on the weather, which is very appropriate. Thus, it was concluded that his nice dressing sense contributed to his niceness.
Subject 2 is an ‘old man’ dresser: he was often spotted in proper button-down shirt, pants, belt, and a suit jacket. However, on several occasions he was also spotted in sweatpants and some random free t-shirt. It was concluded that his different behavioral trait depended on his random dressing sense- he either went BIG or went home. He was mostly spotted wearing shades, a.k.a. sunglasses. This meant that he liked to act mysterious and did not let girls find out about his ‘game’. He, thus, represented the type of boys who girls should always avoid!
Subject 3 is a typical Pennsylvania dresser: in a freezing cold weather he was spotted wearing shorts and a t-shirt with a thin sweatshirt. It was concluded that his nonchalance came from showing too much skin in the cold- he was nonchalant about the weather too. He wore shades as deemed appropriate.
Subject 4 is a strange dresser: his clothing changed as his lady of interest changed. He was spotted wearing all black because he liked a goth girl, and he was spotted wearing red shorts because he liked a theatre major. It was concluded that his behavior changed with his clothing, which should never be the case. He never wore shades because he wore glasses.
Thus, the entire outcome could be put to the following formula the scientist came up with:
Let,
Mean Brain Usage= MBU
Nonchalance= NC
Jerk-like behavior= FU
Occasional flirting/flirt backs= FB
Effect of incentives= 0.2 (constant effect)
Thus,
MBU= NC+ (0.2×FB)-FU2 (eq. 1)
will allow girls to identify, and then interact accordingly, with primates- boys- with minimal possibilities of being hurt. Of course, there are outliers, and thus, one mathematical formula cannot suffice to measure the idiosyncrasies of all the idiots around the world.
.
Figure 2: The overall ImageJ analysis in a graphical representation
For statistical purposes, the images of each subject along with images of the outlier President Barack Obama, and wrestler and actor Dave Bautista were analyzed in ImageJ software, and then plotted in MATLAB.
Figure 2 shows how the experiment is valid in terms of image analysis. For example, President Obama has a lower mean value, which means that he is the least mean to girls, and his lowest minimum deviation shows that his behavior is pretty consistent. The same applies to Bautista except his maximum deviation is higher, which means he can be mean if the situation demands it. The dip in maximum deviation for Subject 3 shows that he is nonchalant and will not deviate. The higher mean value from Subject 1 may be a statistical error, or maybe he really will be super mean to girls in the future!
It should be noted that this experiment has a very high error margin because the experiment was conducted over a small population of boys. While these are computational results, they have no scientific significance whatsoever, because ImageJ analyzed the photographs based on intensity. Pictures downloaded from Facebook certainly have a terrible quality! Also, the effect of musicality on personality traits were not analyzed, although the scientist believes that musicality tends to make boys better behaved. From a statistical standpoint, this experimentation and data is completely useless owing to the scientist’s affection for Mr. Bautista and claiming him to be “the sweetest and bestest guy”, thus rendering everyone else in the world useless. Hence, the data is very likely skewed.
Since the initial study, the number of subjects studied has certainly gone up, especially with the use of “dating apps” such as, Bumble and Hinge. At the moment, the scientist refuses to disclose any of the newer findings because she is afraid she will have to survive on two-hours of sleep if she doesn’t stop editing this paper pronto.
4. Conclusion
To conclude, based on their experimentations, interactions with the subjects, being charmed, and then being friend zoned by the said subjects, the scientist has concluded that “Boys are stupid; throw rocks at them.”
5. Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank all her Creative Non-Fiction professor, E, who inspired her to write this paper for her final submission back in college. The author would also like to thank Starbucks, Red Bull, and UberEats for being her source of fuel.
6. References
- Ramisa fariha. Brain de Ramisa—an Illustrative guide to the brain of an ambiverted scientist. Chowdhury Publications, 1993
- “MATLAB.” MATLAB – MathWorks. N.P.,n.d. Web. 30 Nov 2016
- Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook for Stalkers. Lifetime Access
7. Supplemental
| Subjects | Area | Mean | Std Dev | Min | Ma x | Medi an | Skew |
| President Obama | 21256 | 93.691 | 50.799 | 0 | 216 | 89 | 0.007 |
| Dave Bautista | 14384 | 103.097 | 46.879 | 0 | 247 | 101 | 0.157 |
| Subject 1 | 51146 | 150.391 | 57.032 | 2 | 252 | 167 | -0.64 |
| Subject 2 | 83826 1 | 89.142 | 48.94 | 2 | 243 | 86 | 0.045 |
| Subject 3 | 20629 54 | 89.104 | 49.756 | 3 | 198 | 94 | -0.055 |
| Subject 4 | 30873 | 93.107 | 48.553 | 1 | 255 | 105 | -0.239 |
If you enjoyed this well peer reviewed article about the need to throw rocks at boys please like, share, and subscribe with your email, our twitter handle (@JABDE6), our facebook group here, or the Journal of Immaterial Science Subreddit for weekly content, and keep a look out for our upcoming print book! Jabde EDITORS NOTE: WARNING DO NOT THROW ROCKS AT BOYS! We do not condone this behavior