Archive for August, 2006|Monthly archive page

so you think editors have it easy…

In Uncategorized on 08/31/2006 at 5:59 pm

…we dare you to be able to read this and count how many times the word ‘rumor’ appears. Warning! may be hazardous to your psychological health. don’t say we did not warn you!

people of note… #22

In Uncategorized on 08/31/2006 at 5:52 pm

really Worth 1,000 Words

Only in France (and of course at brainwashcafe 😉 are the nation’s leading intellectuals A-list celebrities. Take Florian Zeller, a 27-year-old lit “It” boy and a television personality. His extreme good looks are merely a foil for some serious writing chops. This fall, his new play, “Si Tu Mourais,” opens in Paris, and next year another script, “Le Manège,” travels to the London stage. His award-winning novel, “The Fascination of Evil” (Pushkin Press), arrives stateside in translation in January. “The book is a quest for sexuality in a repressed country,” says Zeller, who writes it from a Eurocentric view that results, he says, in “a caricature of Occidental violence.” Despite its headiness and thick plot, the book is a concise 153 pages. En garde, Bernard-Henri Lévy. CHARLOTTE DRUCKMAN

thanks Charlotte 😉

this is why…

In Uncategorized on 08/30/2006 at 5:52 am

… some people need image consultants.

thanks jen 😉

yin yang take your pick…

In Uncategorized on 08/30/2006 at 2:56 am

thanks jessica 🙂

now if only we can find the remote…

In Uncategorized on 08/27/2006 at 9:34 pm

evolutionary psychology in action…

In Uncategorized on 08/27/2006 at 9:17 pm

thanks jessica

sexy shorts vs…short morals

In bblonde, sexy shorts vs.short morals on 08/24/2006 at 1:44 am

“hey, sexy shorts.”
“um.. thanks. He really hates to wear them. But he has to.”
I looked at her, puzzled “..has to?”
Carla smiled “Yes, you know, we um… are trying so hard to conceive. And David has low sperm count, so hot weather like this he has to wear shorts so his.. you know, doesn’t overheat.”
Carla and David are my friends, married three years and desperately trying to have a baby. I debated whether to tell her in fact that best way to triple his sperm count would be to convince David that she was having an affair. A dangerous tactic, to be sure but from a evolutionary psychological point of view, entirely justified and effective way to tactically counteract the low sperm count. From the male’s point of view, evolutionarily speaking, it is not how long since they have had sex, but how many opportunities his mate has had to consort with other males that affects the sperm count. In essence the more he believes she is unfaithful, more elevated his sperm spm(variance 20-160 million sperm per milliliter) . This makes sense if we see that over generations of evolutionary progress, his sperm may have had to compete with sperm of other males inside her womb, so to speak.

Carla stared slack jawed. “you’re kidding me.”

Faithful readers of this blog are well aware by now of our bias towards evolutionary psychology when it comes to observing the behavior of our gentle species. Although it may be fairly obvious and more accurate to say that our preference is more in line with the ‘field’ of evolutionary neurology, particularly given our name:) If we accept the basic premise of evolutionary psychology that the human mind, like every other organ in our body, was designed for the purpose of facilitating gene transmission from one generation to the next, and that the feelings and thoughts created in our minds are at best a kind of by-product of this non-organic ‘pipeline’, then it’s fairly clear we should understand that our hunger pangs, as much as the existence of our stomach, are here only because it helps our species propagate. Our libido, no less than our sex organs, are also present for same reasons. “hmm..”, you say, “but all that sounds familiar…”

But let’s see if we can push this theoretical ‘envelope’. Neurologically speaking, we may have been designed with an entirely different focus in mind. In effect, our brains are geared to nurture ruthless genetic self-interest in that we focus primarily not on searching for that ideal mate, but rather first depriving our closest competitors (ie friends, companions) of that possibility. In doing so we are naturally oblivious to our own ‘ruthlessness’. It is genetic, after all…
The danger here is that people will take easiest path; react by surrendering to “natural” impulses, as if what is “in our genes” are beyond reach of self-control. We may even conveniently and incorrectly assume that what is “natural” is good.
This idea may still be common and perhaps widely held. Natural selection for the evolutionary good of the species is a powerful thought, who could argue against constantly “improving” our species for the greater good? How often do we still hear the same refrain from a cheating boyfriend “uh..but honey you know us guys have to ya know spread our seed to ensure survival of human species, it’s in our genes..we are built that way!” But evolutionary psychology rests on a quite different world perspective; clear recognition that natural selection does not work toward overall social welfare, in fact much of what passes for ‘innate’ human nature is thinly disguised ruthless genetic self-interest. Morality does not come built into our species, contrary and with all due respect to Charles Darwin, who believed that men stood apart from every other mammalian species because humans were ‘engineered’ with a concept of morality. Understanding moral issues and being able to attain moral ideals are too often worlds apart.

much ado about… mary beard & groping scholars.

In mary beard and groping scholars on 08/21/2006 at 2:32 am

“vehemently non-gay male” ???

Posted by: Pepze August 18, 2006 at 01:34 PM
“Congratulations, Professor Beard, for being honest and understanding the powerful link between learning and eroticism. I, a vehemently non-gay male, once spent a whole night drinking with a notorious but brilliant Cambridge don who tried to grope me; but the knowledge and information I gained was immensely useful and could not have been provided publicly (it concerned spying in a foreign country). I knew what I was doing – although friends of mine were shocked at breakfast in the morning to see me bleary-eyed with him at the high table – and had no regrets. If we accept the rules of the game, there is little harm in it, and as this example is intended to show I don’t believe it is a “female harassment” issue. “

so it was, that a controversial remark by a certain respected professor Mary Beard took on a life of its own and led to, among other things, the above forthright missive by Pepze. For those of you not in the know Prof. Beard is an acerbic sharp tongued sharp witted observer who writes from both sides of the academia. A professor in classics at the University of Cambridge and professorial fellow at Newnham College she is also classics editor of the Times Literary Supplement and much admired by us here at brainwashcafe. But even we were a bit non-plussed to hear what Mary had apparently said…

A PROFESSOR has said that she yearns for the days when male dons spiced up tutorials with their “groping” of students. Mary Beard, Professor of Classics at Cambridge University, stunned fellow academics with her fond recollections of female students putting up with the fumblings from older professors to get inspirational teaching. She wrote: “It is hard to repress certain wilful academic nostalgia for that academic era before about 1980 when the erotic dimension of pedagogy which had flourished since Plato was firmly stamped out.”
She made the remarks as she criticised colleagues for failing to record that the respected Latin scholar Eduard Fraenkel was a notorious groper. She said that this side of Professor Fraenkel’s character had been omitted from biographies, even though “any academic woman older than her mid-forties” would be ambivalent to it.
Professor Beard, 51, said that a female tutor used to warn students that although they would learn a lot from Professor Fraenkel, they would probably be “pawed about a bit”. Professor Beard’s remarks have been criticised by academics and student leaders but she remained unrepentant. She said she was sorry if she had given an impression that she was in favour of male sexual harassment but said that other academics had acknowledged the link between “pawing” and teaching. In an interview she said: “It is impossible not to feel sisterly outrage at what would now be deemed persistent sexual harassment and the abuse of power. On the other hand, it is also hard to repress certain wistful nostalgia.

and there it was, in blck and white not only that, in what may have been just be the worst analogy in history, she seemingly blissfully equated ‘smoking’ with ‘groping’…

“I do feel nostalgia but that is different from saying that is how I want it to be. The best comparison I can make is with smoking. One looks at Humphrey Bogart movies with rings of cigarette smoke and we have a wistful nostalgia for it. That doesn’t mean I think smoking should be allowed in public.”

The world stopped. If true, it meant that anything was possible. Faces pale, we rushed to research. Say it ain’t so Mary, we muttered expecting the worst…
Alas, shame on us, for doubting Mary. Shame on blogsphere, for spreading much of the malignant misrep. God knows we love bloggersville, but in this case much too haste, too soon… what better than to quote Prof Mary Beard herself on this ‘controversy’ ;

“…What the questioner (whom I shall not name and shame) was referring to was a review I wrote in the TLS of a new Dictionary of British Classicists. In this I pointed out that it was very odd that the entry on Fraenkel (Professor of Latin in Oxford from 1935-1953) made no mention of his notorious “wandering hand” – clearly documented by (inter alias) Warnock herself in her autobiography. ..
I did not for a minute suggest that this diminished his status as a classicist. Classical scholars come equipped with all manner of sexual virtues and vices. And, by and large (there are, of course, some limitations), sex can be separated from scholarship. In fact I stuck my neck out to say that most women over their mid-forties (eg me) were likely to feel ambivalent about Fraenkel’s behaviour. One can’t help deploring the abuse of male power. But one also – honestly — can’t help feeling a bit nostalgic for that, now outlawed, erotic dimension to (adult) pedagogy.
What I objected to was the bowdlerization of the biographical tradition. When it is relatively widely known how Fraenkel spent his evenings with his female students, why does that have to be blotted out from the authorized version of his life? Why bother with the pretence that he was devoted solely to his wife? Or why not, at least, be prepared to see that devotion as part of a more complicated set of relationships? Don’t we need to remember our intellectual giants warts and all?”


(thanks Giorgio:))

no sex please we’re british..???

In Uncategorized on 08/17/2006 at 7:18 pm

Posted by Picasa

K.A.C.S. (Kick Ass Chicks Society) profile #04

In kacs on 08/16/2006 at 12:31 am

No, not a mistake. We are not profiling Ben, but the kick ass chick over his left shoulder, Annie Duke. Also known as Ben’s poker teacher. (yes that ben) Annie Duke is not a household name. Yet. Frankly we are puzzled because in our books, she should be right up there as Woman of the Year, Player of the Year, Mother of the Year, and Teacher of the Year. Not to mention now, a brainwashcafe Kick Ass Chick Society member 🙂

take a look…

.. Annie was awarded a NSF Fellowship to attend graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania to major in cognitive psychology, specifically psycholinguistics. Her intention was to become a professor but after graduate school at Columbia quit to raise a family and yes, become a Professional Poker Player.

..In early 2004, Duke received considerable publicity because she tutored actor Ben Affleck, who then went on to win the 2004 California State Poker Championship. (now if only someone would just teach him to act..)

..In September 2004 Annie won $2,000,000(2 million us) in the inaugural World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions, a 10-player, winner-take-all invitational event. She subsequently appeared on the David Letterman show.

..Today Duke is regarded as one of the best poker players in the world period, male or female. As of 2005, Duke has won a World Series of Poker bracelet, widely regarded as the SuperBowl of Poker, and more than $3.1 million in tournament play. Nowadays she refuses to play in women’s only tournaments, saying that “Poker is one of the few sports where a woman can compete on a totally equal footing with a man, so I don’t understand why there’s a ladies only tournament.” We empathize totally with her since our other favorite ‘sport of kings’, Chess, has a similar issue in that Judith Polgar, a grandmaster who beats top male players on a regular basis also refuses to play women only chess tournaments. hmm.. we sense a trend;)

..Duke is one of many poker players that take issue with the restrictions placed on players during televised tournaments. Although the players pay mandatory entry fees to enter tournaments, some venues do not allow players to wear sponsorship logos. Duke raised some controversy when she made a statement in a news article regarding this issue: “We poker players are not even slaves. We’re people paying to pick the cotton.”(yea you said it sister) . Our feeling is if Tiger chooses to be a walking nike billboard Annie should be able to flaunt d&G shirts…

..and, (our favorite part), Annie Duke currently has 28 cashes at the WSOP (world series of poker), more than the current male Best Poker Player in the world, Phil Ivey. (enuff said:)

part of what makes America great..

In Uncategorized on 08/14/2006 at 9:11 pm

National Post

 Posted by Picasa

never mind the X-men, the XX-men are coming…

In nessiepicks, xx-men on 08/10/2006 at 10:09 pm

The chromosomes we have today may not be the ones we’ll have in 15 million years. So, what will this mean for the future of our species?

warning graphic depiction of xy “intersex” ; click image at your risk

The pending demise of the Y chromosome could give rise to a whole new species of human, a professor of comparative genomics says. Scientists have been speculating about the demise of the Y chromosome for some years now but Professor Jenny Graves (yes she’s a she:) of the Australian National University in Canberra has come up with a bold new twist on the theory. Graves, who has been working on sex chromosomes in marsupials, will present her theory at the 11th International Congress of Genetics in Brisbane today. She will tell the conference that new ‘male making’ genes on other chromosomes could step up to do the job of the Y chromosome’s SRY gene, which is the key to making males male. But this could mean men without Y chromosomes would split off from those with, eventually evolving into a new species of hominid. “It’s quite possible that you could make new hominid species that way,” she says. When two populations become two species Graves says men without a Y chromosome would be largely infertile. But a small number would reproduce and pass the new sex determining gene to their children. Eventually the group with the new gene would separate from the Y gene group, potentially evolving into a new species.

“The two groups couldn’t mate with each other so they’d get gradually different, just like chimpanzees and humans gradually became different 5 million years ago,” she says.”When two populations become two species there’s generally some sort of wedge driven between them so they can’t mate with each other.” It might be a mountain range … but it might be something more fundamental.”15 million years and counting Graves says there are only 45 genes left on the Y chromosome from “a grand total” of 1400. It also contains a lot of ‘pseudo genes’, which look like they should work but don’t, suggesting they’ve recently become defunct. According to her projections the Y chromosome will disappear altogether in15 million years. This will occur because unlike the other coupled genes, the single Y chromosome can’t recombine with a matching partner and refresh itself. Mutations will build up and the mutated genes will eventually drop off the chromosome because they no longer perform any useful function. This has already happened in the case of the mole vole, an aggressive little rodent that appears male and is able to reproduce despite having lost its Y chromosome.

Australian researcher Professor Andrew Sinclair, of Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, is researching so-called XX men, or the roughly one in 150,000 men who are born without a Y chromosome. “What it’s pointing to is the presence of new genes we haven’t yet discovered to replace the ones on the Y chromosome,” Sinclair says. Alternately, the “volume” of previously existing genes may have been”turned up” in the absence of the Y genes, he says. Sinclair’s team is the first in the world to use new high-density gene chips to examine XX men in the hope of finding out which genes these are. About 10% of affected men also have a tiny portion of the Y chromosome stuck on their X chromosome which carries across the testis determining gene. Sinclair says Grave’s theory about a new human species could make sense “in a theoretical way” but is unlikely in reality. “I don’t know about a whole new species of human but if you lost the Y chromosome completely males would have to evolve in some way to deal with it,” he says.”If you have males without a Y chromosome I don’t think I’d go as far as calling them a new species, but a new type of individual.”

(thanx G_ _ _ giO!)

warning : NOT for the romantic at heart…

In Uncategorized on 08/10/2006 at 6:21 am

Some years ago, a satiric barbed article appeared in the venerable Washington Post poking gentle fun at the ‘curious’ phenomenon of Harvard Personals. Harvard, it seems, had more going for it than its justifiably infamous alum roster that includes several Presidents (yes that would be prez of the COUNTRY, both Roosevelts Franklin & Theodore, and JFKennedy), Philosophers(Thoreau, Emerson), and Theodore Kaczynski (aka THE UNABOMBER). Its popular Personals section appearing in Harvard Crimson was attracting an inordinate proportion of ‘women of substance’ seeking ideal ivy league dream mate of equal substance (we guess no one told them about the real men of mcgill;).
Well call us curious george… we decided to revisit the Harvard Personals to take a look for ourselves. And Yes Virginia, we do admit to feeling a smidgeon of dreaded schadenfreude (quelled quickly of course). But in the interests of pure research and our continuing contribution to the exciting field of psychological anthropology we bring you our own modest and gentle ‘critique’ of a typical Harvard ad we found…

First, here is the ad in its original entirety

Outgoing vivacious outdoor adventurous Gal. Hard working Professional Single, no children. Graceful, slim, natural athletic, mid 40’s but looks 39. Above average intelligence, Clean girl next door look, without scars or blemishes. Emotionally secure, self possessed and non-conforming feminist at heart Mischievous and genuine with whimsical sense of humor, free spirited open, playful, easily likeable. Seeking Friendship first but definitely open to idea of finding of a Soulmate. Embraces New Age lifestyle, with Old fashioned values. Very open minded and willing to explore new vista. Outgoing, Loves the challenge of the elements: whitewater canoeing, downhill skiing, camping, sailing, climbing, breathtaking views. Calm, free-spirited, warm-hearted with passion for ceramics, photography, Maine, the environment, poetry. Very creative but sadly no green thumb — buys plants and apologizes to them. Game, spunky, gracious. Contributes to community. Seeks down to earth, curious, sociable, competent man, 5’8″+, 44-56, mature yet young at heart. 617-***-1028, ****** {prefers email} “

… and below, with a little help from the talented Editors of our sister publication REDLIGHT (yes mcgill’s answer to harvard’s restrained angst;) we have attached… um..‘interpretative glossary’ of recurring words and what they really mean…

Outgoing…………………………. Loud and Talkative.
Adventurous…………………….. Slept with everyone.
Professional……………………. Bitch.
Athletic…………………………… No breasts.
40’s…………………………….. 49.
49 ………………………………. 52
Above Average………………… Barely passable.
Girl Next door looks………………… Compulsive liar.
Emotionally Secure…………… On prozac.
self possessed ………………. Stubborn as a mule
Non-conforming ……………. Confused
Feminist…………………………. looks dyke.
whimsical……………………. catatonic
Free spirit……………………….. former Junkie.
Easily likable ………………….. Emotional Prostitute
Friendship first………………….Former slut.
Wants Soul mate…………….. potential Stalker.
New-Age………………………… Body hair in the wrong places.
Old-fashioned………………….. No Blow Jobs.
Open-minded…………………… Desperate.
Outgoing …………………….. Slutty and Loose
Calm, free-spirited …………….. bi-polar

…Now here is the same ad translated using the above glossary:) ouch

Loud and Talkative vivacious outdoor Slept with everyone Gal. Hard working Bitch, Single, no children. Graceful, slim, natural No breasts, 49 but actually 52. Barely passable intelligence, Clean compulsive liar, without scars or blemishes. On Prozac, Stubborn as a mule and Confused dyke at heart Mischievous and genuine with catatonic sense of humor, former Junkie, open, playful, Emotional Prostitute. Former slut first but definitely open to idea of finding of a potential Stalker. Embraces Body hair in the wrong places, with No Blow Jobs. Very Desperate and willing to explore new vista. Slutty and Loose, Loves the challenge of the elements: whitewater canoeing, downhill skiing, camping, sailing, climbing, breathtaking views. Bi-polar, warm-hearted with passion for ceramics, photography, Maine, the environment, poetry. Very creative but sadly no green thumb — buys plants and apologizes to them. Game, spunky, gracious. Contributes to community. Seeks down to earth, curious, sociable, competent man, 5’8″+, 44-56, mature yet young at heart. 617-***-1028, ****** {prefers email} “

well it sure ain’t brain muffin…

In Uncategorized on 08/08/2006 at 1:58 am

Talk about deja vu. The world is only now, it seems, discovering what we here at brainwashcafe have known for the longest while, brainy is sexy. With the latest unveiling this past week of Einstein’s 3,500 pages of personal letters and diary, much focus has been on his preoccupation with women and self-professed numerous affairs and ‘liason amoureuses’. Typical was Fox news blasting away with a gratuitous headline “Einstein the Stud Muffin(,2933,203221,00.html) and tongue in cheek assertion that Al seemed to have been more interested in female ‘Physiques’ than theoretical ‘Physics’ 🙂 Well, none of this should be a surprise, just take a look at below at Al the Stud Muffin in his younger days, along with the brief description of his.. yes, virile physique..

Albert Einstein was..”heavily muscled,” with exotic dark drooping “bedroom eyes” and a “sensuous, full fleshy mouth.” A female aquaintance wrote in her diary, “He has the kind of male beauty and magnetic persona that creates a tremor which we cannot fathom nor control.” Another friend observed that his effect on women, “was magnetic and astonishing, given his preference for solitude and work.”

But the tangible connection between creative intelligence and sexual magnetism has long been observed, at least by the discerning amongst us:) Caltech professor and bestselling raconteur Richard Feynman was probably the only Nobel Prize winner to befriend porn stars, claim a foolproof manner for bedding women and do his calculations on napkins in strip clubs, even going so far as testifying before a court on behalf of the strip club owner to keep it open. And it wasn’t just the guys: Marie Curie was relentlessly hounded by the press for seducing away her late-husband’s former student from his wife and kids.

At the atomic bomb project in Los Alamos, the assembled brain trust was as hard-partying as a troop of college kids on spring break. Weekends with the physicists were “big and brassy,” replete with poker and booze. They played so hard that the program tried to quarantine the women’s dorms; as one boss euphemized, “The girls had been doing a flourishing business of requiting the needs of our young men.” So many babies resulted(!!) that Robert Oppenheimer (or his boss, nobody’s really sure), himself having tried to run off with the wife of Linus Pauling and bed the wife of another colleague, was told to halt the extracurricular activities. (Oppenheimer didn’t.)

In any case, lest you all think we are only partial to Sexy Physicists, we leave you with (apparently) the ultimate brainy sexiest Stud Muffin of them all, pictured here below.. at least according to a recent survey. He is VERY VERY SMART, extremely well read, has a VERY high IQ, is a master at chess, reads Stephen Hawking, etc. etc. His only problem seems to be that he is too polite to make other people feel stupid. Most excellent body, most excellent mind… (who would have thought??)

reference source; (

finally a functional brain metaphor we could all relate to…

In Uncategorized on 08/05/2006 at 10:18 pm

as you can imagine, we get literally hundreds of pics and suggestions sent to us (often unusable, blush blush) but this one really caught our attention can’t imagine why, kind of like a lingering freudian brainfart that refuses to go away… 🙂 (ouch we do apologise for the callous insensitive imagery)

view from outside…

and from inside…

(now now, no “..standing outside the outstanding outhouse” jokes. pls…)

thanks jessica

who needs brains when you can do… this?

In Uncategorized on 08/05/2006 at 3:47 am

thanks jessica !~)

our new Chef in residence…

In Uncategorized on 08/02/2006 at 11:15 pm

Anthony Bourdain, eat your heart out Jamie Oliver, put your clothes back on.. ’cause at brainwashcafe we have (drumroll please) the amazing lazychef !

Our fav cooker Yass was making his famous brainwash bROWNIES batter when out hatched a yawning HULK like creature from one of the omega-3 eggs he was about to crack. Stretching, the newborn proclaimed himself to be Brainwash’s new Chef and Yass told him he could cook whatever he wanted except for brownies (for those of you uninformed, they are one of Yasser’s two passions in life, other being female chess grandmasters).
So brainwash now has a new team member on board, the incredible and sexy lazychef (no he is not always in green), whose mantra is to ensure an inversely proportional relationship between cooking effort and intense deliciousness of food cooked ;). Lazychef fervently believes less energy spent cooking is more time available to enjoy food. Who could argue with that.
Of course all the scintillating lazyfood recipes inside Aaron‘s brain requires an extraordinary team to execute. Please welcome Andrew Le Sous-Chef sans-pareil who can whip up the meanest Aglio e Olio (sigh just saying it starts our stomach growling) pasta in town and lovely Mme. Perogie aka Mandy. Take a well deserved bow guys, and umm.. can we have some lazyfood now please, all this food talk is making us hungry..

sex vs. smarts….

In lisapicks on 08/01/2006 at 11:22 pm

While pondering merits of regular vs. seedless watermelons at our cafe today the topic somehow evolved into an unquestionably related question of convenience vs. taste, and how much of latter we were willing to forego as tradeoff, when just like that, discussion turned into a heated all-in debated over.. you guessed it, size vs. matter… NOT, as one might expect, brains size vs. grey matter, but ahem.. ball size vs. grey matter (blush).

We gals ain’t prudes by any means but frank talk aside, it just seemed deliberately confrontational and mysogynistic to correlate gonad size to greater intelligence. Obvious question aside of all those of us without a pair, we blush to admit that most of talk centered around the rather indelicate question of methodology, as in.. fluctuations aside, wouldn’t bigger body basically mean bigger everything? a 6’3′ typical male would likely have bigger balls(we really should use a more refined word ‘testis’), bigger everything than a 5’2″ male. It’s well documented that males have larger brains than slighter female or a midget. And unless we are prepared to make an assertion that males are smarter than women and short people, it seemes to be a dead end.

Well, not so fast.. first off here is a tidbit from mssrs Willerman, Shultz, Rutledge and Bigler(we don’t make this stuff up:), all pretty brillant braindocs from University of Texas at Austin, Austin Neurological Clinic..

” It was widely believed that human brain size and intelligence are only weakly related to each other. Using magnetic resonance imaging, we show that larger brain size (corrected for body size) is associated with higher IQ in 40 college students equally divided by high versus average IQ, and by sex. These results suggest that differences in human brain size are relevant to explaining differences in intelligence test performance.”
Just as we are trying to digest that, along comes this shocker from our research editor ;

Sex vs. Intelligence: Bigger balls mean smaller brain
In a recent study of bats, Scott Pitnick, professor of biology at Syracuse University, found that testis size is inversely related to brain size. In other words, the bigger the balls of a bat species, the smaller its brain.
(time to time, we gals at brainwash have been unfairly accused of male bashing. We would simply ask you to note that the above inverse correlation is a scientific study conducted by dr. Scott Pitnick, a male 😉
Comparing brain size and testis size for 334 species of bats, Pitnick’s team looked to explore the contribution of sexual selection to brain evolution. Specifically, the research tested and confirmed two theories: larger testis are found in males with smaller brain size, and relative testis depends on female promiscuity.

Pitnick and his team showed that among bat species, those with promiscuous females have relatively smaller brains than species with females that are faithful to their mates. The study also found that male infidelity, by contrast, had no evolutionary impact on relative brain size. (huh?!! HOW is it, we ask politely, that men get away with this shit.)
Yes, we do note that all this has only hypothetical implication to human males, after all bats aren’t anything like guys. Unfortunately this does not let males of human species off the hook entirely. The finding is consistent with research conducted on primates, our umm..second cousin… Promiscuous primates like chimpanzees, where any individual male’s sperm will have to compete with the sperm of a number of other males, (but not to worry guys we women would never do that) have large testis to produce bigger amounts of sperm whereas less promiscuous species, like gorillas and orangutans, produce less sperm and have smaller testis-, and penis-, size since females are unlikely to mate with more than one male during a breeding season. For humans — considered moderately promiscuous for a higher primate — the testis to body weight ratio falls between that of chimps and gorillas. Did we understand that right? Basically men will get bigger balls if their mates cheat often.. evolutionarily speaking, of course:))

and Was all this worth the effort? hmm funny you should ask…
“We’re excited about these results, as they may stimulate more research into the correlated evolution of brains, behavior and the extravagant and costly ornaments and armaments favored by sexual selection.” Dr.Scott Pitnick

Well, we are glad someone is excited… however we did in fact get moderately scintillated with the following little bit of data…
Biggest balls, bat category
The testes of African yellow-winged bat make up 0.11% of its body weight, while the Rafinesque’s big-earred bat is endowed with balls that represent 8.4% of its body weight. For a 180-pound (82 kg) man, this would be equivalent to 15 pounds(7kg). (now that would really excite us ;)

Also involved in the research were Dr. Kate Jones of the Institute of Zoology at the Zoological Society of London and Dr. Jerry Wilkinson of the Department of Biology at the University of Maryland. The study was funded by the National Science Foundation. The full results of Pitnick’s study have recently been published in Proceedings B (London), a biology journal of the Royal Society.

This article used excerpts and quotes from a news release (“SU biology professor: big brain not key to evolutionary success in bats”) written by Carol Kim at Syracuse University.