Red team wins 55% of matches.

[Cliche]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...I7a-gD9185LDG0

The scientists studied the outcomes of 1,347 matchups between elite teams playing "Unreal Tournament 2004," a so-called first-person shooter game. The main activity in the game is running around and shooting at the avatars of the opposing team.

Maybe the better players join Red team more? Although:

Another study found in 2005 that wearing red is an advantage in real-life sports. British scientists found that athletes wearing red in one-on-one events like wrestling at the 2004 Olympics were more likely to win.

[icecube]

...and that is precisely why its so important we get home ice advantage next season

[CMPunk]

Tiger Woods wears red every sunday

[CaptainCrunch]

It always amazes me that we don't have a cure for cancer right now.

Oh yeah, thats right because all of our scientist are playing Unreal Tournament on their work time and calling it "research"

Doctor1 - "What are you working on Doctor"

Doctor2 -"I'm trying to kill Johnson with this here rocket launcher"

Doctor3 - "Hey dudes the Federal Grant money arrived, free porn for everyone"

[Moose]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It always amazes me that we don't have a cure for cancer right now.

Oh yeah, thats right because all of our scientist are playing Unreal Tournament on their work time and calling it "research"

Doctor1 - "What are you working on Doctor"

Doctor2 -"I'm trying to kill Johnson with this here rocket launcher"

Doctor3 - "Hey dudes the Federal Grant money arrived, free porn for everyone"

While I agree with your point about completely useless reserach, behavioural scientists and medical research scientists are completely different, so studies like this would not be taking away scientists from more 'worthy' pursuits.

That is, unless the key to curing cancer involves finding out how the cancer feels and if it's behavioural patterns are determined by nature or nurture...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Moose

While I agree with your point about completely useless reserach, behavioural scientists and medical research scientists are completely different, so studies like this would not be taking away scientists from more 'worthy' pursuits.

That is, unless the key to curing cancer involves finding out how the cancer feels and if it's behavioural patterns are determined by nature or nurture...

My comment was in jest, but I think there are better ways to do research then to spend time analysing on line tourneys. I also think that there are better ways to spend money when you consider the shortfalls in financing aids research.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

My comment was in jest, but I think there are better ways to do research then to spend time analysing on line tourneys. I also think that there are better ways to spend money when you consider the shortfalls in financing aids research.

That is an excellent point, and one that I agree with. It seems practicality and general need are not key criteria for determining research topics and funding.

I've always been puzzled why behavioural studies such as this analyze weird quirks that seem to be in no way useful to research further, rather than researching topics that might help foster deeper understandings of different viewpoints around the world. I guess it gives the scientists an interesting little tidbit of trivia they can impress people with at parties.

And by people I mean video game nerds.

[Gozer]

Cure = make pills red.

[Locke]

I'm in the wrong line of work....

[Got Miikka?]

Well, helps explain why a bunch of senior citizens in Red Wings jerseys keep winning Stanley Cups...

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

Tiger Woods wears red every sunday

he wears pink.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Moose

While I agree with your point about completely useless reserach, behavioural scientists and medical research scientists are completely different, so studies like this would not be taking away scientists from more 'worthy' pursuits.

That is, unless the key to curing cancer involves finding out how the cancer feels and if it's behavioural patterns are determined by nature or nurture...

although behavioural scientists do study cancer patients

[evman150]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

My comment was in jest, but I think there are better ways to do research then to spend time analysing on line tourneys. I also think that there are better ways to spend money when you consider the shortfalls in financing aids research.

Classic fallacious argument that always comes up in these kinds of discussion. Short term vs long term, a type of false dichotomy.

The public should not determine the scientists' research. You really have no leg to stand on to tell a scientist what he or she shouldn't research. Yes there is government funded research, but the moment we stop scientists from doing pure research is the moment when we stop doing science. Then where are we?

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Moose

That is an excellent point, and one that I agree with. It seems practicality and general need are not key criteria for determining research topics and funding.

I've always been puzzled why behavioural studies such as this analyze weird quirks that seem to be in no way useful to research further, rather than researching topics that might help foster deeper understandings of different viewpoints around the world. I guess it gives the scientists an interesting little tidbit of trivia they can impress people with at parties.

And by people I mean video game nerds.

At the risk of sounding like a special plead, you really don't know how the machinery of the scientific method works.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by evman150

At the risk of sounding like a special plead, you really don't know how the machinery of the scientific method works.

Would you care to enlighten me to the ways of the scientific method? I fail to see how thinking that a study about a team dressed in one colour winning more often is pointless indicates that I don't understand the workings of science... I understand that many small scope studies in behavioural sciences can be extended and built upon into larger scale ideas.. and I have some idea how research works in academia, seeing as I've been doing it for over a year.

[evman150]

It seems practicality and general need are not key criteria for determining research topics and funding.

This is the statement that indicates you don't know what you're talking about.

Those things are not key criteria for a reason. It's because most of the time you never know what applications your research will have. Yes there is directed research. But the real science lies in pure research, not aiming at any end. An end in mind only constrains research, limiting and attenuating the body of knowledge obtained.

Really, there is no "pointless" research. There is research that ends up being pointless, but you cannot make that supposition before hand.

[CaptainCrunch]

In this case the scientific method is a punch of guys with thick glasses and different colored T-Shirts sitting around various computer monitors yelling PEW PEW

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by evman150

Classic fallacious argument that always comes up in these kinds of discussion. Short term vs long term, a type of false dichotomy.

The public should not determine the scientists' research. You really have no leg to stand on to tell a scientist what he or she shouldn't research. Yes there is government funded research, but the moment we stop scientists from doing pure research is the moment when we stop doing science. Then where are we?

Probably wearing the wrong colored jersey at a Senior mens tournament.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by evman150

It seems practicality and general need are not key criteria for determining research topics and funding.

This is the statement that indicates you don't know what you're talking about.

Those things are not key criteria for a reason. It's because most of the time you never know what applications your research will have. Yes there is directed research. But the real science lies in pure research, not aiming at any end. An end in mind only constrains research, limiting and attenuating the body of knowledge obtained.

Really, there is no "pointless" research. There is research that ends up being pointless, but you cannot make that supposition before hand.

My background is in engineering research, which tends to be very directly toward direct applications and practicality. The point I was trying to make is that I personally believe research dollars should be allocated to research that is both practical and directly applicable to the needs of the world today. A lot of research is started with a particular purpose in mind. Any industry funded research within engineering and sciences tends to be driven by a purpose, not just to experiment and try to find stuff out. I'm speaking from a practical standpoint. I'm not saying that research without an aim isn't "real research", what I'm saying is that public dollars should go to research that has a purpose to help the public. Medical research, alternative energy research, and pollution control research would be just a few examples. To say that in most research the potential applications aren't known is a stretch, considering any industry-funded research tends to be paid for for a reason. The companies involved aren't just nice guys hoping scientists and engineers find out something interesting and potentially useful.

To say that I don't know what I'm talking about seems a bit coarse to me, as if you were offended by what I said and were looking to take a shot at me personally.

[jammies]

I think it's interesting that this is true, and the next step is finding out WHY this is the case - and you never know if the "why" of this might unlock all sorts of other answers about human behaviour. Like, for example, the important question: "Am I more likely to get laid if I'm wearing red?"

Doesn't seem so impractical now, does it?