What do you think?
Rate this book
This is Improbable: Cheese String Theory, Magnetic Chickens and Other WTF Research
Laugh out loud and then think seriously about these outlandish scientific studiesMarc Abrahams, the mind behind the internationally renowned Ig Nobel Prizes, is on a to gather the bizarre, the questionable, the brilliant, the downright funny, the profound – everything improbable – from the annals of science research. What’s the best way to slice a ham sandwich, mathematically? What makes Bobs look especially Bob-like? Is the right or left ear better at discerning lies? Could mice be outfitted with parachutes to kill tree snakes?
322 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2012
44 people are currently reading
413 people want to read
About the author
Marc Abrahams
41 books14 followersMarc Abrahams writes the 'Improbable Research' column for the Guardian and is the author of 'This Is Improbable'. He is the founding editor of the science humour magazine Annals of Improbable Research and founder of the Ig Nobel Prizes, which are presented at Harvard University each year. Abrahams and the Ig have been covered by the BBC, New Scientist, Daily Mail, Times, and numerous other outlets internationally. He lives in Massachusetts.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
December 23, 2017
A popular science book from the creator of the Ig Nobel Prizes. Marc Abrahams takes us through some of the most unusual, funny and imaginative pieces of research ever performed. It's witty and actually really interesting- One example that caught my attention was a group of scientists parachuting poison-laced dead mice into the jungle, to kill off a group of tree dwelling snakes, without affecting the crabs that lived on the jungle floor.
March 28, 2017
I REALLY love the IgNobel prices. It is a great way so entertain people and show them science. the research awarded with an IgNobel price makes people laugh, but then think because the value for science or society is explained.
That last thing, that is what I'm missing in this book. That is why this book is disappointing for me, or at least, not meeting my expectations. But it is really funny at some times. I do have to admit I skimmed or even skipped some parts because it did not sounded very interesting to me. All the pieces are really short like 3 pages or so, so it was not a big part of the book I skipped.
Maybe the short article-style bits in this book is the problem, or maybe the author just wants to be funny and lost touch with the science communication value of the IgNobel prizes.
That last thing, that is what I'm missing in this book. That is why this book is disappointing for me, or at least, not meeting my expectations. But it is really funny at some times. I do have to admit I skimmed or even skipped some parts because it did not sounded very interesting to me. All the pieces are really short like 3 pages or so, so it was not a big part of the book I skipped.
Maybe the short article-style bits in this book is the problem, or maybe the author just wants to be funny and lost touch with the science communication value of the IgNobel prizes.
October 9, 2012
The Ig Nobel Prize has become something of an institution in the science world. Year after year, respected scientists turn up to have their leg pulled about the topic of an academic paper they have had published (or occasionally a patent application). The man behind the Ig Nobels, Marc Abrahams, writes a column on ‘improbable research’ and this book is a collection of these articles, though often enhanced for the book form.
The tag line of the Ig Nobels is that it is for research that makes you laugh… then makes you think. This is true, although you often think ‘I don’t know how they ever managed to get funding for that research,’ or ‘How could they have the front to present that as science?’ A classic example of the latter is a piece where the incidence of wearing high heeled shoes is correlated with the rise of schizophrenia. It’s hard to start on what’s wrong with this paper – particularly the Science 101 error of confusing correlation with causality. It really is excruciating.
Others are just hilarious in the phrasing. My overall favourite was one on the mechanical properties of cheese. I nearly fell off the chair when reading that research ‘reported a change in the stress-strain behaviour of Gouda cheese when plates were lubricated with oil as opposed to when they were covered with emery paper.’ Boggle.
My only concern is that these things work better on an occasional exposure rather than a whole bookful at once. I found myself in overload reading the thing end to end – it meant that I found some topics a bit dull. I think this would be a book that is better dipped into (kept in the obvious location, I guess) than devoured in one sitting.
Inevitably Improbable makes for a good gift book – excellent for anyone of a scientific bent – or just to keep yourself amused in spare moments. I am assured that Abrahams didn’t make any of these papers up – but you will find it hard to believe.
Review first published on www.popularscience.co.uk and reproduced with permission
The tag line of the Ig Nobels is that it is for research that makes you laugh… then makes you think. This is true, although you often think ‘I don’t know how they ever managed to get funding for that research,’ or ‘How could they have the front to present that as science?’ A classic example of the latter is a piece where the incidence of wearing high heeled shoes is correlated with the rise of schizophrenia. It’s hard to start on what’s wrong with this paper – particularly the Science 101 error of confusing correlation with causality. It really is excruciating.
Others are just hilarious in the phrasing. My overall favourite was one on the mechanical properties of cheese. I nearly fell off the chair when reading that research ‘reported a change in the stress-strain behaviour of Gouda cheese when plates were lubricated with oil as opposed to when they were covered with emery paper.’ Boggle.
My only concern is that these things work better on an occasional exposure rather than a whole bookful at once. I found myself in overload reading the thing end to end – it meant that I found some topics a bit dull. I think this would be a book that is better dipped into (kept in the obvious location, I guess) than devoured in one sitting.
Inevitably Improbable makes for a good gift book – excellent for anyone of a scientific bent – or just to keep yourself amused in spare moments. I am assured that Abrahams didn’t make any of these papers up – but you will find it hard to believe.
Review first published on www.popularscience.co.uk and reproduced with permission
September 16, 2012
Marc Abrahams, founder of the Ig Nobel Prizes which reward achievements which make people laugh and then make them think, brings us a collection of strange, funny and just plain amazing scientific research.
This is the kind of book that makes you want to read out snippets to whoever is near. I did this so often that my husband quickly became exasperated and took the book away from me. However, within 10 minutes of him starting to read it, he was doing exactly the same thing.
The research presented in the book covers a wide range of scientific disciplines so there's truly something for everyone. For example, a mere handful of the things I learned from reading This Is Improbable are:
- you can't Bend It Like Beckham on Mars;
- loud noises wake you up;
- strapless dresses have inherent engineering challenges;
- you can teach a tortoise to pretend to yawn; and
- some scientists have too much time (& money) on their hands.
If I were to think really hard about this book I suppose I'd say that it does have a tendency to the puerile and laddish in its interest in sport, underwear, poo and certain physical activities. However, in my experience, scientists (and I've known a few)tend to be big kids at heart and so have this sense of humour. Nothing in the book is offensive in any way, just amazing and funny.
This is a book to dip in and out of - if you read too much at a time you forget what you've read as the last weird fact is pushed out of your brain by the next weird fact - perhaps someone should do some research on this. It's a bit like looking a paintings in a gallery - no matter how much you want to look at them and how beautiful they are you soon reach overload and diminish the experience. It's also wise not to rush through it as pacing yourself means you can enjoy it for longer.
Reading a few pages a day will keep you interested and amused for months - not to mention anyone sitting near you.
This is the kind of book that makes you want to read out snippets to whoever is near. I did this so often that my husband quickly became exasperated and took the book away from me. However, within 10 minutes of him starting to read it, he was doing exactly the same thing.
The research presented in the book covers a wide range of scientific disciplines so there's truly something for everyone. For example, a mere handful of the things I learned from reading This Is Improbable are:
- you can't Bend It Like Beckham on Mars;
- loud noises wake you up;
- strapless dresses have inherent engineering challenges;
- you can teach a tortoise to pretend to yawn; and
- some scientists have too much time (& money) on their hands.
If I were to think really hard about this book I suppose I'd say that it does have a tendency to the puerile and laddish in its interest in sport, underwear, poo and certain physical activities. However, in my experience, scientists (and I've known a few)tend to be big kids at heart and so have this sense of humour. Nothing in the book is offensive in any way, just amazing and funny.
This is a book to dip in and out of - if you read too much at a time you forget what you've read as the last weird fact is pushed out of your brain by the next weird fact - perhaps someone should do some research on this. It's a bit like looking a paintings in a gallery - no matter how much you want to look at them and how beautiful they are you soon reach overload and diminish the experience. It's also wise not to rush through it as pacing yourself means you can enjoy it for longer.
Reading a few pages a day will keep you interested and amused for months - not to mention anyone sitting near you.
November 19, 2013
Something missed regarding the author's sense of humor. Too many postulates, too shortly described. A bit tiresome at the end of the day.
December 20, 2017
Fun review of quite strange scientific articles/papers
May 19, 2015
As an easily amused person, i find this book as extremely amusing. A collection of highly improbable , Ig Nobel Prize winning research and others (several quirky research were even published in Nature journal!). I can't quite get the book's structure and I would love the discussions be made longer, but oh well, maybe the length is adequate to prove one point ; masses may wonder why scientists bother to investigate certain seemingly unimportant subjects (e.g contagious yawning among tortoise, imperial officers level of boredom in the 19th and early 20th century, wearing high heels cause schizophrenia) , but scientists are afterall, highly optimistic people who believe their research is of utmost importance (always)... And do have some sense of humor ! So if you're looking to find the fun side of science, read this book.
January 17, 2019
Never judge a book by its cover... this fits this book for sure. It sounds from the description an interesting read. In reality it is a haphazard mix of articles that didn't make it into a newspaper column because they were either boring or not very well explained. There were some interesting pages in this book that could give the reader something to talk about during lunchtime or something like that. Most of the book was dull to me and I admit I skipped many pages just to find a half attractive heading. This book is going straight to the charity shop....
November 11, 2021
Есть, скажем, две возможности для чтения такого рода литературы (the Short History of Drunkenness из той же степи, хотя чуть ближе к лесной полосе):
..вторая возможность - это то, что, не обнаруживая ни малейшего смыла в чтении материала, ты всё-таки продолжаешь выискивать крупицы, какими можно насмешить воображаемых соседей ("воображаемых", поскольку действительные соседи отчего-то смеются по совершенны другим поводам, смех в отношении которых тебе кажется нередко "унизительным" или актом самоуничижения - и не так важно, "здоровая" эта оценка смеха или нет);
..первая возможность - это то, что, всё так же не обнаруживая никакого смысла, ты осиливаешь материал от корки до корки, время от времени находя аналогии в труде "игнобелей" с деятельностью собственной или в некоторой степени известных тебе должностных и не очень лиц (профессоров и "заведующих всем", ревизоров и правозащитников, музыкантов и разнорабочих, людей, дожидающихся прибытия бесплатного автобуса, и популяризаторов науки, популяризирующих не совсем науку, так как после чтения их трудов читатель по необъяснимой причине не чувствует себя ни на гран учёнее).
Две означенные возможности взаимозависимы, использовать их следует лишь попеременно и только с твёрдым намерением довести начатое чтение до конца.
Отсутствие осмысленности выполняет роль гаранта того, что чтение, как задача или даже апория, благополучно найдёт своё разрешение на самой дальней полке электронной библиотеки.
С другой стороны, "импробабль", находящийся на дальней полке, может оказывать чрезвычайно пагубное влияние на психическое здоровье обладателя библиотеки, потому лучше подыскать место для него на самом виду - пусть разрушает здоровье непрошеных просителей и прочих гостей без гостинцев.
...
Следовало бы отдать должное автору, если бы он вознамерился показать "чем на самом деле занимаются люди науки всё время, пока мы читаем газеты и скрижали, смотрим телевизор и высматриваем располагающие к разговору лица, чистим зубы и картошку, красим ногти и стены, моем посуду и электромобиль, протираем пыль и стёкла очков, кормим собак и детей, стираем носки и эскизы, и фотографируем, фотографируем, фотографируем, фотографируем" - однако автор не имел такого намерения, потому должное остаётся за нами, отдать оное мы предпочтём кому-нибудь другому, тому, кто наименее должного заслуживает.
..вторая возможность - это то, что, не обнаруживая ни малейшего смыла в чтении материала, ты всё-таки продолжаешь выискивать крупицы, какими можно насмешить воображаемых соседей ("воображаемых", поскольку действительные соседи отчего-то смеются по совершенны другим поводам, смех в отношении которых тебе кажется нередко "унизительным" или актом самоуничижения - и не так важно, "здоровая" эта оценка смеха или нет);
..первая возможность - это то, что, всё так же не обнаруживая никакого смысла, ты осиливаешь материал от корки до корки, время от времени находя аналогии в труде "игнобелей" с деятельностью собственной или в некоторой степени известных тебе должностных и не очень лиц (профессоров и "заведующих всем", ревизоров и правозащитников, музыкантов и разнорабочих, людей, дожидающихся прибытия бесплатного автобуса, и популяризаторов науки, популяризирующих не совсем науку, так как после чтения их трудов читатель по необъяснимой причине не чувствует себя ни на гран учёнее).
Две означенные возможности взаимозависимы, использовать их следует лишь попеременно и только с твёрдым намерением довести начатое чтение до конца.
Отсутствие осмысленности выполняет роль гаранта того, что чтение, как задача или даже апория, благополучно найдёт своё разрешение на самой дальней полке электронной библиотеки.
С другой стороны, "импробабль", находящийся на дальней полке, может оказывать чрезвычайно пагубное влияние на психическое здоровье обладателя библиотеки, потому лучше подыскать место для него на самом виду - пусть разрушает здоровье непрошеных просителей и прочих гостей без гостинцев.
...
Следовало бы отдать должное автору, если бы он вознамерился показать "чем на самом деле занимаются люди науки всё время, пока мы читаем газеты и скрижали, смотрим телевизор и высматриваем располагающие к разговору лица, чистим зубы и картошку, красим ногти и стены, моем посуду и электромобиль, протираем пыль и стёкла очков, кормим собак и детей, стираем носки и эскизы, и фотографируем, фотографируем, фотографируем, фотографируем" - однако автор не имел такого намерения, потому должное остаётся за нами, отдать оное мы предпочтём кому-нибудь другому, тому, кто наименее должного заслуживает.
Read
October 23, 2025Often, thinking seriously about outlandish problems is the only way to make progress in science. The rest of the time, it’s hilarious. Marc Abrahams, the founder of the famous Ig Nobel prizes, offers an addictive, wryly funny exposé of the oddest, most imaginative, and just plain improbable research from around the world. He looks into why books on ethics are more likely to get stolen and how randomly promoting people (rather than doing it based on merit) improves their work. He also shares the findings of weird experiments, from whether Vegas lap dancers earn higher tips at a certain time of the month to how mice were once outfitted with parachutes to find a better way to murder tree snakes. Abrahams’ tour through this strangest of strange science will first make you laugh, and then make you think about your world in a completely new way. Marc Abrahams, the founder of the Ig Nobel prize, offers an addictive, wryly funny exposé of the most improbable research from around the world, from why one psychologist insisted it was better to promote people randomly to whether Vegas lap dancers get higher tips at certain times of the month. As you travel from the bizarre to the profound, Abrahams will make you laugh, and then think about the world in a completely new way.
February 4, 2023
หนังสือเล่มนี้ให้อารมณ์เดียวกับ Mad Science ของ Reto Schneider แต่ออกแนวฮามากกว่า ผู้เขียน Marc Abrahams เป็นผู้ก่อตั้งรางวัล Ig Nobel ฉะนั้นฝีมือการคัดเลือกงานวิจัยแปลก ๆ จนบางทีก็ดูเพี้ยน ๆ มาเล่านี่จึงน่าจะรับประกันได้ระดับหนึ่ง บางเรื่อง ความน่าทึ่งของงานที่แกเล่าก็ไม่ได้อยู่ที่ผลลัพธ์นะครับ แต่อยู่ที่ความช่างสงสัยปนขี้เล่นของนักวิจัยที่ตั้งคำถาม Dan Ariely บอกว่านี่เป็นหนังสือประเภทที่ถ้าคุณเอาไปเล่าให้เพื่อนฟังแล้วจะทำให้คุณดูฉลาดขึ้น ข้อเสียหน่อยนึงคือหนังสือไม่มี index และไม่มีสารบัญแบบละเอียด ก่อความลำบากเล็กน้อยเวลาจะย้อนกลับไปหาเรื่องที่อ่านผ่านมา แต่ในแง่ของหนังสือที่เน้นอ่านผ่าน อ่านสนุก ก็เป็นข้อเสียที่รับได้ครับ
January 20, 2024
It sounded interesting and some parts are, because of the sometimes insane and intriguing pieces of research Abrahams describes. However, you constantly end up feeling dissatisfied with his superficial treatment of it all. After each brief description you're left hanging.
It would be so much better if he gave the reader more depth and structure instead of the hotch potch of anecdotes that we're constantly left with.
It would be so much better if he gave the reader more depth and structure instead of the hotch potch of anecdotes that we're constantly left with.
October 11, 2018
Nowhere as good as the Journal of Irreproducible Results or the original inspirations behind the IgNoble awards. Even though the author was involved with both from way back when.
2.5 stars with an occasional flash of brilliance. But, hard to find when you want to.
2.5 stars with an occasional flash of brilliance. But, hard to find when you want to.
November 15, 2024
This book has potential with its unusual content and humorous style, but sometime things are left hanging inconclusive or hard to understand. Didn't finished it. Stopped halfway at the 'Economics' chapter.
January 4, 2019
This is highly unfunny and should not leave small passages in newspapers
October 22, 2019
Great subject, poorly written. For fun reading on WTF research pick Alex Boese's 'Elephants on Acid' instead.
July 22, 2021
Comparable to "Weird Maths". Not a big fan of this book either.
December 5, 2014
Šo grāmatu nopirku pirms pāris gadiem, jo amazonē viņai bija liela atlaide. Atsauksmes un nosaukums šķita pietiekami interesanti, lai manu uz šādu pirkumu pamudinātu. Grāmatas autors ir pazīstams arī kā Ig Nobel Prize nodibinātājs, un tas vien liecināja, ka noteikti neviens cits labāk par viņu nepārzina dīvainos zinātnes pētījumus.
Reizēm zinātnes attīstība notiek pētot visdīvainākās problēmas. Vienmēr atrodas kāds zinātnieks, kuru uztrauks tādi jautājumi, par cik alus dārdzība samazina noziegumu skaitu, vai ar pudeli var pārsist galvu, kā pareizi nomest ar izpletni beigtu saindētu peli, vai lasīšana var izraisīt epilepsiju, cik liela varbūtība ir govij apgulties pēc ilgstošas stāvēšanas, kā pludmalē teritoriju apzīmē apmeklētāji, kāpēc iepirkumu maisiņi saplīst pusceļā uz mājām, kā smadzenes reaģē uz naudas iznīcināšanu un citām tikpat svarīgām lietām. Šajā grāmatā autors apkopojis savus rakstus, kuri gadu gaitā publicēti avīzē the Guardian.
Ideja nenoliedzami ir interesanta, reti kura lieta ilustrē labāk to, ka zinātne ir ne tikai lielais hadronu paātrinātājs un NASA raķešu programma. Zinātnieki ikdienā pēta visneiedomājamākās lietas. Autors šajā tēmā ir iedziļinājies, un viņa atrastās pērles ir diezgan spožas. Taču ir viens liels BET. Grāmata pēc būtības atšķiras no rakstiņa avīzē. Avīzē ir normāli izlasīt pāris rindkopas garu stāstiņu pasmieties un nolikt avīzi malā. Taču, ja grāmatā ir simts šādu mazu stāstiņu, tad lasīšana kļūst par murgu. Katru reizi lasītājs tiek iesviests pavisam jaunā tēmā, kurai nav nekāda sakara ar iepriekšējo rakstu, un tas nojauc lasītāja koncentrāciju.
Kaitina arī autora izklāsta struktūra, tā ir palikusi nemainīga kā avīzē. Sākumā mums tiek paziņots zinātniskais pētījums ar intriģējošu nosaukumu, tad īsumā tiekam iepazīstināti ar autoriem, tad divos teikumos seko pētījuma saturs, tad autora vārdu spēle, kas reizēm ir smieklīga, bet bieži ne pārāk un beigās izmantotā literatūra. Es kā lasītājs tomēr būtu autoram pateicīgs, ja autors nedaudz izvērstāk pastāstītu par pašu pētījumu, kaut ko nedaudz vairāk kā tikai nosaukumu. Piemēram, par iespējamo pielietojumu tautsaimniecībā, kā viņi dabūjuši finansējumu. Vietām viņš to dara, un tie ir izcili stāstiņi, kuri mani noturēja pie grāmatas lasīšanas.
Kopumā visšvakākā populārzinātniskā grāmata šogad 4 no 10 ballēm. Grāmatu izlasīju vairāk aiz spītības nekā aiz intereses. Ar populārzinātniskajām grāmatām man šāda lieta praktiski negadās. Galvenais iemesls tam ir – grāmata nav paredzēta, lai viņu lasītu visu uzreiz no vāka līdz vākam. Iespējams, ka vislabāk viņu būt lasīt dozējot, katru dienu pa vienam rakstam. Taču stāstiņi nav tik kvalitatīvi, lai es kā lasītājs spētu pieturēties pie šāda lasīšanas režīma. Visticamāk, ka grāmata pēc divām dienām paliktu neaiztikta un nelasīta.
Reizēm zinātnes attīstība notiek pētot visdīvainākās problēmas. Vienmēr atrodas kāds zinātnieks, kuru uztrauks tādi jautājumi, par cik alus dārdzība samazina noziegumu skaitu, vai ar pudeli var pārsist galvu, kā pareizi nomest ar izpletni beigtu saindētu peli, vai lasīšana var izraisīt epilepsiju, cik liela varbūtība ir govij apgulties pēc ilgstošas stāvēšanas, kā pludmalē teritoriju apzīmē apmeklētāji, kāpēc iepirkumu maisiņi saplīst pusceļā uz mājām, kā smadzenes reaģē uz naudas iznīcināšanu un citām tikpat svarīgām lietām. Šajā grāmatā autors apkopojis savus rakstus, kuri gadu gaitā publicēti avīzē the Guardian.
Ideja nenoliedzami ir interesanta, reti kura lieta ilustrē labāk to, ka zinātne ir ne tikai lielais hadronu paātrinātājs un NASA raķešu programma. Zinātnieki ikdienā pēta visneiedomājamākās lietas. Autors šajā tēmā ir iedziļinājies, un viņa atrastās pērles ir diezgan spožas. Taču ir viens liels BET. Grāmata pēc būtības atšķiras no rakstiņa avīzē. Avīzē ir normāli izlasīt pāris rindkopas garu stāstiņu pasmieties un nolikt avīzi malā. Taču, ja grāmatā ir simts šādu mazu stāstiņu, tad lasīšana kļūst par murgu. Katru reizi lasītājs tiek iesviests pavisam jaunā tēmā, kurai nav nekāda sakara ar iepriekšējo rakstu, un tas nojauc lasītāja koncentrāciju.
Kaitina arī autora izklāsta struktūra, tā ir palikusi nemainīga kā avīzē. Sākumā mums tiek paziņots zinātniskais pētījums ar intriģējošu nosaukumu, tad īsumā tiekam iepazīstināti ar autoriem, tad divos teikumos seko pētījuma saturs, tad autora vārdu spēle, kas reizēm ir smieklīga, bet bieži ne pārāk un beigās izmantotā literatūra. Es kā lasītājs tomēr būtu autoram pateicīgs, ja autors nedaudz izvērstāk pastāstītu par pašu pētījumu, kaut ko nedaudz vairāk kā tikai nosaukumu. Piemēram, par iespējamo pielietojumu tautsaimniecībā, kā viņi dabūjuši finansējumu. Vietām viņš to dara, un tie ir izcili stāstiņi, kuri mani noturēja pie grāmatas lasīšanas.
Kopumā visšvakākā populārzinātniskā grāmata šogad 4 no 10 ballēm. Grāmatu izlasīju vairāk aiz spītības nekā aiz intereses. Ar populārzinātniskajām grāmatām man šāda lieta praktiski negadās. Galvenais iemesls tam ir – grāmata nav paredzēta, lai viņu lasītu visu uzreiz no vāka līdz vākam. Iespējams, ka vislabāk viņu būt lasīt dozējot, katru dienu pa vienam rakstam. Taču stāstiņi nav tik kvalitatīvi, lai es kā lasītājs spētu pieturēties pie šāda lasīšanas režīma. Visticamāk, ka grāmata pēc divām dienām paliktu neaiztikta un nelasīta.
February 6, 2017
Review title: Outtakes from the Journal of Irreproducible Results?
The above named journal, an inside parody of the density and denseness of hyper serious scientific journals, was one of my favorite finds when I worked at the University of Maryland Engineering and Physical Sciences library back on the late 1970s. This book reads like a virtual index of the kinds of articles the journal published in jest--with the difference that these are apparently real. And thanks to the magic of the Internet, I quickly find that the journal is alive and well at
http://www.jir.com and had nothing to do with this book.
In chapters ranged roughly by scientific topic, Improbable provides brief tongue in cheek recaps of some of the oddest of real science, with plenty of punnage included: these are, as Abrahams describes one study, "all things that grate and are small." (p. 151). Think that was a stretch? How about this, in reference to a study on laundry drying times: "that was the first time that drying laundry had been aired in public." (p. 233) And there are more of these in every 1 or 2 page synopsis, which have been pulled from the author's weekly column in the Guardian newspaper.
There are a few good laughs here, and some of the puns are subtle and sly enough to bring a smile to the attentive reader's face, but nothing here will change your life or even do more than pass a few minutes pleasantly enough. Unless of course you need to know, at random here, about the economics of suicide (p. 226) or the air conditioning capacity of the human nose (p. 46}.
Sometimes, pleasantly enough is just enough to make a book worthwhile.
The above named journal, an inside parody of the density and denseness of hyper serious scientific journals, was one of my favorite finds when I worked at the University of Maryland Engineering and Physical Sciences library back on the late 1970s. This book reads like a virtual index of the kinds of articles the journal published in jest--with the difference that these are apparently real. And thanks to the magic of the Internet, I quickly find that the journal is alive and well at
http://www.jir.com and had nothing to do with this book.
In chapters ranged roughly by scientific topic, Improbable provides brief tongue in cheek recaps of some of the oddest of real science, with plenty of punnage included: these are, as Abrahams describes one study, "all things that grate and are small." (p. 151). Think that was a stretch? How about this, in reference to a study on laundry drying times: "that was the first time that drying laundry had been aired in public." (p. 233) And there are more of these in every 1 or 2 page synopsis, which have been pulled from the author's weekly column in the Guardian newspaper.
There are a few good laughs here, and some of the puns are subtle and sly enough to bring a smile to the attentive reader's face, but nothing here will change your life or even do more than pass a few minutes pleasantly enough. Unless of course you need to know, at random here, about the economics of suicide (p. 226) or the air conditioning capacity of the human nose (p. 46}.
Sometimes, pleasantly enough is just enough to make a book worthwhile.
December 28, 2013
This collection of some of Annals of Improbable Research editor Marc Abrahams' favorite unusual research is lots of fun. Whether he's describing studies about an Australian beetle's mating behavior with beer bottles, the effect of saliva flow on the perception of custard flavor, or sheep personalities, Abrahams has a gift for explaining the research in a way that's humorous and also can't help making you think. For most people it will feel like an uneven collection: some will be hilarious and some won't be even remotely interested in, but it's a strength of the book that there's almost certainly something for everyone. Since it's a fairly large collection of short research descriptions, it's a book best read in bits and pieces. I'm putting in my bathroom. And I mean that as a compliment.
The book isn't written for teens, but many high school students with a sense of humor and a love of science will enjoy it. Not only that, it also will open up a view of science to them they've probably never seen: one that shows the practice of science isn't really about tackling big questions, but rather about lots of people tackling lots of little tiny questions that over time can add up to big answers -- as odd as some of those questions might be.
The book isn't written for teens, but many high school students with a sense of humor and a love of science will enjoy it. Not only that, it also will open up a view of science to them they've probably never seen: one that shows the practice of science isn't really about tackling big questions, but rather about lots of people tackling lots of little tiny questions that over time can add up to big answers -- as odd as some of those questions might be.
October 17, 2014
The problem with reading a book of "WTF research," as the subtitle calls it, is that you're reading an entire book of WTF research. Not nearly as funny as a good comedy, and not nearly as scientific as a typical science book, this book falls in a canyon between the two. I think the conceit works much better in its original form--a weekly column in the Guardian newspaper.
And this truly is "WTF research." Each entry is 1-1.5 pages on weird articles the author found in scientific journals--"Leftovers from the Ham Sandwich Theorem," "Designing and Testing an Improved Packaging for Large Hollow Chocolate Bunnies," "Psychoacoustics of a Chilling Sound," "Artists' Suicide as a Public Good," "Eye-witnesses Should Not Do Cryptic Crosswords Prior to Identity Parades," "The Leadership of Ronald McDonald: Double Narration and Stylistic Lines of Transformation," and so and so on, ad nauseam. The author is funny, but I wish he had better material to work with.
And this truly is "WTF research." Each entry is 1-1.5 pages on weird articles the author found in scientific journals--"Leftovers from the Ham Sandwich Theorem," "Designing and Testing an Improved Packaging for Large Hollow Chocolate Bunnies," "Psychoacoustics of a Chilling Sound," "Artists' Suicide as a Public Good," "Eye-witnesses Should Not Do Cryptic Crosswords Prior to Identity Parades," "The Leadership of Ronald McDonald: Double Narration and Stylistic Lines of Transformation," and so and so on, ad nauseam. The author is funny, but I wish he had better material to work with.
July 30, 2014
A brilliant book that will definitely make you laugh; and make you think.
Marc Abrahams has documented some of the most unusual papers, thoughts and experiments conducted in the name of science on people, animals and objects. Quite a number may seem trivial and make you wonder just why people would actually want to publish work on it. But others studies will make you think, and reconsider what the study shows about the world around you. Some, well, they appear to be there just to give Abrahams a chance to show off various puns about the study.
And, as the prologue states, "There are no homosexual, necrophilliac ducks in this book." It contains lots of other things that are considerably stranger than ducks.
Marc Abrahams has documented some of the most unusual papers, thoughts and experiments conducted in the name of science on people, animals and objects. Quite a number may seem trivial and make you wonder just why people would actually want to publish work on it. But others studies will make you think, and reconsider what the study shows about the world around you. Some, well, they appear to be there just to give Abrahams a chance to show off various puns about the study.
And, as the prologue states, "There are no homosexual, necrophilliac ducks in this book." It contains lots of other things that are considerably stranger than ducks.
June 10, 2014
These studies are truly off the wall, around the corner and in the box of - wtf. Others are just completely useless in scope. The book could use even more humor from the author on some of the studies, but this book contains what feels like an endless supply of people wanting to understand the obscure and I'm not sure if they are doing it for the money or because they are really interested in finding out something. Some of the studies feel like they "had to come up with a study" and had really no inspiration and just grabbed the first idea that popped up.
However, this could be an incredible resource for writers to use to create stories.
However, this could be an incredible resource for writers to use to create stories.
May 3, 2013
Not only is the research itself often amusing (or bemusing), Abrahams' writing about the research is hysterically funny. I understand that not all research has an immediate "purpose", but I am hard-pressed to explain why someone would build a career out of studying the history of underwear in the Soviet Union (as one study detailed). Teaching monkeys to play rock, paper, scissors? Sure, that's good fun. Statistical modeling of how sheep form groups in a pasture? Hmmm...
October 8, 2014
(ebook edition) nonfiction. I was hoping for something more like 'freakonomics' but these were inconsequential little blurbs, summaries of off-the-wall studies. I only skimmed the first chapter or so, but it wasn't catching my interest at all.
December 8, 2014
I liked the idea of WTF research, but it all seems a collection of random stuff put together just because. The author is trying to be funny with his comments, but that's about it. I don't know what I was expecting, but it wasn't this. Didn't ring my bell.
November 14, 2012
Didn't get too terribly far. The stories were interesting, but they were just all brief snippets no more than a page long. Not really the type of book you'd read straight through.
September 10, 2014
This was interesting for about the first hundred pages. At that time reading became tedious.
August 10, 2015
Too much information to follow the narrative thread.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews