Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: MORE PSYCH HUMOR--

Posted by pullmarine on September 25, 2000, at 16:20:15

In reply to HUMOR--Psychiatry and Proctology Joke, posted by Snowie on August 21, 2000, at 6:32:50


1-800-PSYCH
Hello, Welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline.

If you are obsessive-compulsive, open the fridge door three times , knock on wood, and press 5 six times.

If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2.

If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5 and 6.

If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on the line so we can trace the call.

If you are dyslexic, press 669 696.

If you're a borderliner, threaten to commit suicide if your significant other doesn't press 3 for you.

If you have PTSD, press 8, but very slowly and carefully.

If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will tell you which number to press.

If you are depressed, it doesn't matter which number you press. No one will answer.

------

Christmas Carols for the Psychiatrically Challenged

SCHIZOPHRENIA - Do You Hear What I Hear?
MULTIPLE PERSONALITY - We Three Queens Disoriented Are.

DEMENTIA - I Think I'll Be Home For Christmas.

NARCISSISTIC - Hark The Herald Angels Sing About Me

MANIA - Deck the Halls and Walls and House and Lawn and Streets and Stores and Office and Town ...or Deck the Halls and Spare No Expense!

PARANOIA - Santa Claus is Coming To Get Me.

PERSONALITY DISORDER - You Better Watch Out, I'm Gonna Cry, I'm Gonna Pout, then MAYBE I'll tell you why.

OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE - Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell Rock, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell Rock, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell Rock, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell Rock, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell Rock, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell Rock, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell Rock, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell, Jingle Bell Rock, Jingle Bell...

PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE - On the First Day of Christmas My True Love Gave to Me (and then took it all away).

-----------------

Freud on Seuss
a book review by Josh LeBeau
(from the Koala, UCSD's humour newspaper)
The Cat in the Hat
by Dr. Seuss, 61 pages. Beginner Books, $3.95

The Cat in the Hat is a hard-hitting novel of prose and poetry in which the author re-examines the dynamic rhyming schemes and bold imagery of some of his earlier works, most notably Green Eggs and Ham, If I Ran the Zoo, and Why Can't I Shower With Mommy? In this novel, Theodore Geisel, writing under the pseudonym Dr. Seuss, pays homage to the great Dr. Sigmund Freud in a nightmarish fantasy of a renegade feline helping two young children understand their own frustrated sexuality.

The story opens with two youngsters, a brother and a sister, abandoned by their mother, staring mournfully through the window of their single-family dwelling. In the foreground, a large tree/phallic symbol dances wildly in the wind, taunting the children and encouraging them to succumb to the sexual yearnings they undoubtedly feel for each other. Even to the most unlearned reader, the blatant references to the incestuous relationship the two share set the tone for Seuss' probing examination of the satisfaction of primitive needs. The Cat proceeds to charm the wary youths into engaging in what he so innocently refers to as "tricks." At this point, the fish, an obvious Christ figure who represents the prevailing Christian morality, attempts to warn the children, and thus, in effect, warns all of humanity of the dangers associated with the unleashing of the primal urges. In response to this, the cat proceeds to balance the aquatic naysayer on the end of his umbrella, essentially saying, "Down with morality; down with God!"

After poohpoohing the righteous rantings of the waterlogged Christ figure, the Cat begins to juggle several icons of Western culture, most notably two books, representing the Old and New Testaments, and a saucer of lactal fluid, an ironic reference to maternal loss the two children experienced when their mother abandoned them "for the afternoon." Our heroic Id adds to this bold gesture a rake and a toy man, and thus completes the Oedipal triangle.

Later in the novel, Seuss introduces the proverbial Pandora's box, a large red crate out of which the Id releases Thing One, or Freud's concept of Ego, the division of the psyche that serves as the conscious mediator between the person and reality, and Thing Two, the Superego which functions to reward and punish through a system of moral attitudes, conscience, and guilt. Referring to this box, the Cat says, "Now look at this trick. Take a look!" In this, Dr. Seuss uses the children as a brilliant metaphor for the reader, and asks the reader to re-examine his own inner self.

The children, unable to control the Id, Ego, and Superego allow these creatures to run free and mess up the house, or more symbolically, control their lives. This rampage continues until the fish, or Christ symbol, warns that the mother is returning to reinstate the Oedipal triangle that existed before her abandonment of the children. At this point, Seuss introduces a many-armed cleaning device which represents the psychoanalytic couch, which proceeds to put the two youngsters' lives back in order.

With powerful simplicity, clarity, and drama, Seuss reduces Freud's concepts on the dynamics of the human psyche to an easily understood gesture. Mr. Seuss' poetry and choice of words is equally impressive and serves as a splendid counterpart to his bold symbolism. In all, his writing style is quick and fluid, making The Cat in the Hat impossible to put down. While this novel is 61 pages in length, and one can read it in five minutes or less, it is not until after multiple readings that the genius of this modern day master becomes apparent.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following list of phrases and their definitions might help you understand the mysterious language of science (including psychology) and medicine. These special phrases are also applicable to anyone reading a PhD dissertation or academic paper.
"IT HAS LONG BEEN KNOWN"... I didn't look up the original reference.

"A DEFINITE TREND IS EVIDENT"... These data are practically meaningless.

"WHILE IT HAS NOT BEEN POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE DEFINITE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS"... An unsuccessful experiment, but I still hope to get it published.

"THREE OF THE SAMPLES WERE CHOSEN FOR DETAILED STUDY"... The other results didn't make any sense.

"TYPICAL RESULTS ARE SHOWN"... This is the prettiest graph.

"THESE RESULTS WILL BE IN A SUBSEQUENT REPORT"... I might get around to this sometime, if pushed/funded.

"IN MY EXPERIENCE"... Once

"IN CASE AFTER CASE"... Twice

"IN A SERIES OF CASES"... Thrice

"IT IS BELIEVED THAT"... I think.

"IT IS GENERALLY BELIEVED THAT"... A couple of others think so, too.

"CORRECT WITHIN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE"... Wrong.

"ACCORD1NG TO STATISTICAL ANALYSIS"... Rumour has it.

"A STATISTICALLY-ORIENTED PROJECTION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE FINDINGS"... A wild guess.

"A CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF OBTAINABLE DATA"... Three pages of notes were obliterated when I knocked over a glass of beer.

"IT IS CLEAR THAT MUCH ADDITIONAL WORK WILL BE REQUIRED BEFORE A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PHENOMENON OCCURS"... I don't understand it

"AFTER ADDITIONAL STUDY BY MY COLLEAGUES"... They don't understand it either.

"THANKS ARE DUE TO JOE BLOGGS FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE EXPERIMENT AND TO CINDY ADAMS FOR VALUABLE DISCUSSIONS"... Mr. Bloggs did the work and Ms. Adams explained to me what it meant.

"A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT AREA FOR EXPLORATORY STUDY"... A totally useless topic selected by my committee.

"IT IS HOPED THAT THIS STUDY WILL STIMULATE FURTHER 1NVESTIGATION IN THIS FIELD"... I quit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why God never received a PhD:
1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was in Hebrew.
3. It had no references.
4. It wasn't published in a refereed journal.
5. Some even doubt he wrote it by himself.
6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9. He never applied to the ethics board for permission to use human subjects.
10. When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it by drowning his subjects.
11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
13. Some say he had his son teach the class.
14. He expelled his first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students failed his tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.
17. No record of working well with colleagues.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAT TEST
To identify emotionally disturbed individuals accurately, Algozzine, Foster, & Kaufman (1979) developed the CAT TEST. This simple, yet novel test is easily administered by professionals, parents, and aides. It involves three simple steps: 1) place testee in empty room facing far wall; 2) place cat in center of room, close and latch door; 3) after 10 minutes, open the door. Algozzine et al., note that the CAT TEST allows fine discriminations between subclassifications of emotional disturbance . They offer the following guidelines for interpretation of results:

1. OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE--- four neat, meticulous piles of fur to be found in the corners of room - cat alive, but cold.

2. SOCIALIZED DELINQUENT--- fur scattered randomly about room and on testee - cat alive, still cold.

3a. MANIC/DEPRESSIVE (MANIC STAGE)--- pieces of cat scattered randomly about room - cat terminated.

3b. MANIC/DEPRESSIVE (DEPRESSIVE STAGE)--- pieces of testee scattered randomly about the room - emotionally stability of cat suspect.

4. SEVERE PATHOLOGY--- only evidence of cat is skin, wrapped loosely about testee's head - cat assumed terminated.

5. PARANIOD REACTION--- testee cowering in far corner of room - cat alive and sleeping in center of room.

6. SCHIZOPHRENIC REACTION--- testee in center of room carrying on long existential discussion with cat - cat alive, but confused.

7. NEUROTIC REACTION--- testee asking for advise about migraine headache - cat alive and still confused.

8. CATATONIC REACTION--- testee in corner of room with back arched, hair on end, hissing, and refusing to acknowledge presence of cat - cat alive and confused.

----------------------

Dear Fellow Scientist:

This letter has been around the world at least seven times. It has been to many major conferences. Now it has come to you. It will
bring you good fortune. This is true even if you don't believe it.

But you must follow these instructions:

- include in your next journal article the citations below.
- remove the first citation from the list and add a citation to your journal article at the bottom.
- make ten copies and send them to colleagues.

Within one year, you will be cited up to 10,000 times! This will amaze your fellow faculty, assure your promotion and improve your sex life. In addition, you will bring joy to many colleagues.

Do not break the reference loop, but send this letter on today.

Dr. H. received this letter and within a year after passing it on she was elected to the National Academy of Sciences.
Prof. M. threw this letter away and was denied tenure.
In Japan, Dr. I. received this letter and put it aside. His article for Trans. on Nephrology was rejected. He found the letter and passed it on,
and his article was published that year in the New England Journal of Medicine.
In the Midwest, Prof. K. failed to pass on the letter, and in a budget cutback his entire department was eliminated. This could happen to you if you break the chain of citations.

1. Miller, J. (1992). Post-modern neo-cubism and the wave theory of light. Journal of Cognitive Artifacts, 8, 113-117.

2. Johnson, S. (1991). Micturition in the canid family: the irresistable pull of the hydrant. Physics Quarterly, 33, 203-220.

3. Anderson, R. (1990). Your place or mine?: an empirical comparison of two models of human mating behavior. Psychology Yesterday 12, 63-77.

4. David, E. (1994). Modern Approaches to Chaotic Heuristic Optimization: Means of Analyzing Non-Linear Intelligent Networks
with Emergent Symbolic Structure. (doctoral dissertation, University of California at Santa Royale El Camino del Rey Mar Vista by-the-sea.)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to identify scientists:

Chem Prof: Wears a white lab coat. This may actually be clean but does not have to be. P-chem profs have a brand new coat that has never been in the lab; polymer chem profs have strange glop on their coat, and intro chem profs have acid holes.

Physics Prof: Wears blue jeans and a flannel shirt. May sometimes forget to wear shirt altogether. If a professor is wearing blue
jeans and suspenders, ten to one he is a physicist. Physics profs often have German accents, but this is not a distingushing
characteristic. Be wary of psychologists with fake Viennese accentswhich can sound similar to the unwary.

Bio Prof: Sometimes wears a lab coat, though usually this is the sign of a biochemist. Marine biologists walk around in hip boots for no explainable reason, even in the middle of winter. They are apt to wear grey slacks and smell like fish, as opposed to most biologists, who smell strongly of formalin. Microbiology
instructors go around in spotless white coats, refuse to drink beer on tap, and wipe all their silverware before using it. Never loan money to a bio prof, no matter how much he asks.

Computer Science (CS) Prof: Most CS profs are from India or Pakistan. You can tell by the gestures and accents. This is not a bad thing, though many of the American CS professors tend to pick up Indian accents which confounds more specific identification. Like mushrooms, CS students only come out at night, and, if not Indian, tend to take on a pasty appearance. CS professors do not use computers and therefore
can be easily identified by their comparative good health with respect to their students. Many CS professors do not even know how to use computers, and are actually mathematicians, linguists, or psychologists in disguise. Avoid these people.

Math Prof: Math profs are like physics professors except without any practical bent. A math professor will have only books and pencils in his office, as opposed to the piles of broken equipment that physicists keep. Mathematicians scorn the use of computers and calculators and often have difficulty splitting bills in
restaurants. The easy way to identify a mathematician is by the common use of the phrases "It can be shown that..." and "Is left
as an exercise to the student..."

Psych Prof: Psychologists are not real scientists, and can be easily identified by their screams of protest whenever anyone questions whether psychology is a science. Psych people have beady little eyes and don't laugh at jokes about psychology.If you are not sure whether a person is a scientist or a comparative religion instructor, he is probably a psychologist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are YOU a problem thinker?
It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then to loosen up. Inevitably though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker.

I began to think alone - "to relax," I told myself. But I knew it wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time.

I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself.

I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?"

Things weren't going so great at home either. One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother's. I soon had a reputation as a heavy thinker. One day the boss called me in. He said, "Skippy, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job." This gave me a lot to think about.

I came home early after my conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking..."

"I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!"

"But Honey, surely it's not that serious."

"It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as college professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking we won't have any money!"

"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently, and she began to cry. I'd had enough. "I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door.

I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche, with NPR on the radio. I roared into the parking lot and ran up to the big glass doors... they didn't open. The library was closed.

To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night.

As I sank to the ground clawing at the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked. You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinker's Anonymous poster.

Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker. I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting.

I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just seemed... easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?

Only one, but the bulb has to be willing to change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many Freudians does it take to change a lightbulb?

Two. One to change the bulb and one to hold the penis... I mean ladder! Psychoanalysis means saying one thing and meaning your mother.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

How many Narcissistic P.D. does to take to change a lightbulb?

Just one. To hold the lightbulb but he has to wait for the whole world to revolve around him.

How many Borderline P.D. does to take to change a lightbulb?

Just one. To threaten suicide if you don't change it for him/her.

How many Obsessive-Compulsive P.D. does to take to change a lightbulb?

Just one. But he has to check it 100 times, one for each watt.

How many Passive Aggressive P.D. does to take to change a lightbulb?

Oops.I can't believe I broke the last one. I guess you'll have to sit in
the dark.

How many Dependent P.D. does to take to change a lightbulb?

None, he's still clinging to the old lightbulb.

How many Histrionic P.D. does to take to change a lightbulb?

"You want me to change the lightbulb? I could burn my hand! I could be electrocuted! I could fall off the ladder and be paralyzed for life! You don't love me anymore!"


-----------------------------

Where to Publish Your Paper

1) If you understand it and can prove it, then send it to a journal of mathematics.
2) If you understand it, but can't prove it, then send it to a physics journal.
3) If you can't understand it, but can prove it, then send it to an economics journal.
4) If you can neither understand it nor prove it, then send it to a psychology journal.
5) If it attempts to make something important out of something trivial, then send it to a journal of education.
6) If it attempts to make something trivial out of some-thing important, send it to a journal of metaphysics.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Top Ten Signs That You Are Having Problems With Your Assessment*
10. Technical advisors recommend "Eenie-meenie-minie-moe" as a cognitively possible standard-setting task.
9. Assessment booklets show up as placemats in local Burger Kings.
8. Survey shows that the public prefers "Clueless" over the "Novice" label by a two-to-one margin.
7. Helpful legislator tells the public that the assessment is "just like the publishers' tests, only more expensive."
6. Reports of students' results to their parents are addressed "To Whom It May Concern...."
5. ETS and FairTest agree on the merits of your assessment.
4. All of the students' results are accidentally uploaded to a website in Ulan Bator, Mongolia.
3. Press release states that your assessment is linked to "wurld clas standerds."
2. The Superintendent thinks having a blue-ribbon panel scrutinize the technical quality of the assessment is a "way-cool idea."
1. The scoring guide for the publicly released task reads: "Ru-bric, screw-bric - just score the damned thing."

Young, M. J. (1997, June). The top ten signs that you are having problems with your assessment. A top ten list presented at the CCSSO Conference on Large-Scale Assessment. Colorado Springs, CO.

Top 10 Signs a Therapist is Approaching Burn-out

10) You think of the peaceful park you like as "your private therapeutic milieu."
9) You realize that your floridly psychotic patient, who is picking invisible flowers out of mid air, is probably having more fun in life than you are.
8) A grateful client, who thinks you walk on water, brings you a small gift and you end up having to debrief your feelings of unworthiness with a colleague.
7) You are watching a re-run of the Wizard of Oz and you start to categorize the types of delusions that Dorothy had.
6) Your best friend comes to you with severe relationship troubles, and you start trying to remember which cognitive behavioral technique has the most empirical validly for treating this problem.
5) You realize you actually have no friends, they have all become just one big case load.
4) A co-worker asks how you are doing and you reply that you are a bit "internally preoccupied" and "not able to interact with peers" today.
3) Your spouse asks you to set the table and you tell them that it would be "countertherapeutic to your current goals" to do that.
2) You tell your teenage daughter she is not going to start dating boys because she is "in denial," "lacks insight." and her "emotions are not congruent with her chronological age."
And, the number one reason a therapist may be burning out....
1) You are packing for a trip to a large family holiday reunion and you take the DSM-IV with you just in case.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PTSD -- Psychotherapist Trainee Stress Disorder

Symptoms include, but are not limited to...

1. Overwhelming urge to strangle any person who glibly says, "You're having personal problems? YOU should know how to fix them, you're the psychologist, heh heh."
2. When someone accuses you of being "antisocial" because you have to study instead of socialize, you scream, "No, I'm being obsessive-compulsive! If I we're antisocial, I'd beat the crap out of you right now..."
3. Compulsion to diagnose and design treatment plans for TV characters
4. Getting excited about relaxing adventures such as grocery shopping.
5. Playing on the Internet all night to avoid any "productive" (as defined by your professors) activity.

This disorder is caused by...
1. Having to try to reason with people who are totally out of contact with reality -- e.g., professors
2. An average of 3 hours sleep per week
3. Working 2 part time jobs, in addition to classes and training, to pay for your tuition
4. A steady diet of bagels (munched while running from class to job to class) and chocolate covered espresso beans
5. Stat-ware packages that mutilate your project beyond recognition
6. Family, friends, and acquaintances who assume you'll always be their 24-hr free shrink, and never have any emotional needs of your own.

--------------------------------------------------Psycholinguistics to the resku

Having chosen English as the preferred language in the EEC, the European Parliament has commissioned a feasibility study in ways of improving efficiency in communications between Government departments.

"European officials have often pointed out that English spelling is unnecessarily difficult, for example: cough, plough, rough, through and thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to iron out these anomalies. The programme would, of course, be administered by a committee staff at top level by participating nations.

In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using 's' instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly sivil servants in all sities would resieve this news with job. Then the hard 'c' could be replaced by 'k' sinse both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up konfusion in the minds of klerikal workers, but typewriters kould be made with one less letter.

There would be growing enthusiasm when in the sekond year, it was announsed that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be writtne 'f'. This would make words like fotograf' twenty persent shorter in print.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are possible. Governments would enkourage the removal of double leters whish have always been a deterent to akurate speling.

We would al agre that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the languag is disgrasful. Therefor we kould drop them and kontinu to read and writ as though nothing had hapend. By this tim it would be four years sins the skem began and peopl would be reseptive to steps sutsh as replasing 'th' by 'z'. Perhaps zen ze funktion of 'w' kould be taken on by 'v', vitsh is, after al, half a 'w'. Shortly after zis, ze unesesary 'o' kould be dropd from vords kontaining 'ou'. Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a reli sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trubls, difikultis and evrivun vud find it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drems of the Guvermnt vud finali hav kum tru."

\------------------------------

Member of the Science Humor Net Ring
[ Previous 5 Sites | Previous | Next | Next 5 Sites ]
[ Random Site | List Sites ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Editor, Archives of General Psychiatry
Dear Sir, Madame, or Other:

Enclosed is our latest version of MS #85-02-22-RRRRR, that is, the re-re-re-revised version of our paper. Choke on it. We have again rewritten the entire manuscript from start to finish. We even changed the goddamned running head! Hopefully we have suffered enough by now to satisfy even your bloodthirsty reviewers.

I shall skip the usual point-by-point description of every single change we made in response to the critiques. After all, it is fairly clear that your reviewers are less interested in details of scientific procedure than in working out their personality problems and sexual frustrations by seeking some sort of demented glee in the sadistic and arbitrary exercise of tyrannical power over hapless authors like ourselves who happen to fall into their clutches. We do understand that, in view of the misanthropic psychopaths you have on your editorial board, you need to keep sending them papers, for if they weren't reviewing manuscripts they'd probably be out mugging old ladies or clubbing baby seals to death. Still, from this batch of reviewers, C was clearly the most hostile, and we request that you not ask her or him to review this revision. Indeed, we have mailed letter bombs to four or five people we suspected of being reviewer C, so if you send the manuscript back to them the review process could be unduly delayed.

Some of the reviewers comments we couldn't do anything about. For example, if (as reviewer C suggested), several of my ancestry were indeed drawn from other species, it is too late to change that. Other suggestions were implemented, however, and the paper has improved and benefited. Thus, you suggested that we shorten the manuscript by 5 pages, and we were able to do this very effectively by altering the margins and printing the paper in a different font with a smaller typeface. We agree with you that the paper is much better this way.

One perplexing problem was dealing with suggestions #13-28 by reviewer B. As you may recall (that is, if you even bother reading the reviews before doing your decision letter), that reviewer listed 16 works the he/she felt we should cite in this paper. These were on a variety of different topics, none of which had any relevance to our work that we could see. Indeed, one was an essay on the Spanish-American War from a high school literary magazine. the only common thread was that all 16 were by the same author, presumably someone reviewer B greatly admires and feels should be more widely cited. To handle this, we have modified the introduction and added, after the review of relevant literature, a subsection entitled "Review of Irrelevant Literature" that discusses these articles and also duly addresses some of the more asinine suggestions by other reviewers.

We hope that you will be pleased with this revision and finally recognize how urgently deserving of publication this work is. If not, then you are an unscrupulous, depraved monster with no shred of human decency. You ought to be in a cage. May whatever heritage you come from be the butt of the next round of ethnic jokes. If you do accept it, however, we wish to thank you for your patience and wisdom throughout this process and to express our appreciation of you scholarly insights. To repay you, we would be happy to review some manuscripts for you; please send us the next manuscript that any of these reviewers sends to your journal.

Assuming you accept this paper, we would also like to add a footnote acknowledging your help with this manuscript and to point out that we liked this paper much better the way we originally wrote it but you held the editorial shotgun to our heads and forced us to chop, reshuffle, restate, hedge, expand, shorten, and in general convert a meaty paper into stir-fried vegetables. We couldn't or wouldn't, have done it without your input. Sincerely,


Dear Dr.

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my decision letter concerning the above-referenced piece of excrement.

I have asked several experts who specialize in the area of research you dabble in to have a look at your pathetic little submission, and their reviews are enclosed. I shall not waste my LaserJet ink reiterating the details of their reviews, but please allow me to highlight some of the more urgent points of contention they raise:

1. Reviewer A suggests that you cite his work EXCLUSIVELY in the introduction. He has asked me to remind you that he spells his name with a final "e" (i.e., Scumbage), not as you have referenced him in the last version.

2. Reviewer C indicates that the discussion can be shortened by at least 5 pages. Given the fact that the present Discussion is only three pages long, I am not certain how to advise you. Perhaps you might consider eliminating all speculation and original ideas.

3. Reviewer D has asked that you consider adding her as a co-author. Although she has not directly contributed to the manuscript, she has made numerous comments that have, in her view, significantly improved the paper. Specifically, she believes that her suggestions concerning the reorganization of the acknowledgments paragraph were especially important. Please note that she spells her name with an em-dash, and not with the customary hyphen.

4. Reviewer B has asked that I inform you that, even though his suggestions were not mentioned in my decision letter, this doesn't mean that he is an imbecile.

5. My own reading of the manuscript indicates that the following problems remain:

a. By "running head," we do not mean a picture of your son's face with legs attached. Please provide a four- or five-word title for the paper that summarizes the report's most important point. May I suggest, "Much Ado About Nothing"?

b. Please make certain that you have adhered to APA stylebook guidelines for publication format. Please direct your attention to the section entitled, "Proper Format for an Insignificant Paper" (1995, p.46).

c. Please submit any revision of the paper on plain, blank stationery. Submitting the article on Yale University letterhead will not increase your chances of having the article accepted for publication.

d. Please doublecheck the manuscript for spelling and grammatical errors. Our experience at the Archives is that "cycle-logical" slips through most spell-check programs undetected.

e. Although I am not a quantitative scientist, it is my understanding that the "F" in F-test does not stand for "f___ing". Please correct the manuscript accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Art Kives


If your original submission had been as articulate as your most recent letter, we might have avoided this interchange. It is too bad that tenure and promotion committees at your university do not have access to authors' correspondence with editors, for it is clear that you would be promoted on the basis of your wit alone. Unfortunately, it's the publication that counts, and I'm sorry to say that the Archives is not prepared to accept this revision. We would be perfectly ambivalent about receiving a ninth revision from you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Libretto for "Il Destino di Grant Applicationio," by Giuseppe Linguini
Cast (in order of vocal appearance)
Alfredo, a professor ........................... Baritone
Wu Li, a post-doc ............................. Tenor
Kathy, another post-doc ........................ Alto
Nicolette, Alfredo's secretary ................. Soprano
Adriana, Alfredo's wife ........................ Soprano
Bubba, Alfredo's son ........................... Tenor
Julieta, Alfredo's daughter .................... Soprano
Stephano, Scientific Review Administrator ...... Bass
Erminio, another professor...................... Bass


Act I, Alfredo's Office: The curtain rises showing Alfredo sitting in his office with two post-docs, working on a manuscript which has been rejected by Nature. In a dramatic opening aria, they lament the fact that the reviewers found the manuscript unexciting ("I reviewers sono malto stupidi"). Nicolette, the secretary arrives with a box of NIH grant applications for Alfredo to review. Alfredo opens it, and finding only 12 grant applications, rejoices. He is joined by the two post-docs and the secretary in a quartet in which they sing of the virtues of having to review only 12 applications ("Il lighto loado"). Their happiness soon turns to sorrow when Alfredo discovers a note indicating that he is primary reviewer on an additional 18 applications which will arrive at a later date ("Il grande boxo di granti"). The four lament the twist of fate, Murphy's law, and the Peter Principle. Alfredo, realizing that he will have no time to spend with his lab group or family for the next 6 weeks, sadly departs for home carrying the box of applications.

Act II - Scene 1, Alfredo's office: One month later, Alfredo is still hard at work on the applications, having completed only 4, and these were the short R15 applications. He sings a sad aria, reflecting on the fact that the Scientific Review Administrator wants the triage list the next day ("Il listo crappo"). Nicolette enters with an envelope from NIH. Alfredo, thinking it contains yet another supplement, tosses it onto a pile, and tries to find his place in the application he was reading. Just then, Wu Li enters with some important data that needs to be published immediately, before the competitors beat them to it. They sing a duet ("La publicazione o il scoopo") in which Alfredo laments that he has no time to help write the manuscript as he really must get through 26 more applications before the meeting next week. Wu Li leaves, and Alfredo returns to the grant application, only to be interrupted by Kathy. She is distraught that she hasn't gotten a raise in the two years since she has been with Alfredo. He promises her a large raise if his own application is funded, explaining that he is waiting for the summary statement ("Il sheeto pinko"). After their duet, Kathy leaves and Alfredo returns once again to the application. Within a minute, he jumps out of his seat and grabs the envelope he hastily tossed onto his desk, realizing that it is the long-awaited summary statement ("La posta junko il sheeto pinko"). Trembling, Alfredo tears open the envelope and lets out a cry upon seeing the score, which is clearly not in the fundable range. He sings a moving aria lamenting the lack of sufficient funding for basic science ("Mio granto finito"). Unable to concentrate anymore, Alfredo goes home.

Scene 2, Alfredo's home: Later that night, Alfredo arrives home. His wife and children are ecstatic that Alfredo has come home before they have gone to sleep. However, their happiness is short-lived as they learn the reason for his surprise homecoming. His family is not sympathetic to the fact that only a small number of people actually get their grant applications funded, and are upset that Alfredo's application was only considered 'excellent' ("Papa un nincompoopo"). Disheartened, Alfredo sits down at his desk and begins to read an application. However, just as at work, he can't read for more than a minute until his children or wife interrupt him for something. This continues for a couple of hours, at which point Alfredo has nearly finished reading an entire page of the application, but unfortunately falls asleep before getting to the next page.

Act III, A Holiday Inn in Valhalla, home of the Gods and Goddesses of NIH: The scene opens to reveal a large table surrounded by serious looking men and women. Alfredo is among the mortals, who have been invited to Valhalla to decide the fate of 137 grant applications. At the side of the room are the Gods and Goddesses of NIH, the program officers of the various agencies, dressed in white tunics. They are feeding from a large tray of grapes, and drinking decaf coffee. Stephano, the Scientific Review Administrator begins the meeting with an hour-long aria about the grant review process and the need for confidentiality ("Non asko, non tello"). The first grant application to be reviewed is one with Alfredo as the primary reviewer. Alfredo likes this grant application since it describes an imaginative series of experiments that concern an important but not well studied biological question ("Se succeede, il Nobel Prizo"). Furthermore, this application described all of the key points in a single page, the limit of Alfredo's attention span with all of the interruptions he gets. His enthusiasm is countered by the other reviewer in what is probably the most famous aria of the opera ("Non hypothesiso, non preliminary dato"). Other reviewers join in with other comments regarding the lack of independence of the applicant, the lack of feasibility studies, and the general observation that the area must not be very important or else others would be working on it. Finally, the Grants Technical Assistant rises and joins in the singing ("Givmi il floppi disko"). Everybody in the room finally joins in except for the Gods and Goddesses, who have moved from the tray of grapes to a large table filled with melon balls, which they eat with toothpicks, and a man in a Holiday Inn uniform who is restocking the toothpicks. As it is clear that no new comments have been made for at least 45 minutes, a vote is finally called for, and in a dramatic moment, Alfredo sings out "1.0", while the other reviewers vote for a worse score ("Il granto non-competitivo"), finally arriving at a consensus of 2.0. During the aria discussing the score, the man in a Holiday Inn uniform becomes noticeably distressed and begins consuming vast quantities of coffee, until he collapses just as the aria ends. One of the NIH Goddesses identifies the man as Erminio, the applicant of the grant that just went down the tubes. Even though Erminio is fatally poisoned, he is still able to sing a moving aria reflecting on the weaknesses of the current grant review system ("Il reviewers screwed-upo"). The opera ends with the reviewers placing Erminio's lifeless body in the boxes that hold the discarded grant applications, and covering him with glossy photos of his data. As the curtain is being slowly lowered, one of the reviewers comments that it's a good thing the application wasn't given a really bad score, or who knows what the applicant would have done.



Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:pullmarine thread:125
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20000813/msgs/684.html