GAINESVILLE, FL—A frustrated team of social scientists at the University of Florida has finally concluded a 4-year study of attitudes about world politics, although their published findings have a much different scope than the study set out to explore.
In early 2014, the team of 3 sociologists, a psychologist, and an economist devised a large-scale study that was funded by the National Science Foundation for $4.2 million. "Among our research questions were what factors explain people's attitudes and behaviors about justice, peace, climate change, and another 32 dimensions," explained Associate Professor Gertrude Alton, the primary author. "We devised a 285-question survey for people to take all across the world, and had it translated into 23 languages."
The first wave of the survey was released in the United States, and preliminary findings were "frustrating," as Dr. Alton, 55, put it. "We found that not a single respondent could correctly fill out the demographic portion of the survey."
Questions as simple as "What is your current age?" were reportedly answered with phrases like "Ranch dressing," or the even more confusing "R2." Many respondents wrote illegibly, or seemed confused as to the unit of measurement, with such replies as "64.1 parsecs."
Dr. Barry Juarigi, 47, the economist, stated, "I was embarrassed for these morons. We used clear, large print, and even separated the questions into their own boxes, but it's as if they found a way to screw up every single question."
Indeed, upon further inspection of the surveys, it was clear that there was a deep-seated problem. For example, one item asked participants to describe in their own words what they look for in a government official. One response read, in its entirety, "Netflics" [sic]. Another stated, "LOL," and yet another simply contained a crudely drawn phallus.
"How scientists ever managed to get a coherent thought out of any human subject is beyond me," stated each research team member independently in their own interview.
"Take questions 43 through 58," explained Alton. "They are supposed to read a brief statement, written at a 6th Grade reading level, and then just fill in the bubble of whether they agree or disagree with the statement." The weekend golfer then produced multiple examples of responses. "This doofus filled in an imaginary circle that wasn't even there, and then labeled it himself, 'unicorn.' But the letter 'R' is backwards!"
Dr. Alton, fuming, then displayed another, "This waste of oxygen filled in both bubbles! I mean, how the [expletive] am I supposed to interpret this?"
The team made dozens of revisions to their measures over the course of the 4 years to attempt to salvage their study, but online versions of the survey were ridden with nothing but profanity and racial slurs. The more expensive in-person oral surveys could not be completed as the interviewees kept asking for the question to be repeated, reworded, or drawn out using a diagram before ultimately stating "pass" for each one, including the question about the current date.
"I have no faith in humanity anymore," said Juarigi. "I think I'm going to study rat economies or something."
Rather than call the study a total loss, the research team decided to frame the study in such a way that calls attention to humanity's complete inability to understand even the simplest form of questionnaire or written language. Among their recommendations is to "offer potential participants shiny objects to lure them into a research laboratory, and then reward them with a deep-fried food and pat on the head until they become accustomed to their surroundings."
The article has been hailed as a major breakthrough in virtually all other human research areas across the world.