You really need to know this: On TripAdvisor.ca there is a little box near the bottom of the screen: " If you own or manage [this attraction] register now for free tools to enhance your listing, attract new reviews, and respond to reviewers."
This is a bit like the Ministry of the Environment inviting Shell to come in for a friendly little hoe-down and lunch and opportunity to give us their perspective on those pesky environmental activists. How do you attract more comment from the public, meaning, perhaps, people who believe they stand to benefit from your work.
We just want to hear from both sides.
This idea has some laboratory support. Studies have found that viewing people’s bodies, as opposed to their faces, makes us judge those people as less intelligent, less ambitious, less competent and less likable. One neuroimaging experiment found that, for men, viewing pictures of sexualized women induced lowered activity in brain regions associated with thinking about other people’s minds. NY Times, November 29, 2013
If there ever was a definitively ridiculous incarnation of the "studies show" shibboleth out there, this is might be it.
Studies show.... So, like, they did this research, and it proved, uh, that men who look at naked women are stupid.
First of all, do you accept that scientists know which part of the brain is involved with "thinking about other people's minds"? Surely, you don't. I sure as hell don't. And I don't think I would even believe you if you said you thought they did. But this kind of absurd assertion gains currency all the time in our culture, very simply, because you can't show me the part of the brain that doesn't think about other peoples' minds. In other words, you can't prove that it's false, because you can't prove a negative. You especially can't prove a negative of an un-provable positive.
As Karl Popper demonstrated, that means this assertion is, therefore, unproven. There has to be at least a hypothetical possibility that you could prove the assertion wrong. Given the nature of "studies show" and "neuroimaging" (which is not even a word), there is no such possibility.
But never mind-- these "social scientists" heedlessly carry on with the other qualities they believe men ascribe to naked women. "Less competent". Do you think this actually means something in this context? Does a man looking at a picture of a naked woman actually apply some kind of affected judgment to the next woman he gives a job interview to?
To their dubious credit, the researchers acknowledge that some of the effects of seeing someone naked are positive. The comment is poorly worded but, in essence, a researcher indicates that some people feel empathy for people who are experiencing being naked. I think.
It's not very hard to set up these kind of studies. You have a hypothesis which has to be somewhat, moderately, possibly true. Usually, there is a social mission to the theory-- that there is discrimination, for example, against an identifiable minority. Then you set up a straw man: people don't think they are biased (see Malcolm Gladwell). Then you act as if you have shocking news for everyone.
Bottom line: they reached the profound conclusion that people react differently to naked people than to clothed people. This astounding revelation is sure to make CNN and provoke another wide-ranging round of "studies".