Improbable Research

Assuming that Jung had primary responsibility for the posing of the photograph, let me speculate regarding Freud’s response to this situation. Freud was generally uneasy about being photographed. For example, in his response to Jung’s request for his picture in 1907 (McGuire, p. 88) he wrote, “In the last fifteen years I have never willingly sat for a photographer, because I am too vain to countenance my physical deterioration.” In addition, Roazen (l975, p. 229) learned in an unpublished interview with Reik that Freud was particularly uncomfortable about his height relative to Jung’s. Therefore, it seems to me that Freud was somewhat uneasy during the photograph arrangement but, my guess is that he approved and was generally pleased at his artificially elevated placement in the center of the group, and was probably appreciative of Jung’s efforts.

Finally, there is a most interesting and telling epilogue to this event. Jones, in an unpublished letter to Freud in 1926, reveals that at the end of the conference Jung told him that someday he would stand higher than Freud. Jones recalls that he was shocked at this statement and asked Jung why he didn’t analyze his father complex (Donn, l988, p. l34).

So writes Professor Martin S. Fiebert in his study “Speculation Regarding the Posing of Freud in the Group Photograph at the Third International Psychoanalytic Congress.“

Carl Linnaeus paid attention to some surprising things. Linnaeus was the Swedish scientist who taught the world how to classify living things, and gave us the double-barrelled way of naming them in Latin. This year is the 300th anniversary of his birth. The science community celebrates most of his work, but tends to overlook some of his writings about Lapland. Of course, the world in general tends to overlook writings, or most anything else, about Lapland.

At the age of 25, Linnaeus travelled through that wild northern region for five months, noting down whatever caught his eye, ear or nose. His hodgepodge of jottings jumps from topic to unrelated topic. Some of his thoughts, appearing in print, may take modern readers unawares. Here are a few….

So begins this week’s Improbable Research column in The Guardian.

Hoorah for secrecy in museums! Decades ago, many murder mystery novels and movies took place in museums. A June 21, 2007 report in the Washington Post heralds a return of the museum as a place of skulduggery and, if we the public are lucky, murder. Under the leadership of its recently deposed director, the Smithsonian Institution reportedly fostered a good, old-fashioned climate of secrecy and impending doom. Here’s a snippet from that report:

Secrecy Pervaded Smithsonian on Small’s Watch

Leaders of the Smithsonian in the past seven years took extraordinary steps to keep secret the amount of top executives’ compensation, lavish expense-account spending, ethical missteps and management failures, an independent report released yesterday shows.

Former secretary Lawrence M. Small, with the help of his top deputy, Sheila P. Burke, took advantage of a vast gap in oversight to set his own salary, spend freely, take unlimited leave and ignore policy to pursue private agendas, according to the independent review committee…

Three cheers for former secretary Small! Maybe, just maybe, through force of personality, he has ushered in a new era of gripping, old-fashioned creepy museum murder mysteries…

…filled with intriguing character actors.

People are beating their heads and chests in support of this or that theory as to whether bicycle helmets do good or harm or both or neither. Here are two current items in the debate.

The truck ran over his head. “I didn’t see it coming, but I sure felt it roll over my head. It feels really strange to have a truck run over your head.” His helmet, a Giro, was crushed, but Lipscomb’s head was fine.

Madison Police Department Sgt. Chris Boyd said the officer at the scene urged Lipscomb to keep the helmet. He did. It is all flattened and mangled and broken, unlike his head.

So says a May 12, 2007 [Madison, Wisconsin] Capital Times report.

His findings, published in the March 2007 issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention, state that when Walker wore a helmet drivers typically drove an average of 3.35 inches closer to his bike than when his noggin wasn’t covered. But, if he wore a wig of long, brown locks— appearing to be a woman from behind—he was granted 2.2 inches more room to ride.

“The implication,” Walker says, “is that any protection helmets give is canceled out by other mechanisms, such as riders possibly taking more risks and/or changes in how other road users behave towards cyclists.”

So says May 2007 Scientific American report.

(Thanks to investigators Millie Aase and Thomas Holsinger, respectively, for bringing these to our attention.

UPDATE: Investigator Betsy Devine writes: “surely there’s a tie-in between the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists (LFHCfS) and the research result you quote that LFH is worth an extra 2.2 inches.”

Antonios Zampelis has joined the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists. He says:

I am currently doing my research on implant and bone
biomechanics and hope to obtain a PhD thesis on the
subject.

Antonios Zampelis, DDS, MSc, LFHCfS
Periodontist, Specialized in Periodontics and Implant Therapy
Specialist Clinic for Periodontics
University of Gothenburg, Sweden

(Click on the photo to see more detail.)