This is mildly amusing:
You might be a scientist if:
SOCIAL SKILLS
Scientists have different objectives when it comes to social interaction."Normal" people expect to accomplish several unrealistic things from social interaction:
* Stimulating and thought provoking conversation
* Important social contacts
* A feeling of connectedness with other humans.
In contrast to "normal" people, scientists have rational objectives for social interactions:
* Get it over with as soon as possible
* Avoid getting invited to something unpleasant
* Demonstrate mental superiority and mastery of all subjects.
FASHION AND APPEARANCE
Clothes are the lowest priority for a scientist, assuming the basic thresholds for temperature and decency have been satisfied. If no appendages are freezing or sticking together, and no genitalia or mammary glands are swinging around in plain view, then the objective of clothing has been met.
HONESTY
Scientists are always honest in matters of technology and human relationships. That's why it's a good idea to keep scientists away from customers, romantic interests and other people who can't handle the truth.
FRUGALITY
Scientists are notoriously frugal. This is not because of cheapness or meanspirit; it is simply because every spending situation is simply a problemin optimization, that is, "How can I escape this situation while retaining the greatest amount of cash?"
POWERS OF CONCENTRATION
If there is one trait that best defines a scientist, it is the ability to concentrate on one subject to the complete exclusion of everything else in the environment. This sometimes causes scientists to be pronounced dead prematurely. Mostly, it causes significant others to complain about being irrelevant.
RISK
Scientists hate risk. They try to eliminate it whenever they can. This is understandable, given that when a scientist makes a mistake, the media will treat it like it's a big deal or something. Examples of Bad Press for Scientists:
* Hindenburg
* Challenger
* Apollo 13
* Titanic
* Ford Pinto
The risk/reward calculation for scientists looks something like this:
RISK: Public humiliation and the death of thousands of innocent people.
REWARD: A certificate of appreciation in a handsome plastic frame.
Being practical people, scientists evaluate this balance of risks and rewards and decide that risk is not a good thing. The best way to avoid risk is by advising that any activity is technically impossible for reasons that are far too complicated to explain. If that approach is not sufficient to halt a project, then the scientistwill fall back to a second line of defense: "It's technically possible but it will cost too much."
*I would like to take credit but this came from a chain email.
