Snake bite detox, kidney stone coaster cure, soporific speakers

I need a hug

^{kate_sept2004/thinkstock}

Don’t we all. A new study from the department of psychology at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh examined whether hugs actually do anything to improve a bad mood. Unverified rumors purport that the study was commissioned by a cuddly red monster named Elmo.

Researchers concluded that consensual hugs are beneficial after some sort of conflict or negative event during the day and that they positively affect the hug-receiver. Researchers also concluded that hugs given by teddy bears or red pandas are the most beneficial, but human hugs will do if those aren’t available. Despite their bactericidal qualities, hugs from Russian bears aren’t encouraged.

Next slide, pleazzzzzzz

^{TadejZupancic/thinkstock}

Picture a world in which your smartwatch counted backward. In which the room WiFi is a black hole. In which space-time’s zipper seems hopelessly stuck, with a loose string – or, in fact, PowerPoint slide #14 – wedged into its interlocking teeth. That’s right: You’re in a session at a medical conference.

Now, one meeting attendee has boldly researched what many an attendee has wondered before: Do boring speakers really talk for longer? Taking one for all humanity, that intrepid time traveler endured an inhumane, institutional review board–unapproved study design of 50 12-minute meeting sessions. After 4 minutes, he determined whether the speaker was, scientifically speaking, “boring” or “not boring.” He then clocked the time each speaker took to wrap it up.

Spoiler alert: “Not boring” also meant “done sooner” – in a mean time of 11 minutes and 42 seconds versus 13 minutes and 12 seconds for those oscillating in the dullness duality’s boring state. So, if the 4-minute marker heralds a soporific session? There’s more schwag and better WiFi in the exhibit hall.