Bohiney Magazine
Volume 1, Issue 9 – Saturday, April 12, 1947
“America’s Trusted Source for Satirical Truth”
Henry Ford Dies at 83, Leaves Behind Automotive Empire and Extensive Documentation of Terrible Opinions
DEARBORN, MI – Henry Ford, industrialist who revolutionized manufacturing and made automobiles accessible to millions, died Monday at age 83, prompting obituaries that must somehow balance his undeniable contributions to American industry with his well-documented anti-Semitism, union-busting, and publication of propaganda so enthusiastically racist that it earned admiration from Adolf Hitler.
The death of Ford presents journalists with what editors are calling “the obituary dilemma” – how to acknowledge someone’s achievements while noting they also distributed hundreds of thousands of copies of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and received Nazi Germany’s highest civilian honor in 1938, which seems like relevant information that somehow keeps getting buried in paragraph seventeen.
“Mr. Ford transformed American life through innovation and mass production,” read typical obituaries before adding, usually much later, “He also believed in an international Jewish conspiracy and published a newspaper dedicated to promoting this theory for seven years, but let’s talk more about the Model T.”
The Henry Ford Museum, which Ford established to celebrate American innovation, will presumably continue operating while perhaps adding a wing explaining that innovation and horrible prejudice can coexist in the same person, making historical assessment complicated for those who prefer their industrialists uncomplicated by documented bigotry.
Ford’s legacy includes:
The Assembly Line: Revolutionary manufacturing process that made goods affordable for average Americans
The $5 Workday: Unprecedented wage that helped create the middle class
The Dearborn Independent: Anti-Semitic newspaper that blamed Jews for virtually everything wrong with America
Fordlandia: Failed rubber plantation in Brazil
Extensive Anti-Union Activities: Including hiring thugs to beat up workers trying to organize
Model T: Affordable automobile that motorized America
Admiration from Hitler: Who kept Ford’s portrait in his office and praised him in Mein Kampf
This combination of achievements and awfulness creates what historians call “the complexity problem” where acknowledging someone’s contributions feels like endorsing their prejudices, while focusing on their prejudices seems to erase their legitimate accomplishments. The solution, apparently, is to write obituaries mentioning both while hoping readers don’t think too hard about how the same mind that invented modern manufacturing also believed Jewish bankers controlled world affairs.
Ford’s anti-Semitism wasn’t subtle or private. He published “The International Jew” in book form, distributing 500,000 copies. He blamed Jews for World War I, jazz music, short skirts, and declining morals. He accepted Nazi honors. He opposed American involvement against Hitler until Pearl Harbor made neutrality impossible. These aren’t obscure historical footnotes; they’re well-documented public campaigns that Ford funded and promoted.
Yet obituaries struggle with emphasis. Should Ford be remembered primarily as an industrial genius who happened to be anti-Semitic, or as an anti-Semitic industrialist whose manufacturing innovations don’t erase his bigotry? The answer probably involves “both/and” rather than “either/or,” but that complexity makes for uncomfortable obituaries in a society that prefers heroes without asterisks.
The Ford Motor Company, which will continue under new management, faces the question of how to honor its founder while acknowledging his repugnant views. Early suggestions include: renaming the company (impractical), adding disclaimers to every car (awkward), or pretending the problematic parts didn’t happen (current strategy).
Some defenders argue that Ford’s views were “typical for his time,” a claim that manages to insult everyone who lived in Ford’s era without being racist. Plenty of Ford’s contemporaries opposed his anti-Semitism, including Jewish leaders who sued him for libel in 1927, forcing a public apology that he later essentially retracted by accepting Nazi honors. The “everyone was doing it” defense fails when many people demonstrably weren’t doing it.
Others suggest separating art from artist, or in this case, cars from car-maker. But Ford’s bigotry wasn’t incidental to his work; he used his industrial platform and wealth to promote his views, making them inseparable from his business legacy. You can’t credit him with transforming American manufacturing while ignoring that he used that transformation to spread hatred.
The historical consensus seems to be forming around acknowledging both: Ford revolutionized industry and promoted vile prejudice. His manufacturing innovations deserve recognition. His bigotry deserves condemnation. These facts coexist uncomfortably, which is appropriate because comfortable historical narratives often erase important truths.
As of press time, obituaries were still being written, edited, and rewritten as journalists attempted to summarize a life that accomplished much while believing and promoting terrible things, creating historical assessment that requires acknowledging complexity while maintaining moral clarity about which of Ford’s legacies deserve celebration and which deserve nothing but historical documentation as examples of how prejudice persists even among the accomplished.
Man Realizes Every “Quick Question” from Coworker Actually Requires 45-Minute Explanation
CHICAGO, IL – Following what was advertised as “just a quick question,” area resident Walter Grimsby spent Wednesday morning’s entire coffee break explaining a process that his coworker Theodore Pemberton apparently believed could be summarized in thirty seconds despite involving seventeen steps, three different forms, and departmental procedures that nobody fully understands.
“Do you have a second?” Pemberton asked with the innocent hopefulness of someone who genuinely believes complex workplace processes can be explained briefly, or possibly someone who enjoys watching Grimsby suffer.
“Sure,” Grimsby replied, making the mistake of assuming that “quick question” meant what those words typically signify rather than “Can you explain everything about a topic you spent six months learning?”
The question, which Pemberton described as “simple,” was actually: “How do I submit expense reports?” This seemingly straightforward inquiry opened into what Grimsby describes as “an infinite rabbit hole of bureaucratic procedures that makes Kafka look like a children’s book.”
The explanation began with basic form location, then expanded to include:
- Which version of the form to use (there are seven)
- Why there are seven versions (unclear, possibly spite)
- Which supervisor signatures are required (depends on amount)
- How to determine amount categories (consult mystical chart)
- Where the mystical chart is located (nobody knows)
- Alternative methods when chart unavailable (prayer, mostly)
- Receipt attachment procedures (seventeen-page manual)
- Digital submission protocols (different from paper submission)
- Why there are different protocols (because nothing can be simple)
- Exception processes for unusual expenses (requires blood oath)
- Who handles exceptions (theoretically Janet, but Janet’s been gone three years)
- Current exception handler (nobody’s sure, people just guess)
- What happens if submitted incorrectly (form enters dimensional void)
- Retrieval process for voided forms (impossible, start over)
- Average processing time (three weeks to eternity)
- How to check status (you can’t)
- Why you can’t check status (the system was designed by enemies of humanity)
“See? Simple,” Grimsby concluded forty-seven minutes later while watching Pemberton’s eyes glaze over with the expression of someone who regrets asking questions.
The Department of Labor acknowledges that no workplace question is truly quick, with average “quick question” duration measuring forty-three minutes across all industries. This phenomenon, termed “Query Time Dilation,” causes simple inquiries to expand exponentially once explanation begins, consuming coffee breaks, lunch hours, and occasionally entire afternoons.
Dr. Millicent Hargrove, who studies workplace communication, explains that “quick question” operates as linguistic camouflage allowing people to request extensive assistance while pretending they need minimal help. “Nobody admits they need forty-five minutes of someone’s time,” she noted. “So they say ‘quick question’ and hope the other person doesn’t notice they’ve been explaining spreadsheet formulas for the past hour.”
Grimsby reports that workplace “quick questions” follow predictable patterns:
“Where is the file?” – Actually means: Explain your entire filing system, show me three times, then help me find it anyway because your system makes no sense
“How do I do this?” – Actually means: Train me completely on this task you do daily but I’ve never attempted
“Can you check this?” – Actually means: Fix all my mistakes while I watch and learn nothing
“Is this right?” – Actually means: It’s definitely wrong, please redo it while explaining why I’m wrong without making me feel bad
The expense report explanation consumed Grimsby’s entire break, his coffee (gone cold), and his will to help coworkers in the future. Pemberton absorbed approximately 12% of the information and will return tomorrow with identical “quick question” requiring identical forty-seven-minute explanation.
“Why didn’t you just say you needed extensive training?” Grimsby asked with visible exhaustion.
“I didn’t want to bother you,” Pemberton replied, apparently believing that forty-seven minutes of bothering is more polite than admitting upfront that he needed forty-seven minutes of help.
This reasoning, which makes no sense, is shared by 94% of “quick question” askers who believe that disguising extensive requests as brief inquiries somehow makes them less burdensome rather than more annoying due to the deception.
Grimsby has attempted to establish boundaries around “quick questions” by requiring askers to estimate time needed before answering. This failed when everyone estimated “thirty seconds” regardless of question complexity. He tried requiring written questions submitted in advance, but this created a queue of 47 questions all marked “urgent and quick.” He considered refusing to answer any questions, but this violated workplace cooperation requirements.
The only successful strategy involves asking “Is this actually quick?” before answering. Approximately 3% of askers admit their question isn’t quick. The remaining 97% insist it is, forcing Grimsby to spend forty-five minutes explaining things while resenting the liar who claimed it would be quick.
As of press time, Pemberton had returned to Grimsby’s desk with another “quick question” about expense reports, specifically asking “where do I find the form?” despite this being minute seven of yesterday’s forty-seven-minute explanation, suggesting he retained nothing and they’ll be repeating this interaction indefinitely until heat death of the universe.
Local Woman’s “I’m Not Mad” Confirmed to Mean Extremely Mad
BALTIMORE, MD – Following his wife’s calm assertion that she is “not mad,” area resident Harold Finchley has entered what marriage counselors term “advanced danger territory” where every word spoken might be the one that triggers the anger his wife claims not to be experiencing.
“I’m not mad,” Dorothy Finchley stated with a tone that professional linguists describe as “absolutely dripping with fury” and “the verbal equivalent of a cocked gun.” “Why would I be mad?”
This question, which Harold correctly identified as rhetorical and answered only with terrified silence, followed his arrival home three hours late with no explanation beyond “lost track of time,” a phrase that Dorothy’s expression suggested was insufficient.
“She says she’s not mad,” Harold reported to his neighbor Ernest Potts while hiding on his front porch. “But she’s doing that thing where she’s very calm and speaking in complete sentences and being super reasonable. I think I’m in terrible trouble.”
Potts, a veteran of 23 years of marriage, confirmed Harold’s assessment. “The calm ones are the worst,” he explained with the wisdom of someone who has survived multiple “I’m not mad” incidents. “When they’re yelling, you know what you’re dealing with. When they’re calm and not mad, you’re in uncharted territory where anything might happen.”
The National Institutes of Health has documented “I’m Not Mad Syndrome” as a legitimate communication pattern affecting approximately 89% of marriages, where wives express anger through elaborate denial of anger, creating what psychologists call “emotional irony” that husbands lack the sophistication to interpret correctly.
Dr. Reginald Pemberton, who studies marital communication, explains that “I’m not mad” translates to “I am furious beyond words but have chosen to express this fury through eerie calm that should terrify you.” The phrase serves multiple functions: expressing anger, denying anger, and establishing that the husband should understand the situation without explicit explanation.
“It’s a test,” Dr. Pemberton noted. “If he believes she’s not mad, he fails. If he acknowledges she’s mad, he fails differently. There’s no correct response. That’s the point.”
Harold attempted several response strategies:
“Okay, good” – Wrong, suggested he believed her “What did I do?” – Wrong, implied innocence
“I’m sorry” – Wrong, apologizing for nothing admits guilt for everything Silence – Wrong, ignoring her “not madness” “Are you sure?” – Very wrong, questioning her self-assessment
All responses resulted in Dorothy maintaining that she was “not mad” while becoming progressively more obviously furious, creating what observers described as “watching someone insist the sky isn’t blue while standing under brilliant blue sky.”
The situation escalated when Harold suggested perhaps they could “talk about whatever’s bothering you,” prompting Dorothy to respond “Nothing’s bothering me” with such intensity that the dog left the room and will not return while tensions remain elevated.
Marriage counselor Dr. Millicent Hargrove notes that “I’m not mad” represents advanced emotional communication that relies on subtext, tone, and contextual awareness that most husbands lack entirely. “She expects him to understand why she’s mad without her saying it,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “He expects direct communication about emotional states. These expectations are incompatible.”
The incident that prompted the “not mad” state involved Harold forgetting to call when he’d be late, a transgression Dorothy considers “obvious grounds for anger” and Harold considers “a minor oversight that shouldn’t be a big deal.” These conflicting interpretations have created a standoff where Dorothy is intensely mad about something Harold doesn’t think merits madness, meaning neither party can resolve the situation through honest communication.
“If I admit I’m mad, he’ll think I’m overreacting,” Dorothy explained to her sister on the phone. “So I’m remaining calm to show him I’m being reasonable, which somehow makes me angrier because he’s not getting it.”
This reasoning, which makes perfect sense to her sister and no sense to her husband, exemplifies what researchers call “the marriage communication gap” where spouses operate under completely different emotional protocols while expecting the other to understand through telepathy.
Harold’s attempts to smooth things over have included:
- Offering to take out trash (met with “I’m not mad” and icy glare)
- Asking if she wants anything from store (met with “No thank you” spoken like curse)
- Commenting on nice weather (met with silence suggesting weather is also his fault)
- Existing in general vicinity (apparently wrong)
The only strategy that might work involves Harold somehow determining what he did wrong, apologizing specifically for that thing, explaining why it was wrong, promising never to do it again, and meaning it. However, this requires understanding what he did wrong, which Dorothy expects him to know without being told, creating an unsolvable loop.
As of press time, Dorothy was “still not mad” while radiating anger visible from space, Harold was hiding in the garage pretending to organize tools, and their marriage was entering its 47th hour of unacknowledged conflict that won’t resolve until either Harold figures out his transgression or Dorothy decides to just tell him, whichever comes first.
Breakthrough Study Confirms Nobody Has Ever Finished Chapstick Before Losing It
BOSTON, MA – After analyzing 10,000 chapstick users across eighteen months, the Institute for Personal Care Research has reached a definitive conclusion: not one single person in recorded history has ever used a chapstick down to its end before losing, misplacing, or forgetting about it, making the bottom portion of every chapstick tube essentially decorative.
“We couldn’t find a single case,” reported lead researcher Dr. Sebastian Crumpet while examining thousands of partially-used chapsticks recovered from coat pockets, purse bottoms, and that weird space between car seats. “Every tube is lost or replaced before completion. The bottom quarter of every chapstick exists in a theoretical state that no human has ever observed.”
The study tracked individual chapstick usage from purchase to disappearance. Average lifespan: eleven days. Average usage before loss: approximately 37% of total product. Average number of chapsticks owned simultaneously by single user: 4.7, all at different usage levels, none finished.
Test subject Margaret Thornbury participated after calculating she’d purchased approximately 200 chapsticks over her lifetime and finished zero. “I buy one, use it twice, put it somewhere safe, forget where safe is, buy a new one, repeat forever,” she explained while displaying six partially-used tubes discovered during the study period. “I’m convinced there’s a chapstick dimension where they all go to live together.”
The Smithsonian Institution has requested a finished chapstick tube for their collection of theoretical items that might exist but have never been observed, alongside perpetual motion machines and congressional efficiency.
Dr. Theodore Pemberton explains that chapstick loss represents “the perfect storm of small size, low value, and high forgettability.” The tubes are small enough to vanish into any pocket, cheap enough that losing them doesn’t prompt serious searching, and useful enough that buying replacements feels justified even when you theoretically already own four.
“People treat chapsticks as disposable despite containing more product,” Dr. Pemberton noted. “They buy one, use it three times, lose it, buy another. They have a collection of partially-used tubes scattered throughout their life like archaeological remains of good intentions.”
The study identified several chapstick loss patterns:
The Pocket Transfer: Chapstick placed in winter coat, winter ends, coat stored, chapstick never seen again
The Purse Abyss: Chapstick descends to bottom of purse, becomes archaeologically interesting
The Desk Drawer Exile: Chapstick placed “somewhere safe,” location immediately forgotten
The Laundry Casualty: Chapstick goes through wash, emerges as expensive mess
The Car Seat Void: Chapstick falls between seats, enters alternate dimension
The Couch Consumption: Chapstick joins 47 other items in couch cushion universe
The “I Just Had It”: Chapstick exists in hand, then immediately doesn’t, location unknown
Particularly frustrating are cases where chapstick is needed immediately and none of the 4.7 owned tubes can be located despite their collective theoretical proximity. Users report checking every pocket, drawer, and bag while surrounded by chapsticks they cannot find.
“I have six of them,” complained study participant Harold Finchley while experiencing chapped lips. “They’re in this room somewhere. I can sense them. But can I find even one? No. So I buy another, which will also disappear within a week.”
This cycle has continued for decades across millions of users who collectively own billions of dollars of partially-used lip balm scattered throughout their possessions like tiny tubular reminders of chaos.
The chapstick industry has responded to findings with what researchers describe as “suspicious nonchalance.” Manufacturers know their products are never finished, making perpetual replacement purchases essential to their business model. Creating a locatable chapstick would destroy entire profit margins built on loss and repurchase.
One inventor attempted to create a GPS-enabled chapstick that users could locate via phone app. The product failed because users lost their phones trying to find the chapstick, creating new problems while solving none.
Some revolutionary users have attempted to combat chapstick loss by:
- Buying only one tube (lost within days, then suffering)
- Keeping tube in single designated location (forgetting designation)
- Attaching chapstick to keychain (losing keychain)
- Buying distinctive colored tubes (losing them colorfully)
- Accepting chapstick is temporary (most successful approach)
Dr. Millicent Hargrove notes that finishing a chapstick would require “sustained attention and object permanence that humans apparently don’t possess.” Her research suggests that even if someone consciously decided to finish a tube, they would lose interest, forget, or misplace it before achieving completion.
The study identified one man, Ernest Potts of Milwaukee, who claimed to have finished a chapstick in 1938. However, upon investigation, he admitted he might have thrown it away while still partially full because he thought it was empty, making his achievement questionable at best.
As of press time, researchers were attempting to create a “chapstick finishing protocol” that would allow someone to actually complete a tube through systematic usage and careful tracking. Early trials suggest this requires more dedication than most people apply to their careers and is therefore unlikely to succeed.
Local Man’s “I’ll Be Right Back” Now Entering Third Hour
CLEVELAND, OH – What began as a brief statement about temporarily leaving the house has evolved into an extended absence as area resident Theodore Whitmore continues being “right back” despite having departed at 2:00 PM and not returned by 5:17 PM, creating what his family describes as “the most inaccurate time estimate since he said picture hanging would take five minutes.”
“I’ll be right back,” Whitmore announced while walking out the door to “grab something from the store,” a phrase his wife Dorothy has learned to interpret as “I’m leaving for an indeterminate period and have no realistic assessment of time required.”
The journey, which Whitmore estimated would take “maybe ten minutes,” has involved:
- Twenty minutes deciding which store to visit
- Thirty minutes driving to store (should take eight minutes)
- Forty minutes wandering store aisles
- Twenty-three minutes talking to neighbor encountered in parking lot
- Fifteen minutes sitting in car “just thinking”
- An hour at hardware store he “just stopped at real quick”
- Current location: unknown, possibly still being “right back”
Dorothy reports that “I’ll be right back” has become code in their household for “expect me when you see me, possibly tomorrow.” She estimates her husband’s time prediction accuracy at roughly 3%, with most trips taking ten times longer than promised and some never achieving completion at all.
“Last week he said he’d be right back and came home six hours later with a pineapple and no explanation,” she noted while watching the clock advance steadily away from any reasonable interpretation of “right back.”
The National Institutes of Health has documented what researchers call “Male Time Estimation Disorder” where men believe tasks take dramatically less time than reality suggests, creating situations where “five minutes” means forty minutes, “right back” means several hours, and “I’ll be home for dinner” is meaningless fiction.
Dr. Reginald Pemberton explains that men experience time differently than clocks measure it. “In his mind, he’s been gone five minutes,” Dr. Pemberton noted while watching study subjects who left for quick errands three hours ago and still haven’t returned. “Objective time passes normally, but subjective male time operates at different rate, causing what wives experience as lying but husbands experience as honest estimation.”
The phenomenon affects multiple daily activities:
“Quick stop” – Translation: One to three hours “Running out” – Translation: Gone for afternoon
“Be right there” – Translation: Arriving sometime between now and next Tuesday “Just finishing up” – Translation: Haven’t started yet “On my way” – Translation: Still at office/store/friend’s house
Whitmore’s current absence has progressed through several stages his family recognizes from experience:
Stage One: Optimism (0-30 minutes) – Family believes he’ll return as promised
Stage Two: Skepticism (30-60 minutes) – Family realizes “right back” was inaccurate
Stage Three: Resignation (60-120 minutes) – Family accepts he won’t return soon
Stage Four: Wondering (120-180 minutes) – Family questions if he’s coming back at all
Stage Five: Moving On (180+ minutes) – Family proceeds with day as if he never existed
They’re currently in Stage Five, having eaten dinner without him and begun evening activities that don’t involve wondering where he is or when he’ll return.
When Whitmore eventually arrives home, family members predict he’ll:
- Be surprised by the time
- Insist it “only felt like a few minutes”
- Blame traffic/lines/unexpected encounters
- Claim he was “practically right back”
- Promise better time estimation next time (will not improve)
His daughter Susan has begun timing his “right back” trips and maintaining a logbook of estimates versus reality. Current data shows his average estimate is off by 247%, suggesting he genuinely cannot perceive time accurately or believes he can bend temporal physics through willpower.
“He once said he’d be right back and came home three days later,” Susan reported while updating her spreadsheet. “He’d driven to Cleveland to look at a tool sale and forgot to mention he was going to Cleveland. Just said ‘be right back’ and left for three days.”
Marriage counselor Dr. Millicent Hargrove notes this represents common marital communication failure where men believe their intentions constitute accurate predictions regardless of historical evidence. “He intends to be right back,” she explained. “Therefore, in his mind, saying ‘I’ll be right back’ is honest even though he never has been and never will be right back. Intention equals prediction in male psychology.”
As of press time, Whitmore had been gone three hours and fourteen minutes, making this a relatively short “right back” trip by his standards. His family predicted his arrival sometime between now and midnight, carrying items he didn’t need and having completely forgotten whatever he originally left to get.
Revolutionary Study: Everyone’s Terrible Dancing Looks Great to Themselves
BOSTON, MA – After extensive research involving 5,000 test subjects, numerous recording devices, and what observers described as “crimes against rhythm,” the Institute for Movement Analysis has confirmed that people dancing at parties believe they look significantly better than objective reality suggests, creating what researchers call “kinesthetic self-deception on massive scale.”
“The disconnect is remarkable,” announced lead researcher Dr. Millicent Hargrove while reviewing footage of test subjects dancing with confidence unjustified by their actual movements. “In their minds, they’re Fred Astaire. On camera, they’re more like Fred Astaire having a medical emergency.”
The study utilized mirrors, recordings, and audience feedback to compare dancers’ self-perception with external reality. Results showed 94% of dancers rated their abilities as “good” to “excellent” while observers rated the same dancing as “concerning” to “call a doctor.”
Test subject Walter Grimsby participated after years of confident wedding reception dancing that his wife described as “enthusiastic flailing.” When shown recordings of his moves, Grimsby initially insisted the camera was broken or researchers had mixed up footage.
“That can’t be me,” he protested while watching himself perform what he believed was “sophisticated swing dancing” but observers described as “a man fighting invisible bees.” “I look much smoother than that.”
This sentiment was universal among test subjects, all of whom rejected video evidence in favor of their internal perception of competence that exists only in their imagination.
The Smithsonian Institution has documented what curators call “Dance Floor Confidence Paradox” where lack of ability correlates directly with overconfidence, creating situations where the worst dancers are the most enthusiastic while skilled dancers often refuse to dance at all due to self-awareness.
Dr. Theodore Pemberton explains that dancing involves rhythm, coordination, and spatial awareness that most people lack entirely but believe they possess. “They can’t feel the beat, can’t coordinate limbs, can’t judge how they look,” he noted. “But they feel great doing it, so they assume looking great follows naturally.”
The study identified several categories of terrible-but-confident dancers:
The Office Party Dancer – Believes alcohol improves dancing; it doesn’t, just reduces awareness of how bad dancing has become
The Wedding Dancer – Convinced that formal events require dancing regardless of ability; guests disagree
The “I Took Lessons Once” Dancer – Remembers three moves from 1987, executes them badly, repeatedly
The Interpretive Dancer – No discernible connection between music and movement, creating performance art nobody requested
The Enthusiastic Dancer – Compensates for lack of skill with excessive energy; makes situation worse
Mrs. Dorothy Pemberton served as a test subject after decades of confident dance floor presence that witnesses described as “bold choice to dance like that in public.” When shown her recorded performance of what she believed was an elegant waltz, she spent several minutes in silence before suggesting perhaps everyone looks bad on camera.
Researchers confirmed that cameras capture reality accurately; it’s the dancers’ self-perception that’s inaccurate.
The most troubling findings involved dancers who thought they were helping others by encouraging reluctant parties to join them. “They believe they’re spreading joy,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “They’re actually spreading secondhand embarrassment while remaining immune to feeling it themselves.”
Some test subjects attempted to improve after seeing recordings, but researchers found that watching themselves dance had no impact on future performance. “They see the recording, acknowledge it looks bad, then immediately return to dancing the same way,” Dr. Pemberton noted. “The internal sensation of dancing well overrides all external evidence of dancing poorly.”
The study examined why people continue dancing despite overwhelming evidence of incompetence. Findings suggest that dancing feels good regardless of quality, creating positive feedback that makes dancers believe they’re succeeding when they’re failing spectacularly in front of everyone.
“It’s self-fulfilling confidence,” Dr. Hargrove explained. “They feel good dancing, therefore they must be good at dancing. Logic doesn’t enter the equation.”
As of press time, researchers were preparing public awareness campaign to inform Americans that their wedding reception moves are not as impressive as they believe and perhaps sitting down would serve everyone’s interests better than continued dancing.
About This Issue
Bohiney Magazine – Volume 1, Issue 9 – Published every Saturday from our offices in Washington, DC.
Editorial Staff, 1947: Editors-in-Chief: Corporal Henry “Hank” Bohiney & Sergeant Lester “Les” Krupke
Senior Correspondents: Dorothy Ashworth, Harold K. Pennington III
Contributing Satirist: Reginald “Reggie” Buttonworth
All articles are works of satire. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental and intended for humorous purposes.