I am fairly certain that recently—sometime in the past year or so—I read a study that showed that people believe studies that confirm their suspicions and we find faults in studies that poke holes in our assumptions. So, here’s a study that I think has to be true, even if the author wrote it a bit facetiously: According to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine, if you eat a lot of chocolate, you up your chances of getting a Nobel Prize. The point is that chocolate makes you smarter. (Unless, you are going for the Nobel Peace prize and then chocolate makes you nicer.)
According to the findings of Dr. Franz H. Messerli, cardiologist and director of Clinical Hypertension with St. Luke’s and Roosevelt Hospital, “There was a close significant linear correlation (r=0.791, P,0.0001) between chocolate consumption per capita and the number of Nobel Laureates per 10 million persons in a total of 23 countries.”
His study is brilliant. Given the assumption that chocolate has a flavonoids and flavonoids have been tentatively linked to increased brain functioning (it’s a substance also in red wine and fruit, but do we really need another fruit-is-good-for-you-study?), he compared national chocolate consumption to the number of Nobel Laureates per capital and found this: A direct correlation between the amount of chocolate, measured in kilograms, compared with the number of Laureates, measured in people per 10 million population.We all know that correlation means X is linked to Y, that it does not necessarily prove that one thing causes the other. Whatever.