Oh, this old debate again …
The butterfly effect on the Internet is amazing. Here we are, probing through the morning headlines to find anything of interest only to see that the topic of the "double-dip" is making rounds again. Why?
Because some Harvard dude wrote a blog post about it. We thought there'd be more information about the hotly contested party habit, some real info to digest and think about while we try not to actually stick our fingers into the breakroom cheese sauce because that's way more efficient anyway. It's information the world needs, this can't be a static topic of research. Fund this!
But no, there isn't any rigorous study conclusion, or fresh and surprising revelations to report. Some guy with a fancy title just 'reviewed' previous research and stated that which was published 7 years ago: Germs stick to chips when it's put inside of somebody's mouth. The germs then go into the dip when placed into the dip. Double dipping bad, living a sterile life locked inside of a motionless chamber good.
Such is the cycle of the web, a quick-to-react paradigm that fees off of headlines and has the ability to resuscitate old content for the clicks of the world.
And you'll find easy references to an old Seinfeld episode in every article, one-hundred headlines trying to find a perfect pun.
You won't find that swapping spit in the heat of the moment can actually be good for you, though, per different research with ulterior goals. Kissing is great, can double-dipping be so bad? Or is it all just a ploy to get people talking, wondering and sharing?
On second thought, it's too early to be digging through headlines right now. I'm going under my desk to take a nap (you know, like that one Seinfeld episode?) — because we know for certain catching shut-eye is really good for you, no discussion necessary.
And probably dream about this meme, because there are worse things people put in their mouths than invisible chip-germs from strangers.