You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] a_fucking_dude 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

This is just not enough to draw these conclusions. As is commonly stated, "correlation != causation." This could just as easily be interpreted to mean that horny, athletic pregnant women tend to have more masculine children. To reach the sort of conclusions implied by the authors, much more attention needs to be paid to isolating variables and controlling for other factors. For example, how "masculine" were the athletic, horny moms in the first place?

[–] belphegorsprime 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Came here to say this, but didn't feel like posting it. Reloaded my tab to find your comment, glad you posted it. It's better worded than what I would have wrote.

[–] [deleted] 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 


[–] a_fucking_dude 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Not sure where you're going with your reply, but, for clarity, if the moms were "horny and masculine", and the daughters were "masculine," then the activity during pregnancy is likely spurious correlation, and the "masculine" traits are just genetically hereditary, not due to mom's behavior during pregnancy.

edit: and that kind of rational, critical analysis is what's missing in so much of the "science" we see nowadays. Thoroughgoing experimental design and cautious formulation of conclusions. There are still millions of people in the world who think that eggs raise serum cholesterol and that salt hardens arteries, precisely because of scientists preaching sloppy conclusions from sloppy science in the 1960s and 1970s.