View Single Post
Old 08-15-2019, 05:29 AM
Stanislaus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,103
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post

(1) Nitpicking of one study’s methodology aside
"Nitpicking"? These weren't quibbles about the niceties of research methodologies. That study is junk from start to finish and anyone with half a brain should be able to work that out on first read (see, for example, Sunny Daze's posts on it). I am genuinely surprised that you thought it worth bringing to the table.

do you really argue there is no basis to believe there are competing ESSes that make both being a Haim or being an Eric viable approaches to replicating one’s “selfish” Y chromosome?
What are you talking about? You cited this study as evidence of women's hormonal driven attraction to symmetrical men. That is indeed what the study purports to show. If you want to spin on a dime and claim that it's actually about male reproductive strategies, feel free but you're going to need to show your working (and, if I'm being picky, acknowledge that you're abandoning your original claims for it). I wouldn't strive too hard though - it's still a junk study with dodgy data, so it can't provide much support for whatever new claims you want to rest on it.

(2) Do you acknowledge that under equally withering, skeptical analysis, most social psychology research (on the “nurture” rather than “nature” side of the ledger) would crumble?
I have no idea. But that's not how this works. If you want to argue that it would crumble under withering skeptical analysis, you have to actually do the analysis. Simply positing that it might turn out to be bad if you ever got round to checking is a) lazy and b) stupid.

(3) What say you about the UCLA T-shirt-sniffing metastudy?
Haven't read it. You could send a link, but really, I only dug into that paper because I was on a long train journey and it helped pass the time. I don't have any more long journeys due, so I probably won't have time to look at this metastudy.

But tell you what. I can see you're not confident about your ability to critically appraise research papers. That's fair enough, and it reflects well on you that you're asking for help. If you want to outsource your critical thinking to me, I can take it on but I'll have to charge. Normally my rates would work out at $500 an hour, but as you're a fellow doper and this is really pro bono work, let's call it $495.

Last edited by Stanislaus; 08-15-2019 at 05:34 AM.