I noticed that too.
Sadly, it appears that the red bullets have been replaced by ordinary black bullets since the time the article first appeared. C’est la guerre.
My act of observing disturbed the observed, clearly.
Maybe you could advertise for a roommate or two with a long cycle. Then you could report back to us in six months with your own anecdotal evidence. 
Yes! Just what we need! More anecdotal evidence!
College, NCSU, 1992. I am in a dorm wing with nine other girls. Four of us, in three consecutive rooms, are very close friends. The other five are poopheads and stick to themselves. We four, within three months of moving in, are synched. The others… well, we don’t talk to them much, but considering the evidence in the laides’ room (I shan’t elaborate) the synch is restricted to our little foursome. Over Christmas break we stay on the same cycle. It’s not until after summer break, when we’ve been apart for six weeks, that our cycles diverge.
I am on a six-to-eight week irregular cycle, always have been, except for my time in Bowen Dorm. The greatest thing I got from my college education may well have been the regulation of my period.
I am 25. I have 3 daughters, who are 8, 6 and nearly 3. When the mentrual event finally occurs with all three of them, and myself all living in the same house, I shall let you know how many pots I have left.
Pix xx
This is normal. When we all lived in small villages and tribes, all women menstruated together. In circumstances today where women end up living in the same area, there is usually one “dominant” woman who inadvertently ends up controlling the menstrual periods of everyone else.
As for me… I’m in Depo-Provera so don’t menstruate anymore.
Having recently gotten into a debate on this with some friends, and each side dragging out the evidence. We even going so far as to look up the cites listed in JCP per Cecil’s incomplete cite (if you cite you should list page numbers, authors, etc… It makes the job of people trying to verify your work that much easier). It seems there is almost NO evidence to support Cecil’s negative view. Even with the most liberal views it is obvious the jury is still out on this topic. In light of the overwhelming number of replies here for a synchronous cycle, the New Scientist article for a synchronous cycle, and the prevailing view of the scientific society, where is the reply?
Also the incomplete cite that Cecil did provide was to an attack on the method that was used to collect the data, not the data itself (Journal of Comparative Psychology. Vol. 115 (1) March 2001, pp. 3-15) Furthermore in the follow-ons to that article (Journal of Comparative Psychology. Vol. 116 (3) September 2002, pp. 319-322) and (Journal of Comparative Psychology. Vol. 116 (3) September 2002, pp. 313-315) it was made abundantly clear that Weller & Weller had already accounted for the issues that Schank accused them of not addressing. Even barring this, Schank produced no contradictory evidence to Weller & Weller, only saying, incorrectly, what they had done wrong. Given this, and the weight of 20+ years of research into this field (I have looked and the only contradictory articles on this subject are by people critiquing the method of the data gathering) I wonder if Cecil has any real data backing up her view. I would greatly appreciate cites on research papers that present hard evidence on this in a broad scope, not simply “well, you didn’t do this.”
(Note: Weller&Weller have even published papers indicating that the Synchronization is not universal, I am seeking a broad refute of the idea of synchronization. Indeed one of the refutes of Weller&Weller is that that the test source subject was a known inducer… the very notion that there could be an inducer of this speaks to the validity of the argument for.)
Given the apparent lacking of hard evidence supporting Cecil’s views, I would ask that the article be changed to reflect the weight of evidence for, or at the very least a removal of the negative tone, and the recognition of many years of research.
mightyaphrodite said:
This is a very strong claim. How do you know it is normal? Where is your evidence? Got data from, say, current small tribes of women (like in Africa) that supports this? Or are you just projecting?
DavidCross said:
Methodology is an important part of any scientific paper on data collection and analysis. Faulty methodology means the data is unreliable. A critique of methodology is a valid critique of the data - it is a critique of the data collection and analysis.
I make no claims as to whether the data in this instance are faulty, the methodology faulty, or whether the criticisms were addressed. I’m speaking in generalities.
i’ve heard it was all down to pheromones we exude through our pores.
Can anyone verify this?
I’ve no idea why it would make all the other women irregular, and the only one woman who was irregular, not regular…
You’d think combined pheromones of a bunch of women would be stronger than the ph’mones of just the one?
