hot take: if it turns out that attractive women wind up with rectovaginal endometriosis more often because they wind up having sex earlier and that can cause rectovaginal endometriosis, y'all in a towering righteous fury about that study might wind up feeling like real assholes
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @chaosprime
well the study already found that but there's no plausible pathway between that and the disease
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tr4nsmute
study didn't find any "becauses", as well it shouldn't have, except oops that leaves every potentially motivating inferential path among the correlated factors open to interpretation, especially the ones like "does pain make chicks hot" that provide cheap rage clickbait
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
-
Replying to @tr4nsmute
my original tweet involved a bunch of causation statements. the study, properly, refrained from those because causation was way beyond its scope. but if you're refraining from talking about causation, like you should, people can then put whatever words they want in your mouth
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @tr4nsmute
with regard to what causation you thought might be occurring or what causation you were looking for or what causation you wanted to be occurring
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @tr4nsmute
and given the incentives of social media and pop kulturkampf, they would have to be bad at these things to not put the words in your mouth that get them the most attention and clout
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime
ok, gotcha. i still don't see any point in measuring attractiveness in absence of any plausible hypothesis. could it have been caused by early sexual encounters? cool just measure that. could it be the estrogen levels? measure that.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @tr4nsmute @chaosprime
basically, i don't see what measuring the attractiveness of women added to that study
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
and that's the whole thing, isn't it? considering women in terms of their attractiveness is *immoral*, so some other lens should have been found irrespective of what the actual observation you were trying to document was
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
i get what you're saying. i am not being moralistic here. i am saying it didn't actually make any sense to make it the center piece of the study because it doesn't add anything to the body of knowledge. if you want to confirm your hunch, yes very well you could have rated them
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tr4nsmute @chaosprime
but also follow it up with measuring estrogen levels or whatever. otherwise it's just bullshit
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.