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
except it isn't, it's a documented correlation with shockingly high effect size. "attractiveness is bullshit" is a moralistic statement. examining estrogen levels or what-have-you is certainly something studies building on this one might want to do
-
-
but the only way we find an obligation in *this* study to have blown out its scope to hell and gone by digging into random additional hypotheses is by starting from a point of high moral dudgeon about what hypothesis it was actually designed for
-
no, i'm not making a moralistic statement here. measuring only attractiveness is bullshit because any scientist certainly know that there's no plausible link between that and the disease. the effect is certainly being mediated by something else (genes, behaviour etc.)
- 3 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.