not sure if i am following you here
-
-
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 -
Replying to @tr4nsmute
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
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
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 -
Replying to @tr4nsmute
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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
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
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
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.)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tr4nsmute
right, except tons of science does nothing more than document a correlation or an absence of one so that further studies can build on it, and we only find an obligation for this one to have dug until it found a causality hypothesis out of being pissed at it for bullshit reasons
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 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.