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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @chaosprime @tr4nsmute
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @chaosprime
so? i don't agree with that either. i don't like online rage mobs any more than you. but saying that this study was worthwhile just cuz you want to pwn the libs makes you two sides of the same coin
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
i have no idea whether it was worthwhile. i can construct by induction a scenario where it would have been worthwhile, which makes me real suspicious of everybody having determined that it was not worthwhile in a way that just happens to coincide with their tribal obligations
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.