I don't think it's so clear that most people are ignorant about what they are buying. I hope we can agree that at least some men are not. In today's world, peop

I don't think it's so clear that most people are ignorant about what they are buying. I hope we can agree that at least some men are not. In today's world, people are commonly talking about dangerous substances in common products, so I would be surprised if I'm the only one who pays attention. BPA, styrofoam, mercury, artificial preservatives, GMOs, bovine hormones...there are many successful mass market products that are marketed as being free of these. I also think a lot of what the studies measure, if they measure anything at all, is virtue signaling. A countertheory might be that virtue signaling is a feminine behavior, and that when a man feels emasculated he tends to reject feminine behaviors like buying "green" backpacks (whatever those are). This is the second time you are insinuating that I either didn't read, or didn't understand, the literature. Not only did I read the article, I also read both versions of the paper and some or all of several of their cited papers. The link you just posted was available in a different comment, and I have access to severak journals through an institutional license. I would appreciate if you would stop making ad hominem responses. If you have disagree with something I said, tell or show me what and why. Don't assert that I can't read, or that I'm reading the wrong thing. Such assertions are logically useless and they run counter to HN's guidelines (see footer). If I'm wrong, show me where in the text of the paper you just linked. And if not, accept it: they aren't rigorous in explaining their experiments and their methods for isolating variables.