4 ms·

Has nobody recognized that not a single biologist, chemist, neurosurgeon, hormone specialist, neo-natal specialist, or just general medical doctor participated

Has nobody recognized that not a single biologist, chemist, neurosurgeon, hormone specialist, neo-natal specialist, or just general medical doctor participated or helped produce this study? Here are the authors: Aline Bütikofer - Department of Economics, Norwegian School of Economics, 5045 Bergen, Norway David N. Figlio - School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 Krzysztof Karbownik - Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 Christopher W. Kuzawa - Department of Economics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 Kjell G. Salvanes - Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 So we have, two economists, one anthropologist, and two people who specialize in "social policy." They did not work with these twins, they did not do their own medical research and assessment. They literally "[used] data on all births in Norway (n = 728,842, including 13,800 twins) between 1967 and 1978 to show that females exposed in utero to a male co-twin have a decreased probability of..." This is not meaningful research. This is playing with statistics and cherry picking existing scientific literature to produce a headline that propels an agenda. This is propaganda of the highest order.

tofof 8y ago
Why do you suggest fields other than anthropology or economics should be the qualification for analyzing population-level economic effects? Are you aware that the vast majority of scientific research is done by PhDs, not MDs? And that both are doctorates? > ... propels an agenda. This is propaganda of the highest order. What's the agenda? And did that agenda apply to the 2011 paper calling for more research in this area - "Evaluating the twin testosterone transfer hypothesis: a review of the empirical evidence"[1]? Was that agenda behind this 2012 Japanese study[2] which examined the ratio of middle finger to pinky finger in twins? It's the same hormone transfer hypothesis being examined. What propaganda could there possibly be about the lengths of one's fingers? Was that agenda present in 1993? [3] Does that agenda include propoganda about females becoming better at 3d-spatial mental manipulation tasks? [4] If so, why? Is propaganda about mouse behaviors part of that agenda? [5] If not, why not? Still that same hormone transfer hypothesis being discussed. Perhaps this 1988 paper on intrauterine position of gerbil fetuses [6] and resulting variance in hormonal exposure from siblings was the birth of this propaganda agenda? Or is it more sinister than that, and this agenda extends all the way back to 1959 [7], causing these doctors to 'play with statistics' instead of doing what they said - applying testosterone in-utero and watching for behavioral changes? And then I suppose Dr Phoenix would do more 'playing' in 1967 [8] instead of actually measuring testosterone uptake rates of the various tissues he avoided actually manipulating eight years prior... 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21893061 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21893061 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270254 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270254 3: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8240211 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8240211 4: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094200 5: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3212613/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3212613/ 6: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3387473 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3387473 7: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14432658 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14432658 8: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6020216 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6020216
- alwaysanagenda 8y ago
  Because the presupposition is that testosterone exposure in-utero is to blame. Without actually addressing this claim by medical professionals, everything else is manipulation of data to prove a point to address 'social policy' or an economic agenda. Moreover, the sample size, location, and dates of birth, are small and narrow, comparatively speaking. You cannot make sweeping claims like this using such small data set. But they do, and the "Material and Methods" section of this paper goes to great length to explain how they've made these extrapolations. This is statistical sausage. I have no doubt you could write a similar paper that claims the opposite; that females with male twins do much better. Just like this team did, you can find, extrapolate and present data to support the idea.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"This is propaganda of the highest order." That's a little much. I don't see any reason to believe anything other than the simple (and minor) outcome here: a small deviation in outcomes due to prenatal hormones. That's not propaganda it's just bad math, worst case.

tofof 8y ago

Why do you suggest fields other than anthropology or economics should be the qualification for analyzing population-level economic effects? Are you aware that the vast majority of scientific research is done by PhDs, not MDs? And that both are doctorates? > ... propels an agenda. This is propaganda of the highest order. What's the agenda? And did that agenda apply to the 2011 paper calling for more research in this area - "Evaluating the twin testosterone transfer hypothesis: a review of the empirical evidence"[1]? Was that agenda behind this 2012 Japanese study[2] which examined the ratio of middle finger to pinky finger in twins? It's the same hormone transfer hypothesis being examined. What propaganda could there possibly be about the lengths of one's fingers? Was that agenda present in 1993? [3] Does that agenda include propoganda about females becoming better at 3d-spatial mental manipulation tasks? [4] If so, why? Is propaganda about mouse behaviors part of that agenda? [5] If not, why not? Still that same hormone transfer hypothesis being discussed. Perhaps this 1988 paper on intrauterine position of gerbil fetuses [6] and resulting variance in hormonal exposure from siblings was the birth of this propaganda agenda? Or is it more sinister than that, and this agenda extends all the way back to 1959 [7], causing these doctors to 'play with statistics' instead of doing what they said - applying testosterone in-utero and watching for behavioral changes? And then I suppose Dr Phoenix would do more 'playing' in 1967 [8] instead of actually measuring testosterone uptake rates of the various tissues he avoided actually manipulating eight years prior... 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21893061 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21893061 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270254 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270254 3: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8240211 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8240211 4: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094200 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21094200 5: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3212613/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3212613/ 6: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3387473 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3387473 7: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14432658 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14432658 8: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6020216 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6020216

alwaysanagenda 8y ago
Because the presupposition is that testosterone exposure in-utero is to blame. Without actually addressing this claim by medical professionals, everything else is manipulation of data to prove a point to address 'social policy' or an economic agenda. Moreover, the sample size, location, and dates of birth, are small and narrow, comparatively speaking. You cannot make sweeping claims like this using such small data set. But they do, and the "Material and Methods" section of this paper goes to great length to explain how they've made these extrapolations. This is statistical sausage. I have no doubt you could write a similar paper that claims the opposite; that females with male twins do much better. Just like this team did, you can find, extrapolate and present data to support the idea.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"This is propaganda of the highest order." That's a little much. I don't see any reason to believe anything other than the simple (and minor) outcome here: a small deviation in outcomes due to prenatal hormones. That's not propaganda it's just bad math, worst case.