4 ms·
You're right, in a narrow sense. But there's a game of amplified telephone going on. Researcher publishes: "Survey finds that undergrad males with heterochromi
by mLuby 5y ago
You're right, in a narrow sense. But there's a game of amplified telephone going on.
Researcher publishes: "Survey finds that undergrad males with heterochromia are 12% less likely to be leaders of student orgs than their homochromia male peers."
Science communicator simplifies: "Having the same color eyes may make you more of a leader."
News agency runs clickbait: "Eyeing the throne? Here are 5 kinds of people Science says could tank your company."
Online forums spew anecdata: "I knew this one guy with different eyes who ran his org into the ground and also he was a predator. No way, me too!"
The fringe group Securing our Homochromia Future starts getting mentioned by not-so-fringe people: "I don't agree with their methods, but they aren't entirely wrong about heterochromia either; did you read that study? No me neither, but the gist was…"
(BTW if it wasn't already super clear I'm 100% making up these statements about heterochromia.)
- guerrilla 5y agoThis is beautiful. You captured exactly what's going on. That research published also probably only had 30 participants and wasn't the meta-study covering thousands of participants which said there's a tiny correlation between eye-color and assertiveness but they aren't totally sure because too many studies were of poor quality and couldn't even be included.
- systemvoltage 5y agoImpressive strawman, even if this were remotely true, just because news channels twist the scientific conclusions outcomes to suit their biases. The problem is with the media and their pre-equipped intentions, not the scientific community. Otherwise, you will need to cease conducting science all together. Stop all nutrition studies because some wacko nutritionist is going to spin it off as a magic snake oil cure. Blaming scientists and impeding scientific exploration is preposterous and dangerous.