3 ms·

Back in the late 90's I was working as a forklift operator at a manufacturing plant during my summer off from college. I will never forget walking into the bre

Back in the late 90's I was working as a forklift operator at a manufacturing plant during my summer off from college. I will never forget walking into the breakroom and on the television was an anchor reporting that studies had shown heterosexual couples were more likely to have children than homosexual couples. Everyone in that break room was laughing. Someone got paid to do that study. And when I mention this, someone will inevitably come in and say we can't know until we verify. Sure we can, but more importantly, why the hell was money put towards _THAT_ question, of all questions we could be investigating? At what point are researchers just trying to look busy rather than actually be busy?

antonvs 4y ago
Without a reference to the specific study, it’s impossible to answer. You may just have witnessed (the 90s TV equivalent of) a clickbait style piece. Misrepresenting research, whether due to misunderstanding or deliberately, happens all the time. It sounds like you didn’t personally look into the research in question, but you’re repeating a claim about it as though it were fact. That’s why this kind of misinformation is so prevalent.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  > I will never forget walking into the breakroom and on the television was an anchor reporting that studies had shown heterosexual couples were more likely to have children than homosexual couples. No reasonable person is going to read that and conclude I'm repeating a claim other than telling an anecdote. But having said that, yes it's obviously true in the same sense that "It smells when you poo" is obviously true.
lucozade 4y ago
> Sure we can, but more importantly, why the hell was money put towards _THAT_ question At a complete guess: because there's money in it. The study may have been quantifying the increased likelihood that homosexual couples are TWINKy (two incomes no kids). A demographic that is well known (in marketing circles) to have more disposable income than average. In the UK the phenomenon was known as the pink pound [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_money

antonvs 4y ago

Without a reference to the specific study, it’s impossible to answer. You may just have witnessed (the 90s TV equivalent of) a clickbait style piece. Misrepresenting research, whether due to misunderstanding or deliberately, happens all the time. It sounds like you didn’t personally look into the research in question, but you’re repeating a claim about it as though it were fact. That’s why this kind of misinformation is so prevalent.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
> I will never forget walking into the breakroom and on the television was an anchor reporting that studies had shown heterosexual couples were more likely to have children than homosexual couples. No reasonable person is going to read that and conclude I'm repeating a claim other than telling an anecdote. But having said that, yes it's obviously true in the same sense that "It smells when you poo" is obviously true.

lucozade 4y ago

> Sure we can, but more importantly, why the hell was money put towards _THAT_ question At a complete guess: because there's money in it. The study may have been quantifying the increased likelihood that homosexual couples are TWINKy (two incomes no kids). A demographic that is well known (in marketing circles) to have more disposable income than average. In the UK the phenomenon was known as the pink pound [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_money