> For a scientific study it's really lacking facts How so? All you've read is one blog post about it. If you want numbers, there's some freely available in the

> For a scientific study it's really lacking facts How so? All you've read is one blog post about it. If you want numbers, there's some freely available in the supplemental information that goes along with the published study (at the bottom of [0]). Full-text is probably available through a local library. Regardless, there's 7 total studies, of which you mentioned one, and the least interesting one in my opinion. Additionally, it's never described as a causal relationship (despite the Ars headline), and there's no reason it needs to be. "X predicts Y" does not say anything about whether X causes Y. There's nothing illogical about it. Unless you want to imply they doctored the numbers or don't know how to calculate a simple correlation, I see no reason to question their motives just because you didn't like the results they found. [0] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109.abst...