3 ms·
Anyone else find this an incredibly difficult article to make any sense of? I've read a lot of epidemiological research and I haven't really come across "primip
by ImaCake 3y ago
Anyone else find this an incredibly difficult article to make any sense of? I've read a lot of epidemiological research and I haven't really come across "primiparas" before, why not just call it "first births"? That's what the population genetics papers do. The only technical term in here that I am familiar with is "menarche" (first period/menstrual cycle). The rest just feels like obfuscation to make the authors seem smarter.
The massive Odds Ratios presented further down are suspicious as well - if I saw those kind of effect sizes based on observational data I would be running a lot of sanity checks and models designed to test the stability of my model outputs etc.
I don't think this will be the study to convince me that Evolutionary Psychology is anything more than snake oil.
- ascar 3y agoBecause primiparas describes the women that give first births and not the first births themselves. The abstract uses regular English and introduces the term. Otherwise they would have to write "women with first births" all the time. It feels like they just tried to be concise and not just throwing them in there to sound smarter.