9 ms·

This paper is most likely complete bunk. The data is very bad, and the conclusion doesn't even match the data. See previous comments when this was posted yeste

• gxonatano 2y ago
  Furthermore: > Dr. Yonat Zwebner, Arison School of Business, Reichman University says First, this isn't even a scientist who makes these conclusions, which explains why there's no scientific method. There needs to be a null hypothesis which is ruled out statistically. Why not have survey participants try to guess the name from a pool of random names drawn from within the same generation and socio-economic group, and then see if they do any better than chance. Second, even if the data were trustworthy, the obvious explanation here is that the popularity of certain names changes over time, and those distributions correlate with social class. A middle-class woman born in 1980 will probably have one of the names typically given to middle-class girls in 1980. Survey participants are, consciously or unconsciously, weighing the probability of a name, given these factors. Facial attributes simply have nothing to do with it. The idea that facial attributes change to suit a name is preposterous, given the number of other, much simpler explanations.