http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/online-outrage-prompts-cnn-to-pull-story-linking-female-voting-to-ovulation-20121025-287rq.html
One link from the SMH article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/cnn-women-voters-science_n_2011866.html
Please avoid drinking whilst reading these. Laughing and then spitting coffee on the computer screen is not good.
Has “free speech” been all but outlawed in America?
(and other so called western democracies)
So, because a few women were ‘outraged’ or ‘upset’ the media are obliged to pull the story?
Why? what’s the big deal?
Women have a brain, they can choose to believe it or disbelieve it or open up debate on it
Or completely ignore it.
Why should the story be pulled just because a few menstruating women got cranky about it?
Many women make decisions based on their emotional state at the time
:-)
Aquila said:
Why should the story be pulled just because a few menstruating women got cranky about it?
Many women make decisions based on their emotional state at the time
:-)
Steps away from Aquila to avoid flying bricks. ;-P
Geoff D said:
Aquila said:Why should the story be pulled just because a few menstruating women got cranky about it?
Many women make decisions based on their emotional state at the time
:-)
Steps away from Aquila to avoid flying bricks. ;-P
hahaha :-)
ps
Flying bricks, aimed in my direction might seem to confirm my hypothesis
Aquila – shut up. It’s quite easy, really.
….sigh :/
Hysterical thinking leads to over reacting.
:-)
kii said:
Aquila – shut up. It’s quite easy, really.….sigh :/
Give kii **big hugz*
I reserve my opinion on the subject until the research has bee published and reviewed.
Carmen_Sandiego said:
I reserve my opinion on the subject until the research has bee published and reviewed.
Pub rules.
From the second article:
huffingtonpost.com said:
Answering these questions are going to determine how your pretty little brain is going to…
Not to introduce trivia, but is that a subject-verb disagreement I spy there?
Rule 303 said:
From the second article:huffingtonpost.com said:
Answering these questions are going to determine how your pretty little brain is going to…Not to introduce trivia, but is that a subject-verb disagreement I spy there?
I don’t know about that, Rule but that snippet does sound a little condescending.
Although, I don’t know its context.
Maybe the polling booths should come with pheromone-soaked papers so we can really decide!
mr kii: They also let drunks vote. Where’s the cnn article about how drunks will vote, depending on whether they’ve had a nip or two?
He then rolled his eyes at the stoopid shite that passes for news in his country.
i dont know why women like kii are so fearful of their body chemistry.
Dropbear said:
i dont know why women like kii are so fearful of their body chemistry.
You must be mistaking me for someone else, because I’m not…where did I say I was?
they should have just written that people are affected by hormones.. but then that would be bunnings obvious.
Human behaviour affected by hormones..
there’s your headline.. only, it’s not much at all really.
Everyone loves attacking the menstrual cycle (men and women included).. it’s such and easy target, but it’s not unusual for hormones to affect behaviour and, therefore, decision making processes. They could have made the story scientific but chose sensational.
Arts said:
they should have just written that people are affected by hormones.. but then that would be bunnings obvious.Human behaviour affected by hormones..
there’s your headline.. only, it’s not much at all really.
Everyone loves attacking the menstrual cycle (men and women included).. it’s such and easy target, but it’s not unusual for hormones to affect behaviour and, therefore, decision making processes. They could have made the story scientific but chose sensational.
Whereas, getting angry and starting a fist fight is completely rational and logical behaviour by men.
Arts said:
they should have just written that people are affected by hormones.. but then that would be bunnings obvious.Human behaviour affected by hormones..
there’s your headline.. only, it’s not much at all really.
Everyone loves attacking the menstrual cycle (men and women included).. it’s such and easy target, but it’s not unusual for hormones to affect behaviour and, therefore, decision making processes. They could have made the story scientific but chose sensational.
I always quote Carl Jung.
Postulate:
Testosterone should make men more aggressive and conservative. Estrogen should make them more liberal and passive.
This study opens up the avenue to test whether racial differences in voting preferences in the USA can be put down to hormonal differences.
Serum Estrogen, But Not Testosterone, Levels Differ between Black and White Men in a Nationally Representative Sample of Americans
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/7/2519.full
Conclusions: Contrary to the postulated racial difference, testosterone concentrations did not differ notably between black and white men. However, blacks had higher estradiol levels. Mexican-Americans had higher testosterone than whites but similar estradiol and SHBG concentrations.
My hypothesis is that hispanics males will vote more conservatively because they have more testosterone, black men vote liberally because they have more serum eostrogen.
then there’s this one .. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-26/policeman-plotted-to-kidnap-roast-and-eat-women/4334952
Arts said:
they should have just written that people are affected by hormones..
may be, to some degree, taking into account all parameters and confouding variables which affect human voting preferences.
Arts said:
They could have made the story scientific but chose sensational.
It was scientific? sips coffee
neomyrtus_ said:
Postulate:
Testosterone should make men more aggressive and conservative. Estrogen should make them more liberal and passive.This study opens up the avenue to test whether racial differences in voting preferences in the USA can be put down to hormonal differences.
Serum Estrogen, But Not Testosterone, Levels Differ between Black and White Men in a Nationally Representative Sample of Americans
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/7/2519.full
Conclusions: Contrary to the postulated racial difference, testosterone concentrations did not differ notably between black and white men. However, blacks had higher estradiol levels. Mexican-Americans had higher testosterone than whites but similar estradiol and SHBG concentrations.
My hypothesis is that hispanics males will vote more conservatively because they have more testosterone, black men vote liberally because they have more serum eostrogen.
exactly, there is a whole bunch of science and room for real discussion, but no..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-26/policeman-plotted-to-kidnap-roast-and-eat-women/4334952
why was he going to kidnap the roast?
Boris said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-26/policeman-plotted-to-kidnap-roast-and-eat-women/4334952why was he going to kidnap the roast?
Maybe he was basted?
Boris said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-26/policeman-plotted-to-kidnap-roast-and-eat-women/4334952why was he going to kidnap the roast?
Fresh is best.
What about lesbian, transgender, gay, bisexual, people with gender identity issues, people with androgen insensitivity syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome and other physiological conditions which affect hormone synthesis and receptivity to endogenous hormones … how do you work that one out. Some are on testosterone, some are on eostrogen – but many mysteriously seem to be on the left wing side of political preferences?
What about women on HRT?
Arts said:
exactly, there is a whole bunch of science and room for real discussion, but no..
And a whole bunch of spurious science to cherry pick.
I’m so confused…as a peri-menopausal woman in a committed relationship who has always voted for the left wing parties and can’t vote in the US election because I am not a citizen.
(i think the paint fumes might have reached my brain…)
kii said:
I’m so confused…as a peri-menopausal woman in a committed relationship who has always voted for the left wing parties and can’t vote in the US election because I am not a citizen.(i think the paint fumes might have reached my brain…)
where’s your fume filter?
where’s your fume filter?
————————————-
I was wearing a mask and gloves and painting outside. I’m just a sensitive woman. Maybe it was the black paint? Maybe I should be using pink…….
neomyrtus_ said:
What about lesbian, transgender, gay, bisexual, people with gender identity issues, people with androgen insensitivity syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome and other physiological conditions which affect hormone synthesis and receptivity to endogenous hormones … how do you work that one out. Some are on testosterone, some are on eostrogen – but many mysteriously seem to be on the left wing side of political preferences?What about women on HRT?
kii said:
where’s your fume filter?
————————————-
I was wearing a mask and gloves and painting outside. I’m just a sensitive woman. Maybe it was the black paint? Maybe I should be using pink…….
Wonders which fumes those females who vote for Bony Tatbot are on?
What about women on HRT?
—-
What about men on HRT?
Michael V said:
What about women on HRT?
—-
What about men on HRT?
i dont mind holden racing team but ford is doing well.
Michael V said:
What about women on HRT?
—-
What about men on HRT?
yep – chuck them in as well…
“In the new study’s first experiment, Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio and colleagues conducted an internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles. About 55% were in committed relationships, including marriage.
They found that women at their most fertile times of the month were less likely to be religious if they were single, and more likely to be religious if they were in committed relationships.”
I would have though that ovulation doesn’t affect religious persuasions, but the wording of findings in this internet survey of 275 Texan women suggests that it does. What about outside of the ovulation envelope? Does religiosity change? Is religiosity and ovulation related?
are
>Is religiosity and ovulation related?
okay – more of the article that was suppressed by menstruating women ..
Internet survey of 502 Texan females.
““The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers’ overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.
Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.
“I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.”
Married Texan woman is thinking “I don’t want to have sex with that sexy AfroAmerican cool dude who smoked pot and inhaled and with the nice ass and fit body and I’m suppressing my sexual urges so I will go with the freaky white flabby Mormon who is as ugly as a hat full of arseholes – because voting for Romney is a vote for hessian underwear and whipping myself with a beat and buckle”
Bubble Car said:
>Is religiosity and ovulation related?
But that’s Pagan equinox spring shit hijacked by Roman Christians.
Aquila said:
Has “free speech” been all but outlawed in America?
(and other so called western democracies)So, because a few women were ‘outraged’ or ‘upset’ the media are obliged to pull the story?
Calm down, Aquila., don’t get so emotional and outraged. The Wookster Report will be in later on today to sort this one out once and for all. The voice of reason and sensibility, letting us know of the secrets that lie beneath, the conspiracies that conceal and The Truth that will shine through The Wookster’s prophetic words.
you on the botanicals again neo?
;-)
Has “free speech” been all but outlawed in America?
(and other so called western democracies)
So, because a few women were ‘outraged’ or ‘upset’ the media are obliged to pull the story?
That’s why “Political Correctness” was invented, to supress the truth if it is in conflict with any of their rantings, still Sharia Law will fix all that. :-)
Who’s getting Sharia Law?
Aquila said:
Has “free speech” been all but outlawed in America?
(and other so called western democracies)So, because a few women were ‘outraged’ or ‘upset’ the media are obliged to pull the story?
Why? what’s the big deal?
Women have a brain, they can choose to believe it or disbelieve it or open up debate on it
Or completely ignore it.Why should the story be pulled just because a few menstruating women got cranky about it?
Many women make decisions based on their emotional state at the time
:-)
you say many people reach deep into their feelings to search for answers
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/2012/10/26/hot-for-obama-ovulation-politics-women/
clang!
another one for the shit science wheelie bin of shame
This paper should be retracted from the journal because it is shit science with flawed statistical analyses and misleading conclusions. It should have been rejected outright – if an undergrad turned a paper in like that, they would have got a C at best. It doesn’t test the premise it says it does (ovulation as a controlled variable affecting voting preferences and social attitudes – it’s the time of the cycle that they stuffed into two broad categories and I was wondering how they were treating times in the cycle – peak fertility being 14 days after ovulation, and none of this was rigorously tested by conventional means)… and it turns spurious correlation into causation.