Hey fellow(ette) mom-bloggers! Has someone somewhere suggested that we have hormones, and they sometimes cause us to react or overreact or under-react differently at different times? Would you perhaps like to read a perfectly reasonable piece about some science that may or may not be flawed and then BLOW THE FUCK UP AT THE MESSENGER like a crack mom screaming at the neighbor kids that she's about to loose her fuckin' Rottweiler on 'em?* Well, CNN reported on a new study today, in a totally fair blog post that succinctly explained the study's myriad blind spots, and now the Ladiez of Twitter -- ladies we honestly admire! -- have gone totally raggo.
Not particularly relevant to this thread, but my favorite graffiti is from the Kollege Klub in Madison in early 1969: "Get Spiro first".
1. Trying to do social science, particularly measuring "feelings", is hard work. Ideally, you should control for time of day, day of the week, how far from payday, the weather, disruptions in personal life, the health and well-being of the subject's family and friends, etc. Because this is hard, most studies assume that the factors not under observation are randomized out, but for this to be a valid assumption, the sample size may need to be quite large. The CNN article is deleted, but I'd imagine that an appropriate sample would be several thousand.
2. A quote from the article (at huffypoo) says that the study is to be published in the peer-reviewed journal <i>Psychological Science</i>. Now, this could mean that it has been peer-reviewed and scheduled for publication, or that it has been submitted for review. My beef with CNN here would be that they should wait until it is actually published before reporting on it.
This is actually a pretty generic beef with mainstream media reporting on science. The point of peer review is to ensure that published discoveries are at least plausible. Reporting on stuff before it has gone through peer review is sort of rabble-rousing.
3. Therefore, even though the CNN article was fairly neutral, it was premature, and CNN deserves to be criticized for it. Now, I&#039;d stop before a general boycott. It is far from the worst thing they&#039;ve done in the last three months, and they are irrelevant anyhow.
True story. I am 8 months pregnant, suffering with the flu. My 2 year old son is with me. My husband is in the crawlspace under the bathroom working on the plumbing. He is banging on cast iron, screaming &quot;You cocksucking motherfucker!!&quot; My son toddles up to me, very concerned, and says &quot;mommy, daddy needs you&quot;. I much prefer it when he does wiring. Much less stressful.
Stuff that involves evaluating peoples&#039; <i>feelings</i> is unavoidably sketchy, and deserves lots of disclaimers.
This particular one wasn&#039;t that bad, and it had quite a few disclaimers.
I spent my career dealing with hard science, give or take a few quanta, but I do know that attempting to quantify human behavior is a much trickier business. And popular understanding is further eroded by the tendency for reporters to oversimplify and headline-writers to inadvertently misrepresent.
As a man, I also consider my genitals to be intellectually neutral, as in &quot;lacking any intellectual traction&quot;. At almost 65, I&#039;m pretty sure I would do, say, LiLo, if given the chance.
Subsequently, my brain would be embarrassed, but my balls would probably be high-fiving each other.
Sorry. We men have this hormone problem, you see.....
Not particularly relevant to this thread, but my favorite graffiti is from the Kollege Klub in Madison in early 1969: &quot;Get Spiro first&quot;.
Nah. Just killing time.
But you&#039;re back two weeks before the erection?
But better than sweat joints.
1. Trying to do social science, particularly measuring &quot;feelings&quot;, is hard work. Ideally, you should control for time of day, day of the week, how far from payday, the weather, disruptions in personal life, the health and well-being of the subject&#039;s family and friends, etc. Because this is hard, most studies assume that the factors not under observation are randomized out, but for this to be a valid assumption, the sample size may need to be quite large. The CNN article is deleted, but I&#039;d imagine that an appropriate sample would be several thousand.
2. A quote from the article (at huffypoo) says that the study is to be published in the peer-reviewed journal <i>Psychological Science</i>. Now, this could mean that it has been peer-reviewed and scheduled for publication, or that it has been submitted for review. My beef with CNN here would be that they should wait until it is actually published before reporting on it.
This is actually a pretty generic beef with mainstream media reporting on science. The point of peer review is to ensure that published discoveries are at least plausible. Reporting on stuff before it has gone through peer review is sort of rabble-rousing.
3. Therefore, even though the CNN article was fairly neutral, it was premature, and CNN deserves to be criticized for it. Now, I&#039;d stop before a general boycott. It is far from the worst thing they&#039;ve done in the last three months, and they are irrelevant anyhow.
Only with dumbshits like me.
...I believe Socrates and Plato asked this exact same question
...I have found that a good sharp forearm to the back of the neck is excellent remedy for this!
...my penis has got me into many problems and I have medical bills, arrest record and plenty of psycho exes to prove it!
you all just want to make me cry, because that is what that song does to me.
Winner!!
True story. I am 8 months pregnant, suffering with the flu. My 2 year old son is with me. My husband is in the crawlspace under the bathroom working on the plumbing. He is banging on cast iron, screaming &quot;You cocksucking motherfucker!!&quot; My son toddles up to me, very concerned, and says &quot;mommy, daddy needs you&quot;. I much prefer it when he does wiring. Much less stressful.
Women only feel sexier if they are <i>legitimately</i> ovulating. (we&#039;ve got two more weeks with that joke, right?)
Stuff that involves evaluating peoples&#039; <i>feelings</i> is unavoidably sketchy, and deserves lots of disclaimers.
This particular one wasn&#039;t that bad, and it had quite a few disclaimers.
I spent my career dealing with hard science, give or take a few quanta, but I do know that attempting to quantify human behavior is a much trickier business. And popular understanding is further eroded by the tendency for reporters to oversimplify and headline-writers to inadvertently misrepresent.
This was far from the worst example.
Well, I&#039;ve been dating myself for some years now, but I&#039;ll happily blame it on the Pogues.
As a man, I also consider my genitals to be intellectually neutral, as in &quot;lacking any intellectual traction&quot;. At almost 65, I&#039;m pretty sure I would do, say, LiLo, if given the chance.
Subsequently, my brain would be embarrassed, but my balls would probably be high-fiving each other.
Sorry. We men have this hormone problem, you see.....