Recent comments in /f/science

Kalapuya t1_j8evzwn wrote

You didn’t read the studies. It’s not social factors - they are inherent preferences driven by biological factors. The point was to control for social factors and the preferences still persisted.

3

hellomondays t1_j8evoqv wrote

Never said anything different. Just that, like your articles show, there's social factors that influence career choice. countries which are and/or have become more "gender equal" over time do not necessarily have weaker gender stereotypes about boys of the sorts which are related with boys' achievements in literacy, for example

2

Kalapuya t1_j8eus3h wrote

I’m just following the science, which makes a pretty clear case that, given a more level playing field, men and women naturally gravitate toward some professions more than others. It’s okay that we have differences and different preferences. Diversity is a good thing. Do you really think in a more equal society that 50% of roughnecks would be women?

Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries: Replicating and extending a surprising finding

Relationship of Gender Differences in Preferences to Economic Development and Gender Equality

The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education

4

updatedprior t1_j8euga4 wrote

Vaccinated and unvaccinated were not from homogenous populations. I’m not sure if that is what they are getting at here, but it does add something to the mix when looking at and comparing results.

57

tudy1311 t1_j8etv3f wrote

Try raising your brows to the max and making the biggest eyes at the waiter instead of raising your hand. They'll look a lot quicker usually. Raised hand gets filtered out first if they're busy.

7

acebandaged t1_j8ethw0 wrote

Sorry, wouldn't the math be 10 out of every 100 murders are by an intimate partner, and 7 of those 10 are women?

AKA 7 murders out of every 100 are women killed by an intimate partner

11

fucayama t1_j8eqymu wrote

Great point, so in theory the alcohol would have little effect and was just coincident with the higher social activity. Having said that I could still imagine a decent number of mild-moderate drinkers who are minimally social that would muddy that result somewhat.

8

PsychologicalLuck343 t1_j8eq6kh wrote

One drink makes me as drunk as four over four hours would a normal person, but I don't know whether that's doing the same damage as four alcoholic drinks.

2

tzaeru t1_j8epuj2 wrote

It's kind of interesting that there's only one author with background in medicine and then there's authors from law, economics, business..

Either way - far as I can tell, the conclusions found here are also what the vast majority of studies have arrived to. The vaccines prevented deaths and worked as intended, but the non-vaccine mitigation strategies were - and are - also important, as vaccines alone weren't/aren't good enough.

30

JurassicCotyledon t1_j8epczm wrote

Animal models.

Double blind placebo controlled trial involving people in roles involving frequent contact.

Similar model for phase 3 but using larger groups in broader community.

The important thing is to have put forth an effort to do so, and to collect this data in the long term without muddying the water by unblinding the control groups. This has not been the case here from what I’ve seen. It’s not going to be perfect, obviously in times of emergency especially, but that doesn’t change the facts at hand.

But on the subject of ethics, would it be ethical to tell people to get vaccinated with a brand new technology, and claim “you’re doing your part” by reducing transmission, if you have no data to support that claim to begin with?

2

tzaeru t1_j8ep69r wrote

5