Does this explain why we're suddenly hip deep in SoyBois and betas?

[Ingomike]

The only time “may” was mentioned is when it was giving reasons for past studies faults.

“Probably” wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the text I quoted. If you can point it out, please do, otherwise it seems like a feeble attempt to disregard the study in an effort to continue spouting your 70 years worth of studies being the only evidence worth hearing.

From your second link:

“A commonly touted theory about how women’s attraction to men works might be all wrong, suggests a new paper”

“Might”

If my links said might you would call it out.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

From your second link:

A commonly touted theory about how women’s attraction to men works might be all wrong, suggests a new paper

You’re right. That’s proof the study is wrong.

 

[Ingomike]

The headline isn’t the content of the study. I would think a self appointed scientist would know headlines and internal content of a study are separate of each other.

Where is the study?

 

[Ingomike]

You’re right. That’s proof the study is wrong.

Your post said it “might” disprove previous research. Far from definitive…

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Where is the study?

It’s in the New York Times link you posted earlier.

 

[BugI02]

Couldn't you guys just lay it on the table next to a ruler, take a phone pic and settle this contest via DM?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Your post said it “might” disprove previous research. Far from definitive…

And it gave examples of research conducted that disproves previous studies, on a much larger scale than previous studies.


I post science direct. You post New York Times. But mine is wrong.

Why ask for a study showing the contrary when we both knew you wasn’t gonna accept it? You had your mind made up without anyone providing evidence proving otherwise.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Couldn't you guys just lay it on the table next to a ruler, take a phone pic and settle this contest via DM?

I don’t think he’d accept the results there, either

 

[Ingomike]

It’s in the New York Times link you posted earlier.

Do you believe in human hormones response?

 

[rhamersley]

And it gave examples of research conducted that disproves previous studies, on a much larger scale than previous studies.


I post science direct. You post New York Times. But mine is wrong.

Why ask for a study showing the contrary when we both knew you wasn’t gonna accept it? You had your mind made up without anyone providing evidence proving otherwise.

 

[Ingomike]

And it gave examples of research conducted that disproves previous studies, on a much larger scale than previous studies.


I post science direct. You post New York Times. But mine is wrong.

Why ask for a study showing the contrary when we both knew you wasn’t gonna accept it? You had your mind made up without anyone providing evidence proving otherwise.

I actually understand the science behind that you deny. One study does not negate 70 years of research. That is for the scientists to resolve the differences in.

 

[Twangbanger]

Your post said it “might” disprove previous research. Far from definitive…

Well, to be fair, the stuff you posted has a lot of weasel-words, too.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I actually understand the science behind that you deny. One study does not negate 70 years of research. That is for the scientists to resolve the differences in.

Because you’re a scientist, right? Not me tho.

Proof you were never going to accept any results that contradicts your predetermined outcome.


One was a much larger study than done previously. But your New York Times study is the proof.

You’re right. You win.

 

[Ingomike]

Because you’re a scientist, right? Not me tho.

Proof you were never going to accept any results to the contrary of your predetermined outcome.


One was a much larger study than done previously. But your New York Times study is the proof.

You’re right. You win.

This has been researched and published for as lone as I have been a news junkie. It makes sense to those who understand Bugs posts above, those that understand the hormonal nature of attraction.

You seem to refute that…

 

[Hatin Since 87]

This has been researched and published for as lone as I have been a news junkie. It makes sense to those who understand Bugs posts above, those that understand the hormonal nature of attraction.

You seem to refute that…

You’re right. Your level of intellect is superior and us normies just can’t comprehend studies disproving previous studies. I don’t refute it, But recent scientists apparently do.


Again. You win. Scientists are wrong. A wider range of participants to study, nope, were going with a 70 year old study...

Then we’ll use metaphors like QB’s passing and wrecking our vehicles, quote New York Times, tell a woman her experience doesn’t matter because 70 years ago in 1952 a study showed differently... then puff our chest up and tell anyone providing alternative studies that they don’t understand like YOU understand.


You win. I’ll send you a ribbon.

 

[jamil]

Ooh. Smell them pheromones.




Or. Motorboat!!!

 

[jamil]

I think thinking about bbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrr is a powerful attraction too.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I think thinking about bbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrr is a powerful attraction too.

Depends.


Salma? Yes.


Rosie? No.

 

[Ingomike]

You’re right. Your level of intellect is superior and us normies just can’t comprehend studies disproving previous studies. I don’t refute it, But recent scientists apparently do.


Again. You win. Scientists are wrong. A wider range of participants to study, nope, were going with a 70 year old study...

Then we’ll use metaphors like QB’s passing and wrecking our vehicles, quote New York Times, tell a woman her experience doesn’t matter because 70 years ago in 1952 a study showed differently... then puff our chest up and tell anyone providing alternative studies that they don’t understand like YOU understand.


You win. I’ll send you a ribbon.

I’ll wait for it!

 

[Ingomike]

It’s in the New York Times link you posted earlier.

Now I am locked out of the NYT article. LOL