Suppose you wanted to show that some attractiveness preference was innate (this requires considerable suspension of disbelief for me, but let’s go with it). What would you do? I know, you’d round up a VAST sample of ‘over 200’ volunteers from a single culture at single point in time, and state that you “suspect the effect to be common across cultures”. I mean, it’s not like there’s any evidence that there’s cultural variation across places and times regarding what is considered attractive. No, not at all. So, if you like this kind of study, you might get convinced that men and women are both innately predisposed to find longer legs more attractive.
2 thoughts on “More bad science”
Comments are closed.
Feminist Philosophers 
Oh boy!
Next: “NYU study indicates men and women innately prefer Yankees over other baseball teams.” To counter criticisms of a previous study’s small sample size, this new research makes use of 2000 area volunteers.
Haha, can we really call this science? It’s more like micro-examination that has been mistakenly described as macro. Good try though scientists :(