Quote:
Originally Posted by Platapus
In reading the methodology I am concerned about some facts
- There was no sub-sample group that did not participate in the election at all. A null control group. If the null control group experiences no change in testosterone and the "N" was large enough to be representative, then this study might, just might, have some validity.
- The saliva was collected in an uncontrolled environment
- Some of the participants were drinking alcohol during the study
- Comparisons were made (and conclusions also made) with the results of the female test despite:
and
And their conclusion?
I could just see the expression on my faculty member's face if I gave her this. 
I am finishing up my Doctorate. If I want to make a simple survey, I have to jump through so many academic control gates to ensure statistical and academic integrity it drives you nuts.
Then I read so some "study" where the "N" is 183 and the collection of the data is unsupervised/uncontrolled and more than half of the test subjects may be biologically unmeasurable and they are making conclusions. 
I am in the wrong school. I gotta transfer to Duke for the easy grades.  |
Everytime I hear "a recent survey says..." on tv, I feel the hars in the back of my neck shrivel... The majority of these so called study's are done so poorly they don't mean anything at all (although this one may have got something going there though, ehehehe)...
But anything resembling scentific content apearing in the news has to be taken with a few grains of salt, since the nature of today's news agenies is to simplify to the most any content, so it can be given to anyone in the shortest amon of time possible... I findit hard to see, read or hear an article about anything scientific wich hasn't at least one mistake about the original source, sometimes even turning the original meaning of the discovery completely around... It goes to show that news agencies need better scientific revisers or something like it...