Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

Read the paper. Sections: Abstract, Methods, Procedure. Eran Shor is from McGill. He works in political conflict and other ‘agenda’ studies. He’s the only author of the paper. The interviewers were two grad students. The paper is well written. Heavily cited without use of the cites. However, (and I pretty much do this for a living) any paper in the behavioral sciences with an N<1000 from a randomly selected population, and especially one with just over 100 who are not randombly chosen, but responded to ads or were contacted, are not a representative sample – at all.

That said, as I stated in my response, the evidence is consistent that the criteria I mentioned in my previous reply is a bias among women for the reasons I stated. My criticism of this paper is that it satisfies a confirmation bias but does not include a sample size large enough to draw conclusions from.

( Hey, you asked. I answered. The results are not testifiable. I did my job. 😉 )

-hugs

Reply addressees: @HoneyBadgerBite @FuryForth