Trusted, Automoderated users
574
edits
Heightpill: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Brooke Jenkins: should out to BBP if you're still around maybe come explain, was your comment maybe in response to another study? I think we ought to have a "one section per study" policy to make it clear what we are paraphrasing
(→Brooke Jenkins: "only really" is non-scientific phrasing, if you look at the actual numbers it shows the heightpill consistently affects EVERY category, albeit not as extremely as we might think (possibly due to design flaws in study)) |
(→Brooke Jenkins: should out to BBP if you're still around maybe come explain, was your comment maybe in response to another study? I think we ought to have a "one section per study" policy to make it clear what we are paraphrasing) |
||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
Although the pattern is consistent, the difference is underwhelming to those who consider height to have a larger impact. | Although the pattern is consistent, the difference is underwhelming to those who consider height to have a larger impact. | ||
:[[User:Bibipi]] for example [[Special:diff/46076|was distressed]] about some sort of "d = .22 less than tall people" for the extremely short, although it's unclear how he got that number. He talks about <4'11" yet that was not the parameters of the "very short" in Brooke's study. Men below 5'2" were not even surveyed in it, and 12.0 minus 9.4 is a difference of average partner count of 2.6 not 0.22. | |||
One interesting thing to notice about the sampling Jenkins did is she highly over-sampled "tall" men (at 40% this is higher than the 33% "average" men) and under-sampled "short" men (only 9%) | One interesting thing to notice about the sampling Jenkins did is she highly over-sampled "tall" men (at 40% this is higher than the 33% "average" men) and under-sampled "short" men (only 9%) | ||