Originally Posted by
kittyboy
It was peer reviewed and so I suspect that the math and methods are sound. I do research on gays and lesbians in the workplace and have a background in research methods and statistics and it seems solid work - though I am not a mathmatical modeler.
Pissyboy,
if you get paid for that
"research" you are taking money under false pretences. The writers of the article relied on statistics compiled entirely by others, whom they listed as references; the first and primary reference was made on the basis of
three selected samples - hardly the thousands that
Aunty correctly pointed out would be needed, with descendants of those samples checked over a number of generations.
The
"anomaly of homosexuality in a Darwinian world" which Aunty also referred to was mentioned once in passing near the beginning, but then ignored rather than addressed even though it totally negates the
entire paper:
"this is a possible тАШDarwinian paradoxтАЩ: since male homosexuals don't mate with the opposite sex, shouldn't any тАШgenes promoting homosexualityтАЩ have died out of the population by now?"
The article, even for me, was a clear case of baffling with bullshit and never using one word when a few hundred, a chart, some obscure formulae and a few tables would do instead. Rather similar to the purchaser of JB's publication, who gave his first aim as being
"To increase the pagination of the magazine" rather than just to add some more pages.
Recommended reading for the confirmed insomniac only.