The journal isn’t such a high prestige journal. It’s actually a new one with open access, which doesn’t attract best studies. Combined with the fact it’s a psychological study, which is hard to replicate, and somehow the authors employed MRI, which doesn’t really prove anything by itself, I think the authors knew it wouldn’t be perceived as the best quality article.
What about this particular paper is difficult to replicate?
How does one even begin to have a hypothesis to even decide to test this? Why does one? Any answer feels like it would be morally questionable or involve a fetish of some kind.
Who the hell designed this study? We’re going to get a bunch of dudes super mad and then make them sniff tears of women.
Republican incels
Must be why they prefer to make us suffer from a distance, sitting safely in Congress and the courts where they won’t be exposed to our tears
How… uhh… yea like how did someone even come up with this as a thing to uhhh… study? How the shit did someone’s brain arrive at “let’s get women’s tears and uhhh present them to aggressive men.” Like… what?
Before playing the game, the participants sniffed either female tears or a saline solution
Why would they not include male tears in the test?
I was wondering myself what the effect of male tears would be.
I feel like they should also have experimental groups of children and the elderly, to see whether age also has an effect on hormonal responses.
I suppose that applies both in regards to tears from and how tears affect. Hmm, I can see this getting rather complicated and extensive.
If male tears were the only control, then they run the risk of not finding any result. If you have 3 groups, you need a substantially larger sample size because you are running a less powerful statistical test.
Easier to start with the test that’s most likely to work, and narrow it down from there if you succeed
Having men sniff three different samples would still allow for saline as a control and wouldn’t really make the data set that much more complicated.
Is that an assumption or do you have experience with research like this?
Just college lab courses, but come on, it’s pretty basic. The experiment merely tests a single variable by changing it while keeping everything else the same. There could have been dozens of different samples that men sniffed and it wouldn’t really make the data complicated.
It would increase the length of the test, though, so dozens of samples would have been cumbersome. But just two? Literally just “see how the test group responds to sample 1, sample 2, and the control sample”? That’s not complicated science. You probably did that in highschool lol
I’m guessing they had to stay within their funding/budget and didn’t want to reduce the sample size to increase the number of variables tested. MRIs are expensive
I could believe that. Hopefully they can get more funding for further testing.
Seems there was a study that concluded female tears raise testosterone of men. I thus think it’s kinda understandable they did it in this way. But, yeah, not really convincing.
Do we have to sniff them or can they be ingested orally?
We all know where this is going: can we boof/butt-chug women’s tears or no?
sniffing the tears of men just makes us more powerful
Next up, sipping on orphan tears.
I could imagine, yes, that 44% of aggressive men would stop dead in their tracks if shouted “SMELL MY TEARS! SNIFF’EM, GEORGE!” mid fight
Lol this is so old
What am I supposed to do with this information
Be more like Eric Cartman.
Uh, bottle the tears of women and throw them (the tears, not the women) on your male enemies?
thanks for specifying, was about to make a horrible mistake
Throwing women would also work, blunt force trauma does not discriminate, it only mushes
This reminded me of a song by nofx about sending hookers to war
They just want their… 72…
Go sniff their snatch instead, it has the opposite effect.
Make women cry, bottle it, convert to crystalline form, snort.
I think I played a video game about that
I have a business idea
