A couple recent pieces of science news have reminded me how important numbers are. The first piece was that of the World Health Organization releasing a statement that its review panel concluded that cell phones "may" be a cancer risk.
That news hit my corner of Facebook, resulting in some back-and-forth as to whether science supports the "yes," cell phones are a risk position, or the "maybe not" position, which is my own. What went missing in the disagreement was the important issue of degree of risk. For even coffee has been similarly categorized as a cancer risk. Yes, some research has found that the beloved morning beverage is . . . an almost negligible cancer risk.
Likewise, another piece of science to hit the news involved sexual attractiveness. Guess what: It seems that bad boys rule.
While the study wasn't bad, one very important question was left unanswered. But first, how the data was collected:
In a series of studies, more than 1,000 adult participants rated the sexual attractiveness of hundreds of images of the opposite sex engaged in universal displays of happiness (broad smiles), pride (raised heads, puffed-up chests) and shame (lowered heads, averted eyes).
And the results?
The study found that women were least attracted to smiling, happy men, preferring those who looked proud and powerful or moody and ashamed. In contrast, male participants were most sexually attracted to women who looked happy, and least attracted to women who appeared proud and confident. [emphasis added, source]
While the finding is interesting and perhaps generally noteworthy, one has to wonder -- no, one SHOULD wonder -- just how large the preference was. For as with the case of cancer risk, the degree of difference is an essential element. Unfortunately, nowhere in the news release was it mentioned. A raspberry for that.
Tags: critical thinking, gender, sexuality
Leave a Reply