This is great--it made me notice how rare it is to get these sort of lists of interesting facts from people who are intelligent and not pushing a political agenda.
I'm an incurable sceptic, and am curious what others think are the most and least supported claims, but for me I have trouble believing #32,that today, men and women have roughly the same grip strength. Is there a citation in the book?
I haven't read the book, but possibly it comes from here: https://gwern.net/doc/biology/2016-fain.pdf things to note would be low power (4 men in that age range)!, doesn't replicate at other ages, and doesn't replicate on the other hand.
I found this list interesting. Thanks for sharing.
#35 is almost certainly wrong. A 2020 study by Zietsch et al. (N=4.75 million births) showed sibling correlation in offspring sex is essentially 0. In other words, having a male 1st child makes it no more likely that you will have a male 2nd child, 3rd child, etc.
1) typo on the date for Nix v Heddon - it was 1893
2) the $93 billion figure for birding supplies overstates the case because it includes things that clear have multiple other uses like boats, trucks, and campers, for example.
The way you worded 27 is a little misleading. Women are 13.69 more likely to “receive aggression from teammates” but 5.55 times less likely to “receive overt physical aggression from teammates”. To me, “attack” implies overt physical aggression.
#8 seems like BS analysis - this is the underlying source, which takes actual data on "hamburger restaurant" spending (WV is basically average here) and then allocates it "based on Google Trends data comparing the search popularity of the term 'hamburger' to the search popularity for the term 'hot dog' in each state." WV ends up last in hamburgers and first in hot dogs, which I suppose could be real but is probably just something about search patterns not reflecting consumption. https://247wallst.com/special-report/2019/06/13/hot-dog-and-hamburger-consumption-by-state/
at 27.: misleading - women were LESS likely to recall physical attacked. They do report to recall more 'exclusion' or 'insults'. - And as a guy I strongly assume this is, because the men ignore/forget those quickly. " recent experiences as members of college (n = 376) and high school (n = 485) single-sex sports teams. .... In both samples, women were significantly more likely than men to recall being excluded (college Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.88; high school OR = 1.67) and receiving overt verbal aggression (ORs = 9.15, 3.30). By contrast, women were significantly less likely than men to recall receiving overt physical aggression (ORs = 0.18, 0.14)"
Always entertaining and appreciated!
This is great, thank you. But, you may want to check on no. 32...
This is great--it made me notice how rare it is to get these sort of lists of interesting facts from people who are intelligent and not pushing a political agenda.
I'm an incurable sceptic, and am curious what others think are the most and least supported claims, but for me I have trouble believing #32,that today, men and women have roughly the same grip strength. Is there a citation in the book?
I haven't read the book, but possibly it comes from here: https://gwern.net/doc/biology/2016-fain.pdf things to note would be low power (4 men in that age range)!, doesn't replicate at other ages, and doesn't replicate on the other hand.
I found this list interesting. Thanks for sharing.
#35 is almost certainly wrong. A 2020 study by Zietsch et al. (N=4.75 million births) showed sibling correlation in offspring sex is essentially 0. In other words, having a male 1st child makes it no more likely that you will have a male 2nd child, 3rd child, etc.
I was curious about the claim that noise-cancelling headphones cause APD, and when I looked into it I found it's unsubstantiated: https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/auditory-processing-disorder-headphones/
Anecdotally, I also got APD, and as a consequence started to use noise-cancelling headphones a lot.
Fun list! Two notes:
1) typo on the date for Nix v Heddon - it was 1893
2) the $93 billion figure for birding supplies overstates the case because it includes things that clear have multiple other uses like boats, trucks, and campers, for example.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
The way you worded 27 is a little misleading. Women are 13.69 more likely to “receive aggression from teammates” but 5.55 times less likely to “receive overt physical aggression from teammates”. To me, “attack” implies overt physical aggression.
#8 seems like BS analysis - this is the underlying source, which takes actual data on "hamburger restaurant" spending (WV is basically average here) and then allocates it "based on Google Trends data comparing the search popularity of the term 'hamburger' to the search popularity for the term 'hot dog' in each state." WV ends up last in hamburgers and first in hot dogs, which I suppose could be real but is probably just something about search patterns not reflecting consumption. https://247wallst.com/special-report/2019/06/13/hot-dog-and-hamburger-consumption-by-state/
a little out of my element but #2 seems overstated too - coal is perhaps equivalent or (for older plants) slightly worse, but 100x is probably a stretch. ChatGPT points to table 48 here: https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/publications/UNSCEAR_2016_Annex-B-CORR2.pdf
at 27.: misleading - women were LESS likely to recall physical attacked. They do report to recall more 'exclusion' or 'insults'. - And as a guy I strongly assume this is, because the men ignore/forget those quickly. " recent experiences as members of college (n = 376) and high school (n = 485) single-sex sports teams. .... In both samples, women were significantly more likely than men to recall being excluded (college Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.88; high school OR = 1.67) and receiving overt verbal aggression (ORs = 9.15, 3.30). By contrast, women were significantly less likely than men to recall receiving overt physical aggression (ORs = 0.18, 0.14)"
Superb!