"Dear Editor: Once again this Journal has published research supposedly supporting a null hypothesis on the basis of null-results. Even a large-scale study, laid out carefully, cannot support the notion that a phenomenon or relationship does not exist. A null result is no result at all. Please preserve the integrity and reputation of Psychological Science.
Erhard Eimer PhD
Professor Emeritus of Psychology
APS Member"
It might be more accurate to say that previous studies showing a relationship between sexual preference and menstrual cycles are not reproducible. I think they just put it in more layperson's terms.
The economist headline is naturally more sensationalized being a popular press article, but the physiological science headline starting with "no evidenced that. . . " is okay enough to pass imo.
3 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 19.1 ms ] threadThe incels are right lol
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/womens-pr...
The economist headline is naturally more sensationalized being a popular press article, but the physiological science headline starting with "no evidenced that. . . " is okay enough to pass imo.