This is “absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence” all over again…
It’s not a new study, it’s a review of prior studies…
So all it proves, is that no one has empirically proven the connection yet, which was the reason they did this literature review in the first place.
Research like this can be done by a single person without leaving their desk, in an average work day. The link even shows you the three searches they ran… It wasn’t the scientific equivalent of “googling it”.
It doesn’t prove anything, except how many people blindly up ote and don’t understand science.
Man, I can’t tell what you’re trying to say here. It sounds like you’re trying to bash others for lacking science literacy when you’re hating on Meta-analysis, an important research tool, because it takes less effort.
Yes, this doesn’t prove that testosterone doesn’t play a role in risk-taking behavior. But it does prove that testosterone alone isn’t a strong indicator of risk-taking behavior. Which is important to state, because as the paper states, lots of research has been starting with that as an assumption.
Science: “we found absolutely no link between this behavior and this chemical. We checked multiple times and then checked everything we checked again.”
Some random jackass on the Internet: “BUT THERE COULD BE ONE STILL YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE!!11!”
This is “absence of evidence isn’t the evidence of absence” all over again…
It’s not a new study, it’s a review of prior studies…
So all it proves, is that no one has empirically proven the connection yet, which was the reason they did this literature review in the first place.
Research like this can be done by a single person without leaving their desk, in an average work day. The link even shows you the three searches they ran… It wasn’t the scientific equivalent of “googling it”.
It doesn’t prove anything, except how many people blindly up ote and don’t understand science.
Or “world news” which this apparently is?
Man, I can’t tell what you’re trying to say here. It sounds like you’re trying to bash others for lacking science literacy when you’re hating on Meta-analysis, an important research tool, because it takes less effort.
Yes, this doesn’t prove that testosterone doesn’t play a role in risk-taking behavior. But it does prove that testosterone alone isn’t a strong indicator of risk-taking behavior. Which is important to state, because as the paper states, lots of research has been starting with that as an assumption.
Science: “we found absolutely no link between this behavior and this chemical. We checked multiple times and then checked everything we checked again.”
Some random jackass on the Internet: “BUT THERE COULD BE ONE STILL YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE!!11!”