CNN Article on ovulation

[Ollie123]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I assume most have heard about the ovulation and voting study by now. Has anyone tracked down the reference for the original article? CNN pulled it down and the other sources I'm checking don't provide enough info on it.

I want to look at non-media version of the article since I'm curious if the research itself was flawed/inflammatory, or just the popularized media-tastic version. The comments/blogs discussing these largely consist of the usual mindless lunatics raging at one another, so its hard to derive any useful information about the validity of the study from what is being said.

 

[doggums]

.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

Oh good God. I have so many thoughts about this and I am trying to hold myself back...

It just sounds like a fancied up version of the old jokes and arguments about how a woman couldn't run the country because she would get PMS. We can't possibly think with all those confusing hormones! I fear that society is moving backward not forward.

Dr. E

P.S. Thanks for the info Doggums

 

[doggums]

.

 

[wigflip]

Oh good God. I have so many thoughts about this and I am trying to hold myself back...

It just sounds like a fancied up version of the old jokes and arguments about how a woman couldn't run the country because she would get PMS. We can't possibly think with all those confusing hormones! I fear that society is moving backward not forward.

Dr. E

P.S. Thanks for the info Doggums

I couldn't make it past the abstract without or

Thanks for the misogynist crap, IO psych wienies.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I couldn't make it past the abstract without or

Thanks for the misogynist crap, IO psych wienies.

I also think it is interesting that the lead author is female. It fits with my experience that many women in academia (and other positions of some authority) work to distance themselves from women and feminism. (Oh the stories I could tell!) I think it is some sort of identification with the oppressor and an attempt to portray "I'm not one of them, I'm one of you."

I also don't know why one would decide that this is a valuable research question.

Dr. E

 

[Psychadelic2012]

What's bothersome to me is that no one is looking at what testosterone is doing to it! There's so much focus on women's hormone cycles as if they're not the norm and zero focus on testosterone levels, how they decrease with age, whether or not bald men are fit to run a company, etc.

Men freely give strippers significantly more money when they're ovulating-- what does this say about a man's ability to be a CEO? What if he goes into a business deal and gives away millions because there's a fertile woman there??

👍👍👍👍👍 This. This right here.

 

[erg923]

I also think it is interesting that the lead author is female. It fits with my experience that many women in academia (and other positions of some authority) work to distance themselves from women and feminism. (Oh the stories I could tell!) I think it is some sort of identification with the oppressor and an attempt to portray "I'm not one of them, I'm one of you."

I also don't know why one would decide that this is a valuable research question.

Dr. E

In a related vein, anyone heard read about the No Supermodels in Neuroscience comment made by that Italian scientist? While I freely admit I would like to sign most academics up for a episode of "What Not to Wear" on TLC (both male and female academics, mind you), I can not understand how one could get that far in life and yet be so stupid...

 

[ndlek21]

I also don't know why one would decide that this is a valuable research question.
Dr. E

Gahh...agreed. There are so many more valuable questions to be addressing...

I'm currently still reading the article, but I found this email from a political science/gender studies prof at Rutgers, who pointed out some of the study's flaws...

"I would also point out that the study apparently analyzes survey data, not data from a lab or field experiment. Since the authors used MTurk, their samples certainly are not random and there is no guarantee that they are at all representative. Although the research is not based on experimental design, the authors apply statistical techniques (ANOVA) generally used for experimental research to the survey data, making the fact that these are survey data less obvious. The use of survey data makes all the more problematic the authors' failure to apply statistical controls for demographic variables, such as age or income, which may well account for the observed differences between women who are single and in committed relationships, since these variables are not controlled for through experimental design."

So, looks like there are some questions raised about the methodology. I'm reading it now to see if the conclusions they draw in the paper itself are actually reasonable, given the their method and such...I'm guessing probably not...
Either way, it was stupid of CNN to post what they did. I'm glad it's taken down so people who are ignorant of things like research design don't take it all at face value.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

CNN is the USA TODAY of cable news. 🙄

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Although the research is not based on experimental design, the authors apply statistical techniques (ANOVA) generally used for experimental research to the survey data, making the fact that these are survey data less obvious.

I admit my shortcomings when it comes to stats, so can you please explain what is wrong with using ANOVA with survey research?? It depends on the precise test used, yes? If it's one-way, it's just comparing means of groups...why wouldn't that be ok with survey data?

 

[ndlek21]

I didn't write that little blurb -- some prof from Rutgers did. But it's okay to use ANOVA for survey data...I think the main issue she is pointing out is that using ANOVA sort of disguised the fact that these were survey data. So the conclusions (esp the CNN article, as I understand) were pretty bold given the research design used...and were written up almost as if the study was experimental, which it wasn't. So the conclusions one can take away aren't as strong as they were made out to be.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I understand--I don't mean to shoot the messenger. I think they're not giving the actual author(s) and writing enough credit. Why blame the statistical test when there is plenty of text (i.e., "ovulation led...women to become..." from the abstract) that is worthy of criticism, based on the authors' interpretation of the analysis? That's what burns my britches!! Seriously--get the 'correlation does not equal causation' concept already!!

On another note, and this is me being lazy, what discipline are these authors from? Psychology??

Edit: I busted through my laziness for two seconds and discovered they're in business.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I understand--I don't mean to shoot the messenger. I think they're not giving the actual author(s) and writing enough credit. Why blame the statistical test when there is plenty of text (i.e., "ovulation led...women to become..." from the abstract) that is worthy of criticism, based on the authors' interpretation of the analysis? That's what burns my britches!! Seriously--get the 'correlation does not equal causation' concept already!!

On another note, and this is me being lazy, what discipline are these authors from? Psychology??

Edit: I busted through my laziness for two seconds and discovered they're in business.

I think someone else in the thread had mentioned I/O, so business would make sense. I/O folks tend to generally be on the up-and-up when it comes to stats, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a significant disconnect between the study results/discussion and the CNN article (which, I'll openly admit, I haven't yet read).

 

[cara susanna]

Some of the responses that I read online were absolutely hilarious.

And yeah, the fact that the lead author is female makes me sad.

 

[Ollie123]

Thanks for the info doggums, and somehow not surprised this thread has taken off🙂

I just looked the author up and she is actually a social psychologist by training (not IO) though she is in a business department now. MA in "Social Sciences" and Bachelor's in Communication.

So glad to see some actual critiques of the research coming out. The Rutgers professor sounds like a ***** (really...they were using ANOVA was a trick to convince people the researcher randomly assigned when people would ovulate? That's what he/she picks out to comment on?), but discussion of the actual flaws in the study is the direction I was hoping to see this go. So much of the immediate reaction online was the usual "This is untrue because I don't want it to be true because I deem it offensive" or "My vote hasn't changed...therefore the study is false" both of which I find just as dangerous/deplorable. I just glanced at the paper (haven't read it thoroughly yet), but unless their supplementary materials have this, it looks like little/no effort was made to rule out confounds, which is quite damning given the design.

I also think this speaks to problems with the peer-review process. Publishing in top journals pretty much requires you to ham up your results/discussion and talk about how your miniscule effect size can save the world. For studies like this I'm always curious if an off-the-record conversation with the author would paint a much different picture than the paper does. Makes me want to get around to actually writing up some ideas I've had about the publication system and how it contributes to things like this...

 

[LETSGONYR]

And yeah, the fact that the lead author is female makes me sad.

Why? I mean, I get that you'd hope that women are knowledgeable enough not to publish pseudoscience that can be so easily misconstrued and used against women everywhere, but for me, it's equally as frustrating to have men publish and/or say/believe misogynistic crap.

Disclosure: I'm a guy and have not read the article or CNN article in question, though I did hear about it.

EDIT: Keep in mind that I'm rather politically active, and while I am not trying to start a political debate here, part of this comment is my frustration with some of the uh... "misinformed" comments from male candidates coming through. 🙂

 

[wigflip]

I also don't know why one would decide that this is a valuable research question.

This is really key and relates to some of the discussions we've had on other threads (about the Regnerus article, etc.). Researchers are real people with actual careers, and are aware that their work will be scrutinized. To choose to conduct a study such as this, knowing that you'll be stepping into range of rotten tomatoes hurled by a variety of sources (academics, activists, and others concerned about gender; colleagues and senior faculty who evaluate you for promotion), says something damning about your perspective entering in to the project. If you were feeling generous, you could let the grad student co-author off the hook on the grounds that perhaps she's desperate for pubs or under the sway of a controlling advisor. But the faculty--no way.

Oh, and I will be ovulating next week, and I assure you that I remain steadfast. 😎

 

[cara susanna]

Why? I mean, I get that you'd hope that women are knowledgeable enough not to publish pseudoscience that can be so easily misconstrued and used against women everywhere, but for me, it's equally as frustrating to have men publish and/or say/believe misogynistic crap.

It's frustrating when men do it too, but it's doubly worse when it's a woman IMO. It's like... it's bad enough when men buy into this crap.

 

[doggums]

.

 

[ndlek21]

In case anyone is interested in reading the actual story... CNN story HERE

It's just pasted into an article from a website called "dailykos."

Personal favorite, which this website points out right at the top of the page:
"Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says."

 

[mewtoo]

In case anyone is interested in reading the actual story... CNN story HERE

It's just pasted into an article from a website called "dailykos."

Personal favorite, which this website points out right at the top of the page:
"Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says."

This is my favorite:
“I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said."

We're just one hop and skip back to penis envy being the norm.

 

[futureapppsy2]

My first reaction to those quotes: "lolwut?," followed quickly by 🙁 😡

 

[KillerDiller]

As Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." I realize we can't glean all the info needed to critique the study from the article posted on CNN. That being said, I see no reason the described methodology could conclude that ovulation affects women's voting patterns. The article makes it sound like there were no repeated measures used. It also seems that the presence of ovulation at the time of the study was held constant. The findings only mention group comparisons on voting between married women and single women when they are ovulating. It's not news that single women prefer Obama at higher rates than married women (who seem to prefer Romney). Hopefully we can all identify at least a few confounds there that have absolutely nothing to do with hormones. I honestly don't see how this study tells us anything useful at all.

 

[roubs]

Guess who I've had to work the hardest to convince that a woman can be as good (or as bad 😉 ) a president as a man? My mom 😛 -- I think I finally got her to come around.

 

[Pragma]

I began to wonder if this topic had come up as substantially during the past primaries with Hillary Clinton so close to a nomination. But then my IMS got in the way and I don't think I can remember things adequately. 😎

 

[wigflip]

I began to wonder if this topic had come up as substantially during the past primaries with Hillary Clinton so close to a nomination. But then my IMS got in the way and I don't think I can remember things adequately. 😎

Usually I'm pretty good at figuring out acronyms (or simply looking them up--I don't want to be on the receiving end of a link to "let me google that for you"), but this time you have me stumped. IMS = ? Indianapolis Motor Speedway?

 

[Pragma]

Usually I'm pretty good at figuring out acronyms (or simply looking them up--I don't want to be on the receiving end of a link to "let me google that for you"), but this time you have me stumped. IMS = ? Indianapolis Motor Speedway?

Irritable male syndrome (AKA male PMS - thought to be hormonal also)

 

[wigflip]

Irritable male syndrome (AKA male PMS - thought to be hormonal also)

 

[KillerDiller]

Just realized a truly ironic part of all this.

1. According to the article, when single women ovulate they feel "sexy" and vote liberal
2. Birth control pills suppress ovulation
3. The widespread distribution of birth control to single women could dramatically change voting patterns in favor of conservatives
4. The Republicans clearly need to back funding of Planned Parenthood

 

[cara susanna]

Hahaha, that's an awesome implication!