I'll be a bit more succinct then. Data value depends on study design and integrity.

Ergo, if you have a poorly designed study or poll, you have trash data.


As they say in computer science fields, "trash input equals trash output".

Ergo, I think the data is trash, the conclusions are trash, and even worse the "science writers" referencing the study either can't understand what the study claims or haven't bothered to read it because they're completely off target and running amok with it.

But then, they don't get paid to be fair and accurate. They get paid to drive up revenue. Which makes them about as useful as any other unnecessary sexist douchebag.

Yeah, you gotta be super careful with correlative studies. Life and social science studies have many more problems with flaws due to those bias blinders and are much hwrder to design anyway because life systems are just inherently more complicated systems than physical ones. They're also subject to many more ethical concerns BECAUSE they study life.

That's why it pays to be suspicious of sociological and psychological studies off the bat. Many of them don't stand up to scrutiny and are debunked in due course. That wolf study so called Alpha ideology is based on is a prime example. It's not natural wolf behavior. It's like Gulag prisoner behavior. Which means Alpha ideology is how to be a Sociopathic/Psychopathic male, not how to be a dominant one. And that would be why it's backfiring so spectacularly in so many ways.