Oh no... this biology paper is really terrible!

[@HGModernism]

So in theory, I would like to edit wikipedia to remove this "information", but Biology Letters is a reasonably ranked journal and I don't want to get into another wikipedia editing battle... wrapping up a video on my last delightful experience with the depths of wikipedia editing now. So I have submitted a comment to Pubpeer, which is currently under review. pubpeer.com/publications/7523622BE3FB0BD7AD734838AD5F63# Based on the Pubpeer response I'll reach out to the Biology Letters research integrity office and see if I can get the paper withdrawn that way. Then I can finally defend my beloved wikipedia's scientific integrity... Wish me luck haha

[@ced3763]

Perhaps you could consider your own bias ? What if the study was actually correct? would you try to remove an article simply on the base it doesn't align with your personal views? You wouldn't be the first pushing on a agenda in to academia as demonstrated by the grievance study: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oYfOapRrf8iXZ80&ab_channel=MichaelNayna

[@HGModernism]

@@ced3763 I clicked through from the original citation with a curious mindset to have my assumptions challenged. In my Moose video, female moose literally smell the pee of male moose to determine how “masculine” they are. There is clearly a biological possibility that women could smell testosterone etc, but I found it unlikely given how vestigial human conspecific smell capabilities are. It’s a fair point that I actually looked into this study because it stood out to me as unlikely. There are also many studies I take for granted. Luckily the world is full of people with a diversity of world views. We are all free to champion the legitimacy of the scientific process, and will naturally start on those subjects for which we have the most skepticism.

[@VGEmblem]

You should look into how they butchered Bruce Lipton's article and are trying to erase his contributions because someone disagrees with some of his more modern views (aka, far removed from his earlier work, and presumptuous by Wikipedia nonetheless). That one made me lose faith in Wiki. Seems more and more like a "cornfed" source than true unbiased knowledge at this point

[@futurestoryteller]

@@ced3763 Why are you assuming bias, the whole video is objective skepticism about assumptions and methodology

[@ced3763]

@@futurestoryteller I read the paper, and although I do agree with her that they should have published the number of women in relation , everything else is actually pretty good..and her p-hacking argument doesn't make much sense in this context, they just narrow the research parameter in ways that do make sense. After all, woman who are not in relation might be lesbian or asexual or genetically primed not to be attracted to male odor , dominant or not for all we know. I think if she was completely fair she would ask the paper to be completed with the missing information rather than removed.

[@ElectorNiklas]

my wife always said that my odor was quite dominant

[@HGModernism]

Wow... maybe I got this study all wrong because of a hyphen! Maybe instead of "Dominant-male odor" the whole time they meant "Dominant male-odor". How embarrassing haha

[@marcfruchtman9473]

@@HGModernism Or... Dominant malodor, and the translation just got it all wrong.

[@pandaman6076]

hey wifey uuuuhhh

[@DustinDustin00]

I'd apologize and go shower. But I'm not a dom -- as soon as I could retire at 50, I quit working and don't deal with other people at all. Accept when I want them to fix food for me, repair my car, upgrade my home, that stuff. Not dom, though.

[@MacaqueStinx]

Dominates her sense of smell lol

[@Flesh_Wizard]

"dominant male odor" I tried farting aggressively to attract women but they all ran away. Am I farting wrong?

[@mAny_oThERSs]

I think you tightened your left buttcheek too much when farting

[@pllpsy665]

Have you tried aggressive manly queefing?

[@PrismaticCatastrophism]

Wrong diet, try implementing more protein.

[@drfill9210]

Is your sphincter sufficiently hairy?

[@alonk1060]

Hey babe *shits aggressively

[@oliphab7468]

My odor can beat up other men's odor.

[@atticstattic]

Can't get much more dominant than that!😊

[@HappyPel]

I hope to never meet you. That sounds freaking scary.

[@Darth_Bateman]

My odor will KICK your odors ass, and to show how prepared I am, I bought my totally manly and not gay leopard print swimming briefs , oiled up my skin so your blows will slide off, and made my moustache look like the most man's man man among men, Freddie Mercury! A true 80s man! Oh, and I have an oonga boonga bonk stick I guess.

[@gustavgnoettgen]

My odor can provide for a family and worship the lord every Sunday and before meals.

[@thcrs1]

reddit responses like this are ridiculous as for most mammals this is critical stuff.

[@joshuaanolick3635]

These scientists are obviously trying to land R&D jobs with Axe Body Spray.

[@ulture]

that's one explanation... unfortunately the reality is they were probably paid to do this by some right-wing thinktank that wants to turn all women into God-fearing brood sows / punching bags. There's dozens of them, all funded by the same couple hundred billionaires, and they all have names like "The Institute for Tradition", "Christ In Our Schools Dot Org", and "The Ronald Reagan Memorial Trust For The American Way"

[@loofy530]

Reminds me of when Axe had commercials where they straight up claimed their deodorants and shower gels contained pheromones which were irresistible to women. Always thought that was ridiculous marketing, surely all men know that's not how it works. Right..?

[@ArthurKhazbs]

Smells more like an Old Spice kind of study to me

[@kiriki4558]

​@@loofy530sure. But many dumb teenage and young adults were persuaded due to the sexist sistem we were raised in. You know men only listening to other men over what women want.

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@loofy530 I get sooo many people of all genders trying to tell me "it's the pheromones" despite that we have no pheromone receptors. Scents people personally like are... not pheromones. 🙄

[@mark6302]

If I had to be a farm animal I would be one of those little goats that stands on top of the guard dog and yells

[@goomymaster6417]

i would be a funny donkey or cute chicken i think

[@GoblinCorn69]

me too

[@hedgehog3180]

Goats seem to have it figured out.

[@acidjumps]

I wanna be a sheeppig like Babe

[@Just_Sara]

I’m mean, that’s a sort of dominance, so there ya go.

[@terruwuism]

It's always fun when I talk to a guy and find out he thinks we live in a kind of esoteric omegaverse

[@vectx4680]

I haven't showered since I read this paper

[@stephenlitten1789]

I am reading your comment upwind of the screen

[@pandaman6076]

this dude is so based for this

[@stuffz4040]

What in the omegaverse, a03, wattpad heck is that paper.

[@Morimori67io]

Maybe wattpad but don't bring ao3 into it. That site has better written stories than a lot of published novels

[@irregularassassin6380]

@@Morimori67io Wattpad is now publishing those novels! Ask me how I know (I used to work there).

[@phoenixfritzinger9185]

My suspicion is that this was made as R&D for a body spray company

[@hedgehog3180]

@@phoenixfritzinger9185 I love your pfp.

[@violetskypilot6697]

imo the two most absurd elements of this paper are: 1) they started with the hypothesis that male armpit smell functions to convey "dominance"? Exactly what chemical is supposed to equate to dominance on a personality quiz? Shouldn't they have started out with something like health, hygiene, immune compatibility? Did they not consider confounding social/mental factors that might lead to someone lacking confidence _and_ smelling bad? 2) "In animals, a key trait in a female's choice of sexual partner is male dominance but, to date, this has not been examined in humans." exCUSE me? Male dominance & female choice are two separate mating strategies! What kind of researcher doesn't know that? Animals are not a monolith of mating strategies, and _none_ of their varied and fascinating dynamics can be lazily mapped onto humans-we behave, socialize, and age in an entirely different context. (And no one has examined this in humans? Who wrote this?)

[@rdizzy1]

They also did not consider the factor of the "scent capability" of random individuals. Some people can smell certain chemicals more so than others can. Some people can barely smell anything at all, others can smell the slightest hint of anything very strongly. In essence there are thousands of variables potentially at play here, and they factored in none of them. The entire paper is trash.

[@ced3763]

I think the word dominant is a trigger for some peoples. Forget what you think it mean is the first step toward a fair critic.

[@violetskypilot6697]

@@ced3763 "dominance" actually has a particular meaning within evolutionary biology. So no, you don't need to forget what you think it means; you need to use the term as it is understood within your field. Unfortunately the researchers used survey questions based off a casual, unscientific understanding of the term, which is yet another problem with their lazy attempt to project a particular (not universal) animal phenomenon onto humans.

[@ced3763]

@@violetskypilot6697 yes, they are not talking about dominant genes here obviously. this paper for all it's flow is at the cross road of evolutionary biology and behavioural science.trying to explain what is generally recognized as gendered behavioural attribute with a sexual selection process. if we scrutinize the definition of "dominance" in this context it need to be done with in behavioural science.

[@violetskypilot6697]

@@ced3763 yeah no kidding it's not about dominant genes. if you don't know enough evol bio to know what I'm talking about, don't just say "well actually this is a behavioural science study." as you say, if you're trying to "explain" something with a "sexual selection process", you're doing evolutionary biology. unfortunately, the authors don't approach that field with much rigour and are more occupied with scraping up data to support what is, in their minds, a foregone conclusion. you've talked a lot about bias in your comments, and i encourage you to consider whether you want to spend your time defending a paper so biased that it threw all reasonable methodology out the window in a bid to prove that human women have magical dominance receptors in their noses (but not the men! men don't have dominance receptors to smell each other...that would be _weird_ /s)

[@emw8386]

wow, they really used "males of high genetic quality" and "genetically superior males" in the span of two consecutive sentences there. this certainly all reeks of something, but i don't think it's 'dominance'

[@cmcgurren479]

Is it eugenics?

[@jormungandrouroboros4571]

That's what I noticed too, pretty sketchy. The only thing I can think about being called "genetically superior" is like a genetic makeup which is the least prone to develop tumors or other illnesses, assuming you can even determine such a configuration.

[@emw8386]

@@jormungandrouroboros4571 i mean obviously all that stuff correlates to *checks notes* smelling real Alpha™ (source: dude trust me bro)

[@guyfawkes8873]

@@cmcgurren479I was thinking incels, but eugenics makes sense

[@thomascromwell6840]

​@@jormungandrouroboros4571It's not sketchy. Those are both terms used in biology and genetics. No, they don't have anything to do with eugenics or with some kind of far right mania. It is simply about two things. High generic quality refers to genetic traits that improve chances of survival and reproduction. These individuals will be healthier, with greater resistance to disease and far lower chances of genetic defects. Superiority only refers to which traits are favourable in the current environment. I wish humanities people did not try to be judgemental and ignorant as the stem lords.

[@violetskypilot6697]

One thing that really irritates me about these papers is they assume their own conclusion and divide the subjects into male and female. They should have swabbed both men and women for "dominant" armpits, and then had both men and women rate the smells. Anything less is unscientific. You cannot assume an effect is sex-related, include no control group, and then present the results as a fact about "male dominance" or "female choice."

[@CaptainGrat75]

@violetskypilot6697 These kinds of researchers do this all the time in academia, one paper even did something similar with strippers. Its almost narcissistic.

[@lunam7249]

👏👏👏❤️

[@IrrationalDelusion]

What is this deep gender neutral indictrination. You can assume anything.

[@Paroex]

​@@IrrationalDelusionYou are free to assume anything as a person going through life. But as a researcher specifically, assumptions such as these can invalidate your study design and produce meaningless results. Oversimplifying is perfectly acceptable in everyday life, but not in a scientific study.

[@benniewanders4388]

Also, even with a wash-out period how do you rule out contamination from deodorant odorants? It seems a lot more logical to use crotch sweat. Male vs female range testosterone DO substantially affect crease odor, so you'd probably have to have the two sets entirely separate for the purpose of rating or you'll really just find out that people know what the sex they're most sexually attracted to smells like... (It's not just gendered behavior differences; the smell thing is commonly reported by trans people who've just started either type of HRT!)

[@Falkflip]

I have so many questions about this. Did they confirm that the wattpad-wearers did not use any products on their bodies? Were the women doing the test-sniffing informed of their tasks beforehand? Did the guys all have the same sweat-production? Did the women maybe just prefer the scent of the least sweaty people? Maybe you could accidentally get a correlation between assertiveness and personal hygiene out of this xD

[@seaseas]

One big thing to keep in mind is that this paper was published in the first year of the journals existence. It may have a good reputation now, but back then it had no reputation. It would not be surprising to me if Biology Letters was much less selective back then as they established themselves.

[@HGModernism]

I think that's a good point, but they were still a spin-off of the Royal Society right? Did they have a good reputation?

[@hedgehog3180]

@@HGModernism I wonder which university or institution produced the paper because if it was a prestigous one they might just have accepted the paper solely for that reason.

[@user-ko7lz3kr1d]

@@HGModernism Royal Society has always been good for chemistry, but I do not know for biology.

[@wizard-pirate]

@@HGModernism I think they did, so maybe the reputation holds less value as a result.

[@seanvalentinus]

Man, developmental stability smells *so* good. Dusk needs to hurry up and make a developmental stability scented candle.

[@RoronoaZorosHaki]

Great video. We need the general public to better understand that just because you CAN publish a paper, doesn’t necessarily mean that it has any value beyond propaganda.

[@maiksowinski1228]

Ok, no longer will I doubt the quality of my own research upon watching this video. I could not get away with shit like this, and I wouldn‘t try.

[@minimalgrammar1276]

I remember seeing something adjacent to this on Google. I think it had something to do with female scent though. (And I don't think it was about preference.) Also the language used in this paper makes me cringe. Mario the Idea vs. Mario the Man is a better paper than this.

[@user-ys6ro4wi3f]

how are the authors not embarrassed to publish such a paper?

[@ced3763]

did you read it? it's not nearly as bad as she make it look..

[@user-ys6ro4wi3f]

@@ced3763 no

[@wallycola5653]

@@ced3763 Yes, and it's pretty bad.

[@blandeauxfillaskii7344]

Published research papers are a commodity: particularly "peer reviewed" ones. The author(s) obviously got what they wanted, a citation. I would conjecture the vast majority of "peer reviewed" studies are utter rubbish not suitable for the recycling bin.

[@ced3763]

@@blandeauxfillaskii7344 and so are youtube videos...

[@Wandfigur]

This was amazing! Everything i needed to hear when i was working in academia in my 20s. I feel vindicated. Thank you for fighting the good fight young warrioress! 🧠❤

[@MrRaulstrnad]

this has been around since at least Sociobiology in the seventies and prior

[@shykj8892]

No mom! It's called a dominant odor!

[@notaight-j67]

Automeris looks like a super useful tool! I wonder what other sketchy graphs you could reverse engineer, your data analysis is awesome!

[@futurestoryteller]

When in the world did they establish any genetic information at all!?

[@Gulitize]

apparently the believe the personality questionnaire shows genetic information :D

[@AngelStickman]

That hurt me in my scientific writing courses. This kind of stuff makes me mad.

[@lonk2902]

on tonight's episode: The writer's barely disguised fetish

[@hpoz222]

evopsych once again showing itself to be a completely legitimate field of research (/s)

[@cruxofthecookie]

3:18 Email the authors for a copy of the paper! We are always happy to share our research :) Failing a response (due almost certainly to a bursting inbox), sci-hub is the next best bet. _Never_ pay $30 for a pdf of publicly-funded research.

[@The-Man-On-The-Mountain]

What I really want to know is the smell of "developmental stability".

[@3nertia]

Probably smells like money?

[@I.____.....__...__]

5:12 I was just about to post a comment to ask "but was there actually a negative correlation, or was there no correlation at all and they just drew a line over the clearly-random scatter-plot?" But Hendry already caught that. BRILLIANT! 👍

[@LTPottenger]

Finally the excuse I've been looking for for my odor 'cultivation'.

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

There is a similar experiment called the sweaty t-shirt experiment that suggests women have a smell preference for men with whom they would produce offspring that have a stronger immune system. I'm aware that there is a level of smell that I have no conscious awareness of, but it affects my behavior. This paper is a mess though. Good job calling it out.

[@CaptainGrat75]

@nonyadamnbusiness9887 How does one quantify this though? Stronger immune system is a huge jump unless we’re just talking about healthy individuals, which would explain the “stronger immune system”, which isnt always guaranteed.

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

@@CaptainGrat75 Search "sweaty t shirt experiment"

[@lebecccomputer287]

@captainGrat75 there’s a study about sweaty t shirt preference in women correlating with the testosterone levels of the shirt donors, not sure if that’s the same study original comment was referencing but it is something that can be quantified if you were curious

[@benniewanders4388]

@@lebecccomputer287 Given you can definitely smell the difference as someone on HRT ramps up or ramps down testosterone, it makes sense that there could be a detectable preference for one or the other. Although NOW I wonder if that same test would detect a difference between men with the same testosterone titer but different estrogen/progesterone levels, because.... lo and behold, cis men actually do have those and they DO something!

[@hedgehog3180]

@@CaptainGrat75 The OP got it slightly wrong. The study found that women preferred men who had the most different immune systems (based on a specific receptor immune cells have), therefore the offspring would have the most diverse possible immune system and that would most likely result in a stronger immune system. This study has more of a basis in reality since we know that our immune system is somehow able to interact with the microbiome on our skin and that microbiome probably contributes to our smell so it can probably communicate a lot about what our immune system is like.

[@Ave_Echidna]

Can't wait for Elon MUSK to find out about this.

[@mace9930]

Why hasn't Musk come out with a male cologne yet? The name of it is so obvious.

[@pandaman6076]

this dude is so based for this

[@PeteOtton]

@@mace9930 You missed it. He did a few years ago. Apparently it was rank.

[@Ave_Echidna]

@@PeteOtton Seems appropriate.

[@jojogape]

"Looking into this"

[@Comfyest]

I watched this video and thought "wow, this was a really fun video, but by the quality of it, it probably means this person has either A LOT of videos or a bunch of 2-3h long videos reagarding science topics... and I don't wanna get into that right now because I know I'll spiral into it and spend a month just watching her stuff consuming all life around me..." I was glad to be incorrect! High quality videos and no overwhelming amount, channel definitely passes the smell test!

[@bryannoyce]

I DO NOT have weak scent glands! You take that Back!

[@pinch-of-salt]

damn!! love the way you reverse engineered the whole thing

[@PapaCodeBear]

Dead serious, I saw the thumbnail, saw the title, and immediately my mind envisioned the smell of unwashed ball sweat. People who say they’re dominant or alpha immediately get me thinking they don’t wash their balls, it seems.

[@4stringz.]

the smellier the fart, the more dominant the male

[@ConroyVan]

This isn't even the first paper I've heard about where the (male) researchers have sketchy hypotheses about women and menstrual cycles. There was a paper a few years back that proposed that women suffering from endometriosis were considered 'more attractive' by men on average. The application of these findings is yet to be demonstrated, and that's without even mentioning the questionable validity of the results!

[@izzybobizzyy]

wouldn’t be surprised if these research facilities were housed within frat houses

[@kaitlyn__L]

Oh god, you just know that Endo one was inspired by some college student reading that Marilyn Monroe struggled with it. (And maybe some other contemporaneous women who are considered highly attractive by straight guys?)

[@gamemaker7386]

This comment reeks of sexism. It isn't relevant that they are male, and if you had said the same about women in the reverse situation, this would obviously not be tolerated.

[@zytolen5356]

love the cute vibe about your channel, certainly more interesting to listen to opposed to the more serious/thriller tone, thank you and I'm looking forward for more videos!

[@nixniemand4802]

I remember hearing or reading about people being more attracted to the smell of people who have less genetics in common with them, but i think that was about pheromones.

[@Prometheus7272]

It’s complicated it’s more about having different immune systems, it’s not about all genetics. Different immune systems give your offspring a better more varied immune response.

[@Prometheus7272]

Even within a small population immune systems can vary widely.

[@jerry3790]

Humans don’t have functional pheromones anymore. They became unnecessary after the evolution of language

[@lebecccomputer287]

Interesting, there’s certainly a psychological basis for that as well ie the “hot exotic” man/woman

[@evanpatterson432]

@@Prometheus7272 Immune system function is influenced by genetics. You're saying that like they're mutually exclusive.

[@SwedenTheHedgehog]

What a lovely video, I'm glad that KZbin realized I'd enjoy this even thought the channel is small! I look forward to more of your uploads!

[@Where_is_Waldo]

Another objection: Being dominant isn't "superior" it's just being an asshole.

[@ced3763]

Except being dominant can also manifest itself by not being insecure hense treating everyone with care and respect..

[@Where_is_Waldo]

@@ced3763 Being dominant is a byproduct of being insecure. Being confident and being dominant are two completely different things.

[@ced3763]

@@Where_is_Waldo I disagree. The word dominant is a bit loaded, but peoples who make good natural leaders are dominant in the sense that peoples who are not dominant don't pursue leadership role, but good leader get their position through the approval of other which they get by having developed soft skill and confidence. Trying to be dominant is a mark of insecurity.you don't need to try if you already have confidence and leadership skills, there is a schism in between being and wanting..

[@Where_is_Waldo]

@@ced3763 People who are dominant are terrible leaders for the exact reason that causes them to pursue leadership roles. The best leaders are reluctant leaders. A dominant person enjoys having power over others and will thus, inevitably abuse power over others. People who don't want to abuse power over others don't want power over others. The only reason a good leader would choose to be a leader is because they see it is necessary. A good parent doesn't seek to control their child, they seek to make their child as self sufficient as possible and only intervene to lead the child where they see it is necessary. Good leadership leads to maximal independence for those being led, people who are dominant lead because they like the feeling of having control over others - the only way this could affect their leadership style is to make them more likely to be harmful to whoever they lead.

[@ced3763]

@@Where_is_Waldo I agree largely with what you are saying.. we have plenty of example of terrible leaders, and I do agree that reluctant leader sometime make better leader. I think I understood dominant more as a personality trait, not necessarily as a behaviour. I don't think you can make a good leader out of someone who is submissive for instance, and I know some peoples (woman included) who I would trust in position of leadership even through they are not behaving in a dominant manner, but those are not submissive, they are independent minded, intelligent peoples with strong character, who don't take shit from nobody. which word would you use?

[@Spectacurl]

Loved the video. It ends a bit abruptly. I would love a series of you debunking Wikipedia citations and Can you introduce yourself?

[@jacobc9221]

Based on the title and thumbnail I thought this was an omegaverse fanfic reaction

[@bjorgemeulemeester1398]

This paper is still cited twice ont he same wikipedia page btw, just for different claims. Twice as in, duplicate in the bibliography.

[@atticstattic]

But hey, _Biology Letters_ says they only publish 'high quality' papers, so...check mate!?

[@HGModernism]

I just posted a comment on Pubpeer and then I'm going to try to reach out to Biology Letters research integrity office... we'll see.

[@atticstattic]

@@HGModernism That's worth subscribing to your channel!

[@jmshear]

Was that paper comissioned by Elon?

[@loofy530]

Much prefer the scent of clean clothes, so detergent is my cologne of choice I guess. Is that a dominant odour? 😅

[@denki2558]

Where in the omegaverse did you find this paper? 😅

[@basedokadaizo]

question: what if someone can't smell or can't correctly identify smell? did they sniff-test every female candidate? did they test every male candidate to make sure they could get sweaty and stinky enough? and why the hell does this trash cost $25.50???

[@peterfiser]

I am so glad I found your channel by pure chance.

[@GijsKoorevaar]

Is odor-sniffing a common procedure in biology research? Asking for science

[@justforplaylists]

There are so many interrelated factors: physical health, mental health, diet, exercise, skin microbiome, genetics, skin care routine, culture, personal history etc. And even ignoring all of that AND p-hacking, they barely managed to create a relationship between personality and attractiveness of scent, and somehow claim this as evidence of some evopsych bs?

[@hedgehog3180]

We already have good reason to suspect that skin microbiome probably is very important since it's sort of an expression of your immune system and at least one study showed that women preferred the smell of men who had the most different immune systems.

[@Bixnood69]

They should've focused more on pheromones and their correlation to physical attraction rather than using dominant behavior as a criteria.

[@brenatevi]

Solid set up for the joke. 10/10 would laugh again.

[@smizmar8]

Good work! report them! Also, automeris..... how did I not know about this. I've spent so long wishing I could just slide the axes a bit so I could actually see the result, or get any form of context from it :/ Occasionally even typing out by hand in excel so I could add other data etc. Super good tip, because of course their table is an image and there's not data table - well a lot of the time.

[@kentalanlee]

The proclivity of Wiki to vomit up half-digested confirmation-bias biscuits is, honestly, its most pathological affliction. Bad Wiki. Bad.

[@seekthuth2817]

As a genetically superior, dominant smelling male, I can confirm, most women do not appear to like that and I'm working on ways to reverse the malpractices formed after reading this paper. Thanks for confirming my hypothesis was correct!

[@MeemahSN]

This feels like a parody.

[@asdfasdfasdf383]

prediction. this channel is gonna blow up! Great content!!

[@drfill9210]

Weird... they left you evidence of p- hacking. All they needed to do was put the second split in the methodology. It would be weird and you would suspect something... but not so obvious as just putting whatever test succeeded in your results. That paper just says "I hacked and I'm stupid" . M&ms are a great way to demonstrate experimental method. Jely beans? Amateur!!@😂😂😂

[@HGModernism]

I know... it wasn't even subtle...

[@justcommenting4981]

I love KZbin channels that go into individual studies and their graphs n data.

[@connor9024]

Wow what a dominant r^2 of 0.084 Such a masculine β value, no it’s not a β it’s an α value! They could have gotten better looking results if they kept the samples whole and made the single variable a dummy variable in the regression, probably

[@1.4142]

My odor can deprotonate other males' odors.

[@Hasnep]

Wow i didn't know about Automeris and after watching a quick video about it it looks amazing, thanks for mentioning it!

[@Agrizz1ybear]

Does your analytics show a boost in subscribers after this video? For some reason the delivery of the smell test line actually forced me to subscribe. I didn't have a choice.

[@ArthurKhazbs]

Ah yes, the pun did finally arrive at the end of the video. 100% worth the 6 minutes of watching!

[@Magmafrost13]

I gotta say if I wanted to p-hack my paper, I'd at least retroactively add the new hypothesis tests to the methodology

[@Revoker1221]

Right, so i have an unrelated question, so I'll get the relevant praise out of the way first. Video was good, had some useful insight and I'm about to go on ahead to watch the p-hacking vid, so thanks for the recommendation. Now, my actual question: is that a Dark Souls 1 Laudate Solis poster in the background??

[@IzzyIkigai]

So... How much you wanna bet the three male authors all have a very "dominant" odor and this was just their (very elaborate) way of excusing not taking that much needed shower?

[@guska5523]

Talking about odours and pheromones, I was expecting an entirely different explanation of P-hacking...

[@williamlinden4036]

My dominant male odor signals all the other men to pamper me with touches and kisses

[@yvngxl]

my odor used to be easily dominatable, but that was before I discovered pee hacking

[@kaldogorath]

Everyone knows you need to make eye contact to establish dominance.

[@youtubehandlesux]

Still seems more trustworthy than Eliezer Masliah

[@youtubehandlesux]

We live in a susciety where some mf almost got away publishing 130 fake papers

[@cognitiumone]

Could you do another video on sexual preference and odor? I remember hearing of a study that showed a correlation between women's scent preference and histamine complex genetics but I would like to know if any more research has been done surrounding the topic.

[@pinky_pepper]

there are so much omegaverse ballstank truthers here it's really funny

[@cykonot]

People unfamiliar with the jargon of a subfield, mods laundering their own pseudostudies and banning you for undermining them... Intelligence operations, social engineering.... Whatever else. Unpaid moderators are very trustworthy

[@sylv256]

I nearly lost it at "the boy smell paper"

[@hedgehog3180]

The hypothesis doesn't make sense from the get go. Why the hell would any animal ever evolve to communicate dominance through smell when that is so easy to fake? Like there's a reason why stags fight, it's because you can't fake winning a fight and because winning a fight directly demonstrates fitness. But all you have to do to fake the smell of dominance is borrow your mate's shirt and the smell itself obviously demonstrates nothing. And that doesn't even get into the question of why humans would care about dominance since it has no bearing on our fitness, I mean we don't live in herds or flocks with a single male like deer or lions, we originally lived in tribes with no strong gender bias. Though they also didn't even bother to define what dominance even meant in humans since again humans do not participate in stag fights and literally every human society that has ever existed has frowned upon violence between members of said society so how can you meaningfully define dominance in the context of humans? Do you define it in terms of social status? Because social status rarely has much to do with what we'd think of as being dominant, the people who rise to the top in organizations are usually the ones who have the best social skills and what that even means depends a lot on the context.

[@gamemaker7386]

You're not right at all. If the researchers were actually intelligent, there might have been an interesting hypothesis in there they could have formulated. 1. We are mammals, so even if overtly dominant behaviors were not selected for recently, we still have 100 million years of shared history with animals that live in dominance hierarchies, and use physical aggression to determine positions in them. We don't start out with a blank slate every time we evolve a new species, we carry along the baggage we've accumulated along the way. You are right that humans tend to prefer prosocial behaviors, but that is only part of the story. 2. It is only easy to "fake" if we assume that the chemical signaling, hormone levels, and dominant or submissive behaviors have separate underlying causes (which is unlikely). If there is a variable that both a behavior (or behaviors) and body odors are causally downstream of, the odor would act as an indicator of the behavior. This could potentially create a selection in favor of attraction to the odor if the behavior is adaptive in some way, because the offspring (of the one attracted to the odor) would have a higher chance of survival and reproduction on average (since they would be more likely to inherit the adaptive behavior from the selected mate). The same applies to hormone levels, or any other trait in question. Faking it can happen, but attraction in favor of the odor would have to happen first, and even then it will happen only if there are gene variants that allow the organism to generate the "fake" odor, or possible mutations.

[@JohanA-uh1yg]

Is it the male or the odor that is dominant? 🤔

[@seditt5146]

If anything( and thats a huge if) they are not measuring Dominance but instead confidence and possibly IQ scores in a round about way.

[@JackMott]

OH NO THE RESEARCHERS HAVE FOUND ME

[@heldt123456789]

I've only showered once since February.

[@zev4133]

That article makes me cringe so hard

[@TheMisterGuy]

What is that wall scroll? It looks like...Dark Souls?

[@renevillarreall.r.3503]

Isn't there a "no primary research" rule (or something like that), precisely to exclude this kind of source??

[@no_mnom]

I would rather have pee hacking than p hacking

[@mp-zf4ur]

I just dominated my odor, and someone yelled 'odour'!

[@bdwon]

have you analyzed the famous paper done by the economist about strippers in New Mexico and how their tips earned varied by the "time of the month"? It is certainly less suspicious to count tips than to ask kids about their "dominance."

[@VGEmblem]

Words lose value when you use them like that. 19-27 year olds aren't "kids" in any meaningful or scientific way

[@KarlBunker]

@@VGEmblem I perceive that you haven't spent much time with 19-27 year old -men- boys.

[@Aquatarkus96]

​@@VGEmblemConsidering their brains are stoll developing till 25, i tend to disagree

[@kylezo]

@@VGEmblemwe're waiting for your treatise on how unfair age of consent laws are

[@CaptainGrat75]

@bdwon I’ve read that paper, its crazy how they even get published. According to a woman’s cycle, their breasts may be fuller, etc, instead the paper assumes the women are perceived as more attractive because of “pheromones”, which humans dont use to communicate. Even stranger, they refer to women with partners (or children, i dont remember) as “mated women” - very strange to refer to human beings in ways in which we refer to non-humans in research. Further more, the idea the period evolved to serve economics is such a bogus claim that they should have been tossed out of academia for that one.

[@drywallco-l5o]

I'm confused- did they not find a significant difference in smell preferences between fertile and non-fertile women, in a relationship? That is what the graph shows. If their sample size was big enough, I'm not sure it matters that they only controlled for relationship status after the fact.

[@sgm482]

since when did zoey dechanell become a librarian?

[@CannibalCowboy51]

Sweet Dark Souls map hanging on your wall! Praise the Sun!

[@v1sq]

I don't know what to believe anymore

[@briefcasemanx]

Final line made me subscribe

[@eelytra]

"high genetic quality" 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

[@matthewlloyd3255]

Whether or not the paper is 'good science' it does raise some interesting ideas such as whether human personality can be linked to our body scent, and whether or not that scent has any link to attractiveness to the opposite sex. So i would say that regardless of the result, the paper does open the door for "research area needs more funding for further investigation." ;-)

[@CaptainGrat75]

@matthewlloyd3255 This field needs zero funding, its worthless and filled with conjecture. Humans dont communicate via pheromones, we know this. We probably pick up on other signs relating to health, but we know this. What needs funding is research in fields that actually provide usefulness to society, like regenerative medicine.

[@hamishfox]

I remember this paper. It was referenced in a "science facts" book I had as a kid. Good to know it's a load of doodie.

[@GramLikesBread]

This here is why I never wanted to study humans in biology

[@Billy-qo7ts]

something smells fishy about this paper

[@Croix1]

Holy shit I've heard this theory and I've just been casually half-believing it and similar bullshit for years. Not really to the degree I've done something with it, but I hope i didn't share it as a "fun fact" or something. science do be cooked sometimes