I wasn’t reading and critiquing the underlying paper, I was primarily checking if the headline and methods matched up. They don’t. Confidence and controlled risk taking are very different from “macho”.
They also seem to make the correlation ≠ causation fallacy, though that might be fixed in the actual paper. Is it living in a mixed house makes men less confident, or are less confident men more likely to end up in a mixed house?
I’m definitely no more than a reasonably informed layman in sociology. I do have scientific training, however, so can spot the more glaring signs of a journalist going beyond what a paper says, or the data backs up.
I wasn’t reading and critiquing the underlying paper, I was primarily checking if the headline and methods matched up. They don’t. Confidence and controlled risk taking are very different from “macho”.
They also seem to make the correlation ≠ causation fallacy, though that might be fixed in the actual paper. Is it living in a mixed house makes men less confident, or are less confident men more likely to end up in a mixed house?
I’m definitely no more than a reasonably informed layman in sociology. I do have scientific training, however, so can spot the more glaring signs of a journalist going beyond what a paper says, or the data backs up.
My mistake for misunderstanding what you meant then! I thought you were referring to the scientific article itself, not the news article