The theme is "Pedophiles and Kindergarteners."

Yeah, that's a bad idea rich white sorority girls.

OMG Hil.

I guess "White Trash" and "Pimps and Hos" are passé now.

JFC.

ION, why is it that sometimes I get Lush scents from next door wafting in my window, and sometimes it's the dumpster??? Needless to say, right now it's the dumpster.

Does anyone have access to the full text of this [link] ? I am so curious about the conclusion.

And I'm also curious about the terms "published" and "peer reviewed" like they're the ne plus ultra of credibility, and a peer has never been wrong. I see it used reasonably often to both shut down discussion and to...well, shut down discussion.

Peer review is a filter. If a scientific theory cannot pass peer review and get into a peer reviewed publication it probably lacks adequate support. Note that this applies to scientific theories only. Lots of stuff, including technical stuff that is NOT a scientific theory will never be in a peer reviewed pubication and has no reason why that should affect creditiblity. Nate Silver will never be peer reviewed but is a credible source. He used highly technical means and is a professional, but is not inventing new science.

However the reverse is not true. Being published in a peer reviewed discussion does not mean you are right, or even that what you are saying is not garbage. All it means is that you provided a certain minimal level of evidence. Again a scientific paper that cannot be pubished in a peer reviewed publication is almost certainly flawed. Being pubished in a peer reviewed publication is no guarantee it is not garbage - it just means it passed certain tests. It is not a certain kind of garbage, but may be more sophisticated garbage. Basically peer review is supposed to be a guarantee of being worth discussion. Sometimes stuff slips through that should not, but most it is worth discussion. But peer review is not ehe same as settled.

If there is extensive peer reviewed literature on a subject and all of it or almost all agrees on something, odds are that is settled. Though there is always the possibility something new will turn up that overturns it.

So many conclusions are being drawn off that abstract (I feel confident the IO9 author hasn't read the full thing, but the sad thing is, they handed it to IO9's resident evo psych click baiter, so off the bat I assume that peer review means diddly in its defence. Given that he messes up the difference between numbers and percentages in his power statement "It's pretty revealing that..." and doesn't use the "adequately powered" stats (what does that even mean), well, I'm inclined to pre-judge to save time.

Family is hunkered down on hurricane watch. Yay, weather!

Does anyone have access to the full text of this [link] ? I am so curious about the conclusion.

Not now, but I'm 99% certain I could get it for you tomorrow morning from my work computer (the uni has full-text access to pretty much everything medical or science-y, plus an utterly random assortment of unlikely other stuff).