Excellent point. I agree completely.Originally Posted by lachry
I wouldn't get too excited.
I haven't looked into this at any great depth but it seems to accept that 'meat avoiders' are vegetarians.
"More than 33 percent of the men and women in the study described themselves as vegetarians but said they ate white meat and fish."
This, obviously, renders the study mostly useless. I have a huge problem with meat-eating 'vegetarians'. Don't get me wrong - it's good that there are some animals they are not eating. But they are not vegetarians and they should stop calling themselves that. (Likewise, scholars should stop allowing people to "self-define" themselves as vegetarians. Most of the academic papers I have read do allow too much leeway on this.)
It's entirely objective: if you eat meat, you are not a vegetarian.
Nobody claims to be teetotal because they do not drink bear - but drink vodka, etc - so why should scholars allow such inconsistencies when it comes to diet?
Just over 4 percent were "strict vegetarians" and 2 percent vegans. Well, is that all? If we take 'strict vegetarians' to be ACTUAL vegetarians then obviously we're not able to conclude anything from the study.
It's conclusions should be that meat-avoiders are more intelligent etc - because it isn't actually studying real vegetarians, only fake ones.