VeggieBoards banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lachry View Post

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 don't get why you would find the study useless either.

Quote:
It's conclusions should be that meat-avoiders are more intelligent etc - because it isn't actually studying real vegetarians, only fake ones.
I think this type of attention is great, even if their definitions are a bit off.

eta: i just saw your other post

And i don't think the point of this study is to say that veg*ns are more intelligent because variables such as SES, education, and life style are addressed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lachry View Post

Oh, I'm just cynical

I'm also totally underwhelmed by the IQ scores registered. 105? That's subliterate, surely? :)
I think those ranges are average. maybe not for internet iq tests tho lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard View Post

I have another error. Its called confusing correlation with causation.

Oh, nigel beat me too it.
where's the causation? i totally missed it when i read the article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard View Post

The whole chicken vs egg thing that Indian Summer quoted suggests that it is only a question of which way the causation runs. For reasons delineated by nigel I think most reasonable hypotheses would include no causation either way. We already know that IQ and vegetarianism are correlated with wealth and whiteness, among other things.

I also agree that this is probably not a great example of sampling.
Well, maybe Indian Summer was suggesting causation by hand picking a quote but i didn't really get that feeling from the article itself, which is only an interpretation of the study as far as I can tell and probably by a journalist, not a scientist...so who knows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
I can see getting appropriate samples as problematic in general. Veg*ns are a minority any way let alone finding a substantial sample of them with dated IQ records etc. Tho hopefully there are longitudinal studies already in the making for years to come.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard View Post

More important than sampling, IMO, is the design of the experiment. If you don't block for at least wealth and gender you are wasting your time.
well stats aren't my thing but didn't they or wouldn't they account for these variables in the statistical analysis?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard View Post

the link suggests they controlled for "occupational class" and "level of education".

As a trained statistician I would recommend that wealth is superior to the above characteristics and that you must also confound race. I suspect that they captured much of the wealth effect but what remains can be explained by race.
race...good point! another one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
I also think it's crud that the author didn't list the journal volume or study title. it's a pain in the rump to find the study now but i'm looking.

nothing in medline or psyinfo at my uni, eh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Well, it's a nice epi study. I hope there are follow ups that get into some of suggestions made about brain function etc.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top