| ThetaDancer |
03-04-2010 11:05 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low C Sharp
(Post 1904023)
This thread doesn't do much to counter the notion that sorority women are disproportionately focused on looks. Is an ugly woman less qualified to comment on empirical research on looks than a beautiful woman?
If the women that dropped out of rush have a higher BMI than those who pledged, I think that's a problem. If the research the article refers to wasn't reliable or generalizable, let's talk about that. But I don't see how it's less likely to be true because it's cited by someone with bad skin.
|
WTF? Who called her ugly? I think having a healthy lifestyle is undoubtedly a good foundation for dispensing health advice to others. She appears to clearly tan/have tanned a LOT.
Quote:
You're still focusing on her appearance. How is this relevant to the validity of the study? What does bad skin have to do with anything?
|
That's not "bad skin." Bad skin might be acne or scars. Frying your face until it looks like leather is a bad life choice. For me, it does impact the validity of the reporting because it makes me question her credibility as a health columnist.
As for the validity of the study? It seems interesting, but it's one study (that was part of a senior thesis?), so I'm taking it for what it's worth. I could have bought into it a bit more if the reporting wasn't weak (confusing correlation and causation, the "joining a sorority may be bad for your health" headline, etc). |
