This is pretty intriguing stuff!

The writing style at The Marry Sue, like at Wonkette and a few other places, can occasionally get a little snarky for me (I’ve really been trying to be more earnest overall, and I think this and the direction in which [a][s] has headed are examples of that). Sometimes that snark works out, and sometimes it doesn’t.

Here, I’m a little mixed, because on the one hand, it comes off as a bit strong, but on the other, it is actually pretty refreshing to see science and meta-science being done on this subject: that is, it’s nice to see a study turn itself on its discipline and notice that, hey, the way we divide up our subjects, respondents, and what-have-you may not be as valid as we had thought, and where did that supposed validity come from, anyway? I suppose I’d do well to read the actual study.

I was pointed to this by someone on Twitter - I think @DogAsRxD? Don’t remember!