>>69
but you also have to admit that's a pretty condescending and biased study...
No, I don't admit it. You talk condescending, then with a magic wave of you hand dismiss an entire study with a few words.
These words mean nothing in the context of a study. The study is
there, which means the method, the aggregate data, the resulting statistical analysis, and the conclusion. It's all there.
This is science. Think it's wrong? Indicate how methodology is flawed, or make an experiment or study that presents strong evidence for an alternate hypothesis. If not, your claims are no different from the ID whackos: pure unsupported fantasy.
That's my reason for being right-wing.
Anecdotal evidence is unconvincing. It also may help if you look up the definition of "pearson's correlation" and ponder how this relates to your whole post for a while.