Ever wondered why advertisements heavily feature Black actors when they're just 12-14% of the population?
I might have an explanation:
Black viewers have a strong preference for seeing other Blacks in media, whereas Whites have no racial preferences.
These results are derived from a meta-analysis of 57 pre-2000 and 112 post-2000 effect sizes for Blacks alongside 76 and 87 such effect sizes for Whites.
If you look at them, you'll notice that Whites' initial, slight preference declined and maybe reversed.
It's worth asking if this is explained by publication bias.
It's not!
Neither aggregately (as pictured), nor with results separated by race.
This study also plotted an alternative measure of racial preferences: differences in thermometer ratings.
These are ratings of how "warm" people feel towards other groups.
For Blacks, a persistent, consistent in-group preference. For Whites, in the past, yes, but now, no.
The hypothesis that Black media overrepresentation is due to catering to higher propensities for Blacks to spend, all else equal, is interesting, but it fails on the merits (less total spending).
It seems plausible that advertisers and media creators are just catering to demand.
Of course, people could just ask.
We do see this crop up in many other areas too. There is usually a Black in-group bias, and at the very least, no/a small White net disdain for Blacks or preference for Whites.
Why have testosterone levels been rising over time?
The testosterone levels of American men are up compared to what they used to be, but no one has a good explanation.
Let's look through some possibilities🧵
Is it perhaps because of a racial composition change?
No.
Different races tend to have similar testosterone levels and trends within groups are similar.
Is it perhaps because of age composition change?
No.
The decline by age is much more graceful than people tend to suspect, and within each age group, levels are up without survey weighting, and in nearly all with it, they're still up.
In my latest article, I documented that the only RCT for functional medicine methods appears fraudulent🧵
Before getting into it, what's functional medicine?
It's a pseudoscience used to bilk patients by getting them on an unending cycle of tests, supplements, and more tests.
Functional medicine's practitioners claim that they can reveal and treat so-called "root causes" of people's health problems
These are proposed to be things like gut health, toxin burdens, and various chemical and hormonal imbalances
They find these things with unproven tests
If you run enough tests, you will be able to find something that looks 'off' about a patient, and if you're a functional medicine doctor, that's your 'A-ha!' moment, even if—as is usually the case—the result is just a false-positive and treating it is unlikely to do anything.
If you want to add beds to a hospital, build facilities, purchase diagnostic scanners, but you live somewhere with CON laws, then you have to prove you're not creating competition for other medical facilities in the area, which is often the whole state.
No. Competition. Allowed.
The idea behind these laws is that people will spend excessively on healthcare, so to combat that, we'll have people report if there's more spending needed before approving it.
Nutrition science is the area of science that's suffered the most in the replication crisis. It is a graveyard of theories and pseudoscientific bullshit.
Now:
The HHS is going to make doctors to sit through 40 hours of classes where they'll have to take that bullshit seriously.
This reads like a list of the things that fared the worst in all of nutrition science and stuff with NO EVIDENCE.
When I read through this, my mouth was agape.
Whoever wrote this trash needs fired for incompetence. Mentally retarded people should not hold keep government posts.
'What did you learn in your mandatory nutrition misinformation class?'
'Well, if a patient comes in with a migraine, I'm supposed to sell them a WHOOP bracelet or an Oura ring so I can help them figure out their health age.'
Strength training is a highly effective way to improve your flexibility, and I've made a graphic to put this into understandable terms:
This is from a meta-analysis of strength training trials.
What makes that so useful is that there's major publication bias for strength outcomes (pictured).
But, since authors weren't looking at it, there's no publication bias for flexibility outcomes.
Studies made their way into this meta-analysis because they had a flexibility outcome, but they made their way into the literature because they showed positive strength results.
This could indirectly biased the flexibility results because of selection on a correlated outcome.