News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Trivers–Willard Hypothesis by moopling on Sunday January 12, 2020 @06:56AM (#22025872)
I'd be interested in a citation, first thought which springs to mind is sample size and size of the bias.
Re:Trivers–Willard Hypothesis by YPCrumble on Sunday January 12, 2020 @07:45AM (#22026040)
Presumably it’s this study: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elissa_Cameron/publicat...

It cited 60% male to female billionaire ratio on n of 350.

But, the methodology was to use google and Wikipedia for research so a more honest claim might be “male offspring of billionaires show up in search results more often.”

I suppose that factoid wouldn’t have been paid for by the publisher though.

Re:Trivers–Willard Hypothesis by YPCrumble on Sunday January 12, 2020 @10:57AM (#22026842)
Thinking more about my own comment, perhaps researchers expecting to find more male offspring while googling find male offspring more often!
Re:Trivers–Willard Hypothesis by ZeroGravitas on Sunday January 12, 2020 @05:20PM (#22029958)
Worth bearing in mind that the birth ratio is generally tilted towards boys, about 52.5%