re: #405 Aceofwhat?

Yep. Scrupulously. They remind me of studies showing there is no global warming. They’re sparse, narrow, and small.

If that is going to be your attitude, I have no desire to talk to you on this subject. You are comparing the measurement of a hard science fact to that of a very ineffable soft science one. That is very, very poor form.

You can be sure that the factor is the missing gender when that variable is significant throughout myriad different situations. If you’re poor and missing a gender, you’re likely to fare worse than other poor kids with both genders. If you’re rich and missing a gender, you’re likely to fare worse than other rich kids missing a gender.

That did not address my objection in the least. I am saying that having a home that is man/woman is more respected in society than any other kind, and so that can be the explanation for what the kids turn out better.

Don’t tell me that kids whose mom or dad isn’t present in the home fare worse because of “society”. Occam’s razor is not for shaving…

There is no reason to say that the ‘gender-missing’ explanation is more reasonable. It is not. Biologically, we are related to apes where males play minimal roles in child-rearing. Occam’s Razor says that the difference is not biological, but cultural.