Beauty? Worst photographic mistake?

Beautiful people are more likely to have daughters   1 vote - 9 %
Beautiful people are not more likely to have daughters   5 votes - 45 %
-   1 vote - 9 %
Not taking a morning picture of the mountain-top in fog   2 votes - 18 %
Not leaning over the fence for the cow picture   2 votes - 18 %
Not taking a picture of tarmac melted onto sandals in the searing heat   2 votes - 18 %
Motion-blurring the only picture of the stylish Dublin hotel   0 votes - 0 %
Not taking more care to produce viable composite panoramas   0 votes - 0 %
Not framing pub shot properly   2 votes - 18 %
Ignoring the rule of thirds   1 vote - 9 %
-   2 votes - 18 %
This diary is too big   3 votes - 27 %
This diary is not too big   4 votes - 36 %
-   1 vote - 9 %
Post pics to Husi   7 votes - 63 %
Post pics to Flikr and link   4 votes - 36 %
11 Total Votes
(Comment Deleted) by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #1 Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 04:55:06 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by yicky yacky

Mountains of Cooley by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #3 Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 05:09:15 AM EST
Doesn't have nearly the same ring to it.

Brother in law is an Ulsterman, so he'd probably regard the Mountains of Mourne as different to the Republican Mountains of Cooley.
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Nice pics by cam (4.00 / 1) #2 Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 05:08:55 AM EST
Nice countryside. I will have to get over to Ireland.

Not related to your article, but tangential to Irish yore. The Irish convicts that escaped Sydney, Norfolk Island and Van Diemen's land sailed south chasing the cooler winds of the Antarctic - thinking that following the cool will lead them home to Ireland.

Another common misconception, for all convicts, was that hiking over the Blue Mountains would lead them to China. Many died for those two beliefs.

Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic

Genes by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #4 Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 06:26:46 AM EST
There doesn't need to be a gene for it as there are environmental conditions that can produce skewed sex ratios. The one with the most evidence behind it is that fighter pilots have more girls. (Apparently because of the effect of high-G conditions.)

Also: the genes don't have to be sex-linked. For instance, it could be that the mother is preferentially flushing zygotes of one or the other.

Still, the whole thing sounds like a crock of shit to me. First, I suspect the whole "run tests on 100 items and find on anomoly with 95% confidence" error. Second, using such subjective measures as "attractiveness" is a red flag.

The other thing that bugs me is that "attractiveness" is a second order's not something important in itself. It's something that is supposed to signal how healthy the person is. This makes me suspicious that he's got the causation reversed.

Caveat: my bullshit meter fired to the extent that I didn't really read the article.
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

me either by LilFlightTest (4.00 / 1) #6 Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 06:53:13 AM EST
in fact, most of my comment was going to be all the things you just said, so i'll just add my "yep".
Dance On, Gir!
[ Parent ]
Maybe it's the sperm by greyshade (4.00 / 1) #7 Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 02:19:34 PM EST
Women don't have the genetics to produce a male.  It takes sperm.  I am talking out my ass here, but if I recall my biology correctly, 'male producing' sperm live for longer in the scrotum.  Therefore if you discahrge often, you are more likely to produce a female.  If you wait longer between discharges, the boy-maker sperm count has time to build up.

Either way, i think they are looking at the wrong half of the pair WRT how the sex of the child is determined.  The hawt chicks are probably doing the dirty more often, or with partners who do the dirty more often.

"The other part of the fun is nibbling on them when they get off work." -vorheesleatherface

[ Parent ]
I do like by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 1) #8 Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 12:25:53 AM EST
Your selective-abortion theory: it could well be that attractive mothers are more likely to hold on to daughters. That would explain his statistical results without the unlikely genetic stuff. He does have a pretty big sample size.

Environmental conditions: I'm sure I read something on paper debunking the pilots more likely to have girls thing as just a statistical clump, but can't find a link or remember where.
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
I think by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #9 Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 03:51:49 AM EST
You could make a much better case for "healthier mothers are more likely to hold on to daughters". ("It takes more energy for women to produce offspring, so for less healthy people (probably in a less successful tribe), the better strategy is to produce boys who go off an impregnate others.")
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the pics! by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #5 Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 06:40:06 AM EST
I must admit, I was expecting the Wargs to attack you at any moment.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

It's this quote that shows that he's by aethucyn (4.00 / 1) #10 Sun Aug 06, 2006 at 11:57:26 AM EST
talking up his ass: "Beautiful parents have more daughters than ugly parents, because physical attractiveness is heritable and because daughters benefit from attractiveness more than sons."
Each trait is a seperate variable. Apparently this Dr. got his degree from the D&D school of medicine. "I rolled an 18 for Charisma, guess I'll make this character a woman."

Drogheda by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #11 Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 11:43:05 PM EST
In the 80s Drogheda was a run-down hole, with up to 40% unemployment in some surrounding areas. In the last ten years, it has become unrecognisable.

And if you're ever back, I recommend Lemon crepe place for breakfasts.

Irritating guidebook habit by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #12 Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 12:01:09 AM EST
Every year or two they seem to spit out a "new edition", which is virtually identical with the last one except for the year on the flyleaf. Sometimes some of the information seems to be decades old.

[ Parent ]