this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
90 points (95.0% liked)

World News

56275 readers
1598 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This is "absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence" all over again...

It's not a new study, it's a review of prior studies..

So all it proves, is that no one has empirically proven the connection yet, which was the reason they did this literature review in the first place.

Research like this can be done by a single person without leaving their desk, in an average work day. The link even shows you the three searches they ran... It wasn't the scientific equivalent of "googling it".

It doesn't prove anything, except how many people blindly up ote and don't understand science.

Or "world news" which this apparently is?

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Man, I can't tell what you're trying to say here. It sounds like you're trying to bash others for lacking science literacy when you're hating on Meta-analysis, an important research tool, because it takes less effort.

Yes, this doesn't prove that testosterone doesn't play a role in risk-taking behavior. But it does prove that testosterone alone isn't a strong indicator of risk-taking behavior. Which is important to state, because as the paper states, lots of research has been starting with that as an assumption.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Science: "we found absolutely no link between this behavior and this chemical. We checked multiple times and then checked everything we checked again."

Some random jackass on the Internet: "BUT THERE COULD BE ONE STILL YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE!!11!"