A new meta-study claims it has proof men are funnier than women.
The meta-study was conducted by two men and a woman from universities across the US, none of whom were paid for their research.
The trio reviewed 28 studies analysing the comedic abilities of 5000 average Joes and Josephines. In most experiments they analysed, participants were told to think of a funny caption for a cartoon, in order to prove which gender was more hilarious.
Independent judges rated the resulting joke either on a scale or as “funny” and “unfunny”, without knowing the participant’s gender. 63% of men were apparently funnier than the standard woman.
The meta-study also found men were funnier the more time they were given, but that women’s humour improved when they could give multiple responses. It offered evolution as an explanation, with the authors writing “humour is hypothesized to be one such fitness indicator… [humour] is positively correlated with various intelligence measures”.
It is not known whether the researchers will also now look into if men are smarter and better looking than women, too.
The last line makes it seem to be a bit of a hit-piece. Is there an implication that the research was fraudulent or flawed in its methodology?
Amber, most scientific reporting isn’t ‘asked for’, and (for example) sex-based differences in humour appreciation have been studied before, along with sex-based differences in romantic attachment, learning and numerous other cognitive functions. Sometimes they turn up some differences; sometimes no discernable difference. There’s a whole research area called the neuroscience of sex differences — it’s an area of investigation, not a political movement.
I’d agree that it’s not necessarily the most far-reaching science to take tired cliches and investigate them, but unless you investigate them systematically you can’t debunk whatever biases there might be — or put any sort of curiosity to rest.
In this case, a small to moderate difference reported is less than some tired cliches claim, and if you wanted to take a political stance on the ‘so what’ here, tI think that would have served your article better than the ignorant non-sequitur you served up.
Regardless, I don’t know how it is you expect research on the neuroscience of sex differences to proceed. Should it all be referred to the Department of Gender Studies for doctrinal approval?
Agree with this. This piece is halfway to being a run-of-the-mill Betoota Advocate post (i.e. ‘satirical’ headline about a news story followed by much less funny formulaic filler). What’s the point?
So… like the Betoota Advocate, only… not as funny?
(runs)
The research findings were definitely significant though not universal, it would be interesting to see genuine further studies. And what the team report re evolution makes perfect sense.
Remember back when the Left used to like science, because scientific facts on cosmology and biology warded off conservative Christian creationism? These days, the Left hates science (unless it’s climate change science) because they’re absolutely scared that science will demonstrate average differences in the brain, that will challenge if not destroy the very basis of the new-Left worldview.
As a truth seeker who has the courage to seek facts no matter how politically (un)trendy, i’d love to see science get funding to look into all sorts of things that would help the future of the world. Not just climate change, but also everything else that ultimately adds up to the destruction of the planet as we know it and our ancient ecosystems.
Yes Ben — parts of the left (though thankfully not all) are now disturbingly antiscience, but the failings of journalistic and political education are on display here too.
Amber’s ignorance isn’t simply about the way neuroscientific research works; she didn’t understand that publicly-funded science research is generally not commissioned by governments, industries or policy tanks: it’s driven principally by interest, opportunity and commitment to public benefit, and it’s meant to be independent of political interests. (She also didn’t interview the researchers or even fact-check her own assertion that nobody’s interested in the data.)
More broadly, science’s first accountability is to peer review, and any (for example) gender biases in methodology are far more conspicuous to riogorous statistical analyses than to cut-and-paste second year Gender Studies rhetoric, while the ethics of clinical research proposals (though this was only a meta-study) are already reviewed — though Amber clearly has no idea how or by whom.
But most disturbingly to me, Amber’s implicit and unquestioned assumption that political ideology (whose-ever it is) should have veto over scientific inquiry is anathemic to the four centuries of the advances in Enlightenment science that make modern liberal democracy possible today. If political power could routinely veto scientific inquiry, Copernicus and Galileo could never have published; we’d have nothing like the nuanced ideas of racial and gender equality we presently enjoy, and might still be in ignorance of climate change.
Finally, there’s a conservative push in Queensland for government to establish its own centre for science Quality Assurance, which shows us just how much political interests fear independent data and over-rate their own doctrinal capacity to recognise truth.
Perhaps Amber would kindly pen another article defending what a great idea that is?
Christopher Hitchens once wrote an article about this 21st century quandary (no doubt taking the piss a little…). He cited evolution, of sorts, is the reason why men are funnier than women. Basically, women don’t need to be funny to have children. On the other hand, as many single guys will tell you, having a particular sense of humour is mandatory for getting a root. It’s as simple as that…
How true. Apparently some women enjoy a laugh so much they are prepared to offer reward.
Best answer so far itsarort and not far off the mark IMO. Wouldn’t pass the GSD scrutiny though.
But really Crikey, there was a story in this ? I’ll give Amber the benefit of the doubt on how she dished up this turkey.
Christmas is less than 6 weeks away.
“Amber has studied an undergrad degree in The Netherlands and a Masters of International Relations and Journalism at Monash in Melbourne. She is fluent in Spanish.
Amber will be covering all issues related to health for INQ.”
Of course she will. I’m guessing that Netherlands degree was biomedical science. Totally qualified.