Posts
Unless you've been in a sensory deprivation tank since Monday, you hardly need me to update last week's post by reporting that Boulder County authorities have dropped their case against suspected JonBenét killer John Mark Karr.
By "authorities," I mean in particular District Attorney Mary Lacy, who is currently wearing the Heartland, Denver, and Meat-Lover's Scrambles all over her face. In terms of acts that merit such a meteoric rise from obscurity to internationally-acclaimed idiocy, extraditing a delusional clown 8000 miles, business class, may not quite compare with designing the Palm Beach "Butterfly Ballot," but I think it edges out the pennant-costing Cubs fan souvenir grab.
Meanwhile, thanks to Holy Prepuce! subscriber Zoe C., who, on learning that Mrs. P. & I are expecting a baby girl, sent in this article. According to a London School of Economics study, attractive parents are 26% more likely to have a girl than a boy as their first child.
It seems that female reproductive success is more dependant on attractiveness than is male reproductive success, which depends more on wealth and status. A genetic tendency toward attractiveness will thus be put to best use in female offspring. There are so many problems with this theory that I don't know where to begin, so instead I'll just bask in the knowledge that:
Meanwhile, thanks to Holy Prepuce! subscriber Zoe C., who, on learning that Mrs. P. & I are expecting a baby girl, sent in this article. According to a London School of Economics study, attractive parents are 26% more likely to have a girl than a boy as their first child.
It seems that female reproductive success is more dependant on attractiveness than is male reproductive success, which depends more on wealth and status. A genetic tendency toward attractiveness will thus be put to best use in female offspring. There are so many problems with this theory that I don't know where to begin, so instead I'll just bask in the knowledge that:
{being attractive makes one 26% more likely to have a girl} + {we are having a girl} + {some Bayesian probability I don't understand} + {some other statistics you would need to figure this out} = we must be so hot.
In this case, I think you have to spell it "HAWT". You're welcome, you handsome devil, you.
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean that smart people are more likely to have boys? I'm sure there's some way to work the statistics...after all, it's only an Elsivier journal...
ReplyDeleteAwesome big nerd points for using the word "Bayesian" in your post. Makes me wonder, though, whether you could really be all that HAWT.
ReplyDelete