Importantly, since the P1 effects disappeared when correcting for baseline (priming) activity, these effects should be interpreted cautiously.
But it’s okay for us to pretend it’s a 100% accurate result for the purpose of a random blog post? I swear half the news I see about scientific studies is misleading or they just misread the paper
Edit: I could have picked many quotes from the study, that’s just one that stood out. It’s not some slam dunk in the paper.
Eh, once people come to understand better that it’s ok for their children to be their own people and that not conforming to (sometimes fairly recently created) gendered stereotypes isn’t a big deal we won’t see this “neural activity” quite as much I’ll bet.
And when they said that they had a greater reaction to their own children…well yea, obviously. I guess it’s good that we confirmed it, science confirming “obvious” answers is half the point of it, but yea of course they’re suddenly think about greater implications and what that might mean for how they should treat their child than if it were another kid.
It sucks that they found so many negative reactions but we’re getting better about it, at least, so that’s something to look forward to.
Add comment