I’m so sick of this study, and another similar one that my friends and I refer to as the “ass-jiggling” study. Basically these researchers went into a strip club and — objectively, I’m sure — measured how much the stripper’s shook their ass and then compared that to where they were in their menstrual cycle. They concluded that strippers shakes their asses more when they are not on their period (again, from an abysmal sample size) and concluded: estrus! Totally! Not, you know, that being on your period sucks and perhaps might make you slightly less inclined to ass-jiggling… Wish I could remember the citation, but read up enough on this Ev Psych estrus fixation and I’m sure you’ll come across it.

You know, Stuart isn’t being pedantic here. This kind of commentary is pretty much to be expected in scientific blogging, and is completely respectful and sensible. If you want to blog about science, you can’t get all butthurt when someone calls you on inaccuracies or wants to engage in real discussion/debate with you. Debate over details is what makes science work – and allowing inaccuracies (such as the syncing of menses) to just go by unchallenged would be deeply unscientific.

Stuart was commenting as a person. You are not.

There’s so much (like sporting events, like the differences between tourist-y clubs and clubs with lots of regular customers) that people have pointed out here that is likely to confound research, and that’s just throwing out stuff from the tops of our heads. Basically, it’s sloppy research, and no community likes having “knowledge” about them derived from sloppy research. It’s condescending, it’s ignorant, and it’s potentially harmful.

Thanks, Bubbles! I’m pretty tired of getting that link forwarded to me, too.

Unlike you, I did not keep scrupulous records of my periods, so I can’t review my earnings – but honestly, everything about it sounded wrong to me at a time when making money via lapdance was pretty much my whole life. While my opinions obviously don’t trump statistics, I think my fairly long tenure in the industry entitles me to ask for something a little more compelling that 18 chicks reporting their earning for 2 months (much less half of 2 months) before accepting something that is just in no way reflects anything like my life. Would I NEVER accept that my experience is an anomaly? Sure I would – but as I said, I need something a little more compelling than what I get here.

Science and statistics are discourses, just like everything else people. It’s useful for some stuff, but I actually think it is kind of odd and unreasonable to expect Bubbles to put her (well documented) experiences aside in favour of evidence that is just not that compelling, much less irrefutable.

Bubbles, I don’t think Stuart is really trying to be pedantic and condescending; his reply is pretty consistent with the types of critiques I hear in journal clubs. (I’m working on an MS in Neurobiology, and I’ve heard much worse comments from my advisor when discussing a paper…)

I haven’t read the Miller paper myself, but now I think I might have to. I’d be interested in tracking something similar to this. Sample size of 18, I think is OK, but the length of the study I agree with you on — 2 cycles wouldn’t be statistically significant.

Personally I think the McClintock effect (if there is one) would probably be rather negligible, but it might also depend on the club size and would vary for individual girls. I work at a fairly large club with up to 70 girls a night, and we have new girls coming in and staying for brief stints and leaving all the time. I only spend 1-2 nights a week in the club myself, 7 to 8 hours at a time. The McClintock effect is supposed to occur when women spend a lot of time together – like when they live together. But I digress…

I’ve only recently started keeping track of my earnings last December and I’m on a hormonal birth control method anyway, otherwise I’d want to see if there’s any trend in my earning patterns too! I would imagine that the results would also differ quite a bit depending on the club and location – if you’re the type of girl who makes her bread and butter off VIPs with long time regulars on a set schedule, I doubt your fertility cycles would make a difference. For girls in tourist towns where you make hit & run money by doing lots and lots and lots of table dances, I imagine you might see an effect if men find ovulating women more attractive. I’m guessing Albuquerque is more of the former type, so I’d like to see if they could replicate these results in or show a stronger correlation in, say, Vegas (where one would expect lots of tourist $$) versus somewhere in middle America.

Heeeeey Stuart, it’s so nice to hear a condescending and pedantic voice over here. Been a while.

If I’ve “not really hit on any of them,” why is the the first problem you cite the first thing I complain about?

My figure of 200 came from MY ASS.

My experience is of course just one experience but I don’t know how you can call reported numbers “anecdotal.” Here’s an anecdote: “I feel like I always make more money when I’m bleeding.” Here’s me: “NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS.”

And wow, thanks for making sure we all are properly versed in what the Ignobel Prize is.

When you learn how to have a conversation as a person, come on back!