Appalled

January 24, 2009 | Leave a Comment

Category: Auto-Biography

Two things have contributed to a rather extreme crash in self confidence.

A reader commented on one of the postings, asking for the text that notes that six weeks before birth maturation rates are set by mother’s testosterone level.  Finding the link to the citation on my research site, sexualselection.org, the link did not provide the page number in the text Cerebral Lateralization, nor was there an excerpt as there usually is.  This was uncharacteristically sloppy, particularly for such an important citation.  So, I reread Cerebral Lateralization, finishing it a couple days ago.  I find the source of the information.

I then conducted searches of perhaps a hundred pages of my notes, excerpts from text.  Then I scanned Google for the evidence.  I can find it nowhere. I remember reading it and taking notes.

Though there are a number of passages noting the relationship between a mother’s testosterone levels and the maturation rates of her children, I can find nowhere the allusion to six weeks before birth being the deciding moment.  I’ve noted this dozens of times in my work.  I can find no evidence of where I read this.

I am appalled.

In addition, we plugged in Google’s Analytics into my research sites to provide more detailed statistics than the stats we’ve been using.  Whereas I’ve been watching blog traffic move above 300 a day with almost 40% coming directly to the site, the new stats show maybe 80 a day with 5-10 people coming directly to the site, the rest through other sites (often my own) or via search engines.  Evidently the blogging software completely confused our stats software.

I am deeply chagrinned.

Not only do I feel like an idiot, I feel like an invisible idiot.  A combination of allergies running amok, aneurysm, economy and the election seem to be pushing me into narcissistic mood swings of self congratulation and recrimination.

I’m starting to collect information to support the four-pole, eight-person prototype theory of evolution by looking for diseases and conditions that cluster around the eight prototypes.  I’ll find papers that support it and papers that don’t.  Finding a number of papers that support it doesn’t mean the theory is proven.  It just means it has possibilities.  One paper will thrill me with its being perfect.  Another will depress me when it goes awry.  I’ve been here before.

What I need is a model that makes exact predictions.  Everything here has to do with probabilities.  At best, the theory will estimate the probability that a person with certain hormonal proclivities fitting a certain social structure paradigm will contract specific diseases or conditions a certain percent of the time.

If by some fluke this model is useful, I’m having trouble seeing why an academic would take a leap of faith to embrace it.


Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Share your wisdom