One problem with using the internet as a research tool became clear to me the other day, as I was trying to remember the name of the study that shows men and women relate to babies or toddlers differently – men being more likely to throw kids into the air, and women more likely to find such behavior alarming*.
The best I could find says this:
And it also suggests a biological basis for the fact that men and women so often relate differently to infant and toddlers, with women more often cooing and cuddling and men tickling and tossing.
This is a reference to the study I was looking for, but since I couldn’t remember the name of the study, I couldn’t find any reference to it when I searched.
Annoyingly, I found many articles rebutting or challenging the study results. But none of them named the study. No name = no results (at least in this case).
Interestingly, when I typed in “study shows men women style parenting”, I got a bunch of articles on how women find men with heavy stubble sexier than clean-shaven men (who are in turn sexier than men with light stubble). (As I type this, the bottom of my screen fills with potential links to blog posts about men with beards or stubble, inadvertently nudging the direction of this post.) When I reverse the words “style” and “parenting” I got a lot of pop psychology drivel – ideological rather than scientific.
But I never did find the study I was looking for. It might as well not exist.
The problem is, you can’t have a debate if one side of the debate disappears from view. If a lot of people are relying on the same lazy research tactics I have been relying on, then we might be losing a lot of data.
When I got fed up with Google and told it to just give me my G- D- study, it offered me a link to “What Does It Mean To Take The Lord’s Name In Vain?”
*See my father’s day post