Just when I thought my oldest brother had sent me a link regarding a (what some may find interesting) hypothesis that prettier people were more likely to have daughters than sons, he redeemed himself by presenting evidence to the contrary by economist Andrew Gelmen.
Amen!
Apparently, by charting the offspring of People magazine's 50 most beautiful people over a five-year time frame (1995-2000), out of 329 children, Gelmen found there were only 47.7% girls (with standard error 2.8%) which is a statistically insignificant 0.8% percentage points lower than the population frequency.
As a horrific statistician myself, and one who was never "on the bus" during grad school, I'm taking this opportunity to cash in on being statistically challenged in order to consider the higher percentage of boys in this select set (vs. the average populous) as a confirmation of my extraordinary beauty. And since few people who know me actually tend to comment on this site, I feel very comfortable that I won't be called out.
2 comments:
I couldn't even say "statistic" properly until I was 25. Ish. Think "shtastistic."
And, as someone who both knows you and comments on your blog (obviously), I'd have to agree with the "extraordinary beauty" part--because you are, inside and out. The sad thing is that you toss the comment out there as a joke.
Thanks Mel! I especially love the beauty compliment since we became friends during my pregnancy "fat" years. Also known as the peanut butter cups at the front desk, free dinners, never-ending margaritas period of my life. What fond memories. Did I tell you I quit smoking shortly thereafter?
Post a Comment