On this page I read something invidious:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...
It says:
“According to research, attractive parents are 26% more likely to have a daughter than a son as their first child. It is an inexorable process that has resulted in women becoming increasingly more attractive than men”
“Beautiful parents have more daughters than ugly parents, because physical attractiveness is heritable and because daughters benefit from attractiveness more than sons.”
And on this page:
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/feb/cov...
“These are shifts of just a few millimeters, but experiments in this country and Scotland are suggesting that both males and females find "feminized" versions of averaged faces more beautiful.”
2007-12-12 23:38:02 · 14 answers · asked by Comboy 1 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Parenting
Jeez, they have now completed a study on EVERYTHING. I wonder who pays for this crap.
Is it correct, who knows.
2007-12-16 19:44:42 · answer #1 · answered by olschoolmom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If this research was actually true it would have been published properly as a finding. Studies like these need proper funding to recieve notability and no-one is going to fund a study that sounds that silly. The research may have been based on 600 people (thats sometimes the only amount of people they can get involved with their funding) and in my opinion does not show the basis for real results
2007-12-12 23:49:41 · answer #2 · answered by Natalie Louise 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't really matter if any single person has sons or daughters, what matters is the overall trend.
To whoever said that if this was true it would have been properly published, here is information about the article with a link to the abstract:
Title: Beautiful parents have more daughters: A further implication of the generalized Trivers–Willard hypothesis (gTWH).
Author: Kanazawa, Satoshi
Journal of Theoretical Biology; Jan2007, Vol. 244 Issue 1, p133-140, 8p
Abstract: http://libweb.utsa.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23161797&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site
2007-12-13 01:35:33 · answer #3 · answered by sqwish1984 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm, I had a son first. Does this make me less active and ugly? LOL I always thought it had to do with X & Y chromosomes and the timing of the sperm reaching the egg. Now I will take my lazy, ugly axx out of here!
2007-12-13 00:24:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
lol I agree with the post above me. I'm hideous and my first born was a son ( as for the subsequent ones ) and my sister is better looking than I am and she has a daugther. I think it's just how the dice fall so to speak
2007-12-13 00:20:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ok, let me ask YOU a question.....what do you consider attractive??? is it a body shape, a face, hair??? or is it personality and what's inside??? how can a study be done when everyone has a different idea of what an "attractive" person is????
2007-12-13 00:24:37 · answer #6 · answered by 4Xthe fun 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure when they say attractive they mean symetrical. They should clarify that. It doesn't mean that you are ugly, it is that your left side, especially facial features, is symmetrical to your right side.
2007-12-13 01:50:48 · answer #7 · answered by gypsy g 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's rubbish. I'm as ugly as sin and I have two sons and my friend is very attractive and she has two sons as well!
2007-12-12 23:56:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard.
No, I don't agree with scientists. Especially on that.
2007-12-13 00:52:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
hmm i think i'll choos ethe gender of my baby cause i want to have a boy first, you know so he'll be the protective big brother
2007-12-13 05:54:26 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋