>>8614472>Study Finds>A Study>Who?>What's the sample size?>Where was it published?>What was the methodology used?>Did anyone at CNN even read the paper, or just skim the abstract for a summary they could oversimplify for a headline?>Does anyone at CNN even know how to read a scientific paper?And even if everything checks out - a single study means fuck-all. People like to throw out studies as evidence, but you need a body of work to draw from before you can make any conclusions with reasonable accuracy.
By the way, the study has nothing to do with "crazy cat ladies". It's a study on whether or not pet owners were better than non-pet owners at picking out distress vocalizations in animals. There were 561 participants in the substudy the paper details, 111 of which were male, and the majority of which only owned a dog. Only 31 owned a cat only, and 49 owned a cat and dog. So at best, only 80 participants in the sample - some of which were male. They were also all fairly young (largely university students, most likely) averaging around 20yo.
And as for whether or not they determined the participants were "crazy"... it's all fucking self-reporting.
Basically, the whole thing is just a side-observation of a very few individuals, because they wanted to make sure whether or not the owners emotional state was even a factor in being able to pick up on distress vocalizations in animals.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.181555 
