>>9628682>Nope, you're getting completely the wrong idea once againThen what the hell are you're trying to say how Peer Reviews aren't effective by saying stupid shit like
>then we have to reassess its veracity> Intermittent reviews of extant research are important for such a purpose.THIS bit basically does that shit, because this is eactly what Peer Reviews try to do.
> You perhaps think that researchers reviewing a paper submitted for publication would first attempt to reproduce the results themselves lmao?Again, there's countless studies and shit sorta lines up to old work. Very few studies are so foreign and new that another expert won't be able to confirm or lend credit to something else that's learned from a new study..
>It's notSo why do boys and girls even as toddlers react differently from stimuli that is generally seen as gendered interests? Yeah, girls CAN be interested in a male interest and vice versa, but as a whole, theres a correlation toward the stereotype being true.
Nothing you posted even begins to disprove this.
Lemme link you to one of thousands of studies and even a meta-study (which, again, is basically an overblown peer review).
>How Large Are Gender Differences in Toy Preferences?>Infants prefer toys typed to their gender, says studypic of the conclusion from the meta-study.
also, couldn't link properly, but you can google the pages from what i posted.
