1) First, a post from the past: Personality variation by region (USA). 2) Weird search query of the week: "why are ligers so big?" 3) Comment of the week, in response to "AIBioTech Sports X Factor is not worth the money":
As you say, transparency is the key – without that the market has a more difficult job of deciding whether it is valid or not. However they do list the genes and since many of the effects are based on single studies (with small numbers), it is safe to say that it is: a) valid if you are prepared to live with a high “might be right” factor b) valid if you think that a single study on men over 70 years old has some relevance for your children c) not valid if you prefer to have the interpretations actually repeated in separate studies so that they are less likely to be based on chance They say: GROUNDBREAKING PERFORMANCE Tests based upon the newly developed Reynolds Score So what is this Reynolds Score exactly. the test is based on it so it must be important, is it worh $180. Would you buy a $180 phone based on “Reynolds OS” without seeing it? The only Reynols Score I can find does not seem relevant: http://www.reynoldsriskscore.org/home.aspx I’m certainly not against selling genetic tests, I’ve developed quite a few, I expect transparency though. BTW – This is a good starting point for decigind on validity: http://www.trustortrash.org/ Try it and see if the Sports X Factor passes the test
4) And finally, your weekly fluff fix:
