There isn't a lot of information but I thought it was interesting:
Fewer boys born near elections - timesofmalta.com
Printable View
There isn't a lot of information but I thought it was interesting:
Fewer boys born near elections - timesofmalta.com
That is interesting.. definitely chimes in with the leaner years= more girls theory. Good news for pink swayers in the US anyway:D
Huh. And based on the shitshow the U.S. election is, maybe I really should hold off for awhile for #2...
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Interesting, although I humbly point out we are talking about an alteration from .51 to .52. :)
The other thing I wonder about studies like this is that we aren't lab rats being forcibly bred - there is a component of choice involved in many people choosing to get pregnant or not and if some couples who may have had boys otherwise, chose not to get pregnant (for whatever hypothetical reason one might come up with) then you'd still see a skewing of the gender ratio but it would not be attributable to stress, but instead choice. Same goes for wars, earthquakes, famines, etc. If some couples are more set for one gender vs. the other and some people choose not to TTC (or aren't able to) I can still see this skewing the gender ratio but actually not affecting any of us on an individual level.
Oh! I never thought of this. Correlation instead of causation! If "boy moms" tended to (even just slightly) be the "in-control planners", than it would make sense that the planners might choose not to have kids when conditions were more difficult. If "girl moms" tended to be more open to a "whatever is meant to be will be" philosophy, than they just might have .01 more babies during a stressful election :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by atomic sagebrush
Yeah, it's not a big statistical difference (and the study was done in Malta so I have no idea what their elections are like) but I thought it was interesting that someone had studied it.
Who knows!! These are the things that make me say hmmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Complex Emotions
I actually think this concept is more intriguing when you look at some of the famine studies - while most of them are in agreement, there are two that aren't (people got way more boys in a couple of notorious famines), and I think this may explain it. Who in their right minds would (or even could) get pregnant in the middle of a horrible famine?? Very few people, and probably only those who had the most access to supplies and/or who felt the most secure in their situation for the most part (barring of course victims of tragic violence and so on). Most people who are starving probably are not gettin' it on that much and as we've all seen firsthand even a small calorie reduction can really mess up people's menstrual cycles. So maybe it's actually a principle to consider when we look at studies.
My country has had a war about every 8-10 years for the past 70 and we have a LOT of gender ratio studies done, l will read up on this a little but the main take home message from all of these studies that the year after a war has a boy surge. It's just something we see, in classes in school for example.
Sent from my 2014813 using Tapatalk
Here is an interesting paper on the subject, new and from a respected publication. In mentions sex ratio after wars.
PNAS | Mobile
Sent from my 2014813 using Tapatalk