Can you spot the fundamental gigantic huge inescapable flaw in this Times story about dumb blondes by a Cornell economist? Particularly pertaining to his hypothesis:
"if gentlemen prefer blondes, fair-haired women should pair more often with intelligent, more successful men, and since hair color is at least weakly inheritable, a positive correlation should also emerge between blondness and intelligence."
If not, it's after the jump.
Naturally blonde hair is extremely rare in adults. Like 2% of the world, meaning 1% of women, meaning 1% of the worldwide adult population are naturally blonde females, and they're concentrated in Scandinavia.
Whatever he said about athletes is probably true, though. I'm just kind of actually shocked that no editors or peers or anyone who may have read this article before it was published caught the error. I mean, I'm a fake blonde FSU dropout. Maybe that whole making fun of Cornell thing isn't off base..
2% of adults means 2% of women also...
Otherwise, good catch.
Posted by: Angelos | June 08, 2007 at 08:28 AM
Haha, you're so right. I clarified what I was trying to say. I guess I had a blonde moment, huh?
Posted by: lindsay | June 08, 2007 at 09:05 AM