Very strange to read an interview with Martie Haselton of UCLA days after reading in The Economist that The idea that women are cyclical cuckolders bites the dust. Why? Because Martie Haselton says:

The work from my lab is best known for doing rigorous studies of changes across women’s ovulatory cycle in their mate preferences and in their social behaviors.

The self-same idea that The Economist says has bitten the dust.

I've no intention of adjudicating here. The idea that women who are more likely to flirt when they're more fertile could have an evolutionary advantage makes sense to me, and might even be true. More interesting, I suspect, is what The Economist's current intransigence says about trends in the reporting of science, and that plays straight into some of Martie Haselton's broader concerns.

One to watch.

Two ways to respond: webmentions and comments


Webmentions allow conversations across the web, based on a web standard. They are a powerful building block for the decentralized social web.

“Ordinary” comments

These are not webmentions, but ordinary old-fashioned comments left by using the form below.

Reactions from around the web