Very strange to readof UCLA days after reading in The Economist that . 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.