AAA (abdominal aortic aneurysm) is definitely an important one and came up on the women’s post as well. I considered anything that has to do with smoking (AAA ultrasound, chest CT, etc) as a behavior related screening. Because there are so many of those (the entire list of possible screening tests can be found here),…

Lung cancer screening is one of those behavior based tests. The USPTF recommends that adults age 55-80 with a history of smoking get a CT scan. If you’re a man, they recommend a one time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms between the ages of 65 and 75. There may be other recommendations but unfortunatly I don’t…

That’s actually not unreasonable. The risk of cervical cancer not caused by HPV is very low — if she really is completely abstinent, not having a pap yet isn’t necessarily a crisis situation. There is no evidence that pelvic exams are necessary. As long as she will go to one if any problems arise, I think it’s a…

This is a really great comment and something I didn’t get into at all, so thanks for bringing it up. A lot of reasons for organ donation are preventable with effective health care and if we improved access to care across the board, we would theoretically be able to decrease demand. Almost all of the conversation…

They are incredibly convincing and that’s what’s so scary. It is very challenging for dry science to cut through impassioned stories about peoples’ struggles with their children. Unfortunately with time it seems we will be reading more stories from the other side, like this from Roald Dahl.

I don’t know enough about fracking or nuclear energy to speak to it, but if anyone in the democratic debate says GMOs are bad for you, I promise it will make this response look calm.

shhhhhh. They’re listening

You’re being generous. It’s not heavily biased — it’s completely and unabashedly biased in favor of science and research.

You’re good, it’s on me. Somewhere in the revision the fact that it was every spring from 6th to 9th grade got lost in the shuffle. I was confused by your confusion until I went back and saw that got cut.

It tracks two cohorts of students five times — the fall of 6th grade and then every subsequent spring through 9th grade.

It’s true, using the terms interchangeably does lead to all kinds of issues when comparing/contrasting findings. I think most people equate young adolescents with middle, adolescents with high school, and late with college but it’s unfortunate that researchers don’t stick in a lane. I, too, am plagued with research…

Because it was longitudinal (that is, the same group over time) they were able to see how the kids were accepted by their peers before and after they had sex. That would suggest that the sex came before the change in peer relationships, but this study design cannot prove causality. That said, teenagers are horrible…

It is a key stage. I obviously can’t speak for the authors, but here’s my best interpretation. This team was specifically looking at young adolescence — they chose to operationalize it as middle school aged (roughly 11 to 14). Since the majority of the research on peer acceptance and sex is done on college and high…

Yeah, but she didn’t become friends with him specifically to get with him — They were friend-friends (before the movie starts), she fell in love, she was worried she was friend zoned, then it’s was all OK because he gave her the earrings. Right? If not, it is definitely time for a rewatch.

No, I’m game for debate. I read Jezebel and was completely horrified to see someone here call me an MRA, so I’m glad for the opportunity to clarify!

Ah, OK perfect. Sorry for misreading! That was totally what I meant. It’s not about becoming friends specifically to ultimately get laid, but rather that relationships can develop out of friendships and transcend some of the things that people tend to use as deciding factors in relationships with comparative strangers…

Hi! So, nothing about the study suggested a fake friendship will do it. To me, the friend zone is when someone genuinely, with no ulterior motive, become friends with someone and later fears that they will never be seen as a romantic possibility (think Some Kind of Wonderful). This study suggests that’s not the case.

OK, so if it came off that way (and it seems it did), then that’s obviously on me, so let me clarify. There is nothing in the study that suggests that anything but a genuine friendship will lead to this — it’s not about being fakely supportive, it’s being a friend. And this isn’t a “how to” so much as a “isn’t this…

In Myrick’s defense, that word is not from the study. It amuses me so I used it instead of saying “people who own cats and dogs.” Never though of it as a nonsense word — just more urban dictionary than OED.

Exactly.