I read the paper† and I have to admit the statistics ("multilevel generalized estimating equations with a negative binomial distribution and a robust estimator covariance") is over my head, but to me it kind of sounds like they couldn't find any results with a simple model, so opted for something more complex. Also some of these results are kind of fishy.

Across all countries, FWHR only had a marginally significant association with fouls committed (B=.291, 95 % CI: [−.040, .622], p=.085). When these effects were examined separately for defenders, midfielders, and forwards, the relationship between FWHR and fouls were in a negative, nonsignificant direction in defenders (B=−.361, 95 % CI: [−.841, .119], p=.140), a positive direction for midfielders (B=.449, 95 % CI: [.015, .884], p=.043), and a more robust positive direction for forwards (B=.935, 95 % CI: [.401, 1.469], p=.001).

So if you are a defender FWHR and fouls are negatively correlated, but if you are a forward FWHR and fouls are positively correlated? That just seems confusing, and doesn't at all support the conclusion that "high FWHR is associated with more aggressive behavior."

† http://www.researchgate.net/publication/264545489_An_Examina...

A scientist scream at a fleas, it jumps. The scientist cut the legs of the fleas and scream again. It doesn't jump.

Conclusion : When you cut the legs of a flea it becames deaf

(french story).

Take in fact that there s a lof of factor as club selection of players (they may prefer a type of face even if they are not aware of) and lot of parameter. Maybe it's just because the one with one type get more attention.

One explanation could be that one kind of face could be the stereotype of a footballplayer culturaly. And when you fit in a stereotype you gain advantage from it. As people treat you as being very good at it even if they are not aware of.

Personnal experience as a bouncer (when you have to look as one ) and a hypnotist.

Link to the actual article is here:

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/909/art%253A10.1007%...

The relationship between FWHR and some types of behavior is well established[1][2], but not completely understood.

Some studies seem to indicate it only applies to men, and other studies seem to indicate some ethnic groups are more affected than others.

This isn't the same as the old theory of phrenology because it is measurement based as opposed to racial biases.

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913...

[2] http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2014-19538-001/

Not super surprising. The more we learn about sex hormones the more we see that they can cause very different personality traits and performance differences by task.

One other famous example is the recent research into digit ratio (measures correlation between prenatal hormone exposures which causes varying digit ratios and aggressiveness, risk taking behavior, etc.) [http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/04-finger-length-ratio-...] [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/naturally-selected/20120...]

Really fun watching biology deniers claiming biological science is politically/culturally biased then turn around and make fun of climate change deniers for claiming climate science is politically/culturally biased.

I don't mean to endorse any of this science or its conclusions. But the kneejerk reaction many progressives have to researching potential ties between biology and anything sociological is alarming. We'd like to believe tabula rasa is as close to true as possible, because it means we are the masters of our own destinies and have equal opportunities at birth, but that doesn't mean we should silence research.

I predict that this isn't the sort of thing that jives with the HN hivemind, but what can I do.

Phrenology was debunked long ago.

Go home, Eugenics. You're drunk.