Here's another nice one. (I just went to the Psychology section of Science Daily and found this on page 3. This algorithm can generate unbounded numbers of these).
Title: "Aggressive advertising makes for aggressive men."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130228113359.htm
Study description: "Using a range of eight, high-circulation magazines marketed to men of different ages, levels of education and income (e.g. Golf Digest to Game Informer), Vokey and her colleagues analyzed the ads in each magazine where a photograph, picture or symbol of a man was shown. The researchers then categorized these advertisements using the four components that constitute hyper-masculinity. They found that at least one of these hyper-masculine attitudes was depicted in 56 percent of the total sample of 527 advertisements. In some magazines, this percentage was as high as 90 percent....Further analysis of the data showed that magazines with the highest proportion of hyper-masculine advertisements were those aimed at younger, less-affluent and less-educated men."
Further relevant quotations: " The authors argue that this is an area of real concern as young men are still learning appropriate gender behaviors, and their beliefs and attitudes can be subtly shaped by images that the mass media repeatedly represent. In addition, men with lower social and economic power are already more likely to use a facade of toughness and physical violence as methods of gaining power and respect. These advertisements are thought to help reinforce the belief that this is desirable behavior.
The authors conclude, "The widespread depiction of hyper-masculinity in men's magazine advertising may be detrimental to both men and society at large.. Although theoretically, men as a group can resist the harmful aspects of hyper-masculine images, the effects of such images cannot be escaped completely." They add that educating advertisers about the potential negative consequences of their advertising may help reduce the use of these stereotypes."
-----
What's wrong with this? Well, the name of the article, and the apparent conclusion, if "Aggressive advertising makes for aggressive men." However, all the evidence actually supports is a *correlation* between socioeconomic status and the "masculinity" of men in magazine advertisements. Even if we grant the claim, which is made, that lower-status men are more likely to be violent, all we have is a correlation between a group of more violent men and depictions of more "masculine" men in magazines. There's a huge correlation/causation problem here, but at the key step, all we get is "These advertisements are thought to help reinforce the belief that this is desirable behavior."
That may or may not be true, but it's an assumption/prior belief that was brought to the table -- *yet it's the same as the conclusion the paper is supposed to support*! The article, again, is "Aggressive advertising makes for aggressive men." Read the article and discover that's an assumption that was already used in the analysis. Terrible.
So a classic correlation/causation case here.
)
An Alternative to Simcity in the Works
)
)
)
)