Andrew Parker: I choose to believe that those 22% were all just being pedantic about the definition of the word “shell” and whether a cell membrane constitutes a shell. Because the alternative is just too disquieting.

"Two months after Dobbs, 22 percent of adults said they were uncertain whether eggs inside a woman’s ovaries have shells (they do not)." *rubs temples*

Abortion Debate Shifts as Election Nears: ‘Now It’s About Pregnancy’www.nytimes.com Two years after Roe was struck down, the conversation has focused on the complications that can come with pregnancy and fertility, helping to drive more support for abortion rights.

I choose to believe that those 22% were all just being pedantic about the definition of the word “shell” and whether a cell membrane constitutes a shell. Because the alternative is just too disquieting.

I started Googling and, nope. After fertilization a vitelline membrane forms around the new zygote, but that's different from an eggshell, it's really quite separate, as you can tell if you crack a chicken egg: it's there in the chicken egg under the eggshell. Do get "zinc sparks" though.

The zinc spark is an inorganic signature of human egg activation - Scientific Reportswww.nature.com Scientific Reports - The zinc spark is an inorganic signature of human egg activation

"in a poll in August 2020 whether it was true that “most women get their period on the first of the month,” 75 percent got the right answer — false — but a notable 21 percent said they were “not sure.”" It's definitely not 22% being pedantic.

To analyze it beyond a joke (either how dumb those dudes are or how I don’t want to live in a world where that number of people think that) we’d need to look at the actual surveys the article is referring to and I’m having trouble finding either.

I have had to explain to a pregnant woman that no, eating spicy food will not burn your fetus’s eyes; and no, your fetus cannot choke on popcorn kernels if you eat popcorn. I would bet real money that that number is really accurate.

That’s what’s weird about it. In the first example in the article 75% were correct, 21% weren’t sure, leaving only 4% having been confident in the wrong answer? As you point out, wouldn’t we expect way more than that?

25% not knowing something that is pretty basic science/information falls right in line with other research www.pewresearch.org/science/2019...

Oh, I see. No, I still think that’s fair. Most people haven’t thought about it, and are guessing, i would bet. The woman I talked to asked me, when she saw me studying

Whoops, sent too early. I was studying obstetrics for an exam and she saw the labeled pictures and asked to see them. She wasn’t sure these old-wives tales were correct, but had been too embarrassed to ask.

That’s part of why the methodology and context of the question matters. For example: if this is an online survey people are clicking through it’s very easy to click “I don’t know” absentmindedly even where, if the person spent five seconds thinking about it, do know.

The quote is coming from the co-founder of a research company (PerryUndem, they're quoting Tresa Undem), so I'm willing to take them at their word that the question was worded as quoted with those results. You'd need a margin of error of 20% to have those results not be concerning.

Yes, but also bc we know fewer than that think babies are born in shells. I would be pedantic if faced with this bizarre question.

To be fair I wasn’t sure but that was because my immediate thought was “shell” referred to (as you said) a kind of membrane and not…literally, cause who would believe that 🤦🏼

Post