You have obviously no desire to educate yourself on this issue, so I have no reason to do more exploration. You disagee? Ok.Since you are now giving out empty retorts why don't you just go the full monty and respond with "Said the liar"?
Social conditioning is not something to be tested for. Unless you show some evidence that, in the research presented, there is some indication that social conditioning WAS a factor, you've got nothing. And since you have presented none of this... you've got nothing.This is not about speculation. Ruling out social conditioning as a factor in this case as the researchers did is simply mistaken.
Wrong. It certainly demonstrated their hypothesis and until you show some demonstration of the opposite, yours remains unfounded."Hypothesis" is a good term for it, because that is the scientific equivalent of a guess. Their research is far from proving their hypothesis.