>>4338351You're partly right about the digit ratio meta analysis but you're leaving out the important distinction. The authors found some evidence of a relationship with prenatal testosterone measured in amniotic fluid, but not cord blood. They also found no reliable relationship with adult testosterone or changes in testosterone levels. So no, this doesn't establish digit ratio as a reliable testosterone indicator, much less prove anything about eye colour and masculinity.
>The Czech facial studyI did read it. The study examined facial morphology and perceived trustworthiness in 40 men. It did NOT investigate testosterone, estrogen, masculinity or femininity. You're taking a correlation involving facial features and attaching a hormonal explanation that the study never established. Where exactly does the paper demonstrate that those features are caused by higher or lower sex hormones?
>The World Population Review sourceYou're averaging country estimates as if they were standardized measurements. They aren't. The underlying studies differ in methodology, sample sizes and collection periods. World Population Review itself warns about the limitations of this data. Calculating an average from inconsistent datasets doesn't make the result scientifically reliable. You still haven't demonstrated that Middle Eastern men have 20% higher testosterone.
>The preschool studyI never claimed the study found no association, it did, but it examined 152 preschoolers, not adult men. You cannot extrapolate a finding about social wariness in young children into an inherent, lifelong personality difference between blue eyed and brown eyed people. That's not what the study investigated.
>The Latvian studyYes, you used the word correlated. I never said otherwise. But the study itself acknowledges substantial variation within the groups and recommends further research. It also didn't measure estrogen. So where are you getting the hormonal explanation from?
<That's essentially my point. I'm not arguing that every single correlation you cited is fabricated. I'm arguing that you're taking limited associations, often from small or population specific samples, and presenting them as evidence for much broader biological claims. A correlation doesn't establish the underlying mechanism, and it certainly doesn't establish that these relationships are universal. You still haven't demonstrated the conclusions your infographic is trying to sell.