Let me be a bit clearer. Any study of a reasonable sample size that finds a 0% correlation has reached an impossible conclusion. It's credibility is not only suspect, but it can be taken as prima facie incorrect.
you can’t even cite who wrote the ASU study
I don't know where you got that notion. Whitam, Diamond, Martin - Department of Sociology, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1993.
And I can only assume you posted that quote of mine twice so as to point out my typo. In which case, you only reinforce my assertion that you're merely being captious. And let me add immature.
That’s patently wrong and you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. But if you’re saying the Bailey/Martin and Hershberger studies have an impossible conclusion you’re confusing PROBABILITY with data. First clue, DATA is REAL and probability is “probable”.
I don't know where you got that notion. Whitam, Diamond, Martin - Department of Sociology, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1993.
You ask three or four times you got to assume you don’t know. But as to your ASU study it’s really funny because Whitman cites the Bailey/Pillard 1991 study, a study if you remember Bailey discredits himself, and yet you said above that the “Bailey” study I cited had “an impossible conclusion”. Are you a hypocrite or just more ignorant that you claimed to be?