Somebody is displaying their Viking girl fetish
Hmmm, today is Wednesday which means *flips to schedule he doesn't use* politics, but I already did one yesterday, and I missed Monday, so... *baloney detector dings for the fifteenth time today* Oh yeah, science blog time! Or did it accidentally microwave a chicken again.
Scicurious (who is seriously awesome) over at Neurotopia (a seriously awesome blog seriously) directed me to probably one ofthe worst pieces of science reporting I've ever seen and it'll will have to be in the running for the worst science article of the year (feast on those results, Google):
Blonde women born to be warrior princesses
Oh yeah, here we go.
IT really is a case of blonde ambition. Women with fair hair are more aggressive and determined to get their own way than brunettes or redheads, according to a study by the University of California.
Researchers claim that blondes are more likely to display a “warlike” streak because they attract more attention than other women and are used to getting their own way - the so-called “princess effect”.
ORLY. Because that's not what the study said at all, quote Sci:
1) Men who are physically stronger (presumably this means bigger as well, they tested lifting strength and bicep circumference), and have a history of fighting are more prone to anger, and feel entitled to better treatment.
2) Women who believe themselves to be physically attractive (regardless of strength) are more prone to anger and feel entitled to better treatment.
Basically what this study found out what that people who think themselves attractive feel more entitled, and thus may be more likely to get angry in an attempt to get their own way.
And it all deals with how many supporters you have in your camp:
Men who are strong and women who are...hot...attract people to them, men because they can protect people and because you don't want to get in their way, and women because you want a piece of that. The attractive people can then draw on these social networks in the event of a fight, which might make them more likely to pick one, and therefore to get angry. Whether this is correct or not, I cannot say, but I do find it interesting that perceived attractiveness has a lot to do with a sense of entitlement (thought I also find it somewhat obvious).
That's kinda how behavioral science works, it gathers data on what we already take for granted as true. Though science doesn't work on anecdotes, so it seeks out evidence for the apparent (and maybe the apparent isn't all there is to the story).
Anyway, here's what the article had to say about the study, after speculating that this is why we all like Legally Blonde the Musical and female news reporters with dyed-blonde hair (talk about fucking anecdotal evidence, shit):
“We expected blondes to feel more entitled than other young women - this is southern California, the natural habitat of the privileged blonde,” said Aaron Sell, who led the study which has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. “What we did not expect to find was how much more warlike they are than their peers on campus.”...
The study, which examined links between confidence and aggression, involved 156 female undergraduates. It showed that blondes were more likely to be treated better than other women and were more willing to “go to war”. However, they were less likely than brunettes or redheads to get into a fight themselves - possibly to ensure they preserved their looks.
The research did confirm one theory: when male students were asked to rate the attractiveness of their female counterparts, blondes gained the highest scores.
Sell suspects that blondes exist in a “bubble” where they have been treated better than other people for so long they do not realise that men, in particular, are more deferential towards them than other women. “They may not even realise they are treated like a princess,” Sell said.
If Sci's explanation doesn't sound like the Times Online article, then you've found the problem. It's not. At all. Hell here's an excerpt from the abstract and, if it speculates about anything, it's about the behavior of military forces. Not one word about blonde women being Xena:
Individuals with enhanced abilities to inflict costs (e.g., stronger individuals) or to confer benefits (e.g., attractive individuals) have a better bargaining position in conflicts; hence, it was predicted that such individuals will be more prone to anger, prevail more in conflicts of interest, and consider themselves entitled to better treatment. These predictions were confirmed. Consistent with an evolutionary analysis, the effect of strength on anger was greater for men and the effect of attractiveness on anger was greater for women. Also as predicted, stronger men had a greater history of fighting than weaker men, and more strongly endorsed the efficacy of force to resolve conflicts--both in interpersonal and international conflicts. The fact that stronger men favored greater use of military force in international conflicts provides evidence that the internal logic of the anger program reflects the ancestral payoffs characteristic of a small-scale social world rather than rational assessments of modern payoffs in large populations.
Something interesting in of itself, maybe with the (also wrong, but more accurate) headline of "Stronger, angrier leaders prefer larger armies thanks to evolution". So the Times Online not only dropped the ball, but batted it down a well with a grenade.
So where did they get those quotes from Aaron Sell on the study? The Times author John Harlow did interview him and Ryan Sager at True Slant called Sell up for more information:
The author of the Times article, apparently, asked Sell to break down the study by hair color - something that was not done for the published version. According to Sell, he was able to do this, using pictures of the participants to code for hair color.
What he found:
based on our data:
Blonde women do _not_ feel more entitled.
Blonde women are _not_ more prone to anger
Blonde women do _not_ feel more attractive than other women.
Blonde women are _not_ more militaristic.
And nor are they found to be more attractive than any other hair colors. It's all about perception, whether it's yours or somebody else's. If you feel more attractive, because you think so or you are a huge clique of adoring fans or both, you're more angry.
So who knows how "no" ended up being "yes" in Harlow's head, or even if this was a product of him at all -- executive meddling should also be considered.
Ryan Sager also points out the BBC ran this story with Sell's quotes from the Times article (which you can see from this Gawker post), but has changed "blonde" to the generic "pretty women" which is better-ish, but still ill-explained. And it still says this: "And so did hair colour - with blondes rated as more attractive than brunettes and redheads." Yeesh.
Bottom line: science reporting sucks. Don't believe what you read about science or medicine or even tech in major news outlets. Go to Scientific American, Discover, New Scientist, ScienceBlogs, skeptic organizations, or any other media outlet that deals exclusively with science (more of which you can find on my sidebar). You'll get an infinitely better picture out of them than CNN or the BBC.
Scicurious (who is seriously awesome) over at Neurotopia (a seriously awesome blog seriously) directed me to probably one ofthe worst pieces of science reporting I've ever seen and it'll will have to be in the running for the worst science article of the year (feast on those results, Google):
Blonde women born to be warrior princesses
Oh yeah, here we go.
IT really is a case of blonde ambition. Women with fair hair are more aggressive and determined to get their own way than brunettes or redheads, according to a study by the University of California.
Researchers claim that blondes are more likely to display a “warlike” streak because they attract more attention than other women and are used to getting their own way - the so-called “princess effect”.
ORLY. Because that's not what the study said at all, quote Sci:
1) Men who are physically stronger (presumably this means bigger as well, they tested lifting strength and bicep circumference), and have a history of fighting are more prone to anger, and feel entitled to better treatment.
2) Women who believe themselves to be physically attractive (regardless of strength) are more prone to anger and feel entitled to better treatment.
Basically what this study found out what that people who think themselves attractive feel more entitled, and thus may be more likely to get angry in an attempt to get their own way.
And it all deals with how many supporters you have in your camp:
Men who are strong and women who are...hot...attract people to them, men because they can protect people and because you don't want to get in their way, and women because you want a piece of that. The attractive people can then draw on these social networks in the event of a fight, which might make them more likely to pick one, and therefore to get angry. Whether this is correct or not, I cannot say, but I do find it interesting that perceived attractiveness has a lot to do with a sense of entitlement (thought I also find it somewhat obvious).
That's kinda how behavioral science works, it gathers data on what we already take for granted as true. Though science doesn't work on anecdotes, so it seeks out evidence for the apparent (and maybe the apparent isn't all there is to the story).
Anyway, here's what the article had to say about the study, after speculating that this is why we all like Legally Blonde the Musical and female news reporters with dyed-blonde hair (talk about fucking anecdotal evidence, shit):
“We expected blondes to feel more entitled than other young women - this is southern California, the natural habitat of the privileged blonde,” said Aaron Sell, who led the study which has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. “What we did not expect to find was how much more warlike they are than their peers on campus.”...
The study, which examined links between confidence and aggression, involved 156 female undergraduates. It showed that blondes were more likely to be treated better than other women and were more willing to “go to war”. However, they were less likely than brunettes or redheads to get into a fight themselves - possibly to ensure they preserved their looks.
The research did confirm one theory: when male students were asked to rate the attractiveness of their female counterparts, blondes gained the highest scores.
Sell suspects that blondes exist in a “bubble” where they have been treated better than other people for so long they do not realise that men, in particular, are more deferential towards them than other women. “They may not even realise they are treated like a princess,” Sell said.
If Sci's explanation doesn't sound like the Times Online article, then you've found the problem. It's not. At all. Hell here's an excerpt from the abstract and, if it speculates about anything, it's about the behavior of military forces. Not one word about blonde women being Xena:
Individuals with enhanced abilities to inflict costs (e.g., stronger individuals) or to confer benefits (e.g., attractive individuals) have a better bargaining position in conflicts; hence, it was predicted that such individuals will be more prone to anger, prevail more in conflicts of interest, and consider themselves entitled to better treatment. These predictions were confirmed. Consistent with an evolutionary analysis, the effect of strength on anger was greater for men and the effect of attractiveness on anger was greater for women. Also as predicted, stronger men had a greater history of fighting than weaker men, and more strongly endorsed the efficacy of force to resolve conflicts--both in interpersonal and international conflicts. The fact that stronger men favored greater use of military force in international conflicts provides evidence that the internal logic of the anger program reflects the ancestral payoffs characteristic of a small-scale social world rather than rational assessments of modern payoffs in large populations.
Something interesting in of itself, maybe with the (also wrong, but more accurate) headline of "Stronger, angrier leaders prefer larger armies thanks to evolution". So the Times Online not only dropped the ball, but batted it down a well with a grenade.
So where did they get those quotes from Aaron Sell on the study? The Times author John Harlow did interview him and Ryan Sager at True Slant called Sell up for more information:
The author of the Times article, apparently, asked Sell to break down the study by hair color - something that was not done for the published version. According to Sell, he was able to do this, using pictures of the participants to code for hair color.
What he found:
based on our data:
Blonde women do _not_ feel more entitled.
Blonde women are _not_ more prone to anger
Blonde women do _not_ feel more attractive than other women.
Blonde women are _not_ more militaristic.
And nor are they found to be more attractive than any other hair colors. It's all about perception, whether it's yours or somebody else's. If you feel more attractive, because you think so or you are a huge clique of adoring fans or both, you're more angry.
So who knows how "no" ended up being "yes" in Harlow's head, or even if this was a product of him at all -- executive meddling should also be considered.
Ryan Sager also points out the BBC ran this story with Sell's quotes from the Times article (which you can see from this Gawker post), but has changed "blonde" to the generic "pretty women" which is better-ish, but still ill-explained. And it still says this: "And so did hair colour - with blondes rated as more attractive than brunettes and redheads." Yeesh.
Bottom line: science reporting sucks. Don't believe what you read about science or medicine or even tech in major news outlets. Go to Scientific American, Discover, New Scientist, ScienceBlogs, skeptic organizations, or any other media outlet that deals exclusively with science (more of which you can find on my sidebar). You'll get an infinitely better picture out of them than CNN or the BBC.