Comments | differenceblog: Pink and Blue revisited

differenceblog

Pink and Blue revisited

Aug 23, 2007 08:15

Steve Connor (UK Independent) is only one of dozens of reporters this week misreporting the results of Hurlbert and Ling's (2007) study on sex differences in color preferences. The authors state in the abstract that "there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of sex differences in color preference." While they did find that more male ( Read more... )

yazhu ling, pink, anya hurlbert, blue, evolutionary psychology, trichromacy, color vision, steve connor, color

Comments 7

poeticalpanther August 23 2007, 12:55:30 UTC

Yah, I like the ultra-scientific way they controlled for socialization, too: "Ignore it, it'd fuck up the data!"

astrogeek01 August 23 2007, 13:10:21 UTC

Yeah my BS radar went off at the news article I saw.

C mentioned the other day that he thought the girl/boy dichotomy in gathering/hunting had been disproved (or at least quite called into question) through archaeological studies. I hadn't heard that, but might be worth looking into - that would invalidate any claims toward that end...

astrogeek01 August 23 2007, 13:25:51 UTC

Without delving too far into it, I found this book about gender in hunter-gathering societies in Africa pre-history.

differenceblog August 23 2007, 14:12:24 UTC

I was just thinking that I'd never heard any archaeological justification for that theory, as I was writing today's piece. However, the recent finding that chimpanzees made tools for hunting found that it was the females doing it.

Although the hunting style they're suggesting is really a bit more gather-y -- like pulling grubs out of a log.

x_mass August 29 2007, 11:07:24 UTC

I just wanted to say about the whole hunter gatherer thing - bullshit!
it was invented by Victorian scientist to codify gender norms into the past.

the reality btw is that we are scavengers not hunters nor gatherers, which is why we are omnivorous. Also whilst could you find the idiots who keep propounding the fantasy that we are near the top of the tree of life - yet another Victorian Christian science reference. I could go on and on

sexology + eugenics + phrenology are all part of the same bullshit victorian science - degeneration theory

differenceblog August 29 2007, 12:12:27 UTC

Could you give me more context for the "tree of life" concept? I'm wondering if I've perhaps tripped over it in other forms, but it's not ringing a bell. Is that anything like being at the "top of the food chain"?

x_mass August 29 2007, 12:46:37 UTC

similar idea- top of teh food chain is derived from the great chain of being - another Christian conceit