Hurrah! Bad Science exposes that rubbish about blue is for boys and pink for girls

[McEdam]

Irritatingly can't find this in Guardian online but bless Ben Goldacre, he uncovers the truth behind that stupid study claiming evolutionary reasons behind blue is for boys this week. And points out that before the 1940s, it was the other way round - baby boys were dressed in pink, seen as more masculine as a diluted version of red.

He points out the study measured preference, not discriminatory ability - so it didn't show women are any better at finding red berries as the authors claimed. And lots of other goods stuff, too.

Franny, i grew a beard when pregnant with both dses (OK, a few dark whiskers under my chin, eww)!

It's possible that your fascination with pink was due to the suggestion you were having a girl and the cultural association that exists in the west between girl babies and pink, no?

ooohhh but what did you get for babys franny??? the rough or the smooth??

In think in Belgium baby boys wear pink and girls blue.

My MIL's mad Belgian friend told us that, Joppe, but we didn't believe her.

[drags conversation from lofty heights to stylee things]

when i had my colours done, the consultant said that small children have an innate sense of what suits them and that is partly why they are so bleedy fussy.

ds' 95-year-old Catholic godgrandmother says that in her day girls were dressed in blue because of its association with the Virgin Mary.

Oregonianabroad, evolutionary science does not dispute that culture and socialisation affects many thing, all in tandem with biology ? this is what makes me so frustrated; the only information people have of ev theory is from people who either don?t understand it or distort it for god knows what reasons. There is no nature/nurture dichotomy ? it is a false dichotomy proffered by pseudo scientists not actual science.

The sample of the study in question is irrelevant. It is actually one study of many and the fact that girls like pink more than boys is not in question ? that was something seen anecdotally that was studied as a consequence and actually proved right. It isn?t my claim, it?s one of the most obvious and easily tested observable facts. PAN-CULTURAL observable facts otherwise they are not significant. This particular study was actually about, and I quote ?Biological components of sex differences in color preference.? The study is about WHY this phenomena occurs and offers a hypothesis, an idea, to be tested by more scientists, to see where correlation and causation cross in statistically relevant numbers.

I?ve no wish to disagree with Goldacre either, but maybe he was due a balloon popped ? no one is infallible.

DanielJohnson, Joppe, fishie, please get the point about statistical relevance in scientific arenas.

I thought Richard Dawkins might have been labouring the point about science being under attack, but now I?m not so sure..

Message withdrawn

This is a suprise?

Ah, I had a boy, and I knew he was a boy

I had some major hormonal changes, and to me it felt as if my not very oestrogeny body was getting more in balance. I had big hair. Breasts. And wanted to wear pink all the time

then how do you explain the findings that the Chinese participants preferred red?

and where is your evidence for this pan cultural fact??

i agree that enquiry using the scientific method and statistical analysis is the only way to objectively attempt to understand the social world, however, I am concerned by questionable methods being used to explain dodgy theories (not convinced yet that colour preference has been proven as 'fact').

Message withdrawn

Genius!

?

only one question - how do you know a theory is dodgy unless it has been tested? What is Goldacre's problem? He has confused it's reception by the media and it's purpose as a scoentiofic paper. He challenges it - big deal. ALL scienticif papers expect to be challenged - welcome it actually . That's now science progresses.

The China problem (if it is a problem, I really don't kow what you are talking abotu having not seen any paper) is probably something they are look at.

None of this challenges any validity in the process, of ev theory or other science, which is what the opening post seemed to be doing, not when being challenged is the point - somehing Goldacre should have explained better obvioulsy.

Pruners, tell you DH that stats matter in all of evolutionary science. I cannot understand how a person dealing in one facte of evolutionry biological mechanisms of the body can think the brain is magically different - unless they are religious.

Message withdrawn

no idea what bgas means sorry - is it a gang

Message withdrawn

okay, well i'm not even in as richard dawkins apreciation society.
don't forget BG is a MD, and is a good journalist, but he is not infallible, whether you fancy him or not

what territory are we getting into now (thud)

Thankyou Pruners! I'll come back tommorow to see what he says

Message withdrawn

We do not FANCY him (much). He is an unusually good journalist, he has fine liberal sensibilities, and he is one of the few people who can give me (a useless puny arts graduate) a glimmer of insight into the issues he writes about. Also, he is funny.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

That's her off the tea rota.