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.

[McEdam]

The hostility is directed towards crass assumptions and speculation that is not justified by the evidence.

[dundeemarmalade]

Hmm. not sure about the 'not personal' thing!
MT- I assure you that I really don't have a limited perspective about what science is, I just think that you should be more specific about what you mean when you use the word 'science'. Science is not, in and of itself, a 'method'. Science is a broad area of study.
It is utterly staggering to have it suggested that there are no other methods that 'matter as much as science' in studying the human mind. Tell that to Plato.

I think you'll find that there is a considerable body of philosophical consideration of the old mind/body debate- although as not been held by 'scientists' it maybe counts for nought. The fact that in your own discipline this debate has been 'settled' doesn't mean it isn't still going on in other areas. This is not the place for an extended discussion of the issue, but if you're interested I can try and dig out some references.

I did read your posts properly, and I'm not putting words into your mouth - I am merely trying to interpret your arguments and explore their implications. I think you'll find that establishing clarity is in fact a fundamental guiding principle of all knowledge-acquisition and not solely the province of 'science'. And we were talking about opinions and the interpretation of their occasionally confusing expression (on all sides), rather than 'facts', were we not?

I could, of course, say that you have done exactly the same thing to me- I was quoting from another Goldacre article that itself referred to 'races': if you're saying that race is socially constructed, then we do at least agree on that, but I'd be reluctant to put words into your mouth! I mentioned the earlier article because there seemed to be some similarities in the reported process of reasoning- did I say that I thought that the were the SAME? I think not, I was merely pointing out that the direction of causation in BOTH seems to be flawed: setting arguments out in this format is one way of seeing whether an argument stands up. And the whole point about the problems with the colour preference research was NOT that they seem to have found a preference for certain colours in men and women, but that the inferences drawn from these results can be challenged on a number of counts and should not have been presented as the discovery of something new about human evolution - as you noted yesterday evening, more research is needed.

I don't think people have been dissing ev theory per se- at least I haven't tried to, and wouldn't want to- but I do think it's important to establish clarity about what can be hypothesised about and tested and what, as I think has already been concluded, is only speculation.

[starfish2]

McEdam, I completely agree with you.
I also agree with you, dundeemarmalade.
I am positive that the 'not personal' thing is not completely true.
And the matter was only deemed settled by 'a professor in ev psych at the uni'. Hm .
Good science needs good statistics, but no amount of good statistics can turn bad science into good science. Or a bad question/premise into a good one.
Nighty night.

[Monkeytrousers]

Say whatever makes you feel better. If you can't understand the difference between arguing for something and simply having an argument that is none of my business and certainly doesn't make me what to engage any further. And simply becasue I said 'you' in that sentence still doesn't make it personal.

This was posted by Goldacre recently;

"Public release date: 20-Aug-2007
[ Print Article | E-mail Article | Close Window ]

Contact: Nancy Wampler
[email protected]
617-386-2121
Cell Press
Girls prefer pink, or at least a redder shade of blue

A study in the August 21st issue of Current Biology, a publication of Cell Press, reports some of the first conclusive evidence in support of the long-held notion that men and women differ when it comes to their favorite colors. Indeed, the researchers found that women really do prefer pink?or at least a redder shade of blue?than men do.

?Although we expected to find sex differences, we were surprised at how robust they were, given the simplicity of our test,? said Anya Hurlbert of Newcastle University, UK. In the test, young adult men and women were asked to select, as rapidly as possible, their preferred color from each of a series of paired, colored rectangles.

The universal favorite color for all people appears to be blue, they found. ?On top of that, females have a preference for the red end of the red-green axis, and this shifts their color preference slightly away from blue towards red, which tends to make pinks and lilacs the most preferred colors in comparison with others,? she said.

Overall, the differences between men and women were clear enough that the seasoned researchers can now usually predict the sex of a participant based on their favorite-color profile.

To begin to address whether sex differences in color preference depend more on biology or culture, the researchers tested a small group of Chinese people amongst the other 171 British Caucasian study participants. The results among the Chinese were similar, Hurlbert said, strengthening the idea that the sex differences might be biological. The explanation might go back to humans? hunter-gatherer days, when women?the primary gatherers?would have benefited from an ability to key in on ripe, red fruits.

?Evolution may have driven females to prefer reddish colors?reddish fruits, healthy, reddish faces,? Hurlbert said. ?Culture may exploit and compound this natural female preference.?

She said another way to separate ?nature versus nurture? when it comes to favorite colors will be to test the preferences of infants. The researchers have plans to modify the color-choice test for use in young babies and hope to have some answers on that front soon.

About the universal preference for blue, ?I can only speculate,? said Hurlbert. ?I would favor evolutionary arguments again here. Going back to our ?savannah? days, we would have a natural preference for a clear blue sky, because it signaled good weather. Clear blue also signals a good water source.?

The researchers include Anya C. Hurlbert and Yazhu Ling of Newcastle Univesity in Newcastle upon Tyne,UK.

Hurlbert and Ling: ?Biological components of sex differences in colour preference.? Publishing in Current Biology, 21 August 2007, R623-625. www.current-biology.com"

End of.