Pink and Blue
by MikeGeneFrom here:
A study in Current Biology 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.
So how is this explained?
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."
C'mon, this is just a classic example of a "just-so" story. The only thing the researchers actually measured is the biological difference between male and females. And that's where the science ended. There is nothing in the study that indicates "evolution may have driven females to prefer reddish colors–reddish fruits, healthy, reddish faces." Don't believe me? Just watch the imagination go wild some more:
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."
Why in the world does there have to be an adaptive explanation that supposedly accounts for such color preferences?
August 31st, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Mike:
Um… so they can sell the info to clothing/gizmo marketers and big advertising firms?
Honestly, I've never liked pink. Not even for my daughter (looks horrid on blondes, almost as bad as yellow), my favorite color was always blue, tending to green/aqua.
Just more Anazi Tales. Anazi wouldn't be caught dead in pink OR blue. He's thoroughly Emo, only wears black… §;o)
Comment by Joy — August 31, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
August 31st, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Amazing how far they have to reach, isn't it?
Comment by TomG — August 31, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
September 1st, 2007 at 2:32 am
And the reason nobody wears black is because it is associated with death and decay. Wait a minute… lots of people wear black? Well, I'm sure there's an explanation for that as well.
Comment by Krauze — September 1, 2007 @ 2:32 am
September 1st, 2007 at 4:01 am
Has anyone ever done a sociological or evolutionary psychological study of evolutionary psychologists?
I'd pay for a book written on the subject. Heck, I'd pay just to read the reviews of such a thing.
Comment by nullasalus — September 1, 2007 @ 4:01 am
September 1st, 2007 at 4:21 am
From the article:
Er, many languages do not have separate terms for blue and green. So I wonder if that might throw a spanner in the works.
Comment by stunney — September 1, 2007 @ 4:21 am
September 1st, 2007 at 7:43 am
Mike asks:
There doesn't. It might be a spandrel, or, in the unlikely event that we were designed, it might be a design feature.
And Hurlbert, to her credit, makes it clear where the science ends and speculation begins:
Joy wrote:
Joy,
Your own money fixation is not universal. Anyway, Hurlbert can hardly sell the information, having published it already.
But who's accusing you of being a typical female of the species?
Stunney:
It appears that Hurlbert tried to mitigate any such effects in her experimental design:
The stimuli were nonverbal, as were the responses. Subjects were not asked to name the colors and were encouraged to respond as rapidly as possible. The experimental description also implies that the color samples were selected evenly from throughout the color space, rather than being clustered around hues for which English has a distinct name.
Comment by keiths — September 1, 2007 @ 7:43 am
September 1st, 2007 at 10:49 am
nullasalus,
try David Stove: Darwinian Fairytales
Comment by inunison — September 1, 2007 @ 10:49 am
September 1st, 2007 at 11:24 am
Hi keiths,
I definitely lean toward the spandrel. Yet even if the evolutionary pyschologists insist on it being an adaptation, why in the world think this is the correct explanation? In fact, the researchers themselves raised another possibility:
What I find most interesting is the way this research reinforces common stereotypes that are deeply embedded in our culture, helping us see one place where culture drives science. If we lived in a warrior culture, we could imagine another adaptive explanation "“ females were part of the hunting party and helped to track wounded (bleeding) prey. That might also explain why they get so impatient when men don't ask for directions. LOL.
Indeed. Which poses a problem for those who dichotomize the world into "science vs. religion" or "faith vs. reason" Hurlbert's fantasy-like speculation is included in the Current Biology publication as some type of add-on. Is fanciful speculation science or does Current Biology publish non-science?
Well, adding the evolution angle helped get this rather trivial study some widespread, favorable mainstream media attention. I can imagine that might help a bit when writing future grants, can't you?
Comment by MikeGene — September 1, 2007 @ 11:24 am
September 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Here's a sociological explanation: I believe that it's an issue of advertising and merchandising, rather than evolution. I used to work in a department store, and part of my job was to set the shelves with merchandise according to a planned schematic. In the toy department, most female toys came in pink packaging and most male toys came in blue, purple, silver and green packaging. I think it's clear that in our culture at least, pink is a comodity that is consumed by females, and blue to males. I would guess that it's different in other non-Westerm cultures, and if it's not, it's due to the interpenetration of Western culture.
Comment by Randy — September 1, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
September 1st, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I remember taking a social psychology class during my undergrad. The grad student teaching the class shared his research with us, which in turn instilled a prejudice against social psychology that I have still not overcome.
The idea was to test whether or not southerners or northerners (in the US) are more aggressive. The subject would come in for the experiment, and undergo various tests that reflect aggression (blood pressure, heart rate, etc). As the subject neared the door to begin the tests, a man (presumably) working on an AC unit would "accidentally" bump into him and drop, and then proceed to chew him out, cussing up a storm. The southerners proved to be far more agitated and aggressive following such treatment.
The grad student, keeping a straight face, went on to talk of the various factors that might have caused this - the harsh conditions of the American south, requiring a more rugged people to survive, etc.
The elephant in the living room, of course, is that southerners have a different culture than northerners - one with more emphasis on politeness and courtesy, and less on efficiency. To make any conclusions on the biological aggressiveness of southerners vs. northerners based on such an experiment is as absurd as having the guy cuss someone out in French and then concluding that French people are more aggressive than Americans. This is so obvious to those with even a shallow knowledge of the culture that it shouldn't need saying - but apparently it does.
But I think this is an example of a deeper problem with such explanations - namely that they look at man as being born into nature rather than history. They look at man as an animal, while ignoring or relativizing that which makes men unique from animals. To evoke evolutionary and biological explanations for things as if culture doesn't exist is sheer idiocy.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — September 1, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
September 1st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
nullasalus wrote:
I skimmed some EP stuff and noticed a few patterns. I'd share my hypotheses, but I don't need more guys in white coats looking for me.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 1, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
September 4th, 2007 at 9:56 am
IIRC, blue (roughly equivalent to Carolina tarheel blue) was considered the appropriate color for little girls, while little boys wore red (associated with military uniforms). The switch may have occurred as a result of the craze for putting boys in sailor suits during the Victorian era.
This is, however, a very vague recollection and I can't seem to confirm it online.
Comment by Nick — September 4, 2007 @ 9:56 am