This is, however, a very vague recollection and I can't seem to confirm it online.

Has anyone ever done a sociological or evolutionary psychological study of evolutionary psychologists?

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.

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.

There doesn't. It might be a spandrel, or, in the unlikely event that we were designed, it might be a design feature.

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:

An alternative explanation for the evolution of trichromacy is the need to discriminate subtle changes in skin color due to emotional states and social-sexual signals [9]; again, females may have honed these adaptations for their roles as care-givers and "˜empathizers' [10].

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.

And Hurlbert, to her credit, makes it clear where the science ends and speculation begins

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?

Your own money fixation is not universal. Anyway, Hurlbert can hardly sell the information, having published it already.

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?

try David Stove: Darwinian Fairytales

Why in the world does there have to be an adaptive explanation that supposedly accounts for such color preferences?

There doesn't. It might be a spandrel, or, in the unlikely event that we were designed, it might be a design feature.

The only thing the researchers actually measured is the biological difference between male and females. And that's where the science ended.

And Hurlbert, to her credit, makes it clear where the science ends and speculation begins:

Evolution may have driven…

I can only speculate…

Joy wrote:

Um"¦ so they can sell the info to clothing/gizmo marketers and big advertising firms?

Joy,

Your own money fixation is not universal. Anyway, Hurlbert can hardly sell the information, having published it already.

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.

But who's accusing you of being a typical female of the species?

Stunney:

Er, many languages do not have separate terms for blue and green. So I wonder if that might throw a spanner in the works.

It appears that Hurlbert tried to mitigate any such effects in her experimental design:

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 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.

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."

Er, many languages do not have separate terms for blue and green. So I wonder if that might throw a spanner in the works.

I'd pay for a book written on the subject. Heck, I'd pay just to read the reviews of such a thing.