anhinga_anhinga: (Default)
anhinga_anhinga ([personal profile] anhinga_anhinga) wrote2006-01-07 11:29 pm

Male monkeys prefer toy cars, females like dolls

Something seems wrong strange with this.

from http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/108552

The differences apparently date far back in evolutionary history to the time before humans and monkeys separated from their common ancestor some 25 million years ago, according to Gerianne Alexander, a psychologist at Texas A&M University in College Station, who led the experiment.

"Human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior," Richard Haier, a neuroscientist at the University of California-Irvine, wrote in the journal NeuroImage.

Variety of toys used

In the monkey experiment, researchers put a variety of toys in front of 44 male and 44 female vervets, a breed of small African monkeys, and measured the amount of time they spent with each object.

Like little boys, some male monkeys moved a toy car along the ground. Like little girls, female monkeys closely inspected a doll's bottom. Males also played with balls while females fancied cooking pots. Both were equally interested in neutral objects such as a picture book and a stuffed dog.

People used to think that boys and girls played differently because of the way they were brought up. Now scientists such as Alexander say a creature's genetic inheritance also plays an important role.

"Vervet monkeys, like human beings, show sex differences in toy preferences," Alexander wrote in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior. "Sex-related object preference appeared early in human evolution," she said.

Alexander speculated that females of both species prefer dolls because evolution programmed them to care for infants. Males may have evolved toy preferences that involve throwing and moving, skills useful for hunting and finding a mate.


What seems wrong strange is how the statement that female monkeys fancied cooking pots might fit into this evolutionary speculation... hmmm... hmmm...

Upd: probably this was because the cooking pots were red, and the authors of the paper decided to spin their conclusions somewhat.

Re: Eurika! :-)

[identity profile] anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com 2006-01-09 01:29 am (UTC)(link)
> The article is certainly right, the numbers are certainly somewhat wrong - let's get over it and get back to life.

My informal observation is that the articles are very often quite wrong in these fields, not just the numbers. And this is something that is (thankfully? because the society cannot correct this without inflicting even more damage?) underreported...

Re: Eurika! :-)

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_rowan_tree_/ 2006-01-09 02:53 pm (UTC)(link)
There is a difference between an informal understanding that a lot of published papers are, to a degree, wrong, and screaming in Washington Post "more than 50% of research papers are wrong!" (and not even bothering to say "in medical field" in the title!). People who understand how research process works are very aware of the degree to which the results should (or rather shouldn't) be trusted.

Re: Eurika! :-)

[identity profile] anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com 2006-01-09 04:30 pm (UTC)(link)
This is not Washington Post. This is New Scientist, which is specifically dedicated to the coverage of science, and Economist whose science coverage is excellent.

Re: Eurika! :-)

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_rowan_tree_/ 2006-01-09 04:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Но чукча все равно не читатель, чукча журналист. Даже и там, где excellent coverage. Блин!

Re: Eurika! :-)

[identity profile] anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com 2006-01-09 06:59 pm (UTC)(link)
Так он, наверняка, поговорил с этой дамой, которая написала статью, и, скорее всего, еще показал ей перед публикацией... по крайней мере, так обычно стараются делать...


Чукча скорее слушатель...

Чукча скорее слушатель...

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_rowan_tree_/ 2006-01-11 02:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Чукча - он и в Африке чукча :-)))