![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anhinga_anhingaSomething seems wrong strange with this.
from http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/108552
What seemswrong 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.
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
Upd: probably this was because the cooking pots were red, and the authors of the paper decided to spin their conclusions somewhat.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Eurika! :-)
Date: 2006-01-09 12:23 am (UTC)"Currently, we are investigating the effects of social-emotional context on gender-linked spatial cognition using eye-tracking methodology and measuring these effects in women and men, between menstrual cycle phases, and between groups with high or low mood complaints."
This is the other way around: influence of social factors, not of genetics!
Re: Eurika! :-)
Date: 2006-01-09 12:41 am (UTC)Alexander, G. M., & Hines, M. (2002). Sex differences in responses to children's toys in a non-human primate (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus). Evolution and Human Behavior, 23., 467-479.
BTW, you might have electronic access to it, if your library subscribes to this journal.
your library subscribes to this journal
Date: 2006-01-09 01:02 am (UTC)Re: your library subscribes to this journal
Date: 2006-01-09 01:04 am (UTC)naively
Date: 2006-01-09 01:09 am (UTC)Re: naively
Date: 2006-01-09 01:37 am (UTC)So the journalist presented it (the article) fairly, the details are correct, except on pp.8-9 the authors admit, that the reason might be color (red for the cooking pot/pan), nevertheless they do not try to separate these factors before proceeding to their conclusions, and mostly ignore the color thing in the conclusion (because the results would be less sexy?). So the paper might be defective (or not), but is the presented fairly. The cute monkeys are on page 7.
Re: naively
Date: 2006-01-09 02:54 pm (UTC)Re: naively
Date: 2006-01-09 04:35 pm (UTC)P.S. E-mailing the lj comments is less than perfect again...
reviewers would do a better job
Date: 2006-01-09 04:43 pm (UTC)E-mailing the lj comments is less than perfect again... - yes, I had a misfortune to notice it already.
Re: reviewers would do a better job
Date: 2006-01-09 06:14 pm (UTC)Re: reviewers would do a better job
Date: 2006-01-09 06:22 pm (UTC)I am going to get some work done instead. Heh!
Re: reviewers would do a better job
Date: 2006-01-09 06:15 pm (UTC)супер!
Date: 2006-01-09 02:49 am (UTC):-)))
Re: супер!
Date: 2006-01-09 02:56 pm (UTC)Re: супер!
Date: 2006-01-09 08:34 pm (UTC)впрочем, я злобствую. Пусть живут.
Re: супер!
Date: 2006-01-09 09:10 pm (UTC)