Girls prefer pink: official
While boys get the blues
Two Newcastle Uni researchers appear to have confirmed what the manufacturers of "My Little Pony" have known all along: that girls have a natural preference for pink while boys demonstrate a penchant for blue.
Anya C Hurlbert and Yazhu Ling of the seat of learning's Institute of Neuroscience and School of Biology and Psychology asked 208 young males and females to select as quickly as possible their colour of choice from coloured rectangles.
According to the Telegraph, "the universal favourite colour appeared to be blue", but when given a spectral choice ranging from "red through blue and green to yellow", women came down in favour of red.
Or rather, pink, as Hurlbert explained: "This shifts their colour preference slightly away from blue towards red, which tends to make pinks and lilacs the most preferred colours."
The bottom line of this ground-breaking probe is that girlie pink is a biological phenomenon, rather than cultural. Hurlbert said: "Everyone in today's western culture, from parents to toy manufacturers, seems to assume that little girls like pink. Culture may exploit and compound this natural female preference."
To back up her assertions, Hurlbert confessed to liking a bit of pink herself, admitting: "I am wearing a pink top today and once splurged on an incredible pink briefcase."
Hurlbert is, however, not entirely certain why she's biologically driven to sport pink clothing, but speculates the reason "could have its origins in the hunt for food on the African savannah millennia ago".
She offered the possibility that "evolution may have driven females to prefer reddish colours - reddish, ripe fruits, healthy, reddish faces". As for blokes' attraction to blue, Hurlbert said: "Here again, I would favour evolutionary arguments. Going back to our 'savannah' days, we would have a natural preference for a clear blue sky, because it signalled good weather. Clear blue also signals a good water source."
Biological components of sex differences in colour preference is published in the latest issue of Current Biology. ®
I like brown, not blue. My girlfriend, she like brown too.
A girl may be attracted to a pink triangle, or a pink phone.
But... are they attracted to men in pink trousers?
The bleeding obvious...
Yes, there is something bleeding obvious here, but it's the stupidity of Reg readers' comments, mostly.
First of all, it's bleeding obvious you guys didn't read the original research, and sure did not even read the "original press release" about the research, which was further butchered by the Register. For example, I saw this reported in another popular, but more respectful, news organization, and they bothered to keep the bit about having 171 Brits and 37 Chinese, supposedly to try controlling for cultural influence. Nothing like that in El Reg's report. And you guys (with one laudable exception) just jump up and down like rabid monkeys yelling at something you haven't even seen... Now I admit I haven't read it either, because I'm home and can't only access the journal from the university tomorrow. So I can't say whether the study is any good or not. Current Biology is a pretty respectable journal though.
Second, it's bleeding obvious you have your own selves in too high of a regard, but are just deluded in that respect. You think you can judge what is valuable research and what is not; what does not demand studies because it is "obvious and stupid" and what is worthy of investigation. Fortunately for humanity, you are not in control of the process. Isn't it obvious that space and time are fixed and unchangeable? Who would someone be stupid enough to even imagine, let alone study whether time can change speed, right? It's so obvious it can't... It was once obvious that the Earth was flat too... Still looks flat to me when I look out of the window. We usually can not know what some "useless" piece of research will bring in the future. Maybe nothing but pure knowledge, which is pretty good by itself, methinks. Or maybe something interesting and unexpected. We just can't tell, and that's why academic freedom is so important.
That said, I do agree it's hard to see how they got away with using only 208 subjects. Maybe this is just a "letter" or "report", some preliminary research published to get the funding agencies attention so they can get the real thing done whenever (if) they finally get money for it (if you know the academic world and its modus operandi, you know what I'm talking about), but obviously the popular media loves this type of story and everything gets blown out of proportion. Partly the scientists fault, I think, but anyway.
Lastly, I do take everything "evolutionary psychology" with not a grain, but a kilo of salt. I have some confidence in their speculations when they are based on animal behaviour studies though, since animals have so few cultural phenomena, when they do have any, among other things.
"as the women are not trying to attract each other, but MEN."
Er... didn't you know that, in the past, women were the ones collecting fruits and the like while the men where out hunting and killing neighbors? It's still like that in many "primitive" societies. So, if women were more attracted to those colors they would be more apt to see the ripe fruit they are supposed to collect to feed the band. OK, not the best speculation ever but not as horrid as some I've seen before...