Pink, Blue, and Bad Science
DocDJ writes "Ben Goldacre writes an excellent column in The Guardian called Bad Science, which regularly demonstrates how poor the mainstream media are at reporting science. He recently pointed out the flaws in the reporting of research that purported to show the evolutionary basis of 'blue for boys, pink for girls'." Another Guardian writer, Zoe Williams, has an even more acerbic take on the research.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
A slashbot article on misrepresentation. The ironing is delicious.
That's a study I'd like to see done.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Getting up at 4:00 AM or so to watch the first shuttle launch.
Dan Rather, new at the job of anchoring liftoffs, said: (I am not making this up)
"The skies are clear this morning, so we should be seeing some spectacular entrails...."
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Maybe it is because pink might have a higher wavelength than blue since it is closer to red. So males can see a woman, if dressed in pink, from far away and get ready to show off or think of instant one-liners, whereas if men are dressed in blue, then women cannot see men approaching from far away and might not have their guard up on time to hear the shitty one-liner from the guy...
Well, yeah, it is due to Evolution. All the people predisposed to driving on the right are quickly removed from the gene pool.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Blue! No, pink [SPROING] Aarrgghh!!
Everyone knows that men prefer blue because it stands out against the red Martian landscape.
Women prefer pink because the thick Venusian atmosphere blocks the higher wavelengths of light.