5 ms·

Yup: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/08/05/3816216.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/08/05/3816216.ht...

ninjac0der 13y ago
That write-up of unscientific bullcrap is considered a debunking? "Even where findings are more robust, Fine says there are problems in drawing conclusions about their implications because scientific understanding of the brain and how it relates to psychology is still its infancy." Typical; when it doesn't support their bias, the field is in it's infancy and we can know nothing. They might actually practice real science if they could apply the same rigor to their politically correct view on this issue.
agarden 13y ago
That article is about MRI studies, not monkeys. Do you have any links about the monkey studies?
- drhayes9 13y ago
  Sure: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/03/entertainment/la-ca-rebecca-jordan-young-20101003 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/03/entertainment/la-ca-... Search for "monkey". The basic premise is that drawing cultural associations cross species is pretty much a no-go; a preference for a "pot" doesn't validate traditional gender roles any more than a preference for a particular color would -- it's more a reflection on our own cultural biases than it is a proof of hard-wired gender roles.
  - mcantelon 13y ago
    That references one study with monkeys. Was it the same one?
    - nerfhammer 13y ago
      One but not the other. What that linked article was about: http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/imagingthebody/Handouts/alexander_2002.pdf http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/imagingthebody/Hand... What this post also discusses: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
  - nerfhammer 13y ago
    The passage in question: > One study of "toy preferences" in vervet monkeys was ambiguous, since the boy vervets seemed most interested in the plush dog (a toy deemed "neutral") and the girl vervets paid relatively little attention to the doll. The girl vervets did prefer playing with the toy cooking pot, but exactly what they did with it was not reported. Graph of the data that passage is describing: http://i.imgur.com/t4R8hH4.png http://i.imgur.com/t4R8hH4.png from http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/imagingthebody/Handouts/alexander_2002.pdf http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/imagingthebody/Hand... This is the study that the picture at the top of the article is from -- however, the monkey study by Wallen referenced in the article appears to be this one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/

ninjac0der 13y ago

That write-up of unscientific bullcrap is considered a debunking? "Even where findings are more robust, Fine says there are problems in drawing conclusions about their implications because scientific understanding of the brain and how it relates to psychology is still its infancy." Typical; when it doesn't support their bias, the field is in it's infancy and we can know nothing. They might actually practice real science if they could apply the same rigor to their politically correct view on this issue.

agarden 13y ago

That article is about MRI studies, not monkeys. Do you have any links about the monkey studies?

drhayes9 13y ago
Sure: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/03/entertainment/la-ca-rebecca-jordan-young-20101003 http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/03/entertainment/la-ca-... Search for "monkey". The basic premise is that drawing cultural associations cross species is pretty much a no-go; a preference for a "pot" doesn't validate traditional gender roles any more than a preference for a particular color would -- it's more a reflection on our own cultural biases than it is a proof of hard-wired gender roles.
- mcantelon 13y ago
  That references one study with monkeys. Was it the same one?
  - nerfhammer 13y ago
    One but not the other. What that linked article was about: http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/imagingthebody/Handouts/alexander_2002.pdf http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/imagingthebody/Hand... What this post also discusses: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
- nerfhammer 13y ago
  The passage in question: > One study of "toy preferences" in vervet monkeys was ambiguous, since the boy vervets seemed most interested in the plush dog (a toy deemed "neutral") and the girl vervets paid relatively little attention to the doll. The girl vervets did prefer playing with the toy cooking pot, but exactly what they did with it was not reported. Graph of the data that passage is describing: http://i.imgur.com/t4R8hH4.png http://i.imgur.com/t4R8hH4.png from http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/imagingthebody/Handouts/alexander_2002.pdf http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/imagingthebody/Hand... This is the study that the picture at the top of the article is from -- however, the monkey study by Wallen referenced in the article appears to be this one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/