Why is the Vervet monkey study "really dumb?"

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 11 November 2014 at 19:24.
The [/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nebuchadnezzar&offset=20141111192418&lqt_mustshow=14954 highlighted comment] was created in this revision.

If you're wondering why it's a study on monkeys and not humans, and why I chose that one in particular, it's because there is no way to definitively rule out the possible effect of societal influence among children old enough to even have toy preferences, as studies in those cases also show that little girls prefer dolls, but in those events, how can we know if that is not a result of preconceived notions?

Monkeys don't have preconceived notions about gender. And that's why I must ask: in what way is that peer-reviewed study "dumb?"

    Parogar (talk)18:25, 11 November 2014

    I suggest looking at the external link that Nebuchadnezzar left at the end of the post. Here it is again, for your convenience:

    http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2006/01/hyping-sex-differences.html

      ZooGuard (talk)19:11, 11 November 2014

      Okay, I read through the blog post, but I'm still not seeing it. She doesn't refute (at all) the findings of the study. Rather she deflects and tries to associate it with something else, then associate THAT with something else, until she's going on at great length about object-oriented vs. person-oriented. But at no point does she make any argument that suggests the findings in the study were wrong or inaccurate.

        Parogar (talk)19:24, 11 November 2014
         
         
        Personal tools
        Namespaces

        Variants
        Actions
        Navigation
        Community
        Tools
        support