Grrrr :mad:
QuoteBlondes 'have an aggressive edge'
Women with blonde hair have the competitive edge, being more aggressive and determined than redheads and brunettes, say scientists.
Fair-haired women, whether natural or out of a bottle, display a warlike streak when fighting battles to get their own way, findings suggest.
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences work might explain why many leading women are blonde.
The University of California team studied 156 female students.
The researchers believe this sense of entitlement is what makes them more willing to "go to war" over an issue.
Lead researcher Aaron Sell said: "We expected blondes to feel more entitled than other young women - this is southern California, the natural habitat of the privileged blonde.
"What we did not expect to find was how much more warlike they are than their peers on campus."
His research found that the more "special" a woman felt, typically the blondes, the more likely they were to get angry to reach social goals.
Even those who dyed their hair blonde took on a natural blonde's attributes.
However, the blondes were less likely than brunettes or redheads to get into a fight themselves - possibly to ensure they preserved their looks.
Dr Sell said he suspected that blondes existed in a "bubble", where they had been treated better than other people for so long they did not realise that men, in particular, were more deferential towards them than other women.
"They may not even realise they are treated like a princess," he said.
Scientists say there is some suggestion that men are naturally drawn to women with fairer hair.
Cavemen are said to have preferred blonde mates because fair hair was an indication of higher levels of oestrogen and fertility.
But while being blonde might boost your social life, it could damage your career prospects, say other researchers.
A recent study found blonde females earned far less, on average, than darker-haired women.
Consultant psychologist Ingrid Collins of The London Medical Centre said the latest findings were interesting but should be interpreted with caution.
"People do tend to buy into and live up to stereotypes.
"But this is a small study on a very limited sample group so it is not possible to generalise."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8464990.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8464990.stm)
Racists. :rolleyes:
Yay blondes!
:cool:
Oh yeah, it applies to "blondes", not "blonds". :glare:
What about golden retrievers?
Explains the Vikings.
Don't worry, red heads still have you beat :p
QuoteCavemen are said to have preferred blonde mates because fair hair was an indication of higher levels of oestrogen and fertility.
Who says this? :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2010, 06:50:57 PM
QuoteCavemen are said to have preferred blonde mates because fair hair was an indication of higher levels of oestrogen and fertility.
Who says this? :huh:
I do. :perv:
Until I am tackled and gang-fucked by an aggressive pack of young nubile blonde women I won't believe this.
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2010, 06:54:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2010, 06:50:57 PM
QuoteCavemen are said to have preferred blonde mates because fair hair was an indication of higher levels of oestrogen and fertility.
Who says this? :huh:
I do. :perv:
I bet the local Indian tribes don't like being called "cavemen".
Quote from: Slargos on January 18, 2010, 08:47:44 AM
Racists. :rolleyes:
Quote
Fair-haired women, whether natural or out of a bottle, display a warlike streak when fighting battles to get their own way, findings suggest.
Acquired characters aren't inherited, you dirty Lamarckite :D
In other news, blondes are obnoxious. News at eleven.
Quote from: Alatriste on January 19, 2010, 02:18:14 AM
In other news, blondes are hott. News at eleven.
Fixed yer post. :)
Quote from: Alatriste on January 19, 2010, 02:18:14 AM
Acquired characters aren't inherited, you dirty Lamarckite :D
It's certainly possible through your epigenome. Lamarck was before his time. :P
I've been blond.
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2010, 05:43:16 AM
I've been blond.
The shorter answer is what color haven't you been?
Quote from: katmai on January 02, 1974, 03:16:23 PM
The shorter answer is what color haven't you been?
Purple. Pink. Any derivative thereof.
Come to think of it, most of the Power Bitches(tm) at work are blondes. As their weapon of choice is passive-aggressiveness, I avoid them.
In my experience it's the bottle blondes that are bitches. Us natural blondes are meekness personified.
Quote from: Brazen on January 19, 2010, 06:24:28 AM
In my experience it's the bottle blondes that are bitches. Us natural blondes are meekness personified.
True, to a point. But at a certain age, can't really tell if a blonde is bottled or natural. Just nasty. COUGARS GOT CLAWS MEOW
Quote from: garbon on January 19, 2010, 05:43:16 AM
I've been blond.
Study doesn't apply to blond dudes, silly. :P
It's all stereotyping bull anyway, the prime hint being that this kind of study is never crossgender. How one can seriously apply acquired behavior to hair color in only one gender, while totally ignoring the other one, and call it serious research is dubious at best.
And I am strawberry blond, so I have the best of both worlds. :smarty:
Quote from: Brazen on January 19, 2010, 06:24:28 AM
In my experience it's the bottle blondes that are bitches. Us natural blondes are meekness personified.
Queenbees come in all colors, girth, and boob sizes. :hug:
So tell me, if natural blondes are meek, what about us natural blonds? I've always wondered how hair color stereotyping would apply to males. :hmm:
I tried to go blonde once with a store bought thing.. I went red...
Quote from: Alatriste on January 19, 2010, 02:18:14 AM
Quote from: Slargos on January 18, 2010, 08:47:44 AM
Racists. :rolleyes:
Quote
Fair-haired women, whether natural or out of a bottle, display a warlike streak when fighting battles to get their own way, findings suggest.
Acquired characters aren't inherited, you dirty Lamarckite :D
In other news, blondes are obnoxious. News at eleven.
Not totally exact. It is not Lamarckian to expect that individuals, when adopting one particular body feature (say hair color), would assume certain social behaviors attached to stereotypes or pre-conceived notions attached to it. However, this remain very dependent on culture.
Frankly, this study is no better than your common newspaper astrology. It could have been simply bad PMS tainting the results. :P
When I was a kid I was a violent little shit so...yeah, study is valid.
And it's a load of.. British bullshit! Sorry, Brazen. :nelson:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201001/british-newspapers-make-things
Quote
British Newspapers Make Things Up
All British newspapers are tabloids
In April 2008, I wrote that British journalists interpret "freedom of the press" to mean that they can make up anything they want and publish it as fact in British newspapers. Now another evolutionary psychologist has learned the lesson the hard way.
In the earlier post, I explain that, by the American standards, all British newspapers are tabloids because they don't distinguish between what is true and what they make up. I knew this from my own experiences of dealing with British journalists, but, as it turns out, even the British government admits, in an official government publication, that British newspapers make things up and report them as facts.
Most British people consider the Times of London to be the most respectable "broadsheet" newspaper (as opposed to "tabloid" newspapers) in the UK, despite the fact that the Times, along with most British "broadsheet" newspapers, is now published in the tabloid size to make it easier for people to read it in crowded London subways. Last week, the Sunday Times published an article with the headline "Blonde women born to be warrior princesses." The article reported that "Researchers claim that blondes are more likely to display a "warlike" streak because they attract more attention than other women and are used to getting their own way – the so-called "princess effect."" The Times article quotes the evolutionary psychologist at the University of California – Santa Barbara, Aaron Sell, and his findings are purportedly published in his article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, written with the two Deans of Modern Evolutionary Psychology, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby.
As it turns out, however, none of this is true, as Sell explains in his angry letter to the Times. He and his coauthors do not mention blondes at all in their paper and they don't even have hair color in their data. The supplementary analyses that Sell performed after the publication of the paper, as a personal favor to the Times reporter, show the exact opposite of what the Times article claims. After he presumably listened to Sell explain all of this on the phone, the Times reporter nonetheless made up the whole thing, and attributed it to Sell.
This is eerily reminiscent of my own experience with a British journalist. He interviewed me in 2006 about one of my articles, which demonstrates, among other things, that the average intelligence of a population is positively correlated with the health of the population everywhere in the world, except in Africa. The headline of the article he wrote? "Low IQs are Africa's curse, says lecturer."
When I first heard about the so-called "warrior princess" finding, it did not make any sense to me. Unlike Sell, I am interested in the effect of hair colors on personality and other individual differences, and I have studied such effects of hair colors in the past (although it is very difficult to get data on hair colors because everybody unquestioningly assumes that they are not important so nobody collects data on them). The claim that blondes are more "warlike" is not at all consistent with what I know about what blondes are like compared to women of other hair colors. So, not only do British journalists make things up, but what they make up doesn't even make sense.
I hope American and British readers (and readers throughout the world) will finally wake up to the reality of British journalism: You just cannot believe what you read in British newspapers. I'd further call on my academic colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic never to speak to British reporters. You have absolutely no control over what they say about you and your scientific research.
Unfortunately, however, this does not always work. A reporter from the Sunday Times has recently requested an interview with me about one of my papers. Having already learned my lesson in 2006, I completely ignored his email and telephone messages. As a result, no interview took place. But that did not stop him at all. He went ahead and wrote his article, pretending that he had interviewed me and quoting me at length. Something similar has happened to me with another British newspaper. At another time, a reporter from yet another British newspaper attempted to blackmail me and LSE into giving an interview with him.
Sell did make one mistake, however. Unfamiliar with British newspapers, he assumed, in writing a letter of protest to the Times, that British journalists are as decent and conscientious as American journalists, and therefore that, once the errors in their reporting are pointed out to them, they would be ashamed and be quick to issue a correction or retraction. In his letter, Sell writes: "Journalistic ethics requires, at a minimum, that you remove from this article all references to me, and to the research I and my collaborators have conducted." Sell wrongly assumes that British reporters have journalistic ethics. He writes: "I trust that the Times is committed to being accurate." Wrong again!
Sell does not realize that it is their job as British journalists to make things up. They don't care if it's true or not. It's like telling reporters from the National Enquirer "No, there are actually no medical records to show that Britney Spears gave birth to a three-headed cow-baby fathered by the ghost of Michael Jackson. That would be biologically impossible, for a couple of reasons." They simply don't care; it's their job to make things up.
Update (31 January 2010): Daniel Finkelstein, Executive Editor of the Times of London, informs me that the Times and the Sunday Times are completely different newspapers, with entirely separate teams of staff and editorial policies, which I had not known. It occurs to me that all of my recent personal experiences, as well as Sell's, have been limited to the Sunday Times. The Times has not written about my work since July 2003, shortly before my arrival in the UK. I therefore do not want to malign the Times unjustifiably.
Quotethis is southern California, the natural habitat of the privileged blonde.
Maybe 30 years ago that was true.
QuoteIn the earlier post, I explain that, by the American standards, all British newspapers are tabloids because they don't distinguish between what is true and what they make up. I knew this from my own experiences of dealing with British journalists, but, as it turns out, even the British government admits, in an official government publication, that British newspapers make things up and report them as facts.
This is true, but American newspapers by any standards are dull and don't distinguish, for the most part between what's interesting and what's over-worthy Pullitzer bait.
Also I think our newspapers are why we don't have so strong a blogosphere, it's also why the biggest politician scandal of the year was reported in our mainstream media, not the National Enquirer.
Edit: Their job, incidentally, isn't to make things up, it's to sell papers. That requires sensationalising - not that it's not necessarily bad - but I personally prefer it to the pseudo-Gladstonian bullshit of the Columbia Journalism Review. Give me tabloid insanity over well-meaning, preening, auto-erotic, self-congratulatory Gray Lady style articles.
Though I do love American TV news and blogs :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2010, 01:31:06 PM
QuoteIn the earlier post, I explain that, by the American standards, all British newspapers are tabloids because they don't distinguish between what is true and what they make up. I knew this from my own experiences of dealing with British journalists, but, as it turns out, even the British government admits, in an official government publication, that British newspapers make things up and report them as facts.
This is true, but American newspapers by any standards are dull and don't distinguish, for the most part between what's interesting and what's over-worthy Pullitzer bait.
Also I think our newspapers are why we don't have so strong a blogosphere, it's also why the biggest politician scandal of the year was reported in our mainstream media, not the National Enquirer.
Edit: Their job, incidentally, isn't to make things up, it's to sell papers. That requires sensationalising - not that it's not necessarily bad - but I personally prefer it to the pseudo-Gladstonian bullshit of the Columbia Journalism Review. Give me tabloid insanity over well-meaning, preening, auto-erotic, self-congratulatory Gray Lady style articles.
Though I do love American TV news and blogs :)
I'd say you have the papers you deserve, then.
In the US, we have the Enquirer, so its not like we don't have journalists capable of making up stories. The difference is that the US has journalists who understand why it is important NOT to make up the stories.
This is not to say that I don't love British newspapers; I do. I love to read them, like I love to read the Huffington Post or Hansmeistner's bayings at the moon. I just don't believe any of them.
Quote from: grumbler on February 07, 2010, 01:50:42 PM
In the US, we have the Enquirer, so its not like we don't have journalists capable of making up stories. The difference is that the US has journalists who understand why it is important NOT to make up the stories.
Yeah but you also have timid journalists who seem to be in a defensive crouch when dealing with politicians. The Spectator over here did a list of biggest political scandals in British history, the American Spectator did a similar one shortly afterwards. With the exception of Watergate it seems to me that either the American political system is stunningly clean, or the media aren't doing their job.
But you're right I'd generally never say that you should trust everything the British press immediately, in the same way you shouldn't trust blogs. But it doesn't mean they're not worth reading and it doesn't mean they don't often get the scoops.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2010, 02:00:01 PM
Yeah but you also have timid journalists who seem to be in a defensive crouch when dealing with politicians. The Spectator over here did a list of biggest political scandals in British history, the American Spectator did a similar one shortly afterwards. With the exception of Watergate it seems to me that either the American political system is stunningly clean, or the media aren't doing their job.
But you're right I'd generally never say that you should trust everything the British press immediately, in the same way you shouldn't trust blogs. But it doesn't mean they're not worth reading and it doesn't mean they don't often get the scoops.
I think that there is a different standard of "scandal" at work as well. To the British press (and therefor public) pretty much anything bar sex is a "scandal" because it sells. To the US press, pretty much nothing is scandal unless sex is involved.
I agree, though, that American journalists don't have the balls to lie about politicians like the British journalists do. Not sure just why that is. The American press used to be as yellow as they came. Maybe it is because Britain got all the Australian newspaper owners and the US just got some faceless corporate suits. It might also be because US newspapers are local, not national, and so
have a niche for sales and don't need to create one.
Neither extreme is particularly good for the public weal.
Quote from: grumbler on February 07, 2010, 03:42:51 PM
I agree, though, that American journalists don't have the balls to lie about politicians like the British journalists do. Not sure just why that is. The American press used to be as yellow as they came. Maybe it is because Britain got all the Australian newspaper owners and the US just got some faceless corporate suits. It might also be because US newspapers are local, not national, and so have a niche for sales and don't need to create one.
American journalists don't have the balls to properly question politicians. What's the last scandal an American august publication uncovered? I mean in this year I think the two that stick out are Edwards (by the National Enquirer) and ACORN (caught by a right-wing blog).
Also this is my theory. The US has national TV media - so they're sensational - but local print near-monopolies - encourage dullness and self-satisfaction. The UK has national newspapers - and they are sensational - and the TV news is basically a duopoly.
The Sunday Times is like several of our Sunday papers - so bloated with special supplements that they have trouble filling up the available space and so print sensationalist rubbish for people to read over Sunday Breakfast. Which is the main reason I never touch any of the Sunday papers.
Most of the Sunday editions are also run as completely separate editions to their weekly namesakes; the Times and Sunday Times is not unique in this.
Using the shite examples of their Sunday brethren to tar our serious broadsheets (the few that remain) is crass and short-sighted.
You'll note that the article has been amended at the end to point out that all his problems have been with the Sunday Times, not the Times itself.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2010, 03:57:10 PM
American journalists don't have the balls to properly question politicians. What's the last scandal an American august publication uncovered? I mean in this year I think the two that stick out are Edwards (by the National Enquirer) and ACORN (caught by a right-wing blog).
Also this is my theory. The US has national TV media - so they're sensational - but local print near-monopolies - encourage dullness and self-satisfaction. The UK has national newspapers - and they are sensational - and the TV news is basically a duopoly.
What possible connection is there between "properly questioning politicians" and uncovering scandal? Do British politicians regularly start blubbering and confess all the sordid details while under the stern gaze of a reporter with no other evidence of wrongdoing?
The British enjoy and expect trick, loaded questions from reporters because of the debating tradition of scoring points. The information gleaned is less important than the pleasure of the performance.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2010, 04:39:08 PM
What possible connection is there between "properly questioning politicians" and uncovering scandal? Do British politicians regularly start blubbering and confess all the sordid details while under the stern gaze of a reporter with no other evidence of wrongdoing?
Both uncovering scandals and properly questioning politicians require an adversarial rather than chummy/deferential relationship between politicians and press - even if they are chummy.
QuoteThe British enjoy and expect trick, loaded questions from reporters because of the debating tradition of scoring points. The information gleaned is less important than the pleasure of the performance.
What do you mean by trick loaded questions?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2010, 04:45:56 PM
Both uncovering scandals and properly questioning politicians require an adversarial rather than chummy/deferential relationship between politicians and press - even if they are chummy.
I thought you said one led to the other.
QuoteWhat do you mean by trick loaded questions?
Questions with no right answer. Questions designed to make the respondent look bad.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2010, 04:49:15 PM
I thought you said one led to the other.
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that.
QuoteQuestions with no right answer. Questions designed to make the respondent look bad.
Questions in politics don't have a right answer. If they did it would be easy and there wouldn't be so much disagreement.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2010, 04:58:28 PM
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that.
Then what is the purpose of asking "properly asked" questions?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2010, 05:01:19 PM
Then what is the purpose of asking "properly asked" questions?
To find out what they really mean or think. For example there's a decent interview by Johann Hari with David Cameron about Cameron's views on homosexuality and the gays, which was basically trying to address a fundamental issue with Cameron: has he really changed his party? And is he actually significantly different than he was when he wrote the last Tory manifesto in 2005?
Edit: I also think it's useful because it seems like this sort of thing in the US is largely done by the other party and as a partisan thing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2010, 05:04:40 PM
To find out what they really mean or think. For example there's a decent interview by Johann Hari with David Cameron about Cameron's views on homosexuality and the gays, which was basically trying to address a fundamental issue with Cameron: has he really changed his party? And is he actually significantly different than he was when he wrote the last Tory manifesto in 2005?
Edit: I also think it's useful because it seems like this sort of thing in the US is largely done by the other party and as a partisan thing.
That type of clarification of ambiguity is done all the time in the US.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 07, 2010, 04:00:56 PM
The Sunday Times is like several of our Sunday papers - so bloated with special supplements that they have trouble filling up the available space and so print sensationalist rubbish for people to read over Sunday Breakfast. Which is the main reason I never touch any of the Sunday papers.
Most of the Sunday editions are also run as completely separate editions to their weekly namesakes; the Times and Sunday Times is not unique in this.
Using the shite examples of their Sunday brethren to tar our serious broadsheets (the few that remain) is crass and short-sighted.
You'll note that the article has been amended at the end to point out that all his problems have been with the Sunday Times, not the Times itself.
Hence why I left the Nota Bene in the quote.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2010, 05:08:53 PM
That type of clarification of ambiguity is done all the time in the US.
Have you any examples, something you've seen recently perhaps (I read the interview today which is why it came to mind)?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2010, 05:51:54 PM
Have you any examples, something you've seen recently perhaps (I read the interview today which is why it came to mind)?
He's dead now, but that used to be Tim Russert's whole schtick. On such and such date you said this, then later you said this. Which is it?
A while back CNN was showing a White House press conference on the stimulus and the number of jobs created. A lot of the questions were directed at what the administration meant by putting 264,128 jobs created on the web site.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2010, 06:22:29 PM
He's dead now, but that used to be Tim Russert's whole schtick. On such and such date you said this, then later you said this. Which is it?
Ah, see I'm not so keen on that because I think that matters less than trying to find out when someone's opinion changed and if it really did change rather than sort of prohibiting a change of opinion. Though I've read, from Brit reporters, that they thought Russert was the best interviewer in Washington.
QuoteA while back CNN was showing a White House press conference on the stimulus and the number of jobs created. A lot of the questions were directed at what the administration meant by putting 264,128 jobs created on the web site.
That's not tough. What do you mean what they meant by it?
Quote from: Drakken on February 07, 2010, 05:25:04 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 07, 2010, 04:00:56 PM
The Sunday Times is like several of our Sunday papers - so bloated with special supplements that they have trouble filling up the available space and so print sensationalist rubbish for people to read over Sunday Breakfast. Which is the main reason I never touch any of the Sunday papers.
Most of the Sunday editions are also run as completely separate editions to their weekly namesakes; the Times and Sunday Times is not unique in this.
Using the shite examples of their Sunday brethren to tar our serious broadsheets (the few that remain) is crass and short-sighted.
You'll note that the article has been amended at the end to point out that all his problems have been with the Sunday Times, not the Times itself.
Hence why I left the Nota Bene in the quote.
Hence why my post wasn't aimed at you. :)
I've seen men reacting stupidly to blondes far frequently than with brunettes of redheads.
I never understood why. They don't work on me.
I think israelis in general have a complex of inferiority towards europeans and that's why they like blondes so much.
But then, arabs like blondes even more, far more.
Quote from: HVC on January 18, 2010, 06:33:21 PM
Don't worry, red heads still have you beat :p
^_^
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2010, 06:36:00 PM
That's not tough. What do you mean what they meant by it?
Full time jobs, permanent jobs, etc.