DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Discoblog
« NCBI ROFL: Morphing to Michael Jackson
Illinois Tries to Sell Pluto Full Planet Status (Or Just Give It Away) »

Worst Science Article Ever? Women “Evolved” to Love Shopping


women shoppingYou don’t have to look to hard to find bad science writing. Here at Discoblog, we do our best to chronicle, analyze, and explain the worst of it, from the playing hockey with facts to the over-reliance on questionable studies to the always-popular “slapping pseudo-science on a stereotype and declaring bulletproof validation.” But sometimes an article comes along that’s so egregious, so sloppy, so far from anything resembling actual fact, that even we are astonished.

Case in point: “Shopping is ‘throwback to days of cavewomen,’” a piece by Ben Leach at the U.K. Telegraph. It refers to a study (we use the term loosely) led by David Holmes of Manchester Metropolitan University, which “found” that “skills that were learnt as cavemen and women were now being used in shops.” According to Holmes:

Gatherers sifted the useful from things that offered them no sustenance, warmth or comfort with a skill that would eventually lead to comfortable shopping malls and credit cards. In our evolutionary past, we gathered in caves with fires at the entrance. We repeat this in warm shopping centres where we can flit from store to store without braving the icy winds.

The lead of the news article, found directly below a photo of a Nordic beauty staring lustfully into a shop window (since, naturally, when an article like this refers to the “humans” who love shopping what it really means is “women”), reads as follows:

Shoppers are using instincts they learnt from their Neanderthal ancestors, researchers have found.

So let’s review: According to the study, we learned to spend our days in malls maxing out AmEx cards from our ancient Neanderthal precursors. Except for the fact that Neanderthals are not direct ancestors of modern humans, and the two didn’t have any overlap. So just when did these “instinctual gathering” lessons occur? When we were all riding on the backs of Tyrannosaurs spearing woolly mammoths?

Not to mention the glaring definitional problem: If our non-ancestors are indeed responsible for “teaching” us all these spend-happy behaviors, how are they “instincts”?

And to top it all off, you’ll never guess who commissioned the study:

The study was commissioned by Manchester Arndale shopping centre in response to a rise in January visitors, according to the Daily Express.

Related:
Disco: Worst Science Articles of the Week
Disco: The New Genre Soon To Appear on iTunes: Neanderthal Music

Image: iStockPhoto

Share

March 2nd, 2009 11:50 AM Tags: neanderthals, shopping
by Melissa Lafsky in Worst Science Article of the Week | 12 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

  • http://www.reallymagazine.com Martin g

    Has this study perhaps overlooked the influence of shopping carts – and their possible cave-person equivalents ?

    Research from the Université de Toulouse in 2008 :

    ” investigates how such a trivial device as a shopping cart may surprisingly contribute to shaping exchanges in supermarkets. “

    further details and links :

    http://reallymagazine.com/month_archive_51.htm#22FEB08

  • http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/03/worst-science-article-ever/ “Worst Science Article Ever?” – Thinking Christian

    [...] [Link: Worst Science Article Ever? Women “Evolved” to Love Shopping | Discoblog | Discover Magazine] [...]

  • http://women-web-guide.com/2009/03/worst-science-article-ever-women-%e2%80%9cevolved%e2%80%9d-to-love-shopping/ Worst Science Article Ever? Women “Evolved” to Love Shopping … | women-web-guide

    [...] See more here:  Worst Science Article Ever? Women “Evolved” to Love Shopping … [...]

  • Jef

    What’s depressing is that this isn’t terribly surprising. I keep hearing all the time about human nature but it’s really pseudo-scientific cultural observations and pop-psychology. I heard a couple of times in conversations people saying that it’s human nature to keep ‘pushing the limit’ because most drivers exceed the speed limit, but that can be explained as a stimulus response to the way it’s policed, as well as the social anxiety of where the limits are set and several other things that have NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION OR HUMAN NATURE.

    You’d think magazines and newspapers would have anthropologists/sociologists on staff considering how much of what get written could benefit from their work. I suppose the ‘hard’ scientists can share in this frustration, hence this blog posting.

  • Maia

    Boy, you should visit the mexican newspaper Reforma website’s science section one of these days. I’ve read there that a single gene is the culprit for HIV’s infections, that geckos and salamanders are the same animal, and that they’ve recently discovered the gene for being nice persons.

  • http://d-notice.blogspot.com D-Notice

    http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d98/sabotabby/evopsychbingo.jpg

    I call O3!

  • http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/85528-worst-science-article-ever.html#post1447634 Worst Science Article Ever? – Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

    [...] so sloppy, so far from anything resembling actual fact, that even we are astonished." Discoblog – Worst Science Article Ever? Women

  • http://www.theskepticsguide.org/sgublog/?p=492 The Rogues Gallery » Blog Archive » Is Science Communication Doomed?

    [...] Lafsky at the DiscoBlog skewered this particular example, calling it possibly the worst science article ever, which is really saying something. Melissa [...]

  • http://smpctryphys.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/strange-condensation/ Strange Condensation « Simple Country Physicist

    [...] lastly, we have a lovely article [Link] talking about what is described as the “worst science article ever”, in the U. K. [...]

  • http://neuroanthropology.net/2009/03/04/wednesday-round-up-53/ Wednesday Round Up #53 « Neuroanthropology

    [...] Lafsky, Worst Science Article Ever? Women “Evolved” to Love Shopping It does deserve a place in the hall of [...]

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2009/06/23/bad-study-of-the-week-a-social-life-predisposes-women-to-rape/ Bad Study of the Week: A Social Life Predisposes Women to Rape | Discoblog | Discover Magazine

    [...] Related Content: Discoblog: Worst Science Article of The Week: Twitter Will Make You Eeevil Discoblog: Today’s Unscientific Media Conclusion: Boobs Getting Bigger in New Zealand Discoblog: Worst Science Article Ever? Women “Evolved” to Love Shopping [...]

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2009/08/20/worst-science-article-of-the-week-women-are-evil-and-want-your-husband/ Worst Science Article of The Week: Women Are Evil, and Want Your Husband | Discoblog | Discover Magazine

    [...] Lord. From the Telegraph, we’d expect this. But New [...]





    • About the Blog

      Discoblog is DISCOVER's compendium of quirky, funny, and surprising science news from the edge of the known universe. It's written by Veronique Greenwood and Valerie Ross. Email tips and suggestions to vgreenwood [at] discovermagazine [dot] com.

      Discoblog also includes the daily feature NCBI ROFL, in which two prone-to-distraction grad students post real scientific articles with funny subjects. Email your tips to ncbirofl [at] gmail.com. Follow the ROFL feed here.

    • Twitter

      Follow @discovermag
    • Facebook

    • Twidget

      Add Tweets
    • Archives

      Archives

      • February 2012
      • January 2012
      • December 2011
      • November 2011
      • October 2011
      • September 2011
      • August 2011
      • July 2011
      • June 2011
      • May 2011
      • April 2011
      • March 2011
      • February 2011
      • January 2011
      • December 2010
      • November 2010
      • October 2010
      • September 2010
      • August 2010
      • July 2010
      • June 2010
      • May 2010
      • April 2010
      • March 2010
      • February 2010
      • January 2010
      • December 2009
      • November 2009
      • October 2009
      • September 2009
      • August 2009
      • July 2009
      • June 2009
      • May 2009
      • April 2009
      • March 2009
      • February 2009
      • January 2009
      • December 2008
      • November 2008
      • October 2008
      • September 2008
      • August 2008
      • July 2008
      • June 2008
      • May 2008
      • April 2008
      • March 2008
      • February 2008
      • January 2008
      • December 2007
      • November 2007
      • October 2007
      • September 2007
      • August 2007
      • July 2007
      • June 2007
      • May 2007
      • April 2007
      • February 2007
      • January 2007
      • December 2006
      • November 2006
      • October 2006
      • September 2006


  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us