So male-oriend websites should be blue to help the 10% that is colorblind, and female websites should be pink to attract women. I guess mothers are fundamentally right when they dress up baby boys in blue and baby girls in pink.
these evolutionary explanations aren't falsifiable and therefore belief in them is as rational as belief in any explanatory heuristic you can dream up, always salvageable by postulating whatever new ad-hoc assumptions can help the theory. besides, if men are hunters, and hunters want meat, and meat is reddish-pink, then men should go for that color too, right?
This isn't very good science. There are plenty of alternative conclusions the data supports just as well as the one they chose. So saying they did science to support their conclusion is false.
For example, they didn't even bother to try a control: do the same thing but fill the booths with non-food. Maybe the food was irrelevant.
Or maybe the men were just more bored while doing the experiment, perhaps for cultural reasons. They didn't test for that either.
