Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelyanoob]

If there's anything that having kids (especially one of each) has shown it's that the evolutionary biology arguments are mostly bullshit. There is some physical difference (aggression levels, for instance) in the aggregate, although not necessarily applicable for every single individual. There's a boy in my daughter's class who cries at the drop of a hat and is utterly passive. But socialization (and in our case, deliberate efforts to avoid gender-stereotypical socialization at home) plays a much bigger role.

Evolutionary arguments have never relied on every individual meeting some idealized form. What is important is that sufficient individuals reach sexual maturity and have offspring, the rest can die or do random non-breeding stuff, it doesn't matter. To say that because some individuals do not meet the "ideal form" that it contradicts evolutionary arguments is a gross mis-representation of how evolution works.

For examples flies lay thousands of eggs, most of those offpsring die without passing on their genes.

Or 90% of male humans could be gay, as long as the remaining males humans have sufficient children to maintain the population levels.

Evolution is all about the average example of the species being "good enough" to procreate. (where good just means able to pass on genes, not any sense of "quality" or inherent value).

BTW: You have exactly one of each, that's hardly a statistical sample which you can use to make statements about "all boys" and "all girls". They could be exceptions to the general trend, like you said. But that would still not invalidate any evolutionary ideas.

[RedKing]

There is some physical difference (aggression levels, for instance)

That, in itself, would lead to the notion that parents treat their children differently.  Taking that into consideration, most parents would act swifter towards a boy than a girl because the boy would act more aggressively.  If a boy would bite where a girl would hit, the punishment for each would be different enough to continue that aggression... to teach the boy that a harsh response is needed to resolve aggression.

Also, let's say you had a boy who bit someone.  You punish him just as you'd punish a girl for the same thing?  Likely not.  I've not seen it in most parenting situations.  My nieces get off with a verbal warning when they bite.  Nephews get a spank.  That's not to say my nieces don't get a spank every now and then... but it usually takes a bit more prodding.

So....you're agreeing? Not agreeing? Not really sure what the point was here.

@kaijyuu:

I'm using observational data that, IMHO, provies a counter-example to the notion that was espoused earlier in the thread that "Girls like playing with dolls and boys like playing with trucks". Actually, looking back over the thread, I'm AGREEING with you that it's mostly socialization and not inherent gender difference. 

[kaijyuu]

I was referring to Siquo's daughter and the experience he related... so yeah, we're pretty much in agreement

[Siquo]

Empiricism isn't the only way to come to logical conclusions, you realize? I'll accept that I haven't proven anything by bringing up a logical explanation for why things might be (so you're more than justified in being skeptical), but "making up reasons"? Ha.

My gripe with evolutionary psychology is that it's over-(ab)used, often to promote eugenetic and sexist agendas. It should be used with caution.

Pretty much false here, from both of you; monkeys do have a culture, and yes their children will be influenced by it. However, their culture is no where near as influential on behavior as ours is. So yes the initial point about monkeys was valid, and no their culture will not have enough influence to distort the findings (much), and yes cultural influence exists even there.

That... is what I said. I'm glad we agree

And I disagree with RedKing and kaijyuu, in that gender does play a role in toy preference. Right now we've got anecdote vs anecdote, and unbacked claims of monkeystudies. Google-fu-time!

[Reelyanoob]

All this stuff is going out the window due to these fields (the future) :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuropsychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroendocrinology

Psychology is the past people, neuroscience is the future, the psychologists just have their heads in the sand.

In support of Siquo: I've already linked to the stuff on pre-natal testosterone levels linked to sterotypical "male behaviour", and snorting female brain hormones eliciting "girly" behavior from adult males. I've yet to see anyone try and debate those studies.

Males more affectionate after snorting Oxytocin They also read faces/emotions better and are more trusting.

[RedKing]

BTW: You have exactly one of each, that's hardly a statistical sample which you can use to make statements about "all boys" and "all girls". They could be exceptions to the general trend, like you said. But that would still not invalidate any evolutionary ideas.

Well actually, yes. One exception disproves a statement about "all boys" and "all girls". I'm not saying all kids are like my kids, I'm saying not all kids are like the stereotypical kid model that evolutionary arguments present: one in which boys are geared towards games and toys which resemble hunting/fighting/competition and in which girls are geared towards nurturing/group/cooperative activities.

If the evolutionary theory were true, then all children should be the *product* of this process, not deterministic elements in an ongoing process. Evolutionary theory might have some credence if we were discussing "are children becoming more X?" not "Children are X because of evolution that occurred 100,000 years ago". If we're doing the latter, then you're essentially calling my kids mutants because they must have an abnormal endocrine system, according to the testosterone-level argument. Whereas I would argue that it's partially abnormal socialization (i.e. we don't reinforce gender stereotypes as most people do) and partly just who they are.


And you haven't seen anyone debate the study you brought up? I beg to differ:

@Reelyanoob:

I know it's an old saw, but correlation does not equal causation. I'd have to see repeated experimental data with male fetuses with abnormally low testosterone and female fetuses with abnormally high testosterone, and then see their growth and development tracked out over the formative years. And adjusted for socialization influences.

Otherwise, all they're saying is "Boys have more testosterone than girls. Boys have less verbal ability and exhibit more masculine behaviors (in part, because they're socialized to 'be boys'). Ergo, higher testosterone correlates with less verbal ability and masculine behavior." It borders on circular logic with some molecular biology thrown in. You could do a similar study correlating these characteristics with the number of X chromosomes and get more or less the same result.

[kaijyuu]

In support of Siquo: I've already linked to the stuff on pre-natal testosterone levels linked to sterotypical "male behaviour", and snorting female brain hormones eliciting "girly" behavior from adult males. I've yet to see anyone try and debate those studies.

Males more affectionate after snorting Oxytocin They also read faces/emotions better and are more trusting.

Probably because no one's claiming these differences don't exist or that brain chemistry doesn't play a factor, just that they're overblown and magnified by cultural influences.

[Siquo]

Monkey studies (2 of em): http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/why-do-boys-and-girls-prefer-different-toys

Other studies (and again with the monkeys): http://www.parentingscience.com/girl-toys-and-parenting.html

Sceptical view of a study on 6-month olds: http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/06/six-month-olds_prefer_differen.php

However, a few studies seem to adhere to the previously stated one that it's not just gender, but hormones. For instance, I remember a non-scientific article where the writer went to measure the finger lengths of a female rugby team. All of them but one matched the expectation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio).

Reelyanoob: Neuroscience is still not anywhere practical (a friend of mine is a neurobiologist/physicist working on her phD, so I'm a little bit informed), and psychology hasn't even reached the practical stage as far as I'm concerned

RedKing: Your kids are deviants, and it's not your fault

[RedKing]

LOL...we love that our kids are "abnormal". They take after us. 

[Reelyanoob]

@RedKing: In the case of the fetal testorestone studies, correlation vs causation are not the point.

higher fetal testosterone is correlated with typical "male" behaviors. It is also correlated with being male. Therefore being biologically male is correlated with the typical behaviors. What caused what is not the issue. The correlation is the point.

Causation is not the point in this argument, so it's irrelevant.

I think the study in Susan pinkers book had several hundred mothers, so it was quite a large study by statistical standards.

Well actually, yes. One exception disproves a statement about "all boys" and "all girls". I'm not saying all kids are like my kids, I'm saying not all kids are like the stereotypical kid model that evolutionary arguments present: one in which boys are geared towards games and toys which resemble hunting/fighting/competition and in which girls are geared towards nurturing/group/cooperative activities.

Yeah, back to my point that saying evolutionary arguments forces difference 100% of the time is a mis-characterization of evolution theory, and a bit of a straw-man argument, seeing as this is not what the theory says, or how evolution works. Testosterone and Oxytocin for example encourage those types of behaviors. One chemical is much more prevalent in males and other other much more prevalent in females. In General.

[GlyphGryph]

Siquo, I'm going to go with -

I'll readily admit sex can influence preferences. But its all just chemistry, and its a lot less straightforward than you seem to assume. It's more "sex influences chemicals which influence personality which influence preferences", and there are a whole host of other issues (genetic, environmental, and cultural) that come into play along each step of the way.

Despite that, every male child I've ever met has liked playing with dolls and dressing up. (My mom fosters, my grandparents do day care, I have siblings, I at least have a better sample size than one). I haven't met many girls that enjoy playing with toy cars - but I've met plenty of boys who don't as well. Actually, its a rare kid who enjoys cars for being cars, I almost never see them used as anything but people stand-ins or projectiles.

Your personal experience isn't really representative.

What we know is this: Sex is a factor, an influence, but it very clearly does NOT dominate the equation. All environmental and social factors being equal, it will result in a population that tends towards one preference for another, but even then other genes would obviously play a roll.

And worst of all, I've completely forgotten what your original point was. Was it to explain the profession gap in certain professions?
Assuming for a moment it was, fine, but we've still got good reason to socialize away some of that gap.

[Siquo]

LOL...we love that our kids are "abnormal". They take after us. 

I wish mine was more abnormal. My "normal" spouse disagrees.

And you haven't seen anyone debate the study you brought up? I beg to differ:

I'd have to see repeated experimental data with male fetuses with abnormally low testosterone and female fetuses with abnormally high testosterone, and then see their growth and development tracked out over the formative years. And adjusted for socialization influences.

This has been done. Both with artificially increased/decreases hormone levels in primates and measured ones in humans, and those humans tracked unti lat least high-school.

[GlyphGryph]

I wish mine was more abnormal. My "normal" spouse disagrees.

See now, here's the problem. Its not that your daughter is a girl, its just that she gets it from her mother!
(I'm going to have the same issue, I know...)

[Siquo]

Yeah, I was wondering where that extra X chromosome came from... 


 

[Kay12]

I wish mine was more abnormal. My "normal" spouse disagrees.

See now, here's the problem. Its not that your daughter is a girl, its just that she gets it from her mother!
(I'm going to have the same issue, I know...)

Sex is determined by the sperm, not the ovum. Just saying.