3 ms·

You're only factoring in parental influences. Kids react a lot more to what other kids in their group (eg friends at school) play with than what their parents t

You're only factoring in parental influences. Kids react a lot more to what other kids in their group (eg friends at school) play with than what their parents tell them to. However I do take your point and I'm not suggesting there isn't a biological element at play as well. Just that the gender element is vastly overstated and in fact a great many girls do enjoy "boys stuff" and visa versa.

nailer 8y ago
I'm factoring in parental and cohort influence: these kids play with each other, and are not in school yet.
- laumars 8y ago
  You’re still just focused on specific examples of influence. What about TV (kids shows, adverts, etc) or stories? What about what kids see when out and about (eg these kids will notice other people in shops). And I very much doubt the only children they ever play with are those who’s parents are lesbians. What about other forms of day care, soft play centres etc. Or other friends who aren’t lesbians? Or other family? There's going to be a thousand places that kids will take their cues from. Kids notice so much detail that we often miss. And the absorb it all. Before my kids went to school they would still continually surprise me with little bits of information on topics that I have no idea how he learned it. Yet they did. However I’m not in anyway implying that a child’s behaviour is 100% down to nurture. Clearly there is going to be a biological element as well. My point was what a child likes isn’t so Boolean as people often assume.
  - nailer 8y ago
    > However I’m not in anyway implying that a child’s behaviour is 100% down to nurture. Clearly there is going to be a biological element as well. I think we're basically agreed here: yes, other influences exist, but there's a huge biological element. Even if you remove TV, other family, etc it wouldn't surprise me if there's similar results.
    - laumars 8y ago
      It depends on what your saying it's going to be similar to. The problem we have is this is all subjective from the outset. eg what do you define as feminine and masculine? Is a toy digger masculine and a tea set feminine? What about a toy kitchen? And to what degree would you say that playing with something makes a child more subjectively more feminine or masculine? Playing with a digger 1 hour a week or 30 hours a week? ...and that's just measuring toys. Trying to measure behaviours is going to be an order of magnitude more complex. So there's no real way to do this scientifically - at least not with the tools I'm familiar with. Observationally I've definitely seen the gender biases aren't as clear cut as some people describe. But that's just anecdotal and subject to pockets of localised anomalies. Plus I have seen behavioural differences between the genders with the way young kids have played with the same toys (eg a toy cars) even though there's been no definitive difference with the toys they chose to play. It does help you appreciate why even the experts don't have a consensus on how much of a child's personality is learned and how much is biological...and that's without addressing the issue of how much of those biological effects are down to a persons sex (eg a person might be wired to be more caring but that might not be because they're female) - which is the question we're specifically asking.
      - nailer 8y ago
        The best I've seen on innate gender differences is Simon Baron Cohen at Cambridge, using newborns - ie, close to zero socialisation (except in utero). Results showed a skew towards 'systems' for boys and 'people' for girls.

nailer 8y ago

I'm factoring in parental and cohort influence: these kids play with each other, and are not in school yet.

laumars 8y ago
You’re still just focused on specific examples of influence. What about TV (kids shows, adverts, etc) or stories? What about what kids see when out and about (eg these kids will notice other people in shops). And I very much doubt the only children they ever play with are those who’s parents are lesbians. What about other forms of day care, soft play centres etc. Or other friends who aren’t lesbians? Or other family? There's going to be a thousand places that kids will take their cues from. Kids notice so much detail that we often miss. And the absorb it all. Before my kids went to school they would still continually surprise me with little bits of information on topics that I have no idea how he learned it. Yet they did. However I’m not in anyway implying that a child’s behaviour is 100% down to nurture. Clearly there is going to be a biological element as well. My point was what a child likes isn’t so Boolean as people often assume.
- nailer 8y ago
  > However I’m not in anyway implying that a child’s behaviour is 100% down to nurture. Clearly there is going to be a biological element as well. I think we're basically agreed here: yes, other influences exist, but there's a huge biological element. Even if you remove TV, other family, etc it wouldn't surprise me if there's similar results.
  - laumars 8y ago
    It depends on what your saying it's going to be similar to. The problem we have is this is all subjective from the outset. eg what do you define as feminine and masculine? Is a toy digger masculine and a tea set feminine? What about a toy kitchen? And to what degree would you say that playing with something makes a child more subjectively more feminine or masculine? Playing with a digger 1 hour a week or 30 hours a week? ...and that's just measuring toys. Trying to measure behaviours is going to be an order of magnitude more complex. So there's no real way to do this scientifically - at least not with the tools I'm familiar with. Observationally I've definitely seen the gender biases aren't as clear cut as some people describe. But that's just anecdotal and subject to pockets of localised anomalies. Plus I have seen behavioural differences between the genders with the way young kids have played with the same toys (eg a toy cars) even though there's been no definitive difference with the toys they chose to play. It does help you appreciate why even the experts don't have a consensus on how much of a child's personality is learned and how much is biological...and that's without addressing the issue of how much of those biological effects are down to a persons sex (eg a person might be wired to be more caring but that might not be because they're female) - which is the question we're specifically asking.
    - nailer 8y ago
      The best I've seen on innate gender differences is Simon Baron Cohen at Cambridge, using newborns - ie, close to zero socialisation (except in utero). Results showed a skew towards 'systems' for boys and 'people' for girls.