Toy choice preference innate?

[ArmorPierce]

Found an interesting albeit a bit old article. Anyone have any opinions on it? Seems to make sense to me. After all, we do classify 'play' for many animals as them merely getting ready for their adult life and thus the play would differ from species to species, such as antelope prancing around vs cat pouncing on each other.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/femal ... 01220.html

THE GIST
Some young female chimps treat sticks like dolls, handling them in a manner that evokes maternal play.
The study presents the first evidence of an animal species in the wild in which object play differs between males and females.
Scientists now think there is a biological basis behind toy choices among all primates, including humans.
enlarge
A female chimpanzee holds a stick that was treated like a doll. Click to enlarge this image.
Sonya Kahlenberg

Since young male chimps were less inclined to play dollies, the authors say their study presents the first evidence of an animal species in the wild in which play differs between males and females.

"Our data fit with previous studies of humans and other primates to suggest that there is something innate that predisposes girls and boys to react differently to the same objects," co-author Sonya Kahlenberg of Bates College told Discovery News.

The new observations, published in the latest Current Biology, come from Kahlenberg and colleague Richard Wrangham's 14 years of studying the Kanyawara chimpanzee community in Kibale National Park, Uganda. The researchers determined both male and female chimps use sticks in four primary ways: as probes when trying to find honey or water, as props or weapons in aggressive encounters, during solitary or social play, and as doll-like objects.

Males of all ages were more likely to use the sticks as weapons, while females were more inclined to treat sticks as dolls. There were some notable exceptions, however.

"The most striking example was actually an 8-year-old male who took a log into a nest and played the 'airplane game,'" Wrangham of Harvard University told Discovery News. "He laid on his back holding the log above him on the palms of his feet and hands, and moved it from side to side."

"This airplane game is something that humans do with their infants, and chimpanzee mothers do also," he added. "Later this male, Kakama, made a small nest and put the log in it, before going back to this own nest."

When presented with what the researchers call "sex-stereotyped" toys, monkeys also display clear preferences, according to the scientists.

Wrangham explained prior research determined that when young vervet monkeys were presented with toy cars, balls, cooking pots and dolls, the females mostly went for the pots and dolls while the males gravitated toward the cars and balls.

A separate study on rhesus monkeys found that males preferred wheeled toys while females went for plush ones. When given picture books and toy dogs, no such sexual preferences were detected.

Joyce Benenson, associate professor of psychology at Emmanuel College, has performed related research.

Benenson told Discovery News that the new "findings illuminate the biological mechanisms underlying children's toy preferences" since "chimpanzees are not socialized to play with sticks in different ways, just because they happen to be male or female."

She added, "My own research supports the findings and suggests additionally a biological basis for human sex differences."

Wrangham and Kahlenberg agree that "biological predilection" appears to be involved in both toy selection and forms of play among human and non-human primate males and females.

It even could be the case that such sex differences, along with doll games, are more common in the animal kingdom than previously thought.

"I once watched a young killer whale playing with a stick for a long time, and earlier this year I watched a lion cub playing with a stick in Ngorongoro Crater," Kahlenberg said.

"Maybe there are some other species in which object play is more human-like than we are used to thinking."

[Sea Skimmer]

It doesn’t seem surprising to me at all, but it is nice to see it being actually demonstrated. Of course the question could already be raised, do chimpanzee parents treat different sexes different from birth as humans are inclined to do? This still could have a strong nurturing aspect involved, but 14 years of study seems like a good start for proving a link beyond that.

[madd0ct0r]

I want to know why the hell either sex of chimpanzees would react differently to a cooking pot.

[ArmorPierce]

Well it was vervet monkeys which reacted differently to cooking pots being citied as prior research.

[madd0ct0r]

I do not have sufficient sarcasm available to reply to that.
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
One suggestion I've seen regarding this trial is that the monkeys just wanted to please the researchers.
unintentional confirmation bias yadda yadda yadda.

[MrDakka]

Doesn't surprise me.

Go to any kindergarten class and you'll see the difference in the toys girls and boys play with. I remember as a little kid, all I did was play with Legos, Hot Wheels, water guns, pretend to sword fight and play kickball.

Hell isn't this what every kindergarten schoolboy does at recess?

[Eleas]

Doesn't surprise me.

Go to any kindergarten class and you'll see the difference in the toys girls and boys play with. I remember as a little kid, all I did was play with Legos, Hot Wheels, water guns, pretend to sword fight and play kickball.

Hell isn't this what every kindergarten schoolboy does at recess?

Vroom, vroom. Thog don't know what this thing with the wheels is, but it feel good to pretend it something called 'car'.

[Akhlut]

While I think that the evidence suggests there are differences in the way male brains and female brains operate, I'd say that there is a severe degree of overlap between the sexes as far as toys go if one were in an environment that did not try to funnel kids to masculine toys or feminine toys.

However, given what I've read, I'd imagine we'd see boys tending toward more violent toys (toy weapons and games involving conflict and pretend death) and girls more toward nurturing (dolls and playing house), though there would be a bit of overlap between the two. However, I'd fully expect that both sexes would be very interested in playing with building toys or other tool based toys (Lego, blocks, etc.).

Why might I come to these conclusions? Well, I'd suspect that males would tend toward violent toys and games because all evidence suggests that males are inherently more violent than females and tend to work in coalitional groups that utilize violent means. I'd suspect females would tend toward nuturing toys and games because most evidence suggests women were doing most of that work for as long as we've been humans because of how reproduction works (women are always certain they are the mother of their offspring, men lack that certainity, so women will tend to invest more into their children then men). Both would be interested in tools and building because that skillset is equally useful to both sexes. However, in most modern societies, most toys having to do with building things are discouraged to female children.

[Formless]

Why does every thread about gender differences need to rehash the same boring stereotypes every single time? Oh, but of course saying "men are more aggressive/violent" is not sexist whereas stereotypes about women would be called bullshit in about two seconds. I forgot.

(hint: where it comes to threads about human nature, vague allusions to "all evidence" are IMO bullcrap until proven otherwise. Too many people think they are qualified to comment, not enough really are)

[Surlethe]

Huh. While we're trading anecdotes about playing with cars and squirt guns in kindergarten, let me add to the conversation. My daughter absolutely loves construction equipment and cars. I found a youtube video yesterday of someone speed-drawing a car. She watched fascinatedly. She also loves trains in general and Thomas the Tank Engine in particular (although she liked trains first). We watch Symphony of Science music videos together, and the introduction of one has a car driving by a windmill. "Car! CAR!" She didn't want to watch any of the others after that was done, just wanted to go back and watch that intro again. Did I mention she loves construction equipment? "TRACTOR!"

So are we done trading anecdotes now?

[Serafina]

Even if we follow the stereotypes of "men are more aggressive, women more nurturing" * then most stereotypic boy toys would not classify as such based on them.
*(which do have at least some evidence behind it, but most of it appears to be due to post-puberty-onset hormone levels and even then it's just a statistical nudge)

After all, what does construction equipment have to do with being aggressive? How are cars, railways and other means of transportation related to aggression? Why should computer sciences be considered male interests, since they involve no aggression? And so on and so on.

Most gender-categories for toys are clearly socially constructed. Girls MIGHT be more interested in toys which can simulate nurturing activities, and boys MIGHT be more interested in toys which can simulate aggressive activities due to evolutionary reasons, but a large amount of supposedly male toys do neither. So why are they considered male toys in the first place? This is quite simply a remnant of the "women belong in the kitchen"-thinking that was (and still is) prevalent in western (and other) cultures. Male toys prepare for bread-winning activities, female toys for bread-making activities (and feeding said bread to children).

Another underlying reason is evident in advertisements for children's toys: Male toys tend to be presented as highly technological, requiring creativity and versatility. Female toys are presented as "magical" and tend to have a specific function. Or in other words: Men are supposed to be creative and versatile, inquiring the functions of things and understand them. Women are just supposed to do what they are told.

This is quite problematic, because it enforces the underlying stereotypes in children. It can also limit their development, after all toys are supposed to develop certain skills.

[Akhlut]

Why does every thread about gender differences need to rehash the same boring stereotypes every single time? Oh, but of course saying "men are more aggressive/violent" is not sexist whereas stereotypes about women would be called bullshit in about two seconds. I forgot.

(hint: where it comes to threads about human nature, vague allusions to "all evidence" are IMO bullcrap until proven otherwise. Too many people think they are qualified to comment, not enough really are)

Seeing as I don't currently have my copy of The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker on hand at the moment, I can't really provide a few quotes and sources from his chapter on genders, but I will say that men are much, much, much more violent than women and that is about as concrete a proof on human behavior as one can get.

For instance, let us examine incarceration rates.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus09.pdf

Differences in incarceration rates are absolutely absurd: 2 million men incarcerated versus 200,000 women.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm

Males were also responsible for 88% of homicides in the United States in 2005. While that is at the extremes of human behavior, it also serves to illustrate a useful point in this discussion: males are more likely to make use of violence than females.

Also, history shows that nearly every instance of warfare was dominated by males fighting males.

Even if we follow the stereotypes of "men are more aggressive, women more nurturing" * then most stereotypic boy toys would not classify as such based on them.
*(which do have at least some evidence behind it, but most of it appears to be due to post-puberty-onset hormone levels and even then it's just a statistical nudge)

I know you're aware that there are structural differences in the brain that differ by sex. It's mostly minor and doesn't affect most behavior (everyone needs to eat, talk, and engage in various other social functions), but it would differ enough to help out with later differences that hormones will affect.

After all, what does construction equipment have to do with being aggressive? How are cars, railways and other means of transportation related to aggression? Why should computer sciences be considered male interests, since they involve no aggression? And so on and so on.

Those differences are going to be driven almost entirely by socialization, I would think. Girls and women being pushed away from things thought to be "too technical" or "too masculine" for them to engage in.

This is quite problematic, because it enforces the underlying stereotypes in children. It can also limit their development, after all toys are supposed to develop certain skills.

That is problematic, yes, and quite frustrating.


There's also the problem that most people think that if someone brings up differences between sexes, then one must automatically sort everything into some sort of gender binary and there can never be any bleed over or anything between them, forever and ever, amen. About all I'd argue is that for the majority of behaviors, males and females have near identical needs and thus won't differ (or, at least, not differ greatly), and on actual differences (generally brought about by anatomy or raising children), the differences are going to be overlapping bell curves with tails trending toward one direction or another depending on sex.

For instance, just because a male is more uncertain of paternity than a female is of maternity of a child does not mean human males are forever barred from any and all parental investment. It just means that there is a greater chance of less parental involvement depending on circumstances. If paternity is mostly certain, then the father is likely to engage in an amount of parental investment similar to the mother, whereas if paternity is uncertain, then parental investmenti s likely to be a great deal less than what the mother provides.

Similarly, while males might be more likely to engage in coalitional violence and thus engage in play that features that sort of thing, that doesn't mean that boys will never play nuturing games, nor that girls will never play games featuring violence, simply that boys will tend toward one style of play, girls another.

[Formless]

For instance, let us examine incarceration rates.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus09.pdf

Differences in incarceration rates are absolutely absurd: 2 million men incarcerated versus 200,000 women.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm

Males were also responsible for 88% of homicides in the United States in 2005. While that is at the extremes of human behavior, it also serves to illustrate a useful point in this discussion: males are more likely to make use of violence than females.

Also, history shows that nearly every instance of warfare was dominated by males fighting males.

And this must be because of biology, and not culture. Right.

I'm sorry, but do you know anything about statistical analysis? Here's a free one: correlation =! causation.

[Akhlut]

And this must be because of biology, and not culture. Right.

Culture is younger than biology. Humans did not spring forth from the aether, completely able to write his own behavior up from scratch. While there is considerable variation in human behavior, there are certain universals, including coalitional violence by males and men being more violent than women. Culture can modify human behavior, but it can't completely overthrow it. Further, if it is universal accross all cultures, then perhaps it has something to do with innate human behavior.

Or is the idea that we're animals somehow a terrible heresy for you?

I'm sorry, but do you know anything about statistical analysis? Here's a free one: correlation =! causation.

Interestingly, humans exhibit similar sex/weight difference ratios as most other great apes and humans generally fall inbetween chimpanzees and bonobos in that ratio (more similar to chimps than bonobos, though), and, oddly enough, the more exaggerated the sex/weight difference, the more violent the males are. Gorillas, orangutans, chimps, and humans all have males which are more violent than females, as opposed to gibbons and bonobos, where males are relatively pacifistic.

Again: don't have current access to The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, but a quick check on the Google Books version reveals that Chapter 18 is where you want to go if you wish to look at that before I can hunt for it at home sometime this evening (if I'm not busy with things more important than interwebz arguments).

[Formless]

Culture is younger than biology. Humans did not spring forth from the aether, completely able to write his own behavior up from scratch. While there is considerable variation in human behavior, there are certain universals, including coalitional violence by males and men being more violent than women. Culture can modify human behavior, but it can't completely overthrow it. Further, if it is universal accross all cultures, then perhaps it has something to do with innate human behavior.

Or is the idea that we're animals somehow a terrible heresy for you?

How about no. You are underestimating the effects of culture/socialization/learning in animals, dumbshit. Since when did animals spring forth as fully programmed robots? Are you really this goddamn reactionary? Culture, socialization and learning are not unique to us. Or do you have some sort of filter in your head that sorts out anything that doesn't conform to your cultural expectations?

And this is the third time you've resorted to bullshit pop-psych cliche`. I'm waiting to be impressed.

Interestingly, humans exhibit similar sex/weight difference ratios as most other great apes and humans generally fall inbetween chimpanzees and bonobos in that ratio (more similar to chimps than bonobos, though), and, oddly enough, the more exaggerated the sex/weight difference, the more violent the males are. Gorillas, orangutans, chimps, and humans all have males which are more violent than females, as opposed to gibbons and bonobos, where males are relatively pacifistic.

Again: don't have current access to The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, but a quick check on the Google Books version reveals that Chapter 18 is where you want to go if you wish to look at that before I can hunt for it at home sometime this evening (if I'm not busy with things more important than interwebz arguments).

So? And? (increases bullshit pop-psych cliche` count by two...) Your body frame does not determine your temperament, idiot, beyond perhaps a small effect due to height that is as likely as not related to your height relative to the group average you live in (that is, the effect is due to compensating for what you lack). In fact, I can turn this same fact around and turn it against you: women are less likely to get physically aggressive because they lack the means to do so. Hence why you see more men go to prison for highly violent crimes like assault and murder. But... everyday aggression is NOT assault and murder unless you happen to be particularly unlucky at geographic lottery when you were born.

To illustrate, consider this anecdote (and note that I am only using it to illustrate what I am talking about, not as evidence of any particular phenomenon): when I was in school, I got bullied by people of both genders. In time, it was actually the female bullies I found I hated the most. Why? Because they specifically avoided getting physical themselves and were actually a damn slight more effective as bullies because of it. Instead, it was all ostracization, mockery, and a lot of other bullshit that was a lot harder for anyone to stop them from doing. And if they wanted to see a fight, you know what they did? They had male friends. Put two and two together.

[Singular Intellect]

I want to know why the hell either sex of chimpanzees would react differently to a cooking pot.

My intial idea for an answer would be that a cooking pot is a holder that could conceivably hold an infant and females would be more likely to recognize, appreciate and exploit that concept.

[DudeGuyMan]

stuff

"What evidence do you have that males are more aggressive than females? Other than their behavior in pretty much every single human society across the world throughout all of history, I mean? Oh and beside even the behavior of animal species closely related to humans? Except for all of those things, you have no evidence! It could all be down to culture! Yes even the monkey behavior! Damn sexist monkey culture!"

If you don't think men are more violent than women, then... then... I just don't know what to tell you, except welcome to the planet Earth because it's clearly your first day.

[Formless]

stuff

Already I can see you haven't spent one second actually reading or comprehending my arguments.

If you don't think men are more violent than women, then... then... I just don't know what to tell you, except welcome to the planet Earth because it's clearly your first day.

Welcome to the world of science where "common sense" isn't good enough. Seriously? Fuck off. That is all I have to say to an idiotic sack of shit like you.

[madd0ct0r]

I want to know why the hell either sex of chimpanzees would react differently to a cooking pot.

My intial idea for an answer would be that a cooking pot is a holder that could conceivably hold an infant and females would be more likely to recognize, appreciate and exploit that concept.

it could also be used as a hat or a club. It's just crazy.

UNLESS by some weird freak of wiring girls are just attracted to pot shaped toys, with the whole cultural thing of girls cooking following from that. but that seems just too damn far fetched.

[DudeGuyMan]

Welcome to the world of science where "common sense" isn't good enough. Seriously? Fuck off. That is all I have to say to an idiotic sack of shit like you.

Common sense and every possible observable criteria across virtually every human society (and some non-human primate ones) throughout history, you mean. But none of that counts because you muttered something about culture and waved your hands.

Blow it out your ass, you little crybaby. The little sob-story about being picked on by girls was cute. (Especially the part where you pointed out that they weren't directly violent and invalidated your own point!) Why don't you quit trying to soothe the pain of being an utter social reject by acting out on the internet, go get your daddy's gun, or his heart pills if you're a pussy, and just end it already?

[LadyTevar]

DudeGuyMan, argue the TOPIC, not the person. If you have anything constructive to add to this discussion, speak up. Otherwise, take yourself elsewhere.

[Formless]

Common sense and every possible observable criteria across virtually every human society (and some non-human primate ones) throughout history, you mean. But none of that counts because you muttered something about culture and waved your hands.

Do you ever make a post that isn't completely fucking retarded by every definition of the word? You and academic discussion is like winning a game of basketball with a midget who froths at the mouth every time someone else scores a basket.

By your logic, every human society on earth has been racist, ergo racism is innate to human beings. Or, since every human society ever has been patriarchal (never mind the ones that weren't) misogynistic, chauvinistic bullshit is just normal for us and not something to be ashamed of. Or we can apply the same idiocy to slavery, war, murder, rape, religion, etc. Its a complete non-sequitor you've pulled out of your ass, eaten, then vomited back out again and called "evidence". And sadly, I now have to increase the bullshit pop-psych cliche` count once again thanks to you.






P.S. not that I expect you to understand any of this, but here goes. I have from the start been talking about aggression, because violence is one way aggression is expressed by human beings and other animals. It isn't the only way, as anyone who has spent six seconds reading your own very posts can plainly see. There is also verbal abuse, passive aggression, social control methods, legal attacks, and so on that real people use every day as alternatives to throwing stones at each other like cave men. Studies repeatedly demonstrate that women are more likely than men to use these alternative methods of displaying aggression for various reasons such as anatomical differences and socialization, but curiously evo-psych demagogues and their patsies always assume that if it isn't physical violence it somehow doesn't count. Of course to someone who has actually been on the receiving end of psychological abuse and social attacks, people like you come off as ignorant dismissive assholes.

And moreover, my position is not without evidence once you get past the fallacy of equating aggression with violence: for starters, there is evidence that women are more likely than men to be abusive to their romantic partners or become stalkers. That this isn't reported is likely a matter of men not wanting to admit that they could possibly be intimidated by a woman because, like, they are small and weak and stuff, am i right? Moreover, studies on deindividuation (the phenomenon responsible for people acting like raging shitheads when given anonymity or put into a mob) show that women are no less innately aggressive than men and possibly a little more so. Conveniently, that same study also evened out differences in physical strength as a simple unintended but convenient result of the experimental procedure. And when you think about all the other observed differences between men and women, like the tendency for women to value having a large social network, it makes sense too-- violence and open aggression are a really nice way to burn your bridges, you know? Wait wait, I probably shouldn't assume you know anything.

[Eleas]

"What evidence do you have that males are more aggressive than females? Other than their behavior in pretty much every single human society across the world throughout all of history, I mean? Oh and beside even the behavior of animal species closely related to humans? Except for all of those things, you have no evidence! It could all be down to culture! Yes even the monkey behavior! Damn sexist monkey culture!"

Idiocy. Do you seriously argue that homo sapiens sapiens is unique in propagating cultural traits? That's quite the claim, given the fact that many animals teach their young and venerate their elders, who -- who'd 'a thunk? -- exist to pass on accepted behavior and useful tricks to the next generation. Tell me, is it because we're Humans and they merely Animals?

As has been said time and time and time again in this type of thread and just as many times ignored, culture and biology are intertwined. You seem to view it as some kind of voluntary fancy unrelated to any other factors. "Well, if it's due to culture, then people could change their minds and it'd just disappear!" Or perhaps, "gender isn't cultural, and I know that because I never explicitly instructed my son through a computer speaker on which toys he should prefer; he chose the car by his own self, ayep!"

It's perhaps a caricature of the original sentiment, but functionally similar.

If you don't think men are more violent than women, then... then... I just don't know what to tell you, except welcome to the planet Earth because it's clearly your first day.

While personal incredulity may arguably be your best argument ITT, it's still not what I'd call a solid one.

[Rye]

And this must be because of biology, and not culture. Right.

I'm sorry, but do you know anything about statistical analysis? Here's a free one: correlation =! causation.

It's a false dilemma, but there's really no question about testosterone and aggression being linked. Hell, look at hyenas; their females are bigger and more aggressive (and have bigger fake penises) than the males because they get more testosterone. All the sparring rutting species have testosterone making them do that. So do humans. Big whoop.

[Formless]

It's a false dilemma, but there's really no question about testosterone and aggression being linked. Hell, look at hyenas; their females are bigger and more aggressive (and have bigger fake penises) than the males because they get more testosterone. All the sparring rutting species have testosterone making them do that. So do humans. Big whoop.

Actually, I anticipated this one as well, though in fairness I won't increase the cliche` count since its a bit rarer than the rest and requires a little bit of actual research. While testosterone is correlated with aggression, the mechanism still isn't definitively known. In fact, there is at least one study that I know of that indicates it may simply increase your awareness of social status, which in turn can increase aggression if you are low on the totem pole; which in turn is mediated by how you are expected to rise up the totem pole in your society. Ed: I suspect that explains why hyena females, which are a very social species, would have high levels of a hormone they don't really need otherwise. So its not necessarily that simple.