Within a year of birth, boys and girls also prefer different toys. Boys prefer cars, trucks, balls and guns. Girls prefer dolls and tea sets. Although evolution has clearly not had the opportunity to mould a preference for tea sets, there is evidence from another species which suggests that human infants might be predisposed to prefer toys that have particular adaptive significance to their sex. Several years ago, Melissa Hines, of City University in London, and Gerianne Alexander, of Texas A&M University, gave some vervet monkeys a selection of toys, including rag dolls, pans, balls and trucks. Male monkeys spent more time with the trucks and balls. Females played for longer with the dolls.
Obviously, cultural stereotyping is an improbable explanation for this. Nor could male monkeys have evolved a preference for fire engines. The theory put forward to explain what happened — and the similar innate preferences of human children — is that the toys preferred by young females are objects that offer opportunities for expressing nurturing behaviour, something that will be useful to them later in life. Young males, whether simian or human, prefer toys that can be used actively or propelled in space, and which afford greater opportunities for rough play. —The mismeasure of woman (The Economist)
Donald J. Trump sued ABC because a journalist truthfully described Trump on air as a…
The daughter missed her graduation ceremony because she was performing in Kinetic Theatre's A SHERLOCK…
"If you and your partner regularly use these phrases, it's a sign that you're already…
View Comments
Thanks, Fred.
A PDF copy of the vervet monkey study is available here:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/imagingthebody/Handouts/alexander_2002.pdf
The assumption the scientists made is that the choices the monkeys made reflect the usage. Perhaps if they thought psychologically, they would record the behavior. The choice in this instance is mutually exclusive of the behavior. Think about the assumptions of this line:
"prefer toys that can be used actively or propelled in space, and which afford greater opportunities for rough play"
You can easily cuddle a ball and yet use the doll to smack your neighbor.
In any case, the methodology was based on this major assumption.
And think about it again: they're monkeys! Do they have the ability to reason that "oooh! I can be rough with this!" or "oooh! I can nurture this!" (The second assumption: that monkeys reason like humans and that the preference is a sufficient causation or a determinant for the behavior).
I guess my point is that, even disregarding social conditioning, the object says nothing about the behavior (in other words, it doesn't matter what they pick because their is no causitive or determinant relationship).
Either the Economist is severely misinterpreting the research (the most probable case), or the researchers clearly misinterpreted the research.
(I am so ready for Research Methods!)
Well, I'm just guessing, but when you think about it, a doll has a head and a face, so I guess the point here is that female monkeys are hard-wired to look for the proper way to hold a baby (head up, legs down). That is a social skill.
A truck will roll if you push it, and I guess shoving things around and tracking a moving target helps male monkeys practice the social skill of pelting each other with their poo.
Ok, now that comments are back up, I've gotta respond to this one. Just think about this line:
Male monkeys spent more time with the trucks and balls. Females played for longer with the dolls.
Now think about it. They're monkeys. How would they have the slightest idea what a truck is, or a doll is? How would that possibly have any meaning without social conditioning?