Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

BoysToys

436 replies

SlowFJH · 13/02/2016 11:37

We have two boys and a girl (all now teenagers). My daughter was never into dolls and never really liked pink. She was into arts and crafts and loves knitting and sowing. The boys were completely stereotypical (plastic and wooden swords, guns, cars, diggers and tractors, soldiers etc).

We have good feminist friends (with three boys) who banned violent toys for boys. They always gave us the cat's bum face when they visited ours because their boys used to absolutely love playing with my sons' swords and shields. When we went out it for a walk, every stick they found was a gun - despite their parents vocal disapproval.

My friend's boys (now all strapping teenage lads) joke about how their parents banned them from having the toys they always wanted.

We definitely saw differences in toy preferences very early on. My daughter had zero interest in wheeled toys (despite my efforts) but both boys were fascinated by them virtually from day one.

I know my experience is not scientific. But there were some studies several years ago using baby apes (who obviously had not been conditioned by human systems or been exposed to advertising etc). Baby male apes showed a clear preference for mechanical toys over plush toys.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys/

I'd love to hear others views on this topic... social conditioning versus biological predispositions.

OP posts:
MyCrispBag · 19/02/2016 01:45

"No need to MyCrispBag."

I know, I didn't. I was referring to your posts.

HTH

Original poster
SlowFJH · 19/02/2016 01:37

No need to MyCrispBag. Lots of people say "Physiology" not only to refer to the academic study of the workings of the body but sometimes also to refer to all of the bodily workings of a particular body . As in "I am not familiar with physiology of this species". Most people reading that or hearing that would understand that they are not critiquing the university department s of that species but rather saying "I don't understand much about the physiological structure and processes of this species.

HTH (I picked that up from CrappyMummy). It means "Happy To Help"

OP posts:
MyCrispBag · 19/02/2016 01:23

I was really angry and agitated. That's why I felt the need to reply to the same point in 3 separate posts.

Original poster
SlowFJH · 19/02/2016 01:19

To avoid the risk of anyone else getting as angry and agitated as MyCrispBag - "Hahaha...As if there is such a thing as a psychology...Jesus fucking wept"

can I please clarify that several contributors (not only me), have been using the word "Psychology" as a convenient shorthand to include the broad range of psychological processes - including the physiological, biological, biochemical and electrochemical processes that occur in the mind - governing aspects such as:
Brain Function
Personality
Emotion
Perception
Cognition
Attention
Intelligence
Interpersonal Relationships
Psychological Resilience
and many, many more.

Rather than write out this lengthy description each time, we're using the broad term "psychology".

Hope that clarifies and that Jesus can now wipe the tears from his eyes

OP posts:
MyCrispBag · 19/02/2016 00:58

Perhaps that's because you obviously don't understand the complexity of your own question?

MyCrispBag · 19/02/2016 00:54

Why did you answer the same thing twice?

Original poster
SlowFJH · 19/02/2016 00:52

Not with an unevoqual yes or no. I appreciate your concern about my ability to understand so it's only fair that I double check.

OP posts:
Original poster
SlowFJH · 19/02/2016 00:49

MyCrispBag
Psychology is an academic discipline

Thanks that MyCrispBag. I was aware of that fact. For the purposes of this debate (and many other situations) the term can also be used in common parlance to reference to the structure and functioning of the mind, including things like reasoning, decision-making and behaviour).

OP posts:
MyCrispBag · 19/02/2016 00:45

At least one of them has already answered that from what I can see.

Perhaps you should read their replies more carefully?

Original poster
SlowFJH · 19/02/2016 00:43

MyCrispBag
Let me rephrase the question...
Do you believe that that the psychological processes of humans (and their predecessors) have evolved over time?

OP posts:
MyCrispBag · 19/02/2016 00:37

SlowFJH

Psychology is an academic discipline.

Original poster
SlowFJH · 19/02/2016 00:35

I do MyCrispBag.

OP posts:
Original poster
SlowFJH · 19/02/2016 00:33

Crappymummy
Your words
The evidence for the evolution of a psychology (?) is not robust

Would you agree that cognitive ability is an inheritable feature that could confer a genetic advantage that could be selected for through natural selection? Two animals with greater cognitive ability are likely to produce offspring that also have superior cognitive ability.

Fossil records and tool development etc show that Homo Sapiens is more intelligent than its predecessors.

Is this not robust evidence for the evolution of psychology?

OP posts:
MyCrispBag · 19/02/2016 00:20

Does anybody else find this genuinely funny?

Original poster
SlowFJH · 19/02/2016 00:15

Muttaburrasaurus
I want to assure you (and CrappyMummy) that I have absolutely heard that you discount and discredit the "studies" that attempt to explain preferences for pink and pots.

Your words
Some psychology might be explainable by evolution and some is absolutely not.

Two questions:

  1. How do you reconcile the statement above, with your earlier position that the whole of evolutionary psychology is bollocks - in its entirety?

  2. For those aspects of psychology that CAN'T be explained in terms of natural selection and evolution - where do you think they come from?

If these aspects of our psychology are 100% "nurture", this would suggest that psychology is like a blank canvass and our thinking patterns, decision-making and mental processes are governed entirely by the environment after we have been conceived / born

I can see how that could make sense. But, how did the "blank canvass" come into being in the first place? Did it evolve? Or has it always existed in some kind of steady state?

Was your "blank canvass" exactly the same as a new born Homo Erectus baby millions of years ago (whose brain was a fraction the size of yours?).

OP posts:
Muttaburrasaurus · 19/02/2016 00:08

Sorry slow but that is a lovely example of a meaningless question Grin

MyCrispBag · 19/02/2016 00:00

Hahaha "Has your psychology evolved?"?! As if there is such a thing as a "psychology".

Jesus fucking wept.

Original poster
SlowFJH · 18/02/2016 23:37

Crappymummy
Just a straight yes / no would be helpful.
Given what you know about natural selection do you believe that your psychology has evolved or not?

OP posts:
Muttaburrasaurus · 18/02/2016 20:10

Its evolutionary psychology as a subject that I think has very little of use to say. The idea that some aspects of psychology have adapted because of evolutionary pressure is fine. So intelligence and the ability to adapt might have evolved but girls liking pink clearly didn't. Both are aspects of psychology however so therefore some psychology might be explainable by evolution and some is absolutely not.

crappymummy · 18/02/2016 19:58

The evidence for evolution via the mechanism of natural selection as applied to speciation and species diversity generally is robust; it is also observable in experiments

The evidence for evolution of a psychology (?) is not robust. That does not mean that it does not happen, but it does mean I need something more substantial than 'but it makes sense and confirms my biases!' before I cosign it

I hope you get that, really, I do

I like data. I like testable, falsifiable hypotheses.

I dislike fables, even when they ring true, or 'make sense' except when used for entertainment purposes only

Hth

Original poster
SlowFJH · 18/02/2016 19:39

Crappymummy
SomeDyke
GreenTomato
Muttaburrasaurus
AskBasil

Whatdolget has been clear that she doesn't believe her psychology has evolved. Given you were among the most vocal opponents of "Evo-bollocks" and "Evo-Bollockists", is it reasonable to assume that you agree? Your psychology has not evolved?

OP posts:
Original poster
SlowFJH · 18/02/2016 19:08

Sp above evolve not involve

OP posts:
Original poster
SlowFJH · 18/02/2016 19:07

Whatdolget
I don't think my psychology has evolved but it's very, very adaptable

So you believe that your basic psychology has been passed down (unaltered) but adapts to the environment that each person is brought up in?

This means (if you do believe in evolution in general) that you had exactly the same psychology as your earliest, earliest ancestors. If psychology doesn't evolve this goes back way before the earliest hominids...If you accept your premise that psychology does not involve - the very first life single-celled lifeforms have the same basic psychology as you.

Is that what you believe?

OP posts:
Original poster
SlowFJH · 18/02/2016 18:59

I accept (fully) that there are some studies you don't like, some conclusions you disagree with, some researchers you don't respect...I get that. Honest I do.

I am interested at the level of foundational principle. Either you accept evolution as the fundamental driving mechanism of all life on Earth or you don't.

So if it's all bollocks and your psychology has not and does not evolve, where does it come from?

OP posts:
whatdoIget · 18/02/2016 18:56

I don't think my psychology has evolved, but I do think it's very, very adaptable