BoysToys

[SlowFJH]

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.

AskBasil, SomeDyke, GreenTomato (and others) who are convinced by the statements made earlier it's ll evo-bollocks, does anyone believe this shit? It's utterly amazing bollocks,

Do you believe that your own psychology is not subject to evolution? How far back in your own genetic history do you believe it has existed in current (steady? ) state? The whole of Homo Sapiens? Homo Erectus? Homo Habilis? The earliest hominids?

If yourpsychology has not evolved at all - where does it come from?

Well, I don't believe that my psychology can have evolved millions of years ago for me to prefer something that was only invented in the last 100 years.

What aspects of psychology do you mean?

The whole of it.

Either it has /is evolving or it isn't / hasn't.

If you believe all evolutionary psychology is bollocks - where do you think your current psychology comes from?

I think it's a product of nature and nurture. Nature I suppose must be somehow intertwined with evolution - but I just don't think it's in anyway as simple as people with these studies try to suggest, and I think that's easily disprovable just using the current population of the world with their infinite variety of behaviours (many of which the populations concerned consider innate), no monkeys involved, no dodgy theorising, no retroactively fitting behaviour to experimental outcomes.

I don't think that my ancestors searching for berries influences my colour preference (although I'm willing to be proved wrong should someone manage to figure out how the hell to test that) for instance. I could be more convinced of an innate fear of snakes.

Any individual study could be improved or made more robust. I guess that's one of the intended purposes of publishing scientific papers - so that subsequent researchers can use their findings and then either prove, disprove or make a further advance in understanding.

You and I are in agreement that our psychology is likely to be a mixture of nature and nurture.

As mentioned in ealier posts, I have absolutely no doubt that parental influence, societal norms, the environment, siblings, peers, expectations, marketing, TV and probably influence the nurture part.

But where do you think the nature part comes from?

Notwithstanding the flaws in some of the studies mentioned above... I am guessing you believe that your physical body, brain size, posture etc have evolved. If so, is it reasonable or fair to suggest that your psychology can't possibly have evolved?

It really depends on what aspects are being considered.

Our brains have certainly evolved to maximise our survival and reproduction.
Instead of things like colour preference, I'd, for example, hypothesise that we prefer to have clear differences between genders and seek to identify with one early on.
It really depends on the question asked.

How do we even know that the children who preferred the wheeled toys/weapons identified as boys?

Quite possibly they identified as girls, or agender.

Similarly the primates referred to - has anyone been able to work out their gender identity?

has this been established?

Lweji
It really depends on what aspects are being considered

Earlier "Evolutionary Psychology Deniers" (AskBasil, SomeDyke GreenTomato and others) didn't specify any aspects. They said ALL evolutionary psychology - the ENTIRE field of study is utterly amazing bollocks.

If that's the case - it's fair to ask If you believe that your psychology has not evolved, where does it come from?

i would feel a lot more confident in accepting the hypotheses of ego psych if they came with data, mechanisms, and were falsifiable

As it is, rudyard kipling style just-so stories aren't quite robust enough for this little agender internet pixie I'm afraid

Crappy - I like that way of describing it - there is a very 'just-so' way about so many of them.

If, these evo psych people started out just looking, rather than with a theory to prove (well disprove - the whole null hypothesis thing is such a logic fail - and I just think dishonest), then it wouldn't be so much bollocks.

If they were, I don't know... looking at the stuff around seeing in colour, or noticing movement out the corner of your eye, then I can see how these things evolve, and will have an effect on world experience, and therefore psychology.

But starting with something as high level as wheels and frying pans? Tying that back to evolution millions of years ago - how can anyone say with a straight face that that isn't just totally ridiculous?

"But if they prefer blue because it's like male genitalia...shouldn't blue attract female monkeys?..."

I presume, like the colourful bits of males in many other species it's also about males signalling to other males. I seem to recall reading somewhere that less dominant males were less blue in the groinal region.....So, males need to keep an eye out for more-blue males, something that will go on all year round, whereas whatever visual signals (I don't know about vervets, but I think female chimps get very swollen and pink downstairs when in heat!) females use will be different?????

Sorry, I'm just a bit pre-occupied with the idea that if we had evolved from a more-vervet like ancestor, men would have invented see-through pants and that first-eyeshadow shade of blue spraypaint cosmetic for their plums..............

None of which quite explains why male vervets seem to prefer trucks and know what wheels are for..................

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

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?

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?

Sp above evolve not involve

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?

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

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
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?

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

Jesus fucking wept.

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

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?).

Does anybody else find this genuinely funny?

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?

I do MyCrispBag.