|
vincentML -> RE: Hjernevask (10/23/2016 7:54:47 AM)
|
quote:
Socialization pressures can only change our biology if they differ from what our biology without them would produce. Thus, what we are seeing in the primate studies is biology at work where "social biases and constructs such as gender are absent."
A careful reading of the study shows that is not the case, however. In the rhesus study, Only the males showed a marked preference in number of interactions for the wheeled toys vs. the plush toys while the females showed no significant preference either way.
Whereas with respect to duration of attention, the female rhesus had a longer interaction with plush toys in correlation with social rank.
Then the author of the study blows it up with the following caveat:
There can be little doubt that boys and girls learn that some activities are socially more appropriate for males or for females and this is likely reflected in the sex-stereotyped toys they choose. However, girls are less likely to receive negative information about boys’ toys and activities than are boys about girls’ activities and toys (Kane, 2006). Thus, girls’ toys and activities are often stigmatized for boys, but boys’ toys and activities not as stigmatized for girls (Martin, 1990). One could view such stigmatization as devaluing female-typical toys for boys without comparably devaluing male-typical toys for girls. Such differential devaluation might produce the markedly greater preference difference between toy types seen in boys contrasting with the lack of preference seen in girls. Because we chose toys based on object properties and not on previously established sex-typed categorizations, our wheeled and plush toys are not entirely analogous to the more stereotypical categories used in the human studies or to toys typically marketed as for boys and girls. Our findings suggest that sex differences in toy preferences in humans and nonhuman primates rely to some extent on physical object properties, but that social characteristics likely also influence preference, and some of these may be unique to humans. For example, a toy such as a plastic shopping cart, one of our wheeled toys, might appeal to boys or rhesus monkey males for its physical properties, but the same shopping cart also has symbolic properties related to imaginative play, and in humans may be socially stigmatized for boys. Because the shopping cart relates to a specific human activity, the toy facilitates different activities for humans than for rhesus monkeys. However, our finding that male monkeys show a preference of comparable magnitude to those seen in boys makes a cultural devaluation explanation unlikely.
Unlikely perhaps for rhesus monkeys but a leap of faith it is unlikely for human children.
None of this toy choosing incidentally has anything to do nor does it reflect upon gender self identity which does not conform to the "norm."
In other writings you have championed experiential evidence that favors spiritual "reality" as an alternative to the findings and "limitations" of evidence-based science. But here, with gender identity you insist upon evidence-based science rather than accepting individual experience. Your standards are biased and selective, methinks.
|
|
|
|
