Jump to content


Toggle shoutbox Squawkbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

Please don't post Youtube videos in the chat box. The forums software auto embeds them. 

@  TheMightyMol... : (13 November 2019 - 08:25 AM)

Do we really need to have Every Movie Transformer Thread Ever in the Squawkbox?

@  Bass X0 : (13 November 2019 - 08:13 AM)

Sure it made money but that doesn’t mean it has appealing character designs. Lot of god awful fugly faces in the Transformers movies.

@  Otaku : (12 November 2019 - 08:25 PM)

@Liege My issue with Transformers (2007) were elements I thought were unnecessary.  I know it was supposed to just be a joke, but I didn't ever need to hear about "Sam's Happy Time". >.> Which, being in awe of the first "live action" TF-film, didn't even register until I'd already purchased and watched it on DVD a few times (after seeing it in theaters 3 times).

@  Liege : (12 November 2019 - 08:22 PM)

For all the Bayisms in the 07 movie, it was tempered by Spielberg as producer. Designs aside it was an enjoyable popcorn blockbuster about a boy and his first car who happens to be an alien from another planet. They sequels are just Bay going unchecked after he proved how much bank he could bring in.

@  TM2-Megatron : (12 November 2019 - 07:12 PM)

I didn't find the designs in the '07 movie to be that bad, personally. What got really offputting was how Cybertronians in general become such huge a-holes in the later films; the designs were very much secondary to their horrible personalities

@  Sabrblade : (12 November 2019 - 06:59 PM)

And yet, Transformers still broke the bank at the box office, opened up the brand to a whole new generation of fans, shot the brand up to mainstream appeal, and enabled all kinds of new collector-oriented lines and other avenues to come about. Not saying Sonic's movie will do the same for his series, but the 2007 TF movie certainly did more good than harm.

@  Bass X0 : (12 November 2019 - 06:09 PM)

Paramount changed Sonic due to fan backlash but refused to redo Transformers 2007 with new cgi appearances based on their classic forms everyone’s knows and loves, and can relate to. Trailer 1 Sonic is as appealing a design as 2007 Bumblebee...

@  TheMightyMol... : (12 November 2019 - 02:14 PM)

I don't. They're a pain in the ass to repair.

@  Benbot : (12 November 2019 - 12:48 PM)

I wish car companies would bring back flip up headlights

@  TheMightyMol... : (12 November 2019 - 09:07 AM)

Wear a hazmat suit. It's Walmart, they're used to weird.

@  wonko the sane? : (12 November 2019 - 07:54 AM)

2 inches of snow on the side of the house, 2 feet of snow on the deck. I hate this winter already.

@  Tm_Silverclaw : (11 November 2019 - 11:33 PM)

But that requires actually going IN walmart. ;P

@  Liege : (11 November 2019 - 11:22 PM)

Pro tip for anyone hunting the for the Walmart 35th exclusives: try the seasonal aisles rather than the toy section. I found the display with all the exclusives and a bunch of the reflector wave practically untouched amongst those novelty arcade machines and a bunch of frozen merch.

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (11 November 2019 - 09:45 PM)

Although that does spark an idea for me. In a new continuity, Censere the Necrobot could be the herald Cityspeaker for Quintessa the Necrotitan just to play on their monikers utilizing Greek for dead, nekrós.

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (11 November 2019 - 09:26 PM)

I hate to burst your bubble, Maximus Ambus, but 90% of things said in IDW turned out to be amnesiac half-rememberings courtesy of Adaptus or outright lies courtesy of Shockwave.

@  Jenny : (11 November 2019 - 08:54 AM)

The toy's designed to look like Wipe-Out, anyway.

@  NotVeryKnightly : (11 November 2019 - 08:14 AM)

Didn't they try to retcon that into a figure of speech because that connection went against everybody else's long-term plans?

@  Maximus Ambus : (11 November 2019 - 03:53 AM)

There's still some connection given Trypticon was created by Mortilus.

@  NotVeryKnightly : (11 November 2019 - 12:12 AM)

Yeah that toy doesn't exactly look like Necrobot.

@  Sabrblade : (10 November 2019 - 08:24 PM)

But.... it's just "Necro" not "Necrobot".

@  TheMightyMol... : (10 November 2019 - 05:10 PM)

But why does the God of Death need a giant space kaiju? Wait, never mind, answered my own question.

@  Maximus Ambus : (10 November 2019 - 02:15 PM)

Yowza I just realised Titans Trypticon comes with Necro AKA Censere AKA Mortilus.

@  Nevermore : (10 November 2019 - 01:15 PM)

I... think the best equivalent would actually be the British "There is room for improvement".

@  Nevermore : (10 November 2019 - 01:15 PM)

There's always a sense of irony to it, but what the ratio between irony (you really failed) and straightworwardness (at least you achieved something) is depends on the situation and the speaker.

@  Nevermore : (10 November 2019 - 01:12 PM)

The meaning can be both literal (you succeed on one level but fail on another), or it can be utterly ironic (you fail in every regard but the most technical; or even worse, "you really gave your best"), and anything in between.

@  Nevermore : (10 November 2019 - 01:10 PM)

For example: A singer can hit the notes really well, but clearly isn't a native speaker and what little of the lyrics you can make out sounds nothing like what it's supposed to be.

@  wonko the sane? : (10 November 2019 - 01:06 PM)

The premise seems to be the mixing of technical and aesthetic technical qualities towards the overall success.

@  wonko the sane? : (10 November 2019 - 01:05 PM)

But both "hollow victory" and pyrrhic victory" are referring to having lost as much as you've gained. IE; a battle was won but both armies were destroyed. The town being seiged is victorious, but all the soldiers are still dead. Nevermore's concept is more "You did it, but it's so ugly we don't know if you actually succeeded".

@  Sabrblade : (10 November 2019 - 11:35 AM)

Alternately, one could probably also call it a "hollow victory".

@  Sabrblade : (10 November 2019 - 11:35 AM)

Example: In the Powerpuff Girls episode "Uh Oh Dynamo", the monster-of-the-day was a really tough, giant-size one that required the use of a really destructive mech to defeat it. While the monster was ultimately beaten, the city of Townsville was utterly trashed by the mech's weapons in the process. So, while the city was saved from the monster, it was harmed even worse by the mech that saved it, making the victory bittersweet.

@  Sabrblade : (10 November 2019 - 11:32 AM)

@Nevermore, sounds to me like what one might call a "bittersweet victory". The goal was met, but at great cost or by disastrous result that call into question if the achieved goal could even be called a success.

@  Arvegtor : (10 November 2019 - 09:40 AM)

Seems to be close enough to "Pyrrhic victory"

@  NotVeryKnightly : (10 November 2019 - 09:37 AM)

What do you get from putting the German term through a translator?

@  wonko the sane? : (10 November 2019 - 08:57 AM)

That is a ridiculously interesting concept. But I don't think english has a singular term for what you're describing.

@  Nevermore : (10 November 2019 - 08:28 AM)

Is there an English equivalent for what we Germans call "deductions in the B rating"? Context: Someone did something and suceeded on a technical level (as in, achieved the intended goal), but failed to some degree in the details, i.e. there was some collateral damage, or while a technical success, the end result is an aestetic failure. It can be used highly ironically, as in "barely achieved the intended goal, but failed so much in every aspect that's not purely technical that it might as well be considered an utter failure altogether." The German term is derived from the old judging syste in figure skating, which gave separate ratings for "technical merit" and "presentation", with the latter being the origin of the German term.

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (10 November 2019 - 02:32 AM)

Huh. I did not know before today that "medieval" had an alternate spelling "mediaeval". Like "paleontology" and "palaeontology".

@  Maximus Ambus : (09 November 2019 - 04:15 PM)

'Beast Wars in underrated' the comment went. I exploded.

@  PlutoniumBoss : (09 November 2019 - 02:19 PM)

Absolutely.

@  wonko the sane? : (09 November 2019 - 02:14 PM)

So... you can look like a cop from the 70's AND a huge nerd at the same time?

@  PlutoniumBoss : (09 November 2019 - 02:09 PM)

I feel like the best way to carry the Switch would be an under-arm torso holster.

@  Tm_Silverclaw : (09 November 2019 - 12:31 PM)

It's not. hell. If the 3DS zelda case just stretched a LITTLE more it would fit.

@  TheMightyMol... : (09 November 2019 - 03:38 AM)

I feel like the Switch Lite is a bit big to have hanging on your belt like that, but I don't take my Switch out with me often anyway.

@  Tm_Silverclaw : (09 November 2019 - 01:13 AM)

I must be the only one who wants a switch lite case with a belt loop. o.O

@  TheMightyMol... : (08 November 2019 - 03:03 PM)

I'm gonna have "Chainsaw Buffet" and "Candy For the Cannibal" by Lordi playing in my head all night.

@  Maximus Ambus : (08 November 2019 - 12:36 PM)

Trick or treaters can only consent to cannibalism in Germania.

@  Sabrblade : (07 November 2019 - 12:12 PM)

Hey, if the trick or treaters can't take some loving insults, that's their problem.

@  Arazyr : (07 November 2019 - 11:39 AM)

Just make sure to put the leftovers in the fridge, so they don't get spoiled.

@  wonko the sane? : (07 November 2019 - 11:10 AM)

I love children... but I can never eat a whole one.

@  TheMightyMol... : (07 November 2019 - 09:52 AM)

I can neither confirm nor deny this allegation.

@  Paladin : (07 November 2019 - 09:46 AM)

...you don't roast the trick or treaters, do you....


Photo
- - - - -

Interesting New Study On Babies' Preferences Regarding 'Masculine' Toys

Gender Gender differences Masculinity Child Psychology Child Development

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
14 replies to this topic

#1 Cat

Cat
  • Retired Staff
  • 11612 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 01:49 PM

Frankly, I'm not quite sure how much faith I put in their method, but I still think it's worth a read.

 

Basically, they tracked the eye movements and timing of babies, and concluded that baby boys are more interested in dolls than traditional boys toys like cars. They used babies aged between 3 1/2 to 5 month olds.

 

There's some interesting commentary on what it could mean, but again, I'm not quite certain of their method.

 

http://www.smh.com.a...0104-30aq0.html

 

===================================================================

The preference many boys have for ''masculine'' toys such as cars only develops later in life, according to a new study that tracked the eye movements of babies.

The research found boys aged up to five months were more attracted to dolls than they were to toy cars and mechanical objects, suggesting children are not born with gendered preferences - instead, these develop as a child matures.

Paola Escudero, of the University of Western Sydney, conducted the research in collaboration with the University of California.

The study, published in the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, used eye-tracking technology on children aged 3½ months to five months to determine their preferred object or toy.

Advertisement

Images of two different objects were displayed on a screen. The length of time and frequency of the child's gaze was measured to ascertain a preference.

''The preferences we see [at five months] have nothing to do with biology,'' she said. ''Social pressures, parents, other people guide children to like things that are specific to their sex.''

There were several reasons for gender differences developing later in life, Dr Escudero said.

Society may teach children what items they should prefer, depending on their gender, as they mature.

Then there is the possible effect of cognitive development, in which changes in the brain create a preference for some things over others.

Last, hormonal changes could direct children's choices as they mature. ''Testosterone makes [boys] engage in more strong playing and with items that allow them to explore or exploit that way of playing, whereas oestrogen leads to interaction with the social environment,'' she said.

Dr Escudero said further research was needed to determine which of these factors were instrumental in the development of a child's preferences.

Childcare professionals say gendered choices are definitely learnt - and most young boys enjoy playing with dolls.

Aria Adams-Wilcox, of Belrose Children's Centre in Warringah, said boys and girls played social games around the age of two and all played different gendered roles.

''There was a boy who would only take on the role as mother, so he could be caring and help the 'babies' [other children or dolls] go to sleep,'' Ms Adams-Wilcox said.

She said the children started to develop greater awareness by age 3½, and by four years old many boys had decided ''only girls play with dolls''.

''I think they start to understand the difference between genders because of siblings, elder family members, parents, and socially they're told the differences and, in that way, the different roles,'' Ms Adams-Wilcox said.

Anna Tydd said her sons, Archie and Will Lambert, enjoy social games. ''Just the other morning they had their bears and bunnies and were playing mums and dads.''

While she encourages a balanced way of playing by buying construction toys such as Lego, she said she would never discourage her boys' preferences.

Ms Tydd said she has friends who will encourage more masculine toys and dress ups if their boys show more femininity, to prevent bullying.

"It definitely depends on the parents," she said.

=============================================================================================================



#2 NotVeryKnightly

NotVeryKnightly
  • Staff
  • 22894 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:00 PM

Are cars and dolls really a fair comparison? Maybe babies just prefer humanoid shapes to vehicles? Couldn't they have compared with something like "girly" humanoid toys and "masculine" ones?



#3 Copper Bezel

Copper Bezel

    Off Model.

  • Supporter
  • 50325 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 02:11 PM

That would be preferable. The findings (as seems common) are unsurprising and insignificant. Even nonhuman primates show these kinds of preferences at a young age, and the fact that a five-month-old has no frame of reference for a representation of a car but much for a representation of a human is an absurdly important factor to just overlook.


Shouldn't gravity be doing something?
 
Of course there's a figure of Rodimus as some kind of animal girl. Why would I be surprised by this?

 


#4 Fortress Ironhold

Fortress Ironhold

    Blasphemer

  • Banned
  • 20567 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 03:43 PM

Are cars and dolls really a fair comparison? Maybe babies just prefer humanoid shapes to vehicles? Couldn't they have compared with something like "girly" humanoid toys and "masculine" ones?

My recommendation:

 

*12-inch realistic feminine fashion doll, such as Barbie

 

*12-inch non-realistic feminine fashion doll, such as Monster High

 

*12-inch realistic masculine figure, such as a soldier or a clearly human superhero (like Cpt. America)

 

*12-inch non-realistic masculine figure, such as Iron Man or Optimus Prime

 

Restricting the figures to the same size (give or take) will help rule out bias from children simply seeking the bigger toy. By having distinctly masculine and feminine figures, we can observe if the child in question favors one gender over the other. And by having both realistic-looking and non-realistic figures, we can determine if there is a possible bias away from shapes or appearances that are not entirely familiar.

 

If the children being tested show a uniform bias towards the feminine figures, regardless of realistic or non-realistic, then the hypothesis is confirmed. But if the children show a uniform bias towards the masculine figures or a bias towards the figures of their own gender, then the hypothesis is rejected.



#5 Detour

Detour

    Too lazy to change the avatar but Graham Linehan is a sack of sh

  • Supporter
  • 20660 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 04:23 PM

I

but


what


They didn't even actually put toys in front of them! They just showed them images! Who are these people?
You show them images and they're going to go with what's more recognizable! At that age, it's going to be a human shape! Fellow humans are the first things infants recognize! I mean if you put toys in front of them and just let em have a go at it, you might get something... but these are images, what sort of infant is going to favor eyeing a wrench or a porsche over something ressembling a fellow human???

I...

Just....


ARGH.


You're far too young to be this bitter and angry at the world....

I'm reading that with Roy's voice. Heck, I read everything you post in a laconic Irish accent.

 


#6 Jenny

Jenny
  • Citizen
  • 22959 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 04:26 PM

I am pretty sure when I was baby, I didn't care what kind of toys I had, as long as I got to put them in my mouth.


 

staring dog stares

doggie_zpsafvtedef.png


#7 StarSaber

StarSaber
  • Validating
  • 2882 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 05:02 PM

Although variety would go a long way towards DISproving their hypothesis, even if the test subjects unanimously picked the girl dolls over boy dolls/action figures, it wouldn't be conclusive evidence. The babies might just have picked the item most resembling their mothers whom they'd be more bonded to than their fathers at that age.

-SS

#8 Detour

Detour

    Too lazy to change the avatar but Graham Linehan is a sack of sh

  • Supporter
  • 20660 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 05:09 PM

Yeah, that was one of the points I was trying to get at.

But I mean their "study" didn't even seem to involve action figures on the "masculine" side. It was like, "dolls" on the feminine side and "cars and tools" on the masculine side.

Even then doll is vague. Doll like Barbie, or doll like a baby doll that really burps and drools? Either or, it's still a more recognizable visual to an infant than "cars and tools".


You're far too young to be this bitter and angry at the world....

I'm reading that with Roy's voice. Heck, I read everything you post in a laconic Irish accent.

 


#9 Fortress Ironhold

Fortress Ironhold

    Blasphemer

  • Banned
  • 20567 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 06:55 PM

Although variety would go a long way towards DISproving their hypothesis, even if the test subjects unanimously picked the girl dolls over boy dolls/action figures, it wouldn't be conclusive evidence. The babies might just have picked the item most resembling their mothers whom they'd be more bonded to than their fathers at that age.

-SS

Honest researchers don't just do one study and call it a day.

 

Once they find that X causes Y, they'll try to figure out why X causes Y.

 

So if the kids in question do all favor one over the other, it then becomes a matter of "Why do they do this?".



#10 Varnon

Varnon

    Counterpoint is a man's soul.

  • Citizen
  • 10207 posts

Posted 04 January 2014 - 08:09 PM

I think the summary on SMH misinterprets the research, although I can't be certain as the summary on the website doesn't even provide a proper citation for the article. Searching the journal for the author Paola Escudero only returns one result (from 2013) so I am assuming that is the research discussed. But still, pretty silly not to provide enough information to find the actual research. Many researchers publish multiple articles in the same journal within a few years.

 

I believe the summary at SMH is referring to this article:

 

Escudero, P., Robbins, R.A. & Johnson, S.P. (2013). Sex-related preferences for real and doll faces versus real and toy objects in young infants and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 367-379

 

The abstract of the article provides a different story than SMH:

 

 

Findings of previous studies demonstrate sex-related preferences for toys in 6-month-old infants; boys prefer nonsocial or mechanical toys such as cars, whereas girls prefer social toys such as dolls. Here, we explored the innate versus learned nature of this sex- related preferences using multiple pictures of doll and real faces (of men and women) as well as pictures of toy and real objects (cars and stoves). In total, 48 4- and 5-month-old infants (24 girls and 24 boys) and 48 young adults (24 women and 24 men) saw six trials of all relevant pairs of faces and objects, with each trial containing a different exemplar of a stimulus type. The infant results showed no sex-related preferences; infants preferred faces of men and women regardless of whether they were real or doll faces. Similarly, adults did not show sex-related preferences for social versus nonsocial stimuli, but unlike infants they preferred faces of the opposite sex over objects. These results challenge claims of an innate basis for sex-related preferences for toy real stimuli and suggest that sex-related preferences result from maturational and social development that continues into adulthood. 

 

 

The point of the studies seems to be that the sex preferences found in other research may not be related to boys preferring masculine items and girls preferring feminine items. Instead it may be that infants prefer social items to non-social items. There are a few varieties of this experiment in the paper. Honestly I only skimmed the paper, but it seems to be making a much different point than what the article on SMH suggests. Some of the other individuals quoted do not appear to be related to this study at all.

 

As far as psychology goes, I like the infant research much more than adult research. Since infants can't talk, the researchers actually have to pay attention to their behavior instead of having them fill out a survey. It makes the methods much more in line with research on other species' behavior. Eye gaze is a popular measurement for infants. With eye tracking software, preference as a measure of looking time is much easier to quantify than preferences if the infants were actually handling objects. Also at some ages the infants are not really coordinated enough to interact with objects, but they will look at them. Although I think the eye gaze measures are interesting, sometimes the researchers interpret too much in them. Longer looking times can be said to indicate interest, surprise, confusion or a variety of things, but really all we know is that they look longer for some reason.

 

Overall, I think the actual research makes a good point. Some gender differences we previously assumed were innate likely occur AFTER children are old enough to learn from social contexts. 


What signature?

#11 Cat

Cat
  • Retired Staff
  • 11612 posts

Posted 05 January 2014 - 08:50 AM

This is why I shouldn't post articles at almost 5am.

 

Ugh.

 

Rereading the article now, it's much worse than I thought.

 

 

Sorry!



#12 Varnon

Varnon

    Counterpoint is a man's soul.

  • Citizen
  • 10207 posts

Posted 06 January 2014 - 07:41 PM

No need to apologize Cat! The article and discussion here are interesting. It is just unfortunate that journalism often misrepresents science as they did here.


What signature?

#13 Copper Bezel

Copper Bezel

    Off Model.

  • Supporter
  • 50325 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 03:43 AM

Indeed. It's unfortunate that journalism doesn't come with peer review, but in consequence, that's what news forums are for.


Edited by Copper Bezel, 07 January 2014 - 03:44 AM.

Shouldn't gravity be doing something?
 
Of course there's a figure of Rodimus as some kind of animal girl. Why would I be surprised by this?

 


#14 RYNO

RYNO

    Ready to Roll Out

  • Citizen
  • 5573 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 07:21 AM

As someone who has raised multiple children in the past few years (over 11+) from age 12-Newborn, I can say that all the ypung children Newborn-2 perfer Softer toys like dolls.

 

Hard Toys start taking real precedence when Teething Starts.

 

Around 2-3 when our Boys started to play and pretend is where the change happens they start being exposed, seeing, and playing superhero.

 

To try and evaluate between Newborn and 5 months is folly, lol. The brain hasn't developed to that stage yet, lol.

 

My boys really didn't start actively playing with Superhero figs till they were 3ish.... As for dressing up with a 9 year old daughter playing dress-up the boys end up looking like Princesses, but believe they are Hulk and Ironman, because they are "dressed-up" lol

 

Kids are kids.... By them hundreds of dollars worth of toys, and you have expensive paperweights, give them the shipping box and they are happy and content like they found ambroise.... LOL



#15 Spark

Spark
  • Citizen
  • 39131 posts

Posted 07 January 2014 - 10:19 AM

Are cars and dolls really a fair comparison? Maybe babies just prefer humanoid shapes to vehicles? Couldn't they have compared with something like "girly" humanoid toys and "masculine" ones?

This seems like a way more plausible explanation to me.  Babies recognize other humans immediately, but they won't know what in the hell a car is for some time.


Fall of Cybertron will blow your mind. That is all.