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... : (19 June 2019 - 05:44 PM)

They make a lot of pills for that.

@  Nevermore : (19 June 2019 - 05:42 PM)

I got the results of the test back. I definitely have no sense of humor.

@  Paladin : (18 June 2019 - 05:59 PM)

so anyway how is your sex life?

@  TheMightyMol... : (18 June 2019 - 10:50 AM)

These jokes are tearing me apart.

@  unluckiness : (18 June 2019 - 08:55 AM)

Only if the customer reviews give it all high marks.

@  Patch : (18 June 2019 - 04:42 AM)

Are they going to call it "I-Did-Nawtflix?"

@  unluckiness : (18 June 2019 - 12:48 AM)

I see, so what the world needs is a Tommy Wiseau streaming service.

@  TM2-Megatron : (17 June 2019 - 11:02 PM)

Well, Conan did start the trend that resulted in a wave of Barbarian films in the mid to late 80s

@  MEDdMI : (17 June 2019 - 10:57 PM)

I keep wanting to read Corman as Conan

@  TM2-Megatron : (17 June 2019 - 10:29 PM)

There needs to be some streaming service that caters to connoisseurs of schlock. Otherwise, a huge part of our cultural history will be wiped away. While many of these films are available on blu-ray, with more coming out each month, it's good they're also available for the streaming crowd.

@  TM2-Megatron : (17 June 2019 - 10:18 PM)

Corman did make an impressive number of barbarian films back in the day. If impressive is the word

@  Steevy Maximus : (17 June 2019 - 08:11 PM)

I mean, where else are you going to see the entire Roger Corman barbarian fantasy library (legally) for free?

@  Steevy Maximus : (17 June 2019 - 08:09 PM)

Oh Tubi TV, you are a haven for terrible films. Netflix, Hulu and Crackle all push for mainstream appeal and prestige, you got the guts to have ready access to dregs even the SyFy channel wouldn't air

@  ▲ndrusi : (17 June 2019 - 01:33 PM)

Also you have Bayonetta and a bunch of Fire Emblem people.

@  ▲ndrusi : (17 June 2019 - 01:33 PM)

...I mean, Tales character. Probably up to/for it.

@  TheMightyMol... : (17 June 2019 - 01:26 PM)

But what if I need to kill a god? Or several of them?

@  ▲ndrusi : (17 June 2019 - 11:25 AM)

Kratos is allowed, but only the one from Tales of Symphonia

@  TheMightyMol... : (17 June 2019 - 10:56 AM)

So no Kratos?

@  ▲ndrusi : (17 June 2019 - 10:42 AM)

In any case I'd rather have another Fire Emblem character than another character from a PlayStation exclusive game who teeeeeechnically was in a spinoff.

@  ▲ndrusi : (17 June 2019 - 10:39 AM)

Kong had his name on the games first, but Mario was the protagonist first. It's debatable.

@  Rycochet : (17 June 2019 - 10:33 AM)

Wouldn't Mario be the one spun off from the Donkey Kong franchise, given that Kong was first?

@  Pennpenn : (17 June 2019 - 05:19 AM)

I would count Wario and Yoshi, but not DK (might be because I wasn't even aware DK was spun off from the Mario franchise until I was in my mid-20s, but whatever)

@  unluckiness : (17 June 2019 - 04:13 AM)

But to be fair, Corrin is the only one I particularly dislike and it's really more boredom due to their blandness as characters

@  unluckiness : (17 June 2019 - 04:09 AM)

It would depend on whether or not you count DK, Wario and Yoshi as part of the Mario franchise or separate. Scratch that, there are more Mario characters even with just the mushroom symbol people but it's a close call.

@  Pennpenn : (17 June 2019 - 02:55 AM)

You'd figure Fire Emblem would have enough characters in Smash. Kinda feels like there's more FE characters than Mario characters.

@  unluckiness : (16 June 2019 - 01:20 AM)

And for hug's sake, I hope that the new Fire Emblem's PC isn't one of the DLC

@  Sean Whitmore : (15 June 2019 - 04:11 PM)

Smash Bros could never touch a new franchise again, and I'd still have laundry lists of side characters and villains I'd love to see included.

@  unluckiness : (15 June 2019 - 09:36 AM)

DINNER

@  SG Roadbuster : (15 June 2019 - 09:36 AM)

cuz i wanna fight a boat

@  SG Roadbuster : (15 June 2019 - 09:35 AM)

if we must have another zelda character, id want the king of red lion

@  MEDdMI : (14 June 2019 - 10:38 PM)

I would unironically love Tingle in Smash.

@  Paladin : (14 June 2019 - 02:06 PM)

they HAVE to put Travis Touchdown in at some point now, right???

@  TheMightyMol... : (14 June 2019 - 01:24 PM)

Right after Shaq.

@  Locoman : (14 June 2019 - 12:36 PM)

When will we get Bluster Kong in Smash?

@  unluckiness : (14 June 2019 - 08:20 AM)

The last three DLC characters are Tingle, Charles Barkley and L Tetris block with Reverse L Tetris block as an Echo fighter.

@  MEDdMI : (14 June 2019 - 08:09 AM)

Pipe dream Smash entry: The Prince from the Katamari series. :D

@  MEDdMI : (14 June 2019 - 06:35 AM)

The space/time around them gets frozen too! ....or something.

@  unluckiness : (14 June 2019 - 06:01 AM)

I still want to find out how freezing people suspends them in midair

@  Tm_Silverclaw : (14 June 2019 - 02:45 AM)

We really need Subzero or Scorpion in Smash. Violence aside, they are pretty big gaming icons as well.

@  Steevy Maximus : (13 June 2019 - 08:18 PM)

Given Nintendo's relationship with Tecmo, I'm still waiting for Ryu Hyabusa

@  TheMightyMol... : (13 June 2019 - 07:19 PM)

I'm still waiting for Doomguy.

@  Steevy Maximus : (13 June 2019 - 06:47 PM)

I just started watching High School DxD (don't judge me...) and I caught on the Nintendo Treehouse some request Rias for Smash lol

@  ▲ndrusi : (13 June 2019 - 11:25 AM)

I have having to watch a video to find out why someone wanted me to watch the video

@  Nevermore : (11 June 2019 - 04:58 PM)

I remember when the TPB for The Dark Age 2 was delayed for an entire year...

@  Trpodeca : (11 June 2019 - 03:55 AM)

I just wish they'd release the Astro City paperback trades.

@  Nevermore : (10 June 2019 - 05:31 AM)

As an open-minded heterosexual, I wouldn't mind seeing more of that.

@  Nevermore : (10 June 2019 - 05:29 AM)

Currently in the process of re-reading Kurt Busiek's Astro City. Big props for the issue featuring the "Dancing Master" and its portrayal of non-stereotypical gay characters.

@  TM2-Megatron : (10 June 2019 - 05:25 AM)

Don't phone charges often contain special rapid charge circuitry, though? The voltage might be higher too, given the selfie stick probably has a very basic battery.

@  SHIELD Agent 47 : (09 June 2019 - 11:28 PM)

Glad to be of assistance!

@  Telly : (09 June 2019 - 10:32 PM)

*checks selfie stick and phone charger* huh. perfect fit. thanks!


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
  • 22080 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

    Accessorized.

  • Supporter
  • 49271 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

    STR10 DEX7 CON12 INT10 WIS8 CHA1

  • Supporter
  • 20568 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 Verity Carlo

Verity Carlo

    trash meme goddess

  • Citizen
  • 22766 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

    STR10 DEX7 CON12 INT10 WIS8 CHA1

  • Supporter
  • 20568 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

    Accessorized.

  • Supporter
  • 49271 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
  • 5553 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
  • 38599 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.