ted, you're also ignoring that parents who give their sons dolls are doing the same conditioning

giving your son dolls as first interaction with toys is not a neutral act either, it's an intentional attempt at subversion

agreed that kids are biased with what toys they'll play with, and yet there is no possible way to do it without bias so it feels like you're just poo poing because you'd rather not have any data to support your belief than a lot of data that disagrees but has some minor issues

Im not doing that all in any way shape or form.

Its an absolute classic nature v nurture debate and your attempt to hand wave the obvious presence of nurture with men are tall is just that really really lazy handwaving.

Again any study that does not have methodology to determine nurture effects is moot for very obvious logical and rational reasons that anyone being even remotely intellectual honest would have to admit.

Also infamous track record the discipline in question for making this type of mistake has a lot to do with its use of trying to use monkeys to explain humans.

If the best evidence there is a study using monkeys and a meta study using 11 years olds, then this issue is absolutely open for debate and is a million miles from settled science in any way shape or form.

Eh?

Am I ted?

Im not ignoring anything about parents giving there sons dolls wat?

Do you have any evidence about that, studies etc?

Also that you cant remove bias is not a minor problem its a massive huge problem.

A study specifically designed to factor in or out socialisation effects found them.

This is your problem. Most scientists move on from nature v nurture debate 20 years ago, mainly due to Pinker's book.

Most of the interesting contemporary research explores the interaction between nature and nurture.

I know that, but you are the one claiming its pure nature by making claims of innate preferences.

I am just pointing out you have to have methodology to ascertain nurture effects and if you are including 11 years olds and age ranges up to 11 then claiming an innate preference is obviously horrible flawed.

So far it seems like there is little reliable evidence of innate preferences.

Saying there is an innate preference is not the same as saying it's pure nature, but you know this already.

In this case its as good as and is basically interchangeable because of the ages in question.

this

Again its the same give or take in individuals so young, but if we want to stick at innate preference, you still have to factor in for preferences that are socialised (not innate) so it changes absolutely nothing in the context of this debate.

Keep shifting the goalposts to better fit your argument if you like, but I don't agree.

I have not shifted any goal posts in any way shape or form.

In summary, this. All OAFK is trying to is make the perfect the enemy of the good.

No I am making the totally imperfect the enemy of the good.

If you have such a huge gaping hole in your methodology then we are not close to good yet.

In summary Elrazor is really dying on the hill of handwaving away a perfectly legitimate and reasonable criticism of work he has cited.

If you are saying there is an innate preference, then you are saying there is a "nature" component. If you then have a study looking at kids where "nurture" has already taken place, how can you determine if "nature" plays any role at all?

Btw, I'm not arguing about the conclusion at this time, but your logic does seem to have this hole in it.

The easy out of that is just to say cars represent the nurture element because obviously children born before cars had the same innate nature, but nurture determines the object with which they express it.

However yes if the child is of a certain age how can you tell if a preference is innate or simply received.

I have had a son and a daughter. They are both very gender "normal" at this point. That being said, it is interesting to note the very subtle (and often not so subtle) ways that kids get introduced to gender and speculate what the effect is. For example, my daughters nanny started calling her "mama" pretty much from the second she was born. That has to have some sort of effect, no?

FWIW, I think it is patently obvious there are sex specific differences in physiology/psychology that begin in the womb due in large part to sex hormones. How could there not be? Every other mammal has them. How can we attribute solely to "environment" sexual dimorphism that is not only present in every other mammal, but the same general pattern as every other mammal. It is great that we can think abstractly, and do math, and blow things up so well. But there is no indication as a species we have transcended our biology, and every indication we haven't.

The funny thing is that biologists who understand all this also understand that whereas biological sex isn't a spectrum, human behavior (and behavior of every other mammal) is, and it generally follows a normal distribution. And the physiological differences that are so obvious and well experimentally documented, when manifested at the behavior level, barely move the curves at all. So if we lived in a rationale world, we could recognize there is definite sex differences at the population level, but at the individual level you cant assume much of anything.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...18506X08000949

inb4 ted says that those monkeys were bullied into acting out hetero normative play roles

https://link.springer.com/article/10...508-010-9618-z

https://link.springer.com/article/10...508-008-9430-1

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...aba.1974.7-173

here's one that is definitely on team nurture, but it also implies that gender dysphoria is a psychological condition that can be effectively treated rather than something written in stone that must play out via gender reassignment surgery

All the hottest research from 1974 ITT.

this would be a good opportunity for you to find a better study that's done recently, but you'd rather par for the course

i used to think you were a funny troll, now i just realize you're a man child, that "why would a gay guy be attracted to straight men" was a true omg i'm talking to a complete moron with no idea of how the world works moment, so i thank you for that because now i can rest assured never giving you an ounce of credibility

Why does rickroll keep calling me ted?

No one is arguing that we have transcended biology.

Its inherent biology has been used to justify some of the worst hot takes in human history, women cant vote = biological justification, slavery/racism = biological justification.

Biological Psychology was at the fore front of providing authoritative rationale for those takes.

So when someone claims something is inherent its simply good intellectual practise to ask ok then has nurture been considered, factored out when making that claim.

In this case we can see it clearly has not.

That is pretty much the end of the discussion.

It clearly has been considered, as the same huge effect we have seen observed in humans, across cultures and across time, we see the same pattern of toy preferences in primates.

The fact that we see these differences in preferences across cultures, across time and across species strongly suggests these are innate differences.

And therefore that is pretty much is the end of the discussion.