31–40 of 166 posts
This didn't address my favorite theory: that (some) kids are programmed to learn as much as they can about the nearby megafauna, and in this world the closest approximation is these big garbage/fire/construction vehicles.
> kids are programmed No, kids aren't computers. It's an easy and facile analogy, because we work with computers all day, and are intimately familiar with them. That's precisely why the analogy is wrong.
I actually wanted to be a garbage truck driver when I was little. I think it was the power to crush stuff that really stirred my imagination. The smell never really bothered me much and I figured that you would get used to it anyway. The dirty never bother me much either; I was constantly playing in our neighbors backyard that we called the dirt-hole. Yup, garbage man was almost the perfect job. Instead, my love for…
You could have been both: https://dilbert.com/strip/1998-11-21
This is fun. I grew up on the other side of the world (albeit a "western" culture), and was also amazed by garbage trucks from the day I remember. The whole lift/squash mechanism, their bright orange color (in our parts), the ease by which they lift the containers, the colored control lights/buttons on the side which the cleaners use to operate the lift, the blinkers. And made funny noises. It was something straight…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My girl was 9months when sh started acrively pushing for bracelets, fancy hats, etc. I took her to a bike shop, an she immediately went for the pink Helmet with stars. We dressed her in neutral cloths (second hand), we dont have a TV. Her mother does not wear juwlery or makeup. To us this appears innate.
Unless your daughter never met with other kids or other adults, it's seems hard to say there's been no bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you perhaps discounting the societal influences pushing your kids towards their respective interests? If they view any amount of advertising or interact with other children who do, for example, they could already have ideas about what is "appropriate" for them to like.
My girl was 9months when sh started acrively pushing for bracelets, fancy hats, etc. I took her to a bike shop, an she immediately went for the pink Helmet with stars. We dressed her in neutral cloths (second hand), we dont have a TV. Her mother does not wear juwlery or makeup. To us this appears innate.
Oh, and she loves the police/ambulance/fire dept, but most of all, the garbage truck!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also a similar theory to explain why boys are more interested in cars than girls (which my kids have proven convincingly, albeit with a low sample size): boys, as future hunters, are attracted to preys that move, hence, in the modern environment, to balls and cars.
Are you perhaps discounting the societal influences pushing your kids towards their respective interests? If they view any amount of advertising or interact with other children who do, for example, they could already have ideas about what is "appropriate" for them to like.
We're in a progressive country where gender equality is good and most people are aware to not show bias and offer girls toy cars and stuff.
My takeaway from the past two years is: There is clear gender preference. Boys generally like cars, girls like dolls. Both like books and puzzles.
Of course there are exceptions but the stereotype is a stereotype for a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also a similar theory to explain why boys are more interested in cars than girls (which my kids have proven convincingly, albeit with a low sample size): boys, as future hunters, are attracted to preys that move, hence, in the modern environment, to balls and cars.
Are you perhaps discounting the societal influences pushing your kids towards their respective interests? If they view any amount of advertising or interact with other children who do, for example, they could already have ideas about what is "appropriate" for them to like.
EDIT: I looked into this more and could only find studies on 9 months old, which is potentially old enough to argue for socialization, although the studies obviously tried to control for that.
This didn't address my favorite theory: that (some) kids are programmed to learn as much as they can about the nearby megafauna, and in this world the closest approximation is these big garbage/fire/construction vehicles.
> kids are programmed No, kids aren't computers. It's an easy and facile analogy, because we work with computers all day, and are intimately familiar with them. That's precisely why the analogy is wrong.