61–70 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.
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.
Would explain why most young kids go through a dinosaur phase too!
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.
All this back-and-forth about whether and how it's nature or nurture. The point of modern gender freedom is not to deny there is a strong nature influence, it's to nurture kids to go whichever directions they like. All these anecdotes about how this kid and that kid displayed common traditional gender preferences seem to be offered as an argument against trying to upset the traditional nature of these preferences. Su…
Are you sure about that?
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.
I don't think your child is interested in jewellery and fancy hats for the same reason as a grown up. My children of both genders enjoy that stuff too, to the point where my none of my wife's jewellery is in one piece.
One thing I've noticed is that I can't look at them without a cultural confirmation bias. So I've completely lost faith that anyone can judge these things without a stringent experimental method.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also think there is a crazy push to say that no, boys/girls definitely don't like certain things naturally, it MUST be social conditioning, and if you even dare to suggest that there is any natural difference to how children develop you must be sexist/patriatrchist/etc etc. All I want to say is that there seems to be a stupid amount of aggression towards even the mere idea that statistically girls/boys might like s…
I totally agree that insisting it MUST be social conditioning is close-minded and silly. We should be open minded about various possibilities in nature vs nurture. But on the other hand, lots of people have a tendency to think and say that certain things are "obviously true" based on what they are used to seeing in society, like that boys like cars and girls like dolls, and even start rationalizing it ("This is what…
Isn't it somewhat likely though? Kids are born with all of their genes and they can't do anything straight out of the womb. What has zero impact at that point is nurture though. Nurture therefore seems to have a huge influence, this somewhat downgrades genes to only push what's already been established by culture.
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.
All this back-and-forth about whether and how it's nature or nurture. The point of modern gender freedom is not to deny there is a strong nature influence, it's to nurture kids to go whichever directions they like. All these anecdotes about how this kid and that kid displayed common traditional gender preferences seem to be offered as an argument against trying to upset the traditional nature of these preferences. Su…
Surely you mean to let them go whichever “directions” they like.
But I’m not sure that phrasing was accidental.
In the words of my two year old, "woah! It's so big!" I've learned not to over-analyze and trust what he says.
You'll notice that kids don't get as excited about other things that are just as big, or bigger, though. For example, my son can barely even be bothered to look up at 18 wheelers. He sees them as common and boring. But a garbage truck? It's loud and interesting. It does stuff with its tusks. Honestly, garbage trucks are still fascinating even to me, as an adult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All this back-and-forth about whether and how it's nature or nurture. The point of modern gender freedom is not to deny there is a strong nature influence, it's to nurture kids to go whichever directions they like. All these anecdotes about how this kid and that kid displayed common traditional gender preferences seem to be offered as an argument against trying to upset the traditional nature of these preferences. Su…
> it’s to nurture kids to go whichever directions they like Surely you mean to let them go whichever “directions” they like. But I’m not sure that phrasing was accidental.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All this back-and-forth about whether and how it's nature or nurture. The point of modern gender freedom is not to deny there is a strong nature influence, it's to nurture kids to go whichever directions they like. All these anecdotes about how this kid and that kid displayed common traditional gender preferences seem to be offered as an argument against trying to upset the traditional nature of these preferences. Su…
> The point of modern gender freedom is not to deny there is a strong nature influence, Are you sure about that?