In 2002, researchers Alexander and Hines, found that young
male vervet monkeys preferentially preferred to play with a car and a ball
while young female vervets preferred to play with a doll and a pot. It is well known that human children show
gender differences in toy preferences but many researchers thought this was
primarily a function of early socialization.
If male and female monkeys show the same preference, however, then we
have to give biology another look. What
could possibly account for the differences in toy preferences among vervet
monkeys?
The difference is likely to be in the “nature” of the toys
rather than what they represent in human society. Cars and balls are essentially moving and movable objects. Toy cars have wheels that allow them to be pushed. Balls fit
the hand nicely for throwing. From day one, young male humans show a greater
preference for moving objects than females do.
On the other hand, dolls represent figures that evoke a
connection with other living beings. From day one, young female humans show a
preference for faces over moving objects. And young girls show a greater
affinity for babies than young boys do. According to this thinking, the doll
represents the possibility of “nurturing” behavior to the young vervet females.
I have no idea what the “pot” represents in this situation, although perhaps it
represents a nest-like “place” to put the doll.
We humans are different from each other in myriad ways. Some
of these ways are biologically and genetically based, but that doesn’t mean
they are “correct” in any grand scheme of things. Nor does it mean they are “invariable.” The wonderful thing about nature is its
diversity, and in humans we see the same kind of variability. It is a thing to
be celebrated, not bemoaned. I am fascinated by the opening up of my thoughts
after reading about the vervet monkey study. To paraphrase a much wiser fellow,
there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your
philosophy, or mine.
----
----
I also think it's because we just like to throw things!
ReplyDeleteSame as Alex, being honest
ReplyDeleteAlex, yes, that is true.
ReplyDeleteDeka, and maybe one reason we men like to throw things is biological!
A pot is a nice thing to hit someone over the head with.
ReplyDeleteJust saying.
Charles, if is one reason, then i have a wonderful excuse to play basketball with the laundry and the washing machine!
ReplyDeleteSome things in nature are undeniable. Good post.
ReplyDeleteGolly!
ReplyDeleteIt must be arrested development.
I am an hysterically young 74, and I still play with dolls.
(Signed "Will Bragg?")
My daughter used to cuddle toy trucks, but also barbies.
ReplyDeleteBut the boys never cared for the barbies.
Merisi, tis true.
ReplyDeleteDeka, do you really need an excuse? :)
Bernard, thanks, man.
Ivan, yeah but your dolls are breathing.
David J., I loved wheeled things when I was a kid, and my son did too.
This is great expression of thoughts Charles. I enjoyed reading it, not just for the fascinating points but how you describe them. I wonder what I liked to play with when I was little, yes I liked to play cooking. And we made our own spoons and plates too, from pieces of wood, coconut shells and mussel shells.
ReplyDeleteBrief and mind-opening, Charles.
ReplyDeleteYou should seriously consider teaching. . .
Our commonality with animals will be the story of coming years. . .
Aloha !
Comfort Spiral
~ > < } } ( ° >
> < 3 3 3 ( ' >
It's fascinating what can be revealed about human behavior through studies done on other animals.
ReplyDeleteLisa, as a kid I mostly played war games I will have to admit.
ReplyDeleteCloudia, one of these days maybe I will. :)
Golden Eagle, I find the whole field of comparative psychology very fascinating. I developed a class in it.
I'm good with us turning our cultures into Matriarchal.
ReplyDeleteCharles, could it be that humans developed certain traits from monkeys, such as boys playing with cars and girls with dolls? If humans originated from primates, then I guess we owe some of our behavioural traits to them as well.
ReplyDeleteMark, as long as I get to be in charge. :)
ReplyDeletePrashant, I'm sure that is the case. The trait that was inherited though is, I think, the tendency for males to respond more strongly to movement than females.
Charles-I think male and female roles were established early in apes. It's human adaptability that mixes it up a little.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to know what these monkeys "play with" in their natural environment. And how would you distinguish between what's "play" and what's not?
ReplyDeleteAs someone who was normally an out-lier in most distribution curves, I'm always suspicious of what people do with the results of research like this. Or, for that matter, the researchers who design the experiments.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletenever heard of pervert monkeys before... oh, wait.... :P
ReplyDeleteas for the pot; light it, inhale deep, hold in lungs a beat or three... :O
That's fascinating. Methinks I might need to read more science.
ReplyDeleteJodi, certain roles, like those involving child rearing fall naturally to females in the mammal kingdom just because of the biology, but as humans have shown men can take on nurturing roles and women can do other things as well. There's a lot of variability across the genders in the animal kingdom too.
ReplyDeleteRon, I think generally the researchers look at play behavior being those activities, especially in young animals, that do not directly involve food, sex, protection and other required survival behaviors. I'm not sure what you mean by "do" with the research. the comparative psychologists I know publish their results in journals and try to build on their findings. They don't make political policy. I don't know a single comparative psychologist who would use this kind of data to advocate a return to some kind of mythical "traditional" values, if that is what you are thinking about. In fact all the ones I know, and I myself fall on the edge of this field, are social liberals whose knowledge of animal behavior enhances their understanding of the wide variability in the animal and human behavioral world.
Laughingwolf, they have never heard of you either. :)
Travis Cody, just amazing stuff.
I love this kind of research. Thanks for sharing it. I did a story about a research scientist and how her life reflected her research findings. It was tremendous fun. Actually it was the title story for MONKEY JUSTICE.
ReplyDeletePatti, I did one for Harmland called "The Grey Within," about a researcher reacting to getting his work stolen.
ReplyDeleteLaughingwolf, :)
Before WWII it was trucks/cars and guns. During WWII it was fighting the enemy anyway you could think of.
ReplyDeleteOscar, I imagine so.
ReplyDeleteExcellent. And fascinating.
ReplyDeleteCharles, thanks for the long reply to my comment. I was asking about "play," because the word implies some sort of intention, and I'm not sure how you ascribe intention to animal behavior whose purpose is not as obvious as food, sex, and protection. Just curious; I don't have a point there.
ReplyDeleteThe results of research are not just findings but interpretations of those findings. Even among scientists, there's an opportunity for bias in the interpretation, especially when the bias is built into the design of the study itself.
That's a bias of my own I guess, and feel free to talk me down from it.
Had a nice read :) thanks! lol @ laughingwolf!
ReplyDelete