Toy preferences between boys and girls are a classic example of a social debate based on little data.

This is a science fiction starring Stuart Ritchie newsletter for subscribers. I. If you’d like to receive this straight to your inbox every week, sign up here.

Okay, take a step back, I’ll write about gender differences. Even as I type this, I feel the controversy shudder: everyone should be very careful when discussing the science of such a sensitive subject.

One of the most important battlegrounds in the gender difference debate is the toy store. People disagree about what impact toys can have on children during their development, and make certain demands on how they should behave or what they should be interested in. For example, there is a train called “Let toys be toys‘, calling for less gender stereotyping and, of course, less “blue for boys” and “pink for girls” color choices in toy design and marketing.

There is also a related discussion of this congenital toy preferences. Are boys and girls born with innate preferences for certain toys and activities, or are they pushed in a certain direction by society, parents, and gender stereotypes?

Scientists have done a lot of research on toy preferences. A 2020 meta-analysis identified 75 studies that examined children’s toy preferences before the age of 11. It contains some of the biggest differences I have ever seen in a psychology class. There are many differences in effect size, but on average, boys prefer vehicle-based toys. dramatic the percentage is higher than that of girls; and girls prefer the doll with even greater speed.

These differences are larger than the size difference between males and females, which is a huge effect; They are larger than any other group differences I have seen in any field of psychology (and perhaps by now many parents will say, “Well, jerkfrom Variety we know that girls prefer dolls and boys prefer cars!” – but it’s important to have up-to-date data on this, and not just rely on anecdotes).

Pretty impressive results, but you must have noticed that they do not address our question of innateness at all: they only prove that phenomenon there is a toy preference, not a reason.

This is where monkeys come to the rescue. In a famous 2002 study, scientists came up with the idea of ​​giving monkeys (especially vervet monkeys) human toys to see which ones males and females prefer. The logic was that if you found that male monkeys preferred toy trucks and female monkeys preferred dolls, it would be very difficult to explain with socialization theory. After all, no one socializes monkeys to prefer a gender-appropriate toy—monkeys don’t watch gender-specific ads on YouTube videos.

Undoubtedly, the monkeys showed gender differences in their preferences: the males spent more time playing with the toy police car; the females preferred the chrysalis.

This, in turn, may tell us something about human children. The researchers concluded that their results showed that “object preferences, differentiated by sex, arose early in human evolution” – in other words, a preference for certain toys is not something that our modern society has instilled in children. Since the great apes, with whom we share a common ancestor, have it, it must have been programmed into our brains for thousands of years.

Another study in monkeys in 2008 seemed to confirm the evolutionary idea, although the results were a bit more complex. This time, using rhesus monkeys, the researchers found that males showed a preference for toys and wheeled vehicles over furry soft animals, while female monkeys showed no particular preference. They agreed with an earlier 2002 article that it cannot be socialized, but took a more moderate stance, calling for both nature and nurture to explain toy preferences:

“Toy preferences reflect hormonal behavioral and cognitive biases that social processes have shaped into the sex differences seen in monkeys and humans.”

Now, however, new research findings are getting in the way. A new study published last month revealed a major flaw in the previous two monkey experiments: they tested monkeys. in groups. Monkeys have a strong dominance hierarchy and their position in the hierarchy influences their behavior with other monkeys. If one some One of the more dominant monkeys could handle toys with impunity while others were intimidated by their lack of social status, this would not necessarily give you an accurate picture of their true preferences.

So, the authors of the new study did a very simple thing: they tested the preferences of monkeys when they interacted only with toys. Here again, the results were very different from previous studies. There were no differences in the preferences of male stereotypical role-playing toys. There was a difference in doll preferences, but male monkeys who played with him more.

So, it seems that the story of monkeys having an increased affection for human children is a little less straightforward than

But I left out one extremely important detail from all three studies: their sample size. A 2002 study included only 63 monkeys. In 2008 there were thirty-four. And the new one from 2023? Only fourteen monkeys These small Research: very susceptible to random fluctuations in data – in other parallel universes that are not too different, the results could be very different.

You might say: Aren’t you looking for big effects here? A little research is good, right, since the consequences in this area would be like a sore thumb? But remember, these are effects in People. It’s not at all clear what effect size we should expect for monkeys – small studies can easily miss a subtle but genuine preference for a particular type of toy.

To me, this whole story illustrates what I often find depressing when I look at the science behind controversial issues: we simply can’t draw firm conclusions from it. every the data we have. By that I don’t mean “we should always remain at least a little uncertain, because that’s how science in general should be approached.” I mean, “we all fight over the slightest piece of evidence, and any investigation gives us little to no reason to change our minds about it.”

Without solid data, there is always a way to continue the discussion indefinitely without a solution. On the other hand, anyone can get angry; No one should make an effort, and no one should change their mind.

(That’s not to say there isn’t other evidence for this question: for example, some studies have looked at girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a condition that means they get extra testosterone and develop more masculine traits. Girls with this disease it is.. at least some studies show a preference for more stereotypical toys for men than for girls without toys, but collecting data on a population all of which have a particular health condition may not produce results that are representative of the general population here – collection of data on a rare disease – usually quite small themselves).

It shouldn’t be this way: after years of publishing low-quality research, some areas of science have come together to create larger, higher-quality research. To give just one example from a closely related field of developmental psychology, the ManyBabies project helps scientists from different universities and laboratories around the world collaborate on important research questions by pooling their samples. This saves the individual researcher from having to rely solely on infants to recruit and helps him conduct his research in much larger groups.

Other areas, including innate sex differences, were to follow. People are really interested in these questions. Small studies that are inconclusive no matter what their results show are not the right way to answer them.

Other things I’ve written lately

Over the weekend, I tweeted about a very bad looking study on the effects of “cold spray” shared by Andrew Huberman, an influential online blogger with a large following. Even the summary of the study was full of red flags, and I complained that Huberman (who is also a professor at Stanford University) was spreading something that looked so wrong. Upon closer inspection, the study was indeed as bad as it first appeared, and I wrote about it here as part of the cold spray discussion in general.

And sorry if this is all very confusing and self-absorbed, but I’ve also summarized for you the best of what I’ve written recently. I with this link.

Science Link of the Week

Styan Westlake wrote a great play for you. GuardianThe “big idea” in a series on why governments shouldn’t be afraid to test policy through experimentation, even if experimentation sometimes makes people uncomfortable.

Thank you for reading the Science Fiction newsletter. See you next week, but in the meantime feel free to contact us. [email protected]

This is a science fiction starring Stuart Ritchie newsletter for subscribers. I. If you’d like to receive this straight to your inbox every week, sign up here.