A fun challenge! (1of3) [Official poll thread of the Three Words game]

[terminator101]

Hi all!

I'd like to introduce a psychological test that may prove fun in the process and in the end, informative:

Let's pretend that you are a sleeping baby wrapped in a warm yellow blanket inside a basket and for whatever reason, you were left at someone's front door. When the caring person opens the door, they find you and take you inside their home. It is not evident to the person whether you are a boy or a girl. After the caring person takes you inside, you start crying. After a brief moment, the caring person realizes that you need a diaper change. In the basket, the person finds some fresh diapers. When the caring person undoes your used diaper, the person is surprised to realize that you do not have any definitive genitalia - The person can't tell if you are a boy or a girl (Contrary to popular misconception, hermaphrodites do not have both clearly recognizable male and female genitals on the outside. They are not like the fictitious Futunari seen in hentai. Rather, a hermaphrodite has an ambiguous genital that is not clearly recognizable as being either male or female. The person may have what appears to be a half-way formed clitoris with a half or fully formed penis head on top or may have a half-way formed penis with the bottom half of the shaft split open and connected to the body - See the example picture in the wikipedia article -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans. A hermaphrodite has both male and female genital tissue in the inside of the person's body but at disproportionate amounts. They can have normal sized ovaries and small testes or the other way around. Medically, an examination of the genital tissue inside a hermaphrodite for the predominance of either male or female tissue [Or if necessary, chromosome count XX vs XY] is used to determine the person's biological gender. Psychologically, observations of the person's behavior and preferences is is used to help the person's guardian(s) or person decide which gender the person should be determined as). Until your parents can be found, the person has to keep you entertained. It just so happens that the caring person is also a psychologist. The person decides to set up a test (This one being the first of three tests) that may assist the person in helping you to determine, from a psychological standpoint, your gender.

Note: For those viewers following the Three Words game, You already know the synopsis of the current story. Now you get to decide (via vote) what kinds of toys (Boys' or girls') the giant baby will choose! This is the official poll of the Three Words Game (It's "official" because I am the OP of the Three Words game thread for which this thread may be considered a "child" thread). The results of this test (poll) will provide Batman with a clue or strong indication as to what gender the baby's mind may be psychologically categorized.


First psychological test

Note: The following test (poll) is based on an actual psychological test that was conducted which proved the theory that babies show a preference for toys that match their gender before they know what is gender -> https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/06/03...hat-gender-is/.


The person has prepared a room by clearing it of all items except for two piles of toys. One pile of toys consisting of a puzzle of a truck, a baseball and a dinosaur are geared towards boys while another pile of toys consisting of a doll, a kitchen playset, and a pink toy car are geared towards girls. The pile of boys' toys are placed on the left side of the room while the pile of girls' toys are placed on the right side of the room. Which toys will you, the baby, choose to play with? Please clear your mind of any other thoughts and carefully look at the toys before making your selection:

Room from the baby's (your) perspective (Full size pictures of each toy except the kitchen playset have been attached to this thread for your further close up examination).

This test (poll) will be open for two weeks (14 days). Each person is allowed only one choice (vote). You do not have to leave any comments. Please just vote and enjoy this fun and intriguing exercise!

[AlternateCaregiver]

While I'm not the type who wants to be the baby, what if I did something like, took the dinosaur and had it drive the car (that does sound like a funny image a child could haveXD)?

[terminator101]

Originally Posted by AlternateCaregiver

... what if I did something like, took the dinosaur and had it drive the car (that does sound like a funny image a child could haveXD)?

LOL! That's actually not so strange - Back in 1993, there was an animated TV series called Cadillacs and Dinosaurs which ran on Saturday Mornings aimed at young kids! Perhaps some network "genius" figured that since kids like cars and kids like dinosaurs, mixing the two together in a kids' animated TV series would make for great TV ratings and subsequently, merchandising sales. Cadillacs and Dinosaurs lasted for only one season (13 episodes) before being cancelled.



BTW - I forgot to mention to everybody: The votes in the poll are confidential. No one can see who voted for which option. Each member is limited to one vote. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. So relax and just have fun!

[AlternateCaregiver]

Oh I think I heard about that series once or twice. But you didn't answer my question, what if the baby took a toy from each side and played with both, what happens then?

[Rye]

Hmm , Psychological? No , Sociological yes. This seems more like Butler's work with her Queer theory of existentialist freedom applied to gender where anyone can in theory construct their own gender since the ideas of gender don't exist per say.

To give you credit you are approaching this as a psychologist would , the biology of the child and all that. Unfortunately this is not a predictor of behaviour , the child has no clear idea on what choice they should pick , they have no ideas on what gender is how how to preform that role. So they will look the adult for an expression for some clue on what is the right one. Since the child has no biological sex and no prompts they could play with either of them or none since they all involve some level of ideas of gender or the world outside. If they play at all then they had an idea about the world and are imitating it through pretend play.

Going from the Sociological side the child can really pick either , gender is a social construct and the child will need to be assigned one. It's not a question of sex ,it just so happens that in western society gender is tied to sex with no negotiation , you are boy or girl. But in other societies there are more and they are tied to roles and duties that are needed. But in the west it is a important thing to be one and many areas rely on it , like pronouns in language , bathrooms, methods of entertainment and more. I mean you could look even closer into dynamics of passive and active toys but that's more of the same and Foucault does it better in the book 'history of sex'.

There's even a bit of philosophy in the design here , Hume's guillotine in there to show there's a logic issue. Hume states that we jump from what we see , to assumptions about how we should be eg. we evolved from meat eating animals , therefore , we should eat meat. There is a gap in thinking. The same can be said here , there are two genders in western society, therefore, gender should be present with the child. We go from a fact to an assumption about the values we should have in society, that gender should exists.


You can even get a bit meta on this , we're choosing using our own idea of hypothetical-ness , but you never really can know objectively what they can do since you're not them. Further reading on these lines caused a shift from analysing as a objective person away from the event , to an active participant feeling and knowing how it works form the inside.

The test you describe is based on a much darker one which a black blot on psychology history and is an example of why we have the ethics board over seeing all research. The test caused psychological harm to the participant to commit suicide and resulting lawsuit wrapped the results in copyright so no one sees them. I think it was the baby Albert experiment to see if gender was biological based, where a botched gender corrective surgery resulted in a boy growing up as a girl.

Onto the actual artical cited , it doesn't prove anything. Kids can move or play with stuff at random , you don't need a reason. They also categorised them into boys and girls , so they obviously get a positive result that they are gendered since that's they're only options. Furthermore , London , multicultural , I don't think so. It is a western city with western ideas flowing through it. So they will display a western level of socialisation. Another one is they actually omit the percentages , the accepted point where it is no longer random chance is at 5% , so if 95% of the boys picked boys toys then there might be something , but it then needs a control to establish what a rare result is.

In summery , gender is not really biological and not really psychological either , it up to society and the genderless child will rely on cues to get the idea of what is right , if they don't get them they may not pick any. The idea that gender is biological is debated and is why psychologist should not really be looking at gender in this way.

The answer to the question what would the genderless baby pick: whatever it's assigned gender tells it too , if not , it will imitate or look for cues , if none , random chance or free will.

[terminator101]

Originally Posted by AlternateCaregiver

... you didn't answer my question, ...

In all fairness, I believe that I did answer your previous question though there might have been some confusion between us due to the manner of wording that you used. You asked:

Originally Posted by AlternateCaregiver

While I'm not the type who wants to be the baby, what if I did something like, took the dinosaur and had it drive the car (that does sound like a funny image a child could haveXD)?

The unclear manner in which you worded your sentence made me to believe that you really meant to say:

"... what if I did something like, took the dinosaur and had it drive the car (Does that sound like a funny image a child could haveXD)?" Note: By "funny" I thought that you meant "strange", the second definition of the word funny -> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/funny

My answer was that it is actually not so strange and I even gave you an example of a children's TV series that had cars and dinosaurs. If you had instead said: "... what if I did something like, took the dinosaur and had it drive the car? IMHO, that does sound like a funny image a child could have." My answer would have been a different one which you will see as we continue on...

You now asked:

Originally Posted by AlternateCaregiver

... what if the baby took a toy from each side and played with both, what happens then?

In all honesty, I wouldn't know since I am not a psychologist. However as a layperson, I think (Though I could be wrong - Again, I'm not a psychologist. I don't know if you are a psychologist or if you're a graduate level college student who is majoring in Psychology) that the child psychologists who ran the test, to which I referred in my first post, would either run the test again with all the subjects (Babies) who exhibited such behavior (Selecting toys from both piles) but with another two piles of toys that are usually preferred by the different gendered babies. If the subjects still exhibit such behavior, then perhaps the child psychologists would determine that those select babies are transgender (Not that there's anything wrong with being transgender). If you re-read (Or read for the first time) the article to which I linked, it clearly says: "The researchers divided the children into three age groups: 9-17 months, 18-23 months, and 24-32 months. At every age, there was a clear pattern – boys showed more interest in and played for longer with male-type toys and girls showed a similar bias for female-typed toys. In statistical terms, the effect size for these differences was large." Now, a boy could have picked up a girls' toy out of sheer curiosity for a brief few minutes but in the long run of the test, it was shown that such a boy would then loose interest in the girls' toy, pick up a boys' toy and continue to play with the boys' toy. The reverse could also be found true with select cases of girls.

For the intents and purposes of introducing a fun game to the people here and for progressing the story in the Three Words game, I wanted to keep the psychological test in this thread as simple as possible. Of course IRL, there is always the possibility of what you described happening (A baby picking up and playing with for the duration of the test, toys from both separate piles) but as the test to which I linked showed consistently, baby boys will tend to choose to play with boys' toys and baby girls will tend to choose to play with girl' toys while none of them have any concept of what is gender.


-----

Originally Posted by Rye

Hmm , Psychological? No , Sociological yes. ... you are approaching this as a psychologist would , the biology of the child and all that. ...

What is the "True" test for determining a hermaphrodite baby's gender (Or even anyone's gender) depends upon whom you ask. A psychologist may respond with a psychological test like the one to which I linked. A physician may respond with a medical/physical examination of the baby with the permission of the baby's parents while a sociologist may respond with a survey filled with questions (To the baby's parents or to the baby if the baby is old enough to talk) pertinent to the subject (I'm neither a psychologist, a physician nor a sociologist. I don't know whether you are either one of those professionals or a graduate level college student who is majoring in one of those sciences though your thoughts are still welcomed).

Originally Posted by Rye

...
The test you describe is based on a much darker one which a black blot on psychology history and is an example of why we have the ethics board over seeing all research. ...

I think that you need to get your facts straight before you intentionally or unintentionally try to demonize what was a well meaning study (Published in a psychological report) in Child Psychology meant to benefit future generations of man through the understanding of the conclusions derived from its results.

Originally Posted by Rye

...The test caused psychological harm to the participant to commit suicide and resulting lawsuit wrapped the results in copyright so no one sees them. ...

To which test are you actually referring? Like they colorfully say on the 'Chan boards: Sauce? (Source?) Your statement conveniently can go nowhere since by its own words, the results of the supposed test cannot, by conventional means, be seen.

Originally Posted by Rye

... I think it was the baby Albert experiment to see if gender was biological based, where a botched gender corrective surgery resulted in a boy growing up as a girl. ...

The "Little Albert experiment" was essentially a twisted (Sick minded) extension of Pavlov's Dog experiment conducted by a (Possibly sadistic) psychologist named John B. Watson in 1920. Pavlov discovered that animals could have their normal behavior modified with conditioned responses. Pavlov took a caged dog and had a lab assistant feed it some meat. Pavlov observed that the dog salivated when seeing the meat. After several feedings, he had the assistant ring a bell just before the assistant fed the dog. Pavlov observed that the dog still salivated upon seeing the meat. One day, Pavlov rang the bell but did not have the assistant feed the dog. Pavlov observed that the dog salivated in anticipation of being fed. Pavlov concluded that the dog's behavior changed because the dog was conditioned to respond to the sound of the bell's ring as an indication that it was going to be fed meat. Watson conducted a similar experiment by using a nine month old baby he called "Baby Albert" shockingly, without his single mother's permission:

Watson placed the baby on a table and brought various furry animals (A white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, etc.) in front of him, replacing them one by one. The baby responded normally to each of the animals, touching and playing with them. After the last animal was taken away, Watson brought back the white lab rat to the baby. The baby responded again as it did to the other animals. When the baby tried to play with the white lab rat, Watson came from behind the baby and quickly struck a metal bar with a hammer. Watson continued striking the metal bar each time the baby tried to play with the white lab rat. Watson observed that the baby responded to the noise by crying and showing fear each time. The white lab rat was then taken away and the animals were once again brought back one by one until it was time to bring back the white lab rat. When the baby saw the white lab rat again, he cried and showed fear. Watson concluded that the baby's behavior changed because the baby was conditioned to respond to the sight of the white lab rat.


Of course, such unethical psychological tests are no longer allowed by today's standards. The "Little Albert experiment" was not conducted to determine if gender was biological based and did not involve a botched gender corrective surgery which resulted in a boy growing up as a girl. Also, it was later uncovered that Douglas Merritte who was the unfortunate "Baby albert", died at age six after developing hydrocephalus and not from suicide -> https://brucemhood.wordpress.com/200...little-albert/.

Originally Posted by Rye

... Onto the actual artical cited , it doesn't prove anything. ...

If you are indeed a psychologist or even a Psychology major (Graduate level) in college then you may well take the matter up with the professional child psychologists that conducted the psychological test. Otherwise, what you said falls within the realm of the rest of us laypeople. Some of us may agree with you while others may disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Rye

... The answer to the question what would the ... baby pick: whatever it's ... gender tells it too , if not , it will imitate or look for cues , if none , random chance or free will.

I agree with the first part of this statement of yours and the last part as those were seen in the psychological test that was conducted by the child psychologists while the middle part of your statement did not occur during the test (The female child psychologists who participated in the test did not give any cues to the babies).

[Rye]

To test for sex , well , chomesoms are pretty definitive, being xy for male and xx for female. But they can have complications like xxy , or x , y. Often just ask the parents what to put on the birth certificate and then do reassignment sugary , sometimes getting it right or wrong. But yea , depends on who you ask , gender cuts across a lot of fields.

Ahhh! You're right! Wrong one! Wrong one! Curse my sleepy head. It's been a while ,I remember it was a botched foreskin surgery. Hold on lemmie find it.... It was the case of Bruce and Brian Reimer in 1966, a twin study called 'As nature made him'. My bad , sorry.

Not trying to demonise it , but it's my viewpoint that it is not in the best interest to analyse gender with only psychological data and methods. I was just giving an alternate viewpoint since it can lead to misinterpretation and won't help in the understanding of human behaviour if we only look at one side. I'll fall on my sword here and say I may have come across as aggressive. Sorry.

Yea , I'm not immune to criticism , and neither are they , hence why I criticised the aritical. It's better to question rather that just leave it as established fact. My viewpoint stays the same though. A lot of harm has been done along this route of investigation of gender and sex and it's risky to do so with only looking at one side.

In response to sources here's the As nature intended :http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/...assignment.pdf.

There is observations , but the actual results are not included. I only know because my lecturer told me about it when I asked further. Either way , still unethical by today's standards , hence why we're very careful with kids and stuff like that.

The cues thing would be part of Bowbly's secure attachment of how children learn , using expressions of the mother to determine what it's own reaction should be , spit into the 6 emotions of joy , anger, disgust, fear , sadness and interest/surprise.

Either way ; sorry , came across as more emotional than I intended. This is fun though and I'm more than happy to throw my two cents in. I hope you do the other two as well, I'll be happy to see what comes up. t

[pyro]

Originally Posted by Rye

To test for sex , well , chomesoms are pretty definitive, being xy for male and xx for female. But they can have complications like xxy , or x , y. Often just ask the parents what to put on the birth certificate and then do reassignment sugary , sometimes getting it right or wrong. But yea , depends on who you ask , gender cuts across a lot of fields.

I am going to reply here. I don't think Tereminator won't mind. We have established in the three word story that Batman can't perform a blood test to see what the baby's dna says, cause he isn't sure if the air based pathagens on earth would effect the baby or not. And because blood test are out of the question, and he needs to put clothes on the baby, he needs to know what gender the hermpharidite baby identifies with.

[terminator101]

Originally Posted by Rye

...it's my viewpoint that it is not in the best interest to analyse gender with only psychological data and methods. I was just giving an alternate viewpoint since it can lead to misinterpretation and won't help in the understanding of human behaviour if we only look at one side. ...

If the situation described in my first post was a real life one rather than a hypothetical one, I would absolutely agree with you - In addition to the psychological tests, a medical/physical examination by a physician after permission from the parent or parents is secured, should be in order (Perhaps as a follow-up, even a sociological survey could be called for). But you have to realize that given the parameters of the story above (The person currently caring for the baby does not have the parent's or parents' permission to perform any medical/physical exams and [Though it was not made clear in the story above,] the baby is not at the age where verbal communication with others is yet possible) the psychological approach was the only viable option available and the only approach that was practical to be deployed in this forum. Also as Pyro already explained about the other story in the Three Words game, a medical/physical examination isn't viable since it is unknown whether the Earth germs would harm the giant baby who is an extraterrestrial alien (Even if this was not the case, permission to perform a medical/physical examination was not obtained by the baby's parents). The giant baby is at a health risk of being harmed from exposure to the elements (e.g. Extreme cold or heat) since the baby is wearing only a diaper. In order to properly clothe and to better interact with the baby until the parents are found and can arrive to pick up their child, the JLA (Currently represented by Batman at the scene) needs to determine the baby's gender.

Originally Posted by Rye

... I'll fall on my sword here and say I may have come across as aggressive. Sorry. ...

It is fine to express contrary ideas or to disagree with ideas that are presented before you. But you have to not let your emotions rule you as you state your disagreement. Otherwise you risk losing the attention of the other party or parties involved and the argument. There's an old saying that may apply: "In a disagreement, the first person to lose their temper, loses the disagreement." (That person will appear as a raving lunatic and subsequently be ignored).

Originally Posted by Rye

... Yea , I'm not immune to criticism , and neither are they , hence why I criticised the aritical. It's better to question rather that just leave it as established fact. My viewpoint stays the same though. ...

Of course. There is another saying that comes to mind: "Trust but verify." Also, You are always entitled to your own opinion as are others to their own opinions.

Originally Posted by Rye

...In response to sources here's the As nature intended ... Either way , still unethical by today's standards , hence why we're very careful with kids and stuff like that. ...

IMHO, It's unfortunate that it was ultimately decided to re-assign that baby's gender so that "Bruce" would become "Brenda" and to raise the baby as a girl under the "Nurture Theory". But the article to which you linked did say that it was riskier and more difficult to reconstruct a penis rather than a vagina - I think that by that the specialists (Surgeons?) meant that there was a greater (Life threatening) risk of the baby's body rejecting a reconstructed penis which would then possibly even reduce the chance of success for later reconstructing even a vagina after removing the rejected penis (Due to scar tissue at the site of the removal), so it may have been the "Lesser of two evils" to go with the construction of a vagina (All of the specialists agreed that the baby would have to live without a penis).

Originally Posted by Rye

... Either way ; sorry , came across as more emotional than I intended. This is fun though and I'm more than happy to throw my two cents in. I hope you do the other two as well, I'll be happy to see what comes up.

No problemo. I'm glad that you're enjoying this game. Please continue to throw in your "Two cents" as it appears to and may continue to add value to this series of games. I hope that I can develop the other two games to elicit an equal amount of enjoyment for you and the others here (Otherwise, I'll have to give you and the others back your "Two cents")!