>I just have one question Sheila. Is this genetic, or learned behavior (foryouto feel this way)? Seriously, I'm curious what you think.

Personally, I think it is both. I believe that people are both with
predispositions toward particular temperaments. People who have had more than
one child usually know this right away! ;-) I also think that gender plays a
role in these temperaments. Consider this: when my son was born, his dad and
I lived in DC proper, on the metro line. He took the train in to work, so we
only had one car. Therefore, nearly all the time my son spent in the car was
with me. So... he's about 10 months old, sitting in the front passenger seat,
backwards (as per the infant seat instructions), and we go past a construction
site with lots and lots of machines, pulling to a stop at the light on the
corner. He points, and starts babbling. I'm telling him, "Oh, yes, that is a
crane, and a bulldozer, etc." When I start to move the car forward, he starts
screaming. I'm amused by this, so I go back around the block, and sure enough,
when we get in front of the construction site again, he quiets, and stares
intently at the machinery. I actually pulled over so that he could watch for a
while.

Now, I know this was something innate. I didn't teach him to be fascinated by
machinery, and I'm pretty much the only person he was in the car with. Indeed,
research has been pretty clear that there are significant differences WRT
gender and interest in boys and girls at VERY early ages. Clearly, there is
overlap, and there will be girls who respond more like the majority of boys,
and vice versa. But, looking at the normal distributions, I think we can say
that there is innately masculine and innately feminine behavior.

I am attracted to things that are masculine--not only in behavior, but in
appearance as well. I tend not to be attracted to "pretty" men, even if I can
appreciate their beauty in concept. For instance, I have a "thing" for Vincent
D'Onofrio, who is not at all pretty, but is very masculine in appearance. I
like hairy forearms (gawd, I love it when a man rolls up the sleeves on his
dress shirt... <shudder>). Last night, I came to bed late, and my DH scolded
me (well, it WAS 4:00 a.m.) and I got turned on by his deeper and more gravelly
(sleepy) voice.

Of course, there is some learning that occurs to--both in boys learning what
society expects from men, and in what women want from men, but, I really do
think that at LEAST half of it (if not more) is innate.

Gosh--look at the time! I gotta run! Hope this makes sense and doesn't have
too many typos!

Sheila
I think what you have said applies for a lot of women, otherwise why wouldtheybe interested in men in the first place? Opposites attract - up to a point(LOL).

whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes:
I just have one question Sheila. Is this genetic, or learned behavior (foryouto feel this way)? Seriously, I'm curious what you think. Personally, I think it is both. I believe that people are both with predispositions toward particular temperaments. People who have had more than one child usually know this right away! ;-)

Well. We _believe_ it. That is a bit different from _knowing_ it.

I.e., in my case, it includes the recognition that I might be wrong
and just don't have sufficient remove from myself to see the important
ways in which the different environments I've provided for my children
have influenced them.

My daughter's personality is much like mine and my wife's. Though
she's less introverted than eithe of us. Is that because she
inherited innate personality traits, or because we raised her to be
like us?

My son's personality (to my infinite delight) is _totally_ unlike
mine, and mostly unlike my wife's. Is that because of his innate
nature, or because of his need to differentiate himself from his older
sister, or because we've treated him differently? I tend to believe
mostly the first, but I have no way to be certain. I don't _think_
we've treated him differently, but we probably have without realizing
it. And I know the drive to differentiate oneself can be very
strong.
I also think that gender plays a role in these temperaments. Consider this: when my son was born, his dad and I lived in DC proper, on the metro line. He took the train in to work, so we only had one car. Therefore, nearly all the time my son spent in the car was with me. So... he's about 10 months old, sitting in the front passenger seat, backwards (as per the infant seat instructions), and we go past a construction site with lots and lots of machines, pulling to a stop at the light on the corner. He points, and starts babbling. I'm telling him, "Oh, yes, that is a crane, and a bulldozer, etc." When I start to move the car forward, he starts screaming. I'm amused by this, so I go back around the block, and sure enough, when we get in front of the construction site again, he quiets, and stares intently at the machinery. I actually pulled over so that he could watch for a while. Now, I know this was something innate.

_What_ was innate? Heavy construction equipment hasn't been around
long enough for people to have developed an innate interest in it.
So what broader human endeavor does the construction equipment
represent for which he had an innate fascination (if it was innate)?
Maybe that broader interest is one shared by you, and you found a more
socially acceptable place to put it as a little girl.
I didn't teach him to be fascinated by machinery, and I'm pretty much the only person he was in the car with. Indeed, research has been pretty clear that there are significant differences WRT gender and interest in boys and girls at VERY early ages.

That's true. But I don't think it has shown these differences before
children develop gender awareness and identity. Also the drive
to belong AND the drive to differentiate oneself seem to be extremely
strong and to come into play very early.
Clearly, there is overlap, and there will be girls who respond more like the majority of boys, and vice versa. But, looking at the normal distributions, I think we can say that there is innately masculine and innately feminine behavior.

I know it _feels_ like that. A careful sifting of the evidence suggests
that the evidence may not be that strong though.
I am attracted to things that are masculine--not only in behavior, but in appearance as well. I tend not to be attracted to "pretty" men, even if I can appreciate their beauty in concept. For instance, I have a "thing" for Vincent D'Onofrio,

(Which I'm still trying not to hold against you!)

WhansaMi wrote: Personally, I think it is both. I believe that people are both with predispositions toward particular temperaments. People who have had more
than one child usually know this right away! ;-) Well. We _believe_ it. That is a bit different from _knowing_ it. Well, I did say I *personally* thought... but, okay.... I'd also like to point out that we do KNOW that there are morphological and physiological differences between the male and female brain:
the size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, the number of somatostasis-expressing neurons,

Can you translate that line for me? "somatostatis-expressing"?

differences in proportions of the types of brain cells (e.g., males have more "white matter", which seems to account for their superior spatial skills--as a group)

more "white matter seems to"? You mean they STILL don't know? "White
matter", as contrasted with what, in the female brain?

What about the female brain having something special (maybe emotive or
communicative) - (you left that out). ??

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kdfzkhxr84.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes: Personally, I think it is both. I believe that people are both with predispositions toward particular temperaments. People who have had
more than one child usually know this right away! ;-) Well. We _believe_ it. That is a bit different from _knowing_ it. I.e., in my case, it includes the recognition that I might be wrong and just don't have sufficient remove from myself to see the important ways in which the different environments I've provided for my children have influenced them.

I could tell that my second child's personality was different from that of
my first child before kid #2 was even born. I don't think their environment
was too terribly different up to that point - I certainly hadn't made any
effort to change anything.

Even after birth, I had a harder time with kid #2, *because* I really tried
to treat her just like kid #1 - and she didn't WANT that. And mentioned it,
loudly. I'll never believe that a day old infant doesn't have a personality
and preferences of his/her own - because mine sure did, and were *most*
emphatic about it. This had to have been genetic - they just hadn't been
alive long enough at that point for me to have screwed them up!



My daughter's personality is much like mine and my wife's. Though she's less introverted than eithe of us. Is that because she inherited innate personality traits, or because we raised her to be like us? My son's personality (to my infinite delight) is _totally_ unlike mine, and mostly unlike my wife's. Is that because of his innate nature, or because of his need to differentiate himself from his older sister, or because we've treated him differently? I tend to believe mostly the first, but I have no way to be certain. I don't _think_ we've treated him differently, but we probably have without realizing it. And I know the drive to differentiate oneself can be very strong. I also think that gender plays a role in these temperaments. Consider this: when my son was born, his
dad and I lived in DC proper, on the metro line. He took the train in to work,
so we only had one car. Therefore, nearly all the time my son spent in the
car was with me. So... he's about 10 months old, sitting in the front passenger
seat, backwards (as per the infant seat instructions), and we go past a
construction site with lots and lots of machines, pulling to a stop at the light on
the corner. He points, and starts babbling. I'm telling him, "Oh, yes, that
is a crane, and a bulldozer, etc." When I start to move the car forward, he
starts screaming. I'm amused by this, so I go back around the block, and sure
enough, when we get in front of the construction site again, he quiets, and
stares intently at the machinery. I actually pulled over so that he could
watch for a while. Now, I know this was something innate. _What_ was innate? Heavy construction equipment hasn't been around long enough for people to have developed an innate interest in it. So what broader human endeavor does the construction equipment represent for which he had an innate fascination (if it was innate)? Maybe that broader interest is one shared by you, and you found a more socially acceptable place to put it as a little girl. I didn't teach him to be fascinated by machinery, and I'm pretty much the only person he was in the car with.
Indeed, research has been pretty clear that there are significant differences
WRT gender and interest in boys and girls at VERY early ages. That's true. But I don't think it has shown these differences before children develop gender awareness and identity. Also the drive to belong AND the drive to differentiate oneself seem to be extremely strong and to come into play very early. Clearly, there is overlap, and there will be girls who respond more like the majority of
boys, and vice versa. But, looking at the normal distributions, I think we
can say that there is innately masculine and innately feminine behavior. I know it _feels_ like that. A careful sifting of the evidence suggests that the evidence may not be that strong though. I am attracted to things that are masculine--not only in behavior, but
in appearance as well. I tend not to be attracted to "pretty" men, even if
I can appreciate their beauty in concept. For instance, I have a "thing" for
Vincent D'Onofrio, (Which I'm still trying not to hold against you!)

WhansaMi wrote: the number of somatostasis-expressing neurons, Can you translate that line for me? "somatostatis-expressing"? Somatostatin is a hormone. Its primary function seems to be the inhibition
of other hormones in the body. There is a difference in the number of neurons that express somatostasin in men and women. more "white matter seems to"? You mean they STILL don't know? "White matter", as contrasted with what, in the female brain? "White matter" refers to the myelin sheath which connects and insulates nerve cells. It aids in the transmission of information from the "gray matter" to other "gray matter" in the brain, and also to the rest of the body. As is typical with our knowledge of the brain, a lot of what we know comes from our observations of pathology: in this case, multiple sclerosis is primarily a disease of the white matter, so we can observe the problems associated with lesions in white matter. Basically, within their nervous systems, men, proportionately, have more
white matter than women.

So men have more myelin sheaths than women. But what does that prove? Is
the number of nerve cells the same?? How can it be, if the *number* of
sheaths is greater for men? And even if there were more nerve cells or
junctions, how does that manifest itself?

>> Basically, within their nervous systems, men, proportionately, have morewhite matter than women.So men have more myelin sheaths than women. But what does that prove? Isthe number of nerve cells the same??

Geez, Bill... calm down.

How can it be, if the *number* ofsheaths is greater for men? And even if there were more nerve cells orjunctions, how does that manifest itself?

I never meant for either my list of differences to be comprehensive, nor for
the explanation of the effects to be comprehensive. I simply threw in the
information out as an example of how we *know* the anatomy and physiology of
the nervous systems of men and women differ. All of the evidence, and
explanations, would take longer to elaborate on than I have time for.

Here is one article about the differences in WRT white matter, if you are
interested:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990518072823.htm

Sheila

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3VCXa.45840$Oz4.12885@rwcrnsc54... "fairly_happy" <fairly_happywithoutspam@withoutspamyahoo.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kdfzkhxr84.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... whansami@aol.com (WhansaMi) writes: > Personally, I think it is both. I believe that people are both with > predispositions toward particular temperaments. People who have had more than > one child usually know this right away! ;-) Well. We _believe_ it. That is a bit different from _knowing_ it. I.e., in my case, it includes the recognition that I might be wrong and just don't have sufficient remove from myself to see the important ways in which the different environments I've provided for my children have influenced them. I could tell that my second child's personality was different from that
of my first child before kid #2 was even born. I don't think their
environment was too terribly different up to that point - I certainly hadn't made
any effort to change anything. Even after birth, I had a harder time with kid #2, *because* I really
tried to treat her just like kid #1 - and she didn't WANT that. And mentioned
it, But you realize that even if you wanted to treat them exactly the same,
the fact that #2 had an older sibling (and that you were an experienced
parent rather than an inexperienced one) means that in fact their
environments were quite different.

I'm not sure that holds true before birth - and I *could* tell the
differences even while pregnant.
loudly. I'll never believe that a day old infant doesn't have a
personality and preferences of his/her own - because mine sure did, and were *most* emphatic about it. This had to have been genetic - they just hadn't
been alive long enough at that point for me to have screwed them up! How did we get to "screwing them up?"

Sorry, was just joking around. Probably should have phrased it as "to have
changed their personality via
environment".

In article <20030804172656.00688.00001332@mb-m25.aol.com>, WhansaMi
<whansami@aol.com> wrote:
I'd also like to point out that we do KNOW that there are morphological and physiological differences between the male and female brain: the size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, the number of somatostasis-expressing neurons, differences in proportions of the types of brain cells (e.g., males have more "white matter", which seems to account for their superior spatial skills--as a group) and we also have good research that shows that male brains shrink more, and faster with age than do the brains of females. Given that there seem to be these anatomical and physiological differences, it would follow, to me, that there are behavior differences as well.

What I find interesting is that even with all those differences -- plus
the socialized differences -- that the distribution of the basic 16
personality types or 4 temperaments isn't more decidely affected by
gender -- in short, that measurable personality is not a very good
indicator of gender, or vice versa.

Ted

fairly_happy wrote: "Herr Taurus" <gusaufdenkinder@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:544uivsotqv7cnco8nqocnppqtdg1inbo7@4ax.com... On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:17:28 -0400, "fairly_happy" <fairly_happywithoutspam@withoutspamyahoo.com> wrote: I could tell that my second child's personality was different from that of my first child before kid #2 was even born. I don't think their
environment was too terribly different up to that point - I certainly hadn't made any effort to change anything. Even after birth, I had a harder time with kid #2, *because* I really tried to treat her just like kid #1 - and she didn't WANT that. And mentioned
it, loudly. I'll never believe that a day old infant doesn't have a personality and preferences of his/her own - because mine sure did, and were *most* emphatic about it. This had to have been genetic - they just hadn't been alive long enough at that point for me to have screwed them up! There's a LOT of scientific speculation out there that children are AWARE long before they are born. Moreover, they begin to develop their personalities from day one out of the womb. Part of my point is that I think their personalities start develop while they are still IN the womb.

That makes perfect sense if you believe some of this stuff is genetic, and who
wouldn't, at this point in time.

Gus wrote: On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 03:47:29 GMT, "Bill" <nowhere@earthlink.net> wrote:> There's a LOT of scientific speculation out there that children are> AWARE long before they are born. Moreover, they begin to develop> their personalities from day one out of the womb. Part of my point is that I think their personalities start develop while they are still IN the womb. That makes perfect sense if you believe some of this stuff is genetic, and
who wouldn't, at this point in time. We're talkin' about environment, Bill...not genetics. At least I am. There's theory that embryos are aware of things outside the womb...and are being influenced by those things.

I think some of the personality is also genetic based - it is not all developed
by "being aware of things" in the womb.