RE: Relationship trend or hindrance?
First, I truly apologize for my delay in response. Work projects meant I really was not online, and then Mother's Day was coming up. I tried (failed) to be prepared for that.
Anyway, I do like the article. In the US we really do not have to apply for high school. I would imagine if we did, we might have a similar result. Especially since 9th grade is one of the years where defining yourself based on your peers is huge, and that includes gender.
Before going on, I will add that I have studied clinical psychologists. In fact, I've studied in good depth both sides of this topic because my Bachelor's is in Applied Psychology. Where I landed on the topic was more of a Myers-Briggs scope. There are a few other psychologists I would also add in, but would have to find the right book to pull those names.
Not that gender never plays a role, but I like the focus of personality based on a combination of strengths and weaknesses: here for Myers-Briggs and personality types here. The different types are not based on gender, but perspective of the world. Not that it is an "end all" for how a person is, but I do tend to favor that approach in psychology. I'm an INTJ :)
I think gender should be a factor when looking at things, but as a whole I think society has shaped gender roles. For example, pink used to be the color for boys but we now associate it with females. Some things I think society defines based on gender when it would not otherwise be that way. IE - Men are head of household. There are plenty of societies where the woman is seen as the strong leader. Some examples in this snippet and a few more here (a few repeat I believe).
People are over sensitive in our society about it, and I am definitely not. LOL. I am critical of whether it is gender tied usually when people say sentences like "girls tend to...". I often wonder if it has anything truly to do with the female makeup, or if nurture of a society created the association. :)
Well now I feel silly. Someone w/a distinct and pronounced background in the field ;). You are correct that gender is not the "end all" but a very determining factor (of many).
I'll have to read Myers-Briggs and have a layman's understanding of personality types, but am somewhat of a hobbyist in the field as my degree is in environmental science lol. But it's the study of the biology's that motivates all in the scientific community. These topics are important to consider and debate! ;)
No don't feel silly! Psychology is such a wide field, it is entirely possible I have missed opinions out there. I both love it and hate it LOL By all means pass over to me as many articles as you would like ^_^
True environmental science is heavy on the biology from what I have been exposed to. I suppose that means you're more of a nature in the nurture vs nature debate ;) I tend to lean toward nurture, but I cannot deny nature's huge role. I really appreciate you jumping in to share your opinion. It's the only way we are exposed to new ideas in my opinion.
There is a lot to Myers-Briggs, starting with the Carl Jung base, but totally worth reading it. I think there's another psychologist as well that basically says you have both aspects to your personality. For example, introvert and extrovert, rational and creative. You are not one OR the other. Rather, you have both but one will be more dominant and you'll have moments of doing the opposite. I'm an introvert normally but sometimes I decide I must go out to be around people. Hope that helps and I look forward to more opinions from you. :D
You got me pinned on the nature vs nurture debate. That is me to a "T".
I would agree that people have both the ability to be extrovert/introvert. Myself, am an extrovert, but find some of my best days have come when I am left alone to my own thoughts.
I'll start w/Carl Jung then? Any publications you would recommend? Thx!!
^_^ He probably has some publications. I tend to like to start with scholarly summaries of psychologists before diving into the material. This is where I can sometimes hate psychology: Their materials are lengthy. LOL. They give an idea like Tolkien writes. Usually at least. So I'll read a section and go "wait.... they basically said...". So a summarized view tells me whether I want to find more material. Carl Jung is good to understand because Myer-Briggs material was built on his foundation.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carl-Jung <- I loved this summary. The 2nd to last describes his written works for later reference. By the way, his archetypes are cited by Joseph Campbell for example. :)
Good stuff, ty!!