As we go through life, our brains run different processing modes. Some – the attention and sensory systems – result in very similar experiences of the world: what colour the sky is, how warm the day feels.

But there is another, deeper side to the brain which weaves together your memories, goals, beliefs and emotions into a continuous sense of self. This allows you to experience the world not as it is, but as it matters to you personally.

This unique inner world is supported by the brain’s default mode network (DMN). This links together several areas including in the prefrontal cortex (at the very front of the brain) and the parietal lobe (at the back).

These areas of the DMN are, in evolutionary terms, relatively recent. As human brains expanded dramatically between around 800,000 and 200,000 years ago, those regions grew in size and complexity compared with our closest primate relatives. They are more likely to express genes that are uniquely human, related to brain development and function.

Our latest research explores to what extent the DMN explains what makes each of us unique. Put another way, we are attempting to understand what makes you “you”.

What makes us human?

While ancient deep regions of the brain, shared with all vertebrates, support basic experiences such as fear and thirst, the more recent and complex DMN is important for what makes us human.

To better understand the differences, we asked 16 adult volunteers to listen to an excerpt from the Hollywood film Taken (2009) while we recorded their brain activity. Using the audio alone enabled us to compare each person’s activity when both conscious and unconscious. Our volunteers were scanned using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while awake and under general anaesthetic, as the same story was played to them.

Each time, we tracked the shifting patterns of communication between brain regions. In particular, we monitored changes in each person’s attention, sensory and default mode networks, and compared these with changes in subjective experience that participants reported.

When participants were conscious, we found their DMN activity patterns became both more complex and more dissimilar to each other as they listened to the story. In contrast, when unconscious, their individual signatures diminished – becoming simpler and more similar to those of the other volunteers.

But their attention and sensory networks showed the opposite pattern. These were more similar when awake, reflecting common mechanisms for gathering sensory information and interpreting the external world through sight and sound.

Our results reinforce that the DMN carries the more personal side of consciousness, changing from moment to moment to reflect each person’s thoughts, memories and inner experiences.

However, different parts of the DMN contribute in different ways. Some subregions, both deep in the back of the cortex and in the front of the brain, help us reflect on ourselves, imagine possibilities, and weave experience into a personal story. Others, especially those linked to memory in the deep temporal lobe regions, help reconstruct scenes and recall past events, and make sense of ideas and how they connect.

Understanding our uniqueness

Why does the DMN vary so much from person to person? Because it underpins deeply personal characteristics that define us, such as personality and values.

This echoes ideas like that of pioneering psychologist William James, who wrote: “Every brain-state is partly determined by the nature of this entire past succession … It is out of the question, then, that any total brain-state should identically recur.”

The DMN interacts with the rest of the brain to enable us move fluidly between the world as it is, and the world as we conceive it. Some studies suggest that disrupting DMN activity can blunt originality in creative tasks.

Altered DMN connectivity has been linked to many mental health conditions, particularly those involving self-narrative, memory and social cognition. If we can map a person’s DMN dynamics, we may be able to better understand their specific difficulties – for example, with memory or socialising – in a way that could one day lead to more personal forms of therapy.

But achieving high-quality brain maps requires lengthy scans and complex analytics. That is where precision functional mapping (combining a variety of methods including fMRI) and artificial intelligence come in.

Precision mapping can handle large amounts of data per person to chart individual networks. Machine learning models may then be able to combine these maps with genetics and symptoms to guide diagnosis and treatment.

But deeper questions need answering too. Humans are highly social animals living in complex societies. If every person’s inner world is unique, what does that mean for ethical decisions such as managing criminality or prioritising treatments?

The DMN is key to enabling our ability to imagine different futures. This includes the precise role that brain science can and should play in them.

Peter Coppola received funding from Cambridge Trust. Peter Coppola is currently part of the University of East Anglia and an employee of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust. He is also a Visiting Researcher at the University of Cambridge

Emmanuel A Stamatakis received funding related to this work from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR; RCZB/072 RG93193) and the Stephen Erskine Fellowship at Queens’ College, Cambridge.

What’s the point of play? Is it simply a way to keep children occupied, or something more? For some, it’s about learning literacy and numeracy. For others, it’s how friendships form and relationships deepen. But it can be all of these at once, and more.

Most parents recognise that play matters. But there’s less agreement on what kind of play is best. Should children be guided towards activities designed to build specific skills, like sports for coordination, or construction for maths and engineering? Or should the child’s own interests lead the way, regardless of perceived educational value?

Our research focuses on a type of play often dismissed as “just for fun” – playing with dolls. Across a series of studies, we found that doll play can help children understand other people’s thoughts and feelings. This is a skill that underpins social interaction throughout life.

There is pressure on parents to create the “right” environment for development, often filled with toys that promise clear educational outcomes. STEM-focused toys (science, technology, engineering and maths), in particular, are widely seen as beneficial for learning. Doll play, on the other hand, can be viewed as having little educational benefit.

Our findings challenge that assumption.

More than make-believe

When playing with dolls, children often play out scenes between characters. These may seem simple on the surface but could present opportunities for the child to develop social and emotional skills.

As parents, it seems obvious that playmates are important for building and learning about relationships and other people, and recognising others’ emotions (empathy). But what if children can develop these skills even when playing alone?

Previous studies have found that children who engage more in pretend play tend to have stronger social understanding and empathy. Earlier studies, however, didn’t often use controlled methods to separate out the different factors linking pretend play and social understanding.

So, we set out to test this more directly. We worked with children aged four to eight, assessing their ability to understand that others can hold different beliefs and desires to their own. This is an important milestone in social development. If children recognise that their own mental states may vary from others, this should help them better understand other people and know how to interact with them.

After that initial assessment session, children were randomly assigned either a set of dolls or a tablet with open-ended creative games. They were asked to play several times a week, with parents logging how and when play occurred. We didn’t instruct children how to play because we wanted to understand their natural behaviour.

Read more: How realistic is Mattel’s new autistic Barbie?

After approximately six weeks, both sets of children came back and again completed the task about understanding others’ mental states. We found that the children who had been assigned dolls to play with, rather than tablets, showed a greater improvement in their understanding of others’ mental states during the intervening period.

The findings suggest that doll play can actively support the development of social understanding. This is consistent with prior research of ours showing that areas of the brain linked to social processing are activated during doll play, and that children use more language about thoughts and feelings when playing with dolls than when using tablets.

Why it matters beyond childhood

For parents, the message is reassuring – playing with dolls lets children practice skills that they can also use when playing with playmates, like understanding others, anticipating behaviour and responding appropriately.

These abilities matter far beyond childhood. They help us collaborate, resolve conflicts and navigate relationships. In a world that often feels increasingly divided, the capacity to see things from another person’s perspective is not just useful – it’s essential.

Sarah Gerson received funding for this project from Mattel Inc.

Ross E Vanderwert received funding from Mattel for this research.

Salim Hashmi received funding for this research from Mattel Inc.

“On behalf of President Donald J. Trump,” read 22 emails sent from the White House Presidential Personnel Office on Friday afternoon, April 24, 2026, “I am writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately.”

The email was signed “Thank you for your service.”

The distinguished scientists and engineers who made up the National Science Board did not know the firings were coming. Several had been reappointed by Trump himself during his first term. The board was scheduled to meet the following week to finalize a report on the state of American science.

When asked why the entire board was removed, a White House spokesperson cited the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., stating that the case raised constitutional questions about the National Science Board, its independence and its role in the agency it oversees, the National Science Foundation. Specifically, whether non-Senate confirmed appointees can exercise the authorities that Congress gave the board when it authorized the NSF in 1950.

We have been studying and doing science policy. One of us (Wagner) has worked closely with the National Science Board several times and regularly uses their database on scientific and engineering progress. The other of us (Olds) led the National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Biological Sciences from 2014 to 2018 and has previously called for reform of the board.

We argue that the dismissal is not just a political act dressed in constitutional language; it is the resurfacing of an argument almost as old as the National Science Foundation itself — one that nearly killed the agency in its cradle.

Truman’s 1947 veto

In 1945, the science advisor of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vannevar Bush, proposed that a new federal science agency be governed by a part-time board of eminent volunteer scientists. This agency came to be called the National Science Foundation, and the board – not the president – was designated to choose its director for a six-year term.

Bush’s intent was to insulate basic research from political pressure. But with Roosevelt’s death in April of that year, it would be up to the following president, Harry Truman, and Congress to make the final decision.

Harley Kilgore, a senator from West Virginia, objected to the board’s formation and its independent role. He argued that vesting public authority in scientists not directly accountable to the president was constitutionally suspect and democratically unsound. The board should not choose the director. President Truman’s 1947 veto signaled agreement.

A series of lively hearings on the creation of the National Science Foundation served to forge the post-war science system. Out of these debates came the 1950 compromise that finally established NSF and the National Science Board, giving each side something.

The director would be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Above the director sat the National Science Board – also presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed, but serving staggered six-year terms designed to outlast any single administration. The board would set NSF policy, approve major grants and report independently to the president and Congress on the state of American science. The director would handle operations.

The structure was deliberately uneasy. It was meant to allow scientific judgment and political accountability to coexist without one absorbing the other.

What the board has done

For 75 years, the National Science Board has carried out three functions. It has overseen the agency’s largest research investments – telescopes, polar research stations, supercomputing facilities. It has produced periodic reports on the state of American science, first issued in 1972. And it has served as an independent voice to advise the president and Congress on long-term scientific priorities.

The board’s remit has expanded over time. The 1968 Daddario Amendments broadened the NSF’s mandate. The America COMPETES Acts of 2007 and 2010 added duties around workforce and research infrastructure. The CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 brought research security and coordinating emerging technologies into the board’s portfolio.

Through all of this, the dual governance structure held. The board functioned as a bridging device – a mechanism by which scientific judgment could inform federal decisions without scientists becoming political officers, and political priorities could shape research agendas without dictating findings.

Reviving the original argument

The Trump administration’s removal of all sitting members of the National Science Board echoes a debate from the agency’s founding: Should officers with federal authority over spending operate beyond the president’s discretion? An independent board with power over a federal agency is a constitutional outlier, regardless of its competence or track record. The contrary view, which has governed the National Science Board for 75 years, is that expert bodies can be shielded from political pressures.

The Supreme Court has moved partway toward the president’s position in recent years. Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) struck down protections against the removal of the head of an independent agency. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) ended a court’s ability to defer to an agency’s interpretation of ambiguous laws.

U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc (2021) – the case the Trump administration cited in its justification for dismissing the National Science Board – held that certain officers who were not confirmed by the Senate had been improperly exercising authority reserved for executive branch officials.

Members of the National Science Board are presidentially appointed and were historically confirmed by the Senate, though this requirement was eliminated by the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011.

These legal questions will likely be tested in court.

Separation of science and state

The National Science Board’s ousting sits atop a deeper conflict between science and the state.

The 1950 compromise that founded the National Science Foundation rested on a teetering wager: that scientific inquiry, partially insulated from political control, would over time produce goods useful enough to the American public to justify being unencumbered by political steering.

For 75 years, this wager paid off. American science led the world. The measures the compromise built – peer review, the National Science Board, reports on scientific progress – allowed political and scientific judgment to inform each other without collapsing into one another.

The current moment tears the Band-Aid off this old conflict and the complex system underneath. If political accountability requires that no expert body be insulated from presidential control, the 1950 settlement that founded the NSF cannot survive in its present form. Then the question becomes what could replace the NSF – and whether the benefits the state has come to expect from American science can be produced under different arrangements.

The historical record on political intervention in scientific operations is consistent. Soviet biology under Trofim Lysenko. German physics under the Nazis. Chinese science during the Cultural Revolution. In each case, the institution of science survived in name but stopped producing what science is supposed to produce: verifiable, trusted knowledge. While the names on the doors stayed the same, the work changed to serve politics.

The firing of the National Science Board has brought back the old question that Truman thought he had answered in 1950: how much politics should intervene in science. Now, that question is shaking the very foundations of U.S. science.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

For children with autism spectrum disorder and with an intellectual disability, the options for improving communication and social skills are limited.

Talking therapies and behavioural programmes can help some children develop these skills, but they depend on specialists who are in short supply – even in wealthy countries.

Around 30-35% of autistic children have an intellectual disability, according to research from the US. They are less likely to get treatment than those without one (in part because doctors lack confidence managing their needs and insurance coverage for intellectual disability is patchy) despite having greater needs and placing heavier demands on their families. It is a group that researchers often overlook.

That gap motivated us to test a different kind of intervention: using brief, targeted magnetic pulses to stimulate specific parts of the brain. The technique, known as non-invasive brain stimulation or neuromodulation, involves no surgery, no anaesthetic and no drugs.

A device held close to the scalp generates a rapidly changing magnetic field that passes harmlessly through the skull and stimulates the activity of neurons underneath. It has been used for years to treat depression, and researchers have increasingly been exploring whether it might also help with the social and communication difficulties that are a key symptom of autism.

The version we tested uses a technique called theta-burst stimulation, which delivers pulses in rapid clusters rather than one at a time. This makes each session much shorter than conventional approaches, which is a significant practical advantage when you are asking young children to sit still and cooperate.

In our study, published in the BMJ, each session lasted only a few minutes, and the full course ran over just five days. One group of children received real stimulation, another received a sham version. In the sham treatment, the equipment was applied in the same way and delivered vibrations, but no active pulses were delivered. That way, we could compare results without either group knowing what they’d received, which helps keep the findings reliable.

One hundred and ninety-four children took part, with an average age of around six and a half years. Roughly half had IQ scores below 70, which is typically described as the low-functioning range, though all scored above 50 – the minimum needed to ensure a reliable diagnosis and meaningful participation in the study.

Parents filled in a questionnaire about their child’s social communication, before the treatment, right after, and again a month later.

The improvements seen after five days were still there after a month, and the size of the effect was large by the standards of clinical research. Children also showed gains in language ability.

No serious side-effects were reported and all minor side-effects resolved without treatment.

Early days

Children were recruited from multiple sites by advertisements posted in outpatients clinics and through local clinical registries. All legal guardians gave written consent.

Children with intellectual disability are so often left out of trials of this kind that the evidence for treating them has remained seriously lacking. That this trial included them at all – and in significant numbers – is itself noteworthy. But it is only a first step.

It is still unclear how long the benefits last beyond a month, how many sessions would be needed to maintain them, or how the approach would work when moved from a research setting into an ordinary clinic.

Brain stimulation is not a replacement for behavioural support, and the equipment needed is not cheap or universally available. But conventional approaches – where they exist at all – often require daily sessions over several weeks with a professional, which carries its own costs in time, money and specialist input.

A five-day course is a different proposition. For families who are already stretched, even modest and durable gains in a child’s ability to communicate could matter enormously to them and their families and greatly improve their wellbeing and quality of life.

Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian receives funding from the Wellcome Trust. Her research work is conducted within the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) Mental Health and Neurodegeneration Themes. She receives Royalties from Cambridge University Press for Brain Boost: Healthy Habits for a Happier Life.

Christelle Langley is funded by the Wellcome Trust. Her research work is conducted within the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) Mental Health and Neurodegeneration Themes. She receives Royalties from Cambridge University Press for Brain Boost: Healthy Habits for a Happier Life.

Fei Li receives funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China. She is affiliated with Department of Developmental and behavioral pediatrics, Society of Pediatrics, Chinese Medical Association.

Qiang Luo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Despite decades of legislation meant to boost children’s reading levels, literacy scores have remained relatively stagnant across the U.S. over the past 30 years.

Educators, policymakers and parents were genuinely excited in the late 2010s, when three Southern states – Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana – appeared to buck the literacy trend. All three of these states, which have long lagged in literacy scores, made notable gains in fourth grade reading scores from 2013 to 2024, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP.

We are researchers in literacy and learning. Two of us are at the University of Alabama and Mercer University, where we educate elementary teachers. The other two work at Temple University, where we research early language and the science of learning. We all study how children develop as readers and how teaching styles and policies shape that development.

Some observers and scholars have called Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana’s reading gains the “Southern surge” and say this progress shows that recent literacy reforms are working.

A straightforward explanation has taken hold: As more schools spent additional time on phonics and implemented other “science of reading” reforms, students became stronger readers.

This narrative accurately captures some of the available evidence. But it also simplifies a complex set of patterns in literacy data, and it limits the discussion that policymakers should have.

Reading scores under pressure

Since the early 2000s, new federal and state policies have placed pressure on schools to improve students’ reading outcomes. The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act required all states to track and report literacy testing results. This law, which the Obama administration replaced in 2015 with the Every Student Succeeds Act, mandated annual testing in reading and math for students in third through eighth grades.

Many schools narrowed their curriculum to try to boost their students’ reading scores. They cut time for science, social studies, art and recess to focus on reading and math. Students entering school in the early 2000s – the first classes fully exposed to No Child Left Behind’s requirements – spent more time on reading instruction than any previous generation.

But sustained reading gains still didn’t follow.

The NAEP is often called the nation’s report card. It is the only federally administered test that allows meaningful comparisons in reading levels across states.

The NAEP found that fourth grade reading scores nationwide increased modestly beginning in 2005. They peaked around 2017 and have declined since.

But there’s a complication in how those scores are interpreted. NAEP’s mid-level score, called “proficient,” does not mean a student is reading at grade level – it reflects a high standard that most students do not reach. In the case of fourth grade readers, it means they can recognize a text’s structure and organization, explain how characters influence others and make other complex observations. Students can also receive a lower “basic” score, or a higher “advanced” one.

Alabama’s example illustrates the gap that can emerge between NAEP test results and a state’s assessments.

The state’s 2025 assessments show that 81% to 88% of second and third graders were reading “on grade level.” But the 2024 NAEP shows only about 30% of Alabama fourth graders – the youngest grade the NAEP measures for literacy – were “proficient” at reading.

Both numbers can be accurate. They reflect different definitions and measurement systems.

Understanding reading gains in the South

Despite differences in measuring reading, a small number of states have shown clear improvement over the past decade, according to the NAEP.

Mississippi has shown the strongest gains. In 2013, it was 49th out of all 50 states when it came to ranking fourth grade reading scores. In 2024, Mississippi climbed to ninth in fourth grade reading.

Mississippi’s progress predates recent national attention to the science of reading – meaning, the body of research on reading – suggesting its gains cannot be attributed solely to the current wave of related reforms.

In 2013, Mississippi passed the Literacy-Based Promotion Act, which combined early reading screening, teacher training, literacy coaching and additional support. Research shows that the policy could account for roughly five points of reading gains, on average. These gains reflect long-term, system-wide efforts rather than a rapid shift tied to a single policy change.

At the middle school level, however, the pattern in Mississippi looks different.

Improvements in fourth grade reading have not translated into similar gains in eighth grade reading. Early improvements in children’s ability to decode words do not necessarily lead to success with more complex texts that require additional vocabulary and background knowledge.

This gap does not negate Mississippi’s progress, but it does raise questions about what the next decade of work needs to look like.

Louisiana’s reading score trajectory is more modest. Recent NAEP scores for fourth grade students in Louisiana are similar to those from the mid-2010s – a rebound to a prior level.

While Louisiana ranked 50th in fourth grade reading in 2019, it rose to 38th in 2024.

A 32-point gap between Black and white students’ average fourth grade reading scores persists in 2024 data, nearly unchanged from the late 1990s. In this case, some reading progress happened. Yet the underlying inequities between students did not shift.

Alabama’s results illustrate a third pattern: relative stability in fourth grade reading scores during a period of national decline. The state ranked 35th in fourth grade NAEP reading in 2013 and remains in a similar position in 2024, showing little change. The state’s average NAEP score for fourth grade students shifted by a single point between 2019 and 2024 – not a surge, but a state holding its ground while others fell.

Meanwhile, chronic absenteeism has fallen in Alabama since 2019. As research links attendance to academic achievement, it makes it difficult to attribute the state’s small shift in reading scores to any single factor.

Across all three states, substantial gaps between Black and white students’ reading scores persist on NAEP scoring.

The same pattern extends nationally to Hispanic students, poor students and other groups. This shows that fourth grade students’ reading gains have not been accompanied by comparable reductions in social, racial and ethnic inequities.

A more complicated story

Still, parts of the Southern surge in reading is genuinely encouraging. It is also the latest chapter in a long story.

Mississippi’s gains, for example, came alongside coaching, professional development and early intervention.

Louisiana’s reading recovery unfolded alongside a 34% increase in education funding over the past decade.

Test score changes reflect a combination of policy decisions, classroom practices and broader conditions, often unfolding over many years. Reading is hard to teach, hard to sustain and not connected to any one policy shift.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Girls and boys are equally social at birth.

This finding, based on my team’s synthesis of six decades of research, may come as a surprise. Gender differences in adults’ social sensitivity are famous. Women outperform men at recognizing faces and emotions, and they score modestly higher on measures of empathy. They are likelier to take jobs working with people, such as in teaching and health care, whereas men are likelier to choose jobs working with “things,” such as in engineering or plumbing.

But how early do these differences emerge, and are they a matter of evolution or social learning? For years, some theorists have argued the former: that the difference is innate, built into the brain hardware of girls and boys through Darwinian selection. But this perspective relies almost exclusively on just one high-profile, yet deeply flawed, study of 102 newborns.

Mining the neonatal research trove

Realizing that psychologists have been studying newborns’ social orientation for decades, my team of neurobehavioral researchers and I set out to collect all the data – every published study that has compared boys’ and girls’ attention to social stimuli in the first month of life. Our goal was to better test the hypothesis of an inborn gender difference in attention to, or interest in, other people.

Our study was a systematic review, meaning we searched through every published report indexed in both medical and psychological databases from the 1960s onward.

We cast a wide net, looking for any research that measured newborns’ attention to or preference for human faces or voices and that reported the data separately by gender. Importantly, we did not limit our search to the terms “gender difference” or “sex difference,” since these would bias the collection by potentially excluding studies that failed to find boy-girl differences.

As expected, we unearthed dozens of studies comparing newborn boys and girls on social perception: 40 experiments reported in 31 peer-reviewed studies and involving nearly 2,000 infants. The majority of studies measured the amount of time newborns spent looking at faces, either at a single face or comparing a baby’s preference between two faces of differing social value, such as their own mother versus a woman who was a stranger.

Our data collection was large enough that we were able to carry out meta-analysis, which is a statistical method for combining the results of many studies. Meta-analysis essentially turns many small studies into a single large one. For studies measuring neonates’ looking time at faces, this included 667 infants, half of them boys and half of them girls.

The result was clear: nearly identical social perception between baby boys and girls. There was no significant difference between genders overall, nor was there a difference when we focused only on studies measuring babies’ gaze duration on a single face, or only on studies measuring babies’ gaze preference between two different faces.

Our search also netted two other types of studies. One focused on a remarkable behavior: newborns’ tendency to start crying when they hear another baby cry. An early study found this “contagious crying” to be marginally more common in girls. But when we performed meta-analysis on data across nine contagious-crying experiments, including 387 infants, there was again no solid evidence for male-female difference.

The last dataset we analyzed compared babies’ orientation to both social and inanimate objects using a newborn behavior assessment scale developed by legendary pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton. Across four studies involving 619 infants, girls did pay somewhat greater attention to the social stimuli (a human face or voice), but they also paid more attention to the inanimate stimuli (a ball or the sound of a rattle).

In other words, girls in this test seemed a bit more attuned to every type of stimulus, perhaps due to a general maturity advantage that they hold from fetal development through puberty. But there was nothing special about their interest in people, according to the Brazelton assessment.

Boys, too, prefer faces

Our findings align with other well-designed studies, including one finding that 5-month-old boys and girls equally prefer looking at faces over toy cars or other objects, and another finding that 2-month-old boys actually perform better than girls at detecting faces. So taken together, current research dispels a common myth that girls are innately “hardwired” to be more social than boys in early life.

The truth is that all babies are wired for social engagement at birth. Boys and girls are both primed to pay attention to human faces and voices, which, after all, belong to those who will keep them fed, safe and comforted.

Despite their best intentions, most parents cannot help but stereotype their infants by gender and begin treating boys and girls differently early on. Presuming that sons are already less social is not a recipe for remedying this bias. Our research can help dispel this myth, giving every child, male or female, the best possible start for connecting with and caring about other people.

Lise Eliot receives research funding from the Fred B. Snite Foundation.