The Secret Life of 4 Year Olds, Professor Paul Howard Jones Interview

1 November 2016

Were you pleased that the show was nominated for a BAFTA?

It's very difficult to be objective about something you've been involved in, so I have to admit it was a huge surprise, but a very wonderful one. Your friends watch the show and say, 'Ooh its wonderful', but you're never sure if they're just being polite! It's a huge testament to the filmmakers. Creating anything original is always a risk. So I'm absolutely delighted for them that it paid off.And from my point of view, I'm really delighted to see science on popular, primetime TV. For the public to respond so well to it, it's very gratifying.

Why do you think it was so popular?

There is so much laughter involved in watching the children, but also a sense of awe and wonder at the complexity and sophistication and depth of what they're capable of, even at this young age. The show is full of love and warmth.

What were your favourite tasks this time around?

There was an absolutely gorgeous chocolate fountain that was used in one of our delayed gratification tasks. I don't want to spoil what happened, but I think you can picture the scene! It was very, very messy and funny. These tasks are not just about watching the children sneakily eat the chocolate when they're not supposed to, although that in itself is funny.

It's about the perspective and creativity involved in covering up when they are found out, and what they are prepared to sacrifice in order to save their own skins. If everyone's doing it, does that make it morally acceptable? If you pull your friend into the scenario and incriminate them, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Are you sharing the guilt or losing a friend? It's fascinating.

How helpful is your work on Secret Life in relation to your day to day job?

It's incredibly helpful. It forces me to ask questions I would not normally ask. For example, we talk a lot about children’s assertiveness in this series and that's something that has not been researched much in the science world. There's very little information on it; I've not really encountered it before. But it's a really important subject. Another one is sex differences, which is something I've stayed away from in my own career as a neuro-scientist.

It's quite a difficult subject to talk about because it's quite controversial, and dealing with it  on the show made me check the most current research and revise some of my views.

Does the style of filming allow you to make new discoveries?

Absolutely. What scientists would call 'naturalistic observation' is incredibly difficult under standard research designs. To have this kind of environment is a real privilege. The only problem is, filming this many children generates a massive amount of data and you never know which microphone you should be listening to!

What did you discover about assertion in children?

We understand that aggression isn't a good thing, but how about standing your ground? That can be important in terms of friendship. We had some children who in every other way had excellent social skills, excellent empathy and communication. But because they were not prepared to stand their ground or take back the toy that had been snatched from them, that lowered their standing in the group and they potentially lost out on friendships. We don't necessarily know why some children won't assert themselves when in other ways they are quite extrovert. It's new ground that hasn't been observed before, so it was a tremendous chance to look at it so closely.

And what did you discover about sex differences: what does that phrase mean?

So, this is quite bold and it's something that affects all of us. It's important to understand that sex is biological, but gender is an interpretation. We all make interpretations based on sex difference and we have all been on the receiving end of other people's interpretations of us.

What we wanted to look at was, how do these interpretations come about? Why do we see boys as boys and girls as girls? And to what extent are those interpretations justified?

Children bring in ideas from different cultures, but they also create their own culture. So when you put children in single sex a group that creates a gendered culture. 

If a child is quite typical of their sex, they benefit from playing with other similar children, but if they are not sex typical, they can become quite isolated from the group as there are fewer play styles for them to fit into. In other words, if you put the boys together, they can create their own narrower environment that has a more rugger club relational style, and if you put the girls together, they can come up with a relational style more often found in a nail bar. .

And that sounds clichéd but that’s what we saw and it's fascinating to watch. There are issues around transgender in recent years which means we are all revising what gender is. It's been quite a controversial subject but I hope we're at a point now where we can talk in a more sensible way about sex and gender.

How do you get on with the other experts?

We're more relaxed with each other this year. We've had more discussions than disagreements! I think our different attitudes are a fair reflection of what science is all about.

We're all after objective fact, but we reach it through discussion and debate and different perspectives. For example, Elizabeth deals with parents on a daily basis and she talks about disorders and development in a totally different way than I would as a neuroscientist. We gain a lot from talking to each other.