Estrogen Linked to Research and Programming Skills

Neil Halelamien writes "Psychologists at the University of Bath have found that male researchers and programmers tend to have higher levels of estrogen, a hormone which promotes development of the right side of the brain (responsible for spatial and analytical skills). Increased estrogen was also linked to having longer index fingers and a decreased likelihood of having children. Men teaching mathematics and physics tended to have unusually long index fingers, while women in the social sciences tended to have more testosterone. The psychologists also found that male and female students with a smaller difference between their index and ring finger lengths tended to do better on their Java programming exams. The research leaves open the question of why women (who typically have more estrogen than men) aren't more prevalent in the science and technology fields."

Comments

Oh, great.

[Black Parrot]

Does this mean we'll start getting spam for products to lengthen your index finger?

Another..

[Anonymous Coward]

There also seems to be a link between the index finger, ring finger and sport abilities..

http://www.liv.ac.uk/pro/news/press_releases/200 1/ ringfingers.htm

So the insults are true?

[tod_miller]

Psychologists at the University of Bath have found that male researchers and programmers tend to have higher levels of estrogen, a hormone which promotes development of the right side of the brain

I guess this is why geek types are less macho. Of course, I am a typical muscle bound macho type, and will spend my nights trying to hack anyone who said otherwise, the only way I get my estrogen s through osmosis via genital contact like any other red blooded male.

o.O

I can imagine spam for testosterone to develop you left side of your brain.

The right side of the brain is commonly reffered to as the arty farty part of the brain, it is thepart that helps you recognise yourself in photos, which is why women take 1hr to get ready, but answer me this, why do geeks take less time to get ready than our estrogen deficient jock counterparts?

Stereotypes aside, dyslexia is formed form dual activity in right and left sides of the brain, intellectual types often have dyslexia and geeks too, whihc may be because of hormonal issues and right/left conflicts.

Or looking at too much p0rn. One or the other.

Re:So the insults are true?

[Singletoned]

dyslexia is formed form dual activity in right and left sides of the brain, intellectual types often have dyslexia and geeks too, whihc may be because of hormonal issues and right/left conflicts.

I'd be interested to see where you got this information from. Currently there isn't even enough conclusive reasearch to say what dyslexia is, or even what all the symptoms are. A lot is known from experience of dealing with dyslexics, but most of the research done has been inconclusive.

(I say this as a practising dyslexic my self).

The British Dylsexia Association

Pr()n

[cL0h]

Males with higher levels of estrogen (what a difficult word to spell) would have lower sex drives andbe less distracted by all the lovely filthy pictures just a couple of clicks away......

"I could finish this programming task or I could...... oh WOW, is that really possible"

gender bias and programming

[dan_bethe]

I think each of these two following documents I'm about to quote tread awkwardly on the reflexive difficulty of gender bias. Of course the primary failure is that they target one specific gender as being biased against, the targeting of which inherently creates bias. They try to define what bias is and isn't, and hence how "women are" and how "women aren't". But they're a decently relevant resource.

Every gender bias related paper I've read is about why women are the inherent underdog, not about the nature of gender bias and programming. Gender bias and programming are inherently equal opportunity victimizations and aggressions perpetrated by society, by natural situations, and by self.

The only equal-opportunity social anti-bias resource I've seen yet is VHEMT. ;-)

• "HOWTO Encourage Women in Linux"
• "Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists?"

Somebody has to say it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well this is so obvious that I can't believe I'm writing it, but

A) researchers and programmers aren't exactly the crown monarchs of exorcise. Testosterone isn't just going to pop up out of nowhere while you're setting at a computer.

B) when doing a test for 'which is greater', there will ALWAYS one side coming out ahead. It doesn't matter whether it has anything to do with the subject. I could do the same thing and test the facial hair of programmers, then conclude that having a beard makes you better at .net.

Geees. The article if full of crap!

[Evil Pete]

OK. The article is total bollocks here is the New Scientist version. NOTE that it is referring to prenatal levels of hormones not the amounts flowing in peoples bodies when they are adults. Which means that a difference in levels of hormones hardwires the brain for programming, research whatever to a large extent.

Also that the social sciences are where the 'normals' end up.

Re:Fairly explanatory

[vasqzr]

Gee, imagine finger length being correlated to programming skills.

It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it.

Hear that ladies?

[dtfinch]

Programmers are more sensitive, balanced, horny, wealthy, and desperate than your average person. Just ignore the fact that some of our voices sound totally gay.

Spatial Orientation

[Ian_Bailey]

While I cannot say I have met a large enough sample size to distinguish between women and men, I have met lots of people who had great difficulties "getting" CS concepts. (And also certain theoretical math and physics) I would often understand the concept after just hearing the overview, while these people would have to be explained all the details to really understand what is happening.

I believe the problem is spatial orientation. Certain people can create an accurate representation in their minds, and thus can easily "see" the changes happening. In the article I linked to, they give an example of rotating a complex shape in three-dimensional space. Obviously certain concepts in CS (data structures, for instance) involve making a mental picture to understand what's happening, since you can't exactly touch the data.

What I find interesting is how the theory mentioned in this article compares with this theory. According to the article above, only humans with very high or very low levels of testosterone enables humans to think spatially.

In the article I linked to (and many others), there is a theory that men traditionally developped this skill so that they could map out where lunch was, track it and hunt it down, and how they would need to get back home once they had killed it. This is compared to the women, who would stay near home and 'gather' small berries which required more of a sharp eye.

So my question is now, is did these early humans (which obviously must have needed good spatial abiliity) have high or low testosterone? And where are the high-testosterone guys that should be exceeding at spatial orientation now?

Finnaly...

[egarland]

...proof that stupid people have a reproductive advantage over smart people.

That explains a lot of things. :)