Slashdot Mirror
The Brains of Men and Women Are 'Wired Differently'
Rambo Tribble writes "Research out of the University of Philadelphia concludes there are major differences in the neural pathways in the brains of men and women. Men, they say, are wired more front-to-back, women more side-to-side. 'The results establish that male brains are optimized for intrahemispheric and female brains for interhemispheric communication. The developmental trajectories of males and females separate at a young age, demonstrating wide differences during adolescence and adulthood. The observations suggest that male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.' They propose this may explain why women have been found to be better multitaskers. Of course, this may also have ramifications for what skill and career proclivities each sex exhibits."
..is still dwarfed by the differences between individuals of a gender. None of these articles about statistical differences will ever justify the prejudices and social roles some people want to enforce on others to make things simpler.
As the article notes, the pathways being studied can change throughout life.
Presumably they change to fit the tasks the person spends most time on.
So... it seems plausible that the pathways reflect gender stereotypes because gender stereotypes created them in the first place.
So a study noted some interesting neurological structural differences, which is cool.
What is likely to be not cool are the coming comments about how this is just more evidence that divides in fields like STEM, management, finance, etc, are somehow the result of natural drives/talents and that women really do just want to be relegated to the low paid, low respect fields which have minimal chances for advancement, and that they are paid less because they are simply less capable.
" is a huge leap to extrapolate from anatomical differences to try to explain behavioural variation between the sexes. Also, brain connections are not set and can change throughout life."
So... basically this could be 100% enculturation and there could be zero genetic differences. This is essentially the equivalent of pointing out that people who do a lot of running have strikingly different looking cells in their leg muscles than people who sit on the couch all day. Jumping to the runners being born with different leg muscles might not be the correct answer.
Yes, so can we please stop pretending that it is a travesty that few women are interested in IT?
Sure, let them do it if they're interested, but if they aren't interested they don't need to have their noses rubbed into it in high school with the expectation that the gender gap in that particular career field will close.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
No! Men and women are EQUAL, dammit! I'm not listening, lalalalalala...!
One of the great myths of our time is that "equality" is the same as "identicality."
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
My theory is that women are far to smart to get suckered into IT.
Eh? I always thought when people use the term "equality" it is about equality of opportunity regardless of gender, race, physical deficiencies, etc. not that people are actually equal as an individual, that would be an oxymoron...
Then women are the one advantaged. They get more pardon, reduced sentencing and easier parole. I don't even start on domestic issues and divorce where they are more than likely to be seen as the victim, get alimony and child care...
The reason why so few girls are in IT and business is neither their inability nor their lack of interest.
So, in one sentence, you substitute your own pet biases for the scientific findings of TFA, and go right back to
the fact far fewer women choose IT careers must by a fault of society.
On the basis of what scientific research do you make such a claim? We are long past the age where women
are trained from childhood to take certain jobs, accept certain careers, or forego careers. Yet women choose
not to engage in certain professions in anywhere near a ratio indicative of the composition of society.
Women, by and large, do not like IT jobs. They don't like being plumbers either. The women I have worked
with in IT were very good at their jobs, but the women on the candidate list were far sparser than the men.
I've worked FOR women in IT and I've had women work for me in IT. I've tried to recruit women and found
most simply were not interested.
Nobody steers women away from IT. They choose it. And the article explains why. Women's and men's brains are
as many have suspected, simply wired differently. And this is evident early in childhood, which causes children
to make choices, and parents to allow those choices.
You don't have to invent a "social evil" to explain away the simple and obvious preponderance of preference.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Exactly. It's perfectly acceptable and scientific to posit differences, as long as you can find the goods and bads to all cancel out somehow.
Anything else can be dismissed without further thought, of course.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Of course, you both realize, that it could be both
There may be few women in IT because:
a) the female brain is wired differently than the male
AND
b) the women who are interested, are mocked, ostracized, and outcast
However, I don't believe we should be bending over backwards to ensure the percentages of any group in any field. We should be ensuring that all people have the same opportunities and same encouragement in all fields.
i.e. Vigorously stamp down on (b). Ignore (a). Don't care about the numbers.
Susan Pinker's The Sexual Parodox refers to the observation that as women's rights improve the number of women in traditionally men's professions keeps rising and then goes into reverse, settling at a lower level than the peak (but far higher than in the society with poor women's rights). The effect seems to be tat a desire for "equality" means that women are pushed into jobs they don't want to do because they're assumed to be socialised to the point of being incapable of deciding for themselves (what Pinker calls the "infantilisation of women"). Eventually, women get enough liberty to resist that. So both sides have a measure of truth. Those concerned for women's rights are correct that there can be social factors excluding women from certain professions, but the opponents are right that the search for numerical equality can lead to an overshoot and press individual women into unsuitable jobs. The challenge is to find out which side of that line we're on.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Yes, a male has 1.5X the upper body strength of a female and a hand grip 2X as strong, it's a huge difference. Even a trained female athlete cannot compete with the average male's hand grip. A chimp is smaller than a female human but due to it's slightly different upper body anatomy a full grown male chimp can quite literally rip a man's arm off and beat him to death with it. Fortunately chimp anatomy is not well suited to throwing rocks and spears, at best they can throw their own turds ~20 feet away, even an adult male chimp will never throw a javelin as far or as accurate as a young woman.
Having said that most people understand that "equality" was, and still is, about freedom from systematic social and legal oppression. Having grown up in the 60's I imagine it's difficult for people under 30 to understand what women were complaining about when burning their bra's in the 70's. I must confess as a young male I was strongly in favour of bra-burning, even though I had little interest in what they were saying.
The western world owes the civil rights movement a great deal, and it's a great shame that my children's generation, now in their early 30's, generally have a poor understanding of the word "equality" and virtually no idea about the price paid by women and blacks to obtain it in the mid 20th century.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
That book throws around statistics, but it offers self selected anecdotal evidence to cite reasons of injustice. If you start out thinking you're up against an entrenched "all boys club" and bring your own venom to the table then cause hostility through over-sensitivity, you're going to have a bad time, mkay? Did you know men and boys pick on each other as a form of bonding? Did you know little girls are even worse at the verbal bullying via hurtful spite filled comments and gossip? Visit any all-girl school and see for yourself. Given the facts about how women treat each other, I find it incredibly disingenuous to present spaces less than mostly male occupied as giving females quicker deaths by thousands of cuts -- Especially given the goddess like preferential treatment the women I know of in tech receive.
I've seen it time and again. A social justice warrior or feminist will arrive with teeth bared expecting a hostile environment of the mostly male gamedevs -- ignoring that gamedevs and players are different -- ready to strike at any perceived injustice: "Only 20% of the award winners are female?! That's sexist." Uh, yeah, 20% of the submissions were by females. Odd thing, that algebraic equality... 1 = 1; 20 == 20. However, now that accusations have been made, folks aren't going to be reacting very nicely -- least of all the females among us who see such shit stirrers as exactly that: Drama queens, deserving of the same sort of poisonous treatment they dish out.
"We need more women game devs!" [Specifically reach out to women and get more female game devs show up for the gamejam] "Oh it's so awesome you're a girl who gamedevs!" -- ARGH! It sucks that men are treating women differently than themselves. Uh, yeah, because that's what we did to decrease the rarity and the boys see girls as different than themselves. You really can't win for losing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Now we just say: Fuck 'em. Doesn't change the fact that with equal m/f ratio among new attendees most girls quit our dev groups AFTER being welcomed and accepted into the group because the risk / reward for game making is shit -- Lots of work, little to no chance of making a popular game. The guys just happen to care less about the lack of social status or massive effort required to sate their love for developing intricate novelties than gals do. Those women that do are cherished for their different perspectives, and sought out for advice on character design realism... Because most men are best at "writing what they know" and don't have female brains. Like gamedev, IT and CS are largely thankless shite work too.
"Unlocking the Clubhouse" -- Interesting selection of careers. Why not try "Unlocking the Clubhouse" when it comes to the other thankless risky male dominated jobs, like Janitors or Coal Miners -- Oh, those are clubhouses no one wants to be in? Gee. Go fucking figure.
You have been watching too much Bill O'Reilly. I say this, because he uses the same *exact* mis-representative definition of "social justice".
Social justice is not in any way shape or form about equality of outcome, it's about acknowledging that the system isn't fair (that's OK, it can't be fair in a free society), but more importantly taking measures that reflect that the system isn't fair.
Let's come up with an illustrative example:
Let's say that Bill Gates has a child and so do I. The children are the same age. One day, they both independently have two different "million dollar ideas." Bill Gates' child obviously has a clear advantage. He essentially has infinite funding and support to make it happen.
My child other hand will have to work is ASS OFF. He will have to apply for loans, appeal to investors, possibly have to make counter productive deals to make any headway. Even something as simple as filing a patent costs a small fortune (I know, I've done it). All things being equal, this is simply not fair. And that's OK. It doesn't have to be fair.
Here's where "social justice" comes in. The concept is simply saying "Hey, here's a kid whose working hard, has a good idea, let's try to find to give him a hand".
No guaranteed outcomes, not even equality of opportunity. In this example, my kid could still fail. And if he does, there is no one to blame but himself. I can live with that. No one asked for equality of opportunity, just help for those willing to work hard and earn it. This generally benefits society because my kids "million dollar idea" might be something that completely revolutionizes society. And that something may not ever see the light of day without a little support.
Th perfect *real world* example of this type of thing is JK Rowling. She lived in poverty when she was younger, needed support from the system to keep her on her feet. Now because of that support, she was able to creates works which have created more wealth than she could have dreamed. She alone is worth over 1 billion dollars. She creates new jobs and millions of dollars for thousands of people all around the world. She got kids to read *thick, non-picture books* with wonderful stories. And all of this was possible because of a small amount of "social justice" to help her out in her time of need.
Helping the less fortunate stay on there feet is not communism, it's an investment in a person and their ability to rise above their current circumstances.
There will certainly be abuses. There will be people who take and don't give back. And this should be prevented. That should be an argument for means testing, not an argument against helping those who truly need it.
I feel sorry that you are so misinformed.
Sorry, but I cannot feel anything but utterly patronized by your comment.
The reason you feel patronised by TapeCutter's comment is because he's right.
This is the cognitive dissonance caused by hearing something that disagrees with your world view... The problem is you cant seem to handle that your world view is quite wrong.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yeah, just forget any and all prices paid constantly to this day by men for "society". It's our "privilege" and, if we don't serve, our shame. Registering for selective service is required for a male to get voting "rights". Women get it for being human. Funny implication there. So many things follow an identical pattern, and it's getting worse. The pussy pass is ancient, but, recently, it's gotten massive upgrades.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
Then women are the ones who have the privilege, not men. This is true both in the letter of the law, and the precedent set by its enforcement.
1. women get lighter sentences for crime.
2. women are assumed to be victims in 'abuse' cases whether they are or not..
3. if men call 911 because their wives are throwing knives at them, he is arrested and brought to jail. look up 'mandatory arrest.'
4. women pay less into social security yet retire sooner.
5. women don't have to sign up for the selective service in order to vote.
6. women are given access to public money (scholarships) for education just because they are women.
7. Title IX. Enough said.
8. VAWA. Enough said.