Slashdot Mirror
The Brains of Men and Women Aren't Really That Different, Study Finds (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes: In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain. But a new study (abstract) finds that human brains do not fit neatly into "male" and "female" categories. Indeed, all of our brains seem to share a patchwork of forms; some that are more common in males, others that are more common in females, and some that are common to both. The findings could change how scientists study the brain and even how society defines gender.
Zombies agree, they're both tasty.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I thought it was long-known that what might be true on a general basis has poor predictive value on an individual basis when it came to just about anything dealing with the brain.
This is about structural differences. I imagine the chemical/hormonal differences remain... different?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
...is that we lack the measurement tools to discern the brain structures that influence macro phenomena.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
Usually when knowledge about a subject is low the statement is: "Oh, this looks simple".
As knowledge grows so does the intricacies.
To me, this statement tells me that we still don't know much still about the human brain.
Any brain-scan with the resolution in the million of neurons category is not going to tell you much.
It's like viewing "Mona Lisa" through a 16 pixel display; remarkably similar to the "Isleworth Mona Lisa".
...any guy who claims the *software* isn't, clearly has never met a woman...
In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Now that brain that you gave me. Was it Hans Delbruck's?
Igor: No.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Ah! Very good. Would you mind telling me whose brain I DID put in?
Igor: Then you won't be angry?
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: I will NOT be angry.
Igor: Abby someone.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Abby someone. Abby who?
Igor: Abby... Normal.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: Abby Normal?
Igor: I'm almost sure that was the name.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
How about we agree on what is meant by "male" and "female" before going off on some wild study? If the study *had* shown a discernable difference, which gender would it have expected Caitlin Jenner's brain to show up as?
The only documented exception being Steven Ballmer.
"The findings could change how scientists study the brain and even how society defines gender."
Penis = Male
Vagina = Female
Failing that:
XX = female
XY = male
Failing that:
Into the volcano you go!
See? Simple.
The study identified several regions of the brain that are "male" vs "female" in nature. Hence, there are variations in structures in those regions that do tend to dominate on one gender vs another. However, what the study found is that there is no one "combination" of such regions that statistically dominates to define a definite male or female brain, and that each individual person possesses variation between the two types.
and the New and Improved xyyy.
Gee... these measures vary continously between A and B. Therefore there is no A and no B. /barf. What would be interesting is if there were no way predict sex (greater than chance) from brain structures. That is a strong result. This is just junk dressed up as a strong result, but it isn't strong at all.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Now they'll have to open with "What's the deal with airline food?"
SCIENTISTS UNCOVER A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SEXES
Sex does matter: key molecular process in brain is different in males and females
- See more at: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2015/08/scientists-uncover-a-difference-between-the-sexes.html#sthash.kQJxCnEr.dpuf
I find this work dubious for the fact that it's conclusion is (or can be reformulated as) a negative: there's not much difference between male and female brains. All this suggests is that the authors were unable to find a consistent algorithm for deciding whether a brain is male or female. Now there are whole disciplines which can come up with different ways to differentiate the two (most notably data science), so I propose releasing the data, and then we'll whether someone finds that algorithm, and how well it works. While the case can not be definitively proven to be that there's no difference, the degree to which male and female brains are different would give rise to some interesting discussion.
If accuracy is above 90% we can conclusively say that the two categories are pretty different. If it's around 66%, we would say the difference is minimal. Furthermore, the algorithms themselves would yield some interesting insights.
So if the authors are reading this, can we have the data please?
So basically its a spectrum with some brains that are very much "male" and some that are very much "female" and some stuff in between, and this is surprising why?
Most humans also fall somewhere in that spectrum, with some people with a penis being very much "male" and some much closer to "female" in both behavior as well as looks. While it means that some brains of males can look almost female, this doesn't mean that the notion of male or female is suddenly totally gone. There is still a difference to be found and only a limited number of brains are hard to categorise. Sure the "male" and "female" choice is kind of arbitrary. But actually splitting them up is very helpful in many situations. One is physically stronger, in general, the other in emotionally stronger, in general and so on and so on. Categorizing everything is just something we do to make sense of the world. Some things are chairs, some things are certainly not chairs and some things just are in between, which you can sit on but wouldn't really look at as a chair or they look like a chair but could never be comfortable. In the same way there is a gender I would fuck and a gender I would not fuck, and then there are people who look in between, which might mean either fucking them could produce something but I have no interest or I am interested enough to fuck them but it could never lead to another human.
While it might suck or be great to be in the middle of the spectrum, it also shouldn't give you the right to demand how I chose to categorize you. I should not fail to see you as another human, which in some cases some people seem to forget, but the opposite, that, for example, if I don't feel an attraction to you even though just looking at the genitals, you would be called a certain gender, that is not a form of racism/sexism or whatever.
I hate replying to trolls, and I hate replying to ACs, and you're both. But anyway, for the benefit of those who might actually think you're serious...
The brains of humans and other primates are very different. Humans have much larger cranial capacity, for one (about 3 times that of chimps, our closest ancestors), whereas the difference in cranial capacity between men and women is only a few percent, and that is explained mostly by body size (men and women of the same weight & height have no statistically significant difference in brain size). Human brains have much larger frontal lobes than other primate brains. There are a bunch of other differences too.
Anyway, similarity is relative. A chimp brain is way more similar to a human brain than, say, a rat brain.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
It doesn't prove that. It doesn't disprove it either. It makes no claims on that whatsoever.
Interestingly, this phrase shows up early in the article: “Nobody has had a way of quantifying this before,” which indicates that previous claims were invalid, based on supposition and assumption rather than data. They were at best, theories, in the scientific sense of the word, but lacked a mechanism to test.
Should you assume that previous claims were valid, even without proof, I can see how you might come to the conclusion that we lack the tools to derive differences. If you ignore the idea that these things could be impacted more by chemical, environmental or cultural factors, and that brain structure contains an inherent representation of male-like vs female-like brains, it is a pretty reasonable assumption.
Except that the article then goes on to point out that all the things previously claimed to indicate gender did not have reliability: there was no inherent consistency or commonality between results, except when you zoom out far enough to indicate a generic trend (one that cannot be used to reliably identify a brain as 'male' or 'female'). Again from the article:
"Some modest disparities have been reported: On average, for example, men tend to have a larger amygdala, a region associated with emotion. Such differences are small and highly influenced by the environment."
So, the previous claims are considered invalid, and the assumption - assuming I'm not painting a straw man - requires them to be true, and reliable. Instead, they are not, and while it doesn't discount the assumption, it does make it more unlikely to be true. ... personally speaking, I believe 'genderness' as it relates to social norms rather than biological ones, is predicated primarily on those same social norms and cultural values, rather than biological, which serve as a tertiary influence after cultural and environmental factors. If that were not the case, then it would be unimportant for a trans-individual to look and dress in a stereotypical gender-specific way, except to serve as a label to others. There's nothing that says you're not unless you dress like your culture's stereotype of , except insecurity and social pressures. Nothing except what an individual allows inside themselves.
Is there really a problem with it being primarily a psychological state? It's equally valid, isn't it?
They're doing this on purpose????
This is junk science that makes a lot of assumptions on how the brain is supposed to be, then uses it's pointless conclusion to try to create social change. Sounds more like propaganda than science to me.
Exactly. I'm not sure why yet another study confirming this is a big deal, or why it's a big deal when people such as Larry Summers make statements that, yes, there are tendencies for gender differences when talking about brains on a general basis, even if you can't make a specific prediction about any one individual based on that general tendency.
This one is from Tel Aviv University. Maybe it is a more useful study for people to cite who are having gender policy discussions within various Jewish communities.
(Although it will not be enough to change certain Orthodox policies, like IIRC women don't count when determining if you have a quorum for a prayer.)
Every cell in the brain of a man has an x and a y chromosome. Every cell in the brain of a woman has two x chromosomes. Also, every brain of a woman is inside the head of a woman. While every brain of a man is inside the head of a man.
I put the 'Physics' in 'Physical Attraction'
Too much cholesterol in both.
If you were a scientist you would not come up with your conclusions before having the data.
Good thing zombies don't need to eat heart-healthy.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Well duh!
You may not realize it, but you've just given us the feminists' best argument, that men and women are programmed differently.
http://thealternativein.c.pres...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Your entire post is wrong. The most glaring error is this:
chimps, our closest ancestors
A lot of people say, "What's that?" It's Pat!
A lot of people ask, "Who's he? Or she?"
A ma'am or a sir, accept him or her
or whatever it might be.
It's time for androgyny.
Here comes Pat!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Alright, closest living ancestors.
What part of my post is wrong?
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
I meant closest living RELATIVES. Just caught my error now, sorry.
But anyway, what other part of my post is wrong?
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
I don't even have a brain! :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
But God knows they don't react the same. Women, generally act/think with the emotional side of the brain. Men, generally act/think with the logical side of the brain. Now before all the women's lib people start in, I SAID GENERALLY.
women fail to understand . . . you!
Pacific Rim (the robot pilots have to "share their inner-most thoughts and feelings")
The Hunger Games
those Twilight movies
. . . 50 Shades of Grey?
That's a silly assumption to make. Why assume that it's not pre-programmed to some extent? Alas, they're probably not going to let us run experiments on a few hundred children to get meaningful data. Either way, that's a silly assumption to make an even sillier would be to use it as an argument. Are you drinking tonight? The word programmed doesn't mean user-controlled, nor does it mean (to butcher the analogy even further) that the source is open to modification.
There's intrinsic differences which this study actually finds. This doesn't mean that one is better than the other. Just that we've probably inherent traits that make us more likely to be better suited for different tasks. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. The study confirms that there are differences. It doesn't conclude that they're the same and that you'll get equal outcomes.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Well it used to be that men were the 'breadwinners' and were there to protect their women which led to older guys being partnered to younger women Ive noticed the opposite starting to happen ok not across the board but just look on tv with shows like cougar town and sex in the city where it is increasingly the older women dating younger guys and being the provider. Its even happening on dating sites not just tv shows like http://www.freecougarcontacts.... - basically older women looking for younger guys, bot exactly in your 'kept' category but shows the same twist of changing roles between the sexes...
The conclusion has no relationship with the results from the study, they have to re-interpret the results passing them through their ideological funnel to reach the answer they wanted to get in the first place, which is a wrong one. They even acknowledge that neuroscientists are still able to spot the difference between a male and a female brain in plain sight, and because this is a hard fact, the entire argument that there are no substantial differences in the brains between the sexes becomes moot and dis-proven.
What this study has found, is that very few people have "canonical" male brains or female brains. But this is not news, because very few people have canonical male or female bodies to begin with. The percentage of people that have the same proportions than the Vitruvian Man is almost not existent.
As the fella once said, it's not predictive. Think for a second: would you have wanted your future to be determined on by a "set of traits"? Of all people, I'd think you would reject that notion. Remember when black people had a "set of traits" that meant they "weren't suited" to be competitive swimmers or ice hockey players? Or a "set of traits" that prevented them from having "the tools" to be an NFL quarterback or a major league manager? Or to be taught to read and write?
And considering all the software programming we throw at kids from the time they're born, why would you assume the "pre-programming" is anything but trivial?
You are welcome on my lawn.
If I had to wager, given what we currently know, I'd submit that it is probably a bit more pre-programmed (or influenced by chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen) that you seem to think and less predictive than others are inclined to think. I strongly suspect that there's straight up differences in trait strengths and weaknesses. To use your example of black people, they are - indeed, physically different as a general rule. This doesn't make them less than or better than however, it does mean they have dominant traits more frequently than others.
Denying this does nothing to further humanity. Using it as an excuse to limit, prejudge, or separate does hinder our further humanity. It's not too painful to admit that we're different. It's okay. In fact, it's a wonderful thing to accept and be aware of diversity and to break those boundaries is a great thing. Not each and every person is going to be the same and some may well be exceptional. That doesn't mean that we're not different as a general rule. It's quite likely that one gender will be more adept at various things (see spacial awareness with me) than another. To think otherwise isn't very smart.
Equal opportunity is an important thing to have but that doesn't necessarily result in equal outcomes. To be more specific, this doesn't mean that women can't do tech. To assume that it means that is just silly. It might mean that men are predisposed to it on a more frequent basis than women are. That's okay. Let people reach for the clouds but make sure they know that the higher they reach the harder the fall. Accept that failures happen and that we're not all the same. Expecting equal outcome is absolutely silly - to the point where it's irrational. What matters is that we've equal opportunity.
The headline is misleading. "It's not really that different" translates to "it's different." It doesn't mean one is better than the other. It just means they're different. There's no reason to read more into it than that. Some are just going to have traits at a greater frequency than others, they're pre-programmed to excel in certain areas. This doesn't prohibit them from working to excel in other areas, it just means that they must work to do so.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Get over it, idiots.
mark
19th century scientists claimed they could identify the sex of a person based solely on their disembodied genitalia.
However, as 21st century gender scientists know, sex reassignment surgery would utterly befuddle such no-nothing pseud-scientists from the bad old days.
Seastead this.
And feminists use this as an argument because they are stupid. It completely contradicts their "all men are inherently evil" narrative.
There is some plasticity, but our general likes and dislikes are pretty much predetermined by the time we are born.
It is extremely rare to find anyone with an "all X are Y" narrative. I have never encountered a feminist who thinks all men are inherently evil.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Seriously? Have you never read any of the feminist propaganda at all?
Give us an example or STFU.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Try their facebook page, then their homepage, and I don't care which sect of them you try, you will find it in all of them. If you don't immediately see a large portion of direct hatred for men then you are incapable of recognizing real hate.
So, you're saying that you don't have a single example of feminists saying that men are inherently evil?
I didn't think so.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, I'm saying you are too damn stupid to recognize it when they do. Either that, or you know how bad the problem is and you support their hatred.