Pharyngula

Posted by: cameron | September 7, 2010 8:54 AM

I thought the main difference between the brains of men and women was that if women tried thinking too hard, their brains would overheat and they would get hysterical. Maybe the stuff I've been reading isn't entirely up to date.

Posted by: David B | September 7, 2010 9:01 AM

In my youth (I'm 61 now) it was fashionable to believe that the only mental differences between men and women were the result of social conditioning. I thought that was right for many years, but have slowly come to accept (rightly or wrongly) that there is more to it than that.

The book looks interesting, but what I have read concerning the differential incidence of people on the autistic spectrum among males and females, and while some men and some women, despite social conditioning, are so unhappy with their sexual identities that they seek surgery to change their physical identity, I'm going to take a lot of persuading.

Posted by: BilBy | September 7, 2010 9:04 AM

Apologies for going off topic: but if anyone feels like going over to The Guardian and giving Jonathan Jones a thrashing for his mean-spirited little anti-Dawkins ('He's no Darwin! Why won't someone explain Natural selection to me NICELY?!') piece, please do http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2010/sep/07/darwin-dawkins

Posted by: broboxley OT | September 7, 2010 9:12 AM

If women were so good at reading minds why am I at an abba concert instead of at home getting a bj?

Posted by: Kemist | September 7, 2010 9:21 AM

So I'm not supposed to be good at maths ?

Weird. I've always been among the best students in all my math classes, even though most of the other students were male. And I spent much of the last year helping high school students in maths and science, and most of them were... boys.

Go figure.

There's supposed to be a huge difference in learning style between boys and girls, but frankly I never saw it. There are huges differences in learning styles among people, period.

I think this gender bias thing is very harmful, not just for girls, but for boys as well. For example, boys are told they are supposed to be rubish at languages. The consequence of this is that they tend to read less, cause reading is for sissies, and therefore, they are rubish at language.

Here there has been an effort to interest girls to maths and sciences, and I have never been told, by anyone, that I was supposed to like dolls rather than microscopes - except maybe by my grandmother. I think the same kind of effort should be done for boys.

Posted by: Pyrion | September 7, 2010 9:30 AM

It's a myth that all gender differences can be explained by genes. It's another myth that they all can be attributed to culture. Both are extremist positions that can be refuted easily.

Posted by: AJS | September 7, 2010 9:49 AM

Part of the problem is that we don't have a control group: there isn't a society anywhere today that doesn't treat the sexes differently (and the West seems to be getting worse: cheaper toys, clothes and everything mean that it is now more feasible than ever to treat boys and girls completely differently from birth onward. And manufacturers are only too happy to accept consumers' money for clearly-delineated male and female versions of everything they make. They will be feeding boys and girls different foods soon, at the rate things are going).

Hell, the first question just about anyone asks on seeing a baby is "is it a boy or a girl?". As though the answer to that would influence everything they subsequently do (and it quite often does influence everything they subsequently do).

Everyone has some preconceived ideas which they bring to the party with them, and it is these preconceived ideas which turn into self-fulfilling prophecies. There has been a meme going around the UK for some time now that "success is for girls", and it is going to come back and bite someone very hard sooner rather than later.

The fact of the matter is, we share 45 chromosomes out of 46. There is simply not enough room in the human genome to code for all the apparent differences between the sexes.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | September 7, 2010 9:54 AM

I think there are differences in Male and Female hard wiring that often result in different mindsets and behavior in some situations.

However, I believe the overlap is far far greater than the differences, and don't understand what this has to do with math.

I could imagine that women might be less interested in high-falutin' theoretical math because they DO tend to be a bit more pragmatic than men, IMHO.

My wife is better at cypherin' than I am, and the only person I know personally who studies advanced mathematics at University is a young woman, and she recently decided to switch to applied mathematics.

/anecdotal

Posted by: secularguy | September 7, 2010 10:05 AM

why am I at an abba concert instead of at home getting a bj?

You're at an ABBA concert??!!! Wow!! When did they reform??!? Is there a tour going on? Don't they look very old on stage now?

Posted by: broboxley OT | September 7, 2010 10:10 AM

secular guy #17 what? you have never heard of abbaworld? http://www.abbasite.com/articles/news/abbaworld-goes-down-under!

Posted by: nataliec | September 7, 2010 10:21 AM

I just finished reading this. "Delusions of Gender" isabsolutely worth reading for her careful descriptions of where unintentional experimenter bias can come into play in studies of babies; and her analysis of precisely why using neuroscience to delineate what the "female" versus "male" brain is good at is dangerous.
The book is worth the cover price, if for nothing else, than for the dissection of Brizendine's book "The Female Brain" (a book which quite frankly made me so angry I didn't get past the first chapter).

@SWH - Fine uses the terms precisely and properly. Gender as a social/cultural construct, sex as biological.

Posted by: WCorvi | September 7, 2010 10:23 AM

When I was growing up in the '60s, our (female) teachers acted as if girls were supposed to be good at math and spelling, and boys good at recess and lunch. I was a (male) outcast as a result. But by high school, girls were supposed to be good at make-up and giggling, and boys good at career-oriented things. By that time, the pressure came from peers, mostly of the same sex.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlhJkLoaLREvGWBjKzFVMpetAw91i17YYw | September 7, 2010 10:31 AM

As a female and former Physicist, I can tell you the negative societal impacts of being raised female are huge and hard to overcome...

And they don't end while you are training for a scientific or techical field. I am certain that no man in my program ever got "Why are you working so hard? Why don't you just get married and have kids?" in response to a question in class. I am certain that no man consistently at the top of his classes got a "I just think E&M is going to be too hard for you" from a professor. I am certain that that few men have had to deal with a professor staring at their secondary sexual organs when they were trying to get science questions answered. (Even the gay male professors are more discrete than that). I am certain that inferior men got more research opportunities than I did and can cite the examples to prove it. (We're talking males at the bottom of the class being told about plum opportunities while the three women at the top of the class were not told until after the posts were filled.)

And it doesn't end with university. I am certain that no male scientist had to hear, "Oh, I guess it's that time of month, so maybe we'll talk later" in a disagreement about data interpretation. I am certain that no male scientist has had to share office space with another female scientist while the male intern got an office to himself -- and then been punished for complaining about it. I am certain that no male scientist has had his office space included in the total square footage of his research space at MIT, leaving him with less lab space than his peers. I am certain that no male scientist has been laid off because he didn't dress more prettily and act 'nice' to his co-workers. I am certain that no male scientist had to spend 5 years in the legal system to get a modicum of justice for the discrimination, facing a flood of abuse and lies along the way.

I could go on and on. It has always distressed me that the 'smartest' of us are the most biased. And I've given up on making changes myself. They are going to have to come from an agency more powerful than me.

Posted by: Pinkboi | September 7, 2010 10:34 AM

I have to agree with #22

Of course we must be weary of the old, crusty gender stereotype biases, but we must also be weary of the new politically correct biases. There's no law in the fabric of the universe that a fact that would delight bad people must not be true.

My thinking is that much of the observed difference is due to motivation and socialization, not actual brain power but take this intuition from a non-psychologist with a grain of salt.

Then there comes the Catch-22. Research does show peoples' attitudes about the nature of intelligence affects their mental performance. If it did turn out to be that men were slightly better at math, finding out this fact would make many women with innate math talent unduly lose confidence.

Posted by: griffiths.guy | September 7, 2010 10:38 AM

Hell, the first question just about anyone asks on seeing a baby is "is it a boy or a girl?"

It's one of the few things that significantly differs from one baby to another. "Does it shit itself?", "Does it seem to enjoy crying a lot?", and "Where are its teeth?" all have rather obvious answers, whereas "Is it a Marxist?", and "What sort of music does it enjoy?" are rather nonsensical. Many other questions are considered impolite ("Fuck, that's a big head, did it really really hurt?", "Is it supposed to look like that?").

Plus, in my experience parents get rather annoyed after you've referred to their little darling as an "it" for the twentieth time. Even more so when you've referred to it by the wrong sex.

Posted by: Azkyroth | September 7, 2010 10:50 AM

Finally, it's extremely unlikely that species typical behavior is entirely due to socialization. For example, men commit far more murders than women in ALL cultures studied. It's highly unlikely that this is all due to socialization.

Doesn't this argument basically presuppose that at some point some civilization somewhere has developed in a vacuum?

Posted by: MosesZD | September 7, 2010 10:54 AM

Posted by: Moggie | September 7, 2010 9:53 AM

Basically, schoolboys are dicks, and girls are probably better off staying well away from them.

Actually, speaking from a first-world cultural perspective girls are as bad as boys. But, hey, thanks for playing the stereotype card, your prize is at the door...

The truth is it's all part of the violence spectrum that has an equal participation in men and women. And while know certain people, who have a vested political-power interest in promoting stereotypes, and therefore love to shit in pond of research that has been done in this area, the first-world epidemiology is clear:

Some people are assholes. Men are people. Women are people. They're the same, proportionally, in being assholes.

Special interest beliefs to the contrary.

Now, get into heavy theocracy, second and third-world countries. We're on the same page. In those areas, women do suffer disproportionately in bullying, domestic violence, etc.

But in the first world, where we live and research. Sorry, you have stereotypes, ideologues lying with stats and two (otherwise) equally fucked-up populations.

Posted by: richardrob | September 7, 2010 11:01 AM

In these sorts of discussions, I think it's always important to remember that averages do not speak for individuals. And individuals do not refute averages.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | September 7, 2010 11:05 AM

Isn't it amazing how we get so uptight about vary small shifts in the means of what are after all very broad quasi-normal distributions? I've always been astounded by how many times I've heard "Men are better at math than women," from guys who absolutely SUCK at math! Indeed, using such clumsy phrasing for such subtle statistical differences might well be a litmus test for sucking at math.

Posted by: Demonhype | September 7, 2010 11:07 AM

I'm 31-year-old female and only within the last three years or so have I come to realize that I can do math. I have always been a little more resistant to social cues (being kind of antisocial and also having had a tiny bit of trouble reading social cues because of how I am), but even I found myself falling victim to the "girls are no good at math ever because of genetics" meme. I found it difficult at first and because of that subconscious cue I didn't even put any real effort into it.

Somehow it managed to worm its way into me despite my rabidly female-supremacist teenage years (I refuse to call that attitude "feminist")It wasn't until I was in my late twenties that I gave it a real try, while forcing myself to confront and challenge the subconscious messages that I could not do it, and found out I could be pretty damn good at it--and that it had the potential to be a lot of fun! And that chemistry is SEXY. And I might have gone into science instead of animation had I not been infected with this "girls can't do math because biology" meme. I had briefly been interested in science (at the time when I was a kid, it had been ocean biology I was loopy over), but those around me made sure to tell me--with that ever-so-significant tone--that math was involved. The subtle unspoken cue: Don't do it, you won't succeed because, being a girl, you can't possibly survive the math courses.

In fact, I'm starting to question the attitude I had that "no one who understands this stuff can explain it" that I used as an excuse. I've come to realize that perhaps they could explain it, but weren't going to bust their ass trying to explain it to a girl, seeing it as a waste of time.

Same thing with the Jesus thing. I never really bought into the Jesus thing at Catholic school, but after an entire life of having this idea of reverent ideas bashed into my subconscious, even I was uncomfortable at first to suggest that Jesus was nothing special and continued to cling to some form of "Jesus was at least a Super Special Spiritual Guru of some sort with some Cosmic Significance, he just had to be!" for some time.

It's amazing how many of these ideas can worm into your subconscious without your even realizing it. I really had to be made aware of this social cue and confront it to succeed in my math courses. It would be great if we could just avoid infecting any children with this sort of meme in the future.

I'll have to show my brother this. We had another blowout last night on social expectations of men and women, and he was getting really defensive. It seems the experiences of millions of women in our social environment can be negated by a handful of guys who aren't jerks--when I was talking about an underlying social climate that causes underlying assumptions that people act upon without realizing they are there, which is kind of different. Guess what, kid--the discussion goes far beyond how men are jerks to women and encompasses an entire range of society--when you get involved in the discussion, that is, which is a great way to air out preconceived notions. I've learned a lot more about my own preconceived notions and buried assumptions because of these kinds of online discussions.

Funny thing is, it's always the feminists of both genders who bring up this sort of thing--the negative effects of sexism on both sexes, not just women, and the acknowledgement of things that are genuinely unfair to men. Every time I've met or seen a woman mistreating a man, using her gender as a weapon against him, claiming special rights and dismissing it when he feels she is being unfair, she's been some kind of anti-feminist or non-feminist--for what the anecdote is worth, anyway.

But somehow, every time a woman is a "dick", feminism get the blame no matter what the woman's actual position is. Kind of like some white people who, if they meet one black person who is kind of a jerk or gets a little hair-triggered--or if they simply feel that's the case, even if it is not--they assume that this is representative of all black people and their bid for equality is actually a bid for world domination. Which sounds like excuse-seeking to me.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | September 7, 2010 11:22 AM

When I was in high school (back when Jesus rode dinosaurs), the top five math students were girls.

Of course, it's what you do with that skill that counts. One of the very best of the best in our class graduated from high school and was married the next week. She was in some sort of culty church - I had the distinct impression that the marriage was arranged somehow. She started popping out smart little god-bots and never "worked" outside the home.

Sad waste of an incredible brain.

Posted by: marteani | September 7, 2010 11:25 AM

I counted in my head how long it would take before someone posted how male and female brains had obvious differences. It took less time than I estimated.
Yes, it is true. The male and female brains are different. If this were not the case, instances of transgenderism would be nil. If nothing else, there is at the very least a switch that says "I am a girl" and "I am a boy" that allows for such internal recognition. They are likely different in many ways besides such.
However.
These ways largely have nothing to do with math, music, science, sex or any of the other things boys are "better at" or "enjoy more" than girls. That men are "chefs" and women are "home cooks" is a social construction, not something physiology decided to throw in after the discovery of fire.

Posted by: MrFire | September 7, 2010 11:30 AM

but why the hate for the misanthropy?

Because I'm not misanthropic.

Posted by: reason | September 7, 2010 11:48 AM

Question for professor Myers here: would he approach behavioural differences betwen male and female squids the same way? If not why not?

Posted by: Steven Mading | September 7, 2010 11:50 AM

Posted by: chassoto Author Profile Page | September 7, 2010 10:11 AM

The real problem here is that there's no real science possible - just social science. Until we're allowed to stick people in closed systems and experiment as we see fit, we'll just never be sure.

I've always had this suspicion about any sort of brain study (not just brain sex studies) - they don't acknowledge that the brain is a body part that changes with usage patterns sort of like any other body part such as a muscle changes with usage patterns. If you are philosophically a materialist as most of us atheists are, then you have to acknowledge that changes in the mind inevitably must have a physical representation in the brain. Therefore the fact that I now know calculus, but I didn't when I was 10 years old must be somehow represented by a physical brain change somewhere, even if the neuroscience to pin it down exactly and find it isn't existent yet.

Saying "he's good at math because his brain has this particular pattern" might be a bit like saying "He works out a lot in the gym because he has big muscles."

The same problem can exist for brain sex studies. "Girls have this brain pattern and therefore are better at X and worse at Y" might be getting the cause-effect relationship backward and they might be reading the result of cultural bias rather than the cause of it.

The problem is that to definitively get the real answer requires doing controlled experiments that are horribly unethical - where you take several babies and raise them to adulthood in carefully controlled environments cut off from all cultural influences.

Posted by: MrFire | September 7, 2010 11:53 AM

Question for professor Myers here: would he approach behavioural differences betwen male and female squids the same way? If not why not?

This has to to with homo sapiens how?

Posted by: viggen | September 7, 2010 11:57 AM

Having had a few female physicists school me on tests, I can say without reservation that there is no gender bias regarding capacity for skill at math. When I've seen them work at it, they've gotten just as good as me just a quickly and sometimes more so.

Posted by: Steven Mading | September 7, 2010 12:01 PM

The male and female brains are different. If this were not the case, instances of transgenderism would be nil.

That is bad reasoning. What you are doing is saying, "Because an effect has one particular predominantly observed cause, it would be impossible for it to exist by any other cause in some hypothetical alternate world where that one predominant cause was removed."

Imagine a universe where there was no real gender difference in the brain, but there still was a gender difference in culture. Might there still exist people who identify more with the role culture has told them they're not allowed to have than with the role culture has told them they are allowed to have?

This idea that X is known to cause Y therefore nothing else could ever possibly cause Y is a bad syllogism.

Posted by: opposablethumbstoo | September 7, 2010 12:08 PM

#29

"Does it shit itself?", "Does it seem to enjoy crying a lot?", and "Where are its teeth?" all have rather obvious answers, whereas "Is it a Marxist?", and "What sort of music does it enjoy?" are rather nonsensical. Many other questions are considered impolite ("Fuck, that's a big head, did it really really hurt?", "Is it supposed to look like that?").

They all look like avocados for at least the first week.

And my keyboard has been endangered again.

I get so angry - or depressed - when I keep hearing "girls can't do ..." or "boys are always ...". I suspect that it may be next to impossible, in practice, to disentangle learned traits from any that people are born with (whatever they may or may not be), but in a sense it shouldn't matter: if the two bell-curves representing any particular trait or attribute in males and females were superimposed, the only difference would be in the outliers anyway (apart from some obvious physical differences where there is relatively little overlap). And most of all, it shouldn't matter - if only people were all encouraged equally, irrespective of sex.

I haven't expressed this as clearly as I would like. Maybe I'll just go and do some weights or something.

Posted by: broboxley OT | September 7, 2010 12:15 PM

Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom #54, the article discussed that, several others have discussed that and while I maybe illiterate I do have the sneaking suspicion that you know what manscaping is

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | September 7, 2010 12:21 PM

@Broboxley,
Clearly she read your mind and realized you weren't worth the effort.

Posted by: marteani | September 7, 2010 12:24 PM

I make my assumptions about transgenderism and the brain only because of research that I have read. It's not a body-mod issue (people who get scales tattooed on their skin rarely self-identify as being the wrong species, equating the two is bizarre). And people who identify with the role culture assigns a particular gender rarely have the desire to cut off their own genitals. This is why transvestites and transsexuals are two different things. The former identify and desire the trappings of cultural femininity, but they still self-identify as male. The latter self-identify as being the wrong gender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiology_of_transsexualism

Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism by Luders et al. in Neuroimage. 2009 Mar 30. Quote: …Results revealed that regional gray matter variation in MTF transsexuals is more similar to the pattern found in men than in women. However, MTF transsexuals show a significantly larger volume of regional gray matter in the right putamen compared to men. These findings provide new evidence that transsexualism is associated with distinct cerebral pattern, which supports the assumption that brain anatomy plays a role in gender identity

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | September 7, 2010 12:39 PM

Re: "Why am I not getting a BJ jokes"

Not just offensive but also boring. Also, no equivalence there to "why am I not sitting on someone's face" "jokes" because of the social context. Idiots.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | September 7, 2010 12:50 PM

SWH wrote:

Can I have a quick rant about the meaning of the words sex (male vs. female) and gender (masculine vs. feminine) and the current inability to distinguish between the two - even in applications like this one where they are likely important.......is it just that people don't like to use the word sex? They certainly show plenty of interest in the activity.

*HUGE GRIN* at seeing someone else attempt this. I thought I was the only one fixated on getting an agreed on definition of gender (sex organs one has vs social gender role). Best of luck to you in this. :)

Pyrion wrote:

It's a myth that all gender differences can be explained by genes. It's another myth that they all can be attributed to culture. Both are extremist positions that can be refuted easily.

No one really knows to what extent sex and genes may or may not affect our behaviours and thoughts and mental abilities. It's pretty much a for-sure that a huge amount is cultural, but it is possible for there to be a few things that are physiological.

I think it's just a sensitive topic for many people, one that they have strong opinions about what they want the answer to be. On the one hand, many women want there to be NO physiological connection for fear that men will use it as an excuse for various sexist behaviours. On the other hand, many transgendered want there to BE a physiological connection in the belief that their desire to have the opposite sex organs and/or behave in the opposite gender roles of society IS a physiological body issue.

E.V. wrote:

We find the brain is sexed, sometimes counter to physical sexual characteristics.

In what traits is it sometimes counter to one's sex organs? What traits are known for sure to be belonging to either specific sex?

Pinkboi wrote:

There's no law in the fabric of the universe that a fact that would delight bad people must not be true.

That's an excellent way of putting what I've been thinking about things all over the place lately, some of which have been in comment threads here at Pharyngula. :)

Speaking of Pharyngula, and therefore octopuses (of course!), can anyone tell me something about that awful internet Tree Octopus Hoax? I say awful because I fell for it while looking up info on a type of Pandanus tree I'm growing, I'm embarrassed to say. To my credit, the pages I believed had NOT mentioned the mythological creature that is mentioned sometimes in connection with this hoax (it was something like sasquatch or something that would have clued me in a lot quicker) According to the hoax, the flowers of this one, Pandanus odoratissimus (aka Pandanus fascicularis) were supposed to be a favourite treat of these land visiting octopuses. When looking up more stuff on the trees at a later time, I found that in one of the eastern religions, something polytheistic mentioning Brahmma or Brammha or whatever and other gods, the plant is considered to have a god-curse of deception on it. So, what I'm wondering is, did the creators of this elaborate hoax choose that plant because of the deception story, as an inside joke sort of thing? I figure that since there are definitely octopus people here, someone might know. I now have to keep warning all my guests to not believe anything those two plants say to them, they're liars! :)

Posted by: LM | September 7, 2010 1:06 PM

Data to be explained: There seems to be a disparity between male and female math performance at advanced levels.

Hypothesis 1: The difference is due to an innate tendency.

Hypothesis 2: The difference is due to social conditions.

Hypothesis 3: The difference is due to an interaction between innate tendency and social conditions.

Ok, that's the story. There is definitely data on stereotype threat that supports the effect of social conditioning for women and math, and I'm pretty convinced on that end. The effects of stereotype threat are deep and need to be solved. But questions of gender difference remain for other social effects like mind-reading, and some still raise it for particular skills like advanced math. Since it's not that easy to parse apart the differing hypotheses, it's important to keep two things in mind when considering those arguments:

1) IF research does show an innate tendency, it would NOT mean discrimination against women in math (for example) is then justified, or that all women cannot be as good as men. It MIGHT mean, if true, that even when all social bars to women in math are removed, there would remain a slightly higher percentage of men working in professional mathematics. (I.e., men are on average taller than women; that doesn't mean gender should decide who would be let into a club for tall people, or even who should be societally encouraged to apply.) If a woman is better than most men at math, who cares what the statistical average is? She should be judged on her own merits and encouraged to pursue them as such.

2) While there are obvious reasons people don't like the idea, I don't understand the skepticism towards any gender differences in the brain, mind, or behavior. We are beings shaped by evolution, and there are gender differences in our bodies shaped by evolutionary history. To suppose that the mind was somehow untouched by that evolutionary scalpel would require evidence to me, or would at least be treated as equivalent to the hypothesis that there are no differences. That wouldn't mean the differences are necessarily that great, and it certainly would never justify discrimination or sexism. To the contrary--it could be a piece of data that helps inform our fight against sexism.

Anyway, a) there is evidence showing that many of the stereotypical gender differences do NOT hold up to scientific scrutiny, in particular regarding stereotype threat, b) there is evidence suggesting other actual gender differences in the brain/cognition, c) it's not that easy to parse apart how much is social or innate, and either way we shouldn't let that kind of empirical question determine our values about discrimination or sexism.

Posted by: broboxley OT | September 7, 2010 1:21 PM

@SallyStrange #65

Also, no equivalence there to "why am I not sitting on someone's face" "jokes" because of the social context

yup huge social contextual difference between an Abbas concert and a NASCAR race. Scented Nectar has the best answer

I think it's just a sensitive topic for many people, one that they have strong opinions about what they want the answer to be.

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | September 7, 2010 1:32 PM

Just to complicate things: there are people who really do think they're the wrong species. One of my online acquaintances is strongly enough dragon-identified that he has posted asking for advice because his wings itched.

Needless to say, there are no actual, physical dragons on Earth. My acquaintance knows this. He also knows that he doesn't have physical wings. But that doesn't stop them itching.

We can believe some pretty odd things.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 7, 2010 1:45 PM

There are some terribly sexist comments here. Personally I think we should always treat women as though they were equals.

snuck one in there huh?

Posted by: bhoytony | September 7, 2010 1:54 PM

"snuck one in there huh?"

I was hoping someone would go tonto at me over that sneaky comment. I must try and be a bit more subtle.

Posted by: Pinkboi | September 7, 2010 2:07 PM

If you think that gender is entirely socialized, you are holding onto a discredited view of human nature. It should be plainly obvious now that it's part nature part nurture, with nature referring to a complex interaction of genetics and prenatal environment. The old view has led to tragedies such as this guy:

"Gender Study" Victim Boy Raised as a Girl Commits Suicide
As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl

His experience is not too much unlike that of the transsexual.

Posted by: Katharine | September 7, 2010 2:23 PM

If you think that gender is entirely socialized, you are holding onto a discredited view of human nature. It should be plainly obvious now that it's part nature part nurture, with nature referring to a complex interaction of genetics and prenatal environment.

I don't think the point is that it's entirely socialized, which I agree that it is not. I think the point is that gender does not necessarily confer (significant) differences in certain cognitive abilities, and just may come down to what plumbing you like having.

Posted by: CJO | September 7, 2010 2:28 PM

If you think that gender is entirely socialized, you are holding onto a discredited view of human nature.

I don't think anyone thinks that.

What is at issue here is that many of the behavioral traits that are taken to be "hard-wired differences" between men and women are often precisely those for which cultural influences are most likely to be salient.

It should be plainly obvious now that it's part nature part nurture

It is. And it should also be obvious that the truism cuts both ways.

Posted by: chassoto | September 7, 2010 2:31 PM

Steven Mading said:

The problem is that to definitively get the real answer requires doing controlled experiments that are horribly unethical - where you take several babies and raise them to adulthood in carefully controlled environments cut off from all cultural influences.

Not to mention it's a horrible waste of meat!

Oh, and Colbert has some relevant comments on his "blog" - http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/263284/february-04-2010/hermaphrodites-can-t-be-gay

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | September 7, 2010 2:48 PM

I'm an out-and-out misanthrope but you don't see me calling you a silly Pollyanna.

You also don't see MrFire self-identifying as a silly Pollyanna. He just asked why. And then he answered your question reasonably by stating he didn't share your view.

Just pointing out how your analogy doesn't really hold up. I like your comments otherwise.

Posted by: jaybgee | September 7, 2010 3:00 PM

Did anyone else read the title as "The sexiest brain"? I was so looking forward to finding out who that was too.

Someone else mentioned upthread whether incidence of sexism related to birth-year, and I think maybe it does. I'm 24, and I haven't ever really experienced sexism (though maybe I just never noticed). This may be due to increasing gender equality all around, I don't know. I'm also from a pretty liberal part of the country, so the traditional sense of female inferiority isn't very widespread. My parents were also immigrants, so I don't think they knew exactly what a girl should be in America (plus we didn't have money for toys, so I mostly read and drew). So this all contributed to my mostly ungendered upbringing.

Does any other woman feel weird when men hold doors open for them? It's weird for me because I don't feel like I'm a "lady" (if that makes any sense). Yes it's nice, but it seems to really mark some vague inequality. (Is it chivalry if you treat men nicely? From a woman for a man? From a man for a man?) When I hold open doors for men, they see it as nice but strange. Shouldn't you hold the door for anyone? (This last paragraph is a bit of a ramble.)

Posted by: melissa.b.elliott | September 7, 2010 3:20 PM

Katharine @88:

I think the root of the problem is that it's a private university which funds itself with upper-class kids with average grades. I was in the scholarshipped minority, I think the protohusband and I were the only kids on campus with a childhood spent below the poverty line! A lot of our friends came from the regions around Washington DC where senators and the like maintain their vast abodes. They're in line to inherit family businesses, and all they have to do is pass their classes and not get expelled.

Having said that, the small class sizes and the sort of professors that private unis attract means that if you ARE serious about pearling, it's a GREAT education. Most of the kids there were paying thirty thousand dollars of their parents' money per year to sit in the back while those of us covering our meals with student loans were in the front with the full attention of a professor who was delighted to see us.

And having said all that... it's Lynchburg College, which hasn't changed its name to Lynchburg University to avoid being confused with the OTHER, much more religious school here in town.

@89: yes, I have gotten many weird looks from guys when I held the door for them! However, the only person to ever not nod some sort of thanks was a woman, a truly evil one I can tell you.

Posted by: louis14 | September 7, 2010 4:09 PM

http://xkcd.com/775/

Posted by: Free Lunch | September 7, 2010 4:33 PM

I hold doors open if I'm the first one in the group to the door. My colleagues tend to do the same. I pretty much expect it these days from people (though I do go out of my way to get to the door first to hold it for those who are elderly). It's a nice gesture and has nothing to do with men or women. I cannot imagine anyone letting the door go oblivious to anyone else coming in the door.

Posted by: vanharris | September 7, 2010 5:06 PM

A woman took her elderly husband to see a neuro-surgeon for a consultation. “He has Alzheimer’s”, she said. “Can you do anything to help him”?

The neuro-surgeon checked the old boy over, then said, “The only thing I can suggest for him is a brain transplant”.

“Oh dear”, she said, “That sounds drastic; are there many brains available? And what would a new brain cost”?

The surgeon turned to his computer, and looked at a web-site. “Well, there are two brains currently available”, he said. “One of them was a man’s brain, which would set you back $10 000, and the other was a woman’s brain, which is just $5 000”.

The wife was curious, & somewhat offended. “How come a man’s brain is worth twice as much as a woman’s”? she asked him, pointedly.

“Well”, said the neuro-surgeon, “The man’s brain is unused”.

Posted by: Gordy | September 7, 2010 5:45 PM

It's a bit over simplistic to set up a contest between innate ability and socio-environmental influences. What about tendencies to be interested in different things. Susan Pinker gives a good account of this, and the experiences of the Kibbutzim are an interesting case study.

Posted by: MadScientist | September 7, 2010 6:32 PM

I never believed the bullshit. In my family the majority of women were intelligent and hard-working (and none conformed to the stereotypes). It was a great disappointment when I stepped out into the real world and realized that there were so many trained to be nothing but fucking Barbie dolls. I'd rather not reproduce than have to live with a pithed mannequin; I have a very nasty allergy to stupid.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 7, 2010 7:05 PM

otrame @#96 said it

Posted by: ronsullivan | September 7, 2010 8:25 PM

You know what's entirely socially conditioned? A tendency to raise one eyebrow and wonder why* this is such a hot subject that attracts so many brain researchers.

Or does it only seem that way?

*This happens despite a few reasonable suppositions, like that sex is an obvious difference that occurs naturally in yer average human population. Some of us are socially conditioned towards looking askance at strangers with candy too.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | September 7, 2010 10:26 PM

PZ concludes:

Fine appeals to my biases about the importance of environmental influences, I'll admit; the interview is a bit thin on the details. But I'll definitely have to read her book.

Fine appeals to my biases too, by virtue of the fact that (functional pun alert) my biases are frequently finely appealed to. Appealed to by fine points. My fine biases, while having their own appeals, sometimes are confronted by finer appeals. And so forth . . .

I think I may have a slightly enlarged empathy gland. I say this because throughout my life I have been able to "see inside" people. While empathy seems to be common coin, as with coins there are various denominations (just typed as "demoninations"! O, Spellcheck.) I think I got a dollar coin that was confused with a quarter. Often there is TMI. On occasion I feel almost embarrassed for apparently knowing more about someone than they, at that moment, exhibit knowing of themselves.

When it comes to sexing someone through empathy I can claim no special talent. Normally, written comments such as are here contain enough information to simply reason a person's gender; or persuasion. Handles, asides, phraseology, framing (framing!) and other clues are abundant. I've sussed out some correctly and been wrong about other commenters. I even wonder if anyone is confused about me? (naahh.)

What I have learned is that the great majority of people, without regard to gender or persuasion, politics or philosophy, are just fine and dandy. Allowing for the bland sorts of imperfection that are endemic and usually dealt with easily within (and without) this majority there are nonetheless those who would rather believe ancient stories than the testament of their own senses and intellect. They know not even themselves and therefore their knowledge of, their empathy for, others is sorely lacking. I suspect they are lacking not only in empathy but tragically lacking the great privilege of having been taught the skill. That's why, with children in their mid thirties, I still act like Teh Dad whenever I get the chance.

If nothing else I might relieve the future of the burden of some assholes.

*if you knew my kids you might share my hope*

Posted by: slash196 | September 8, 2010 1:31 AM

May I ever so humbly recommend my wife's Master's thesis, which argues persuasively that there are incontrovertible differences between male and female brains, and that due to this women actually enjoy significant ADVANTAGES in certain professions (namely, interpreting and translating) which are borne out by demographic data.

It's the much needed flip side to the bitter debates about gender discrimination and wild claims of neurosexism.

http://www.verlagdrkovac.de/3-8300-5340-1.htm

Posted by: seemeisie | September 8, 2010 3:25 AM

@ BlandOstrich #12

I had a similar experience! I've always loved and been good at science and maths and was also accused of being a lesbian by other students. I was one of only two girls in my 7th form (last year of school) calculus class and physics class.
It was one of the reasons I chose to do biology and geology at university instead of physics.

My brother had a similar problem because he loved home ec., textiles and art.

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | September 8, 2010 4:44 AM

I hear ya, googlemess #108. My husband and I are both back in college. I want to teach the physical sciences, especially physics, to high schoolers. He is going into human services.

(This blog, among other things, has made me believe the world really needs science teacher who can get people's attention and interest, so that they really learn.)

There are actually a much better percentage of women in my calculus class than I expected, so things are better than they were, I think. But we still all entered the class a little worried and smiled at the other gals when we saw each other, glad to feel less weird.

Posted by: Scented Nectar | September 8, 2010 8:21 AM

opposablethumbstoo wrote:

Yes, when I read that I realised I would care differently about any research I happened to read about if it weren't for this context - knowing what the tabloids, the idiots and the religidiots would make of any connection found.

Many are also worried that actual behaviours will get legally excused too, anything from job discrimination to rape, if any differences in things like skills or sexual behaviour is found to be influenced even slightly by one's sex. It is a very real possibility that differences could be misused in quite horrible ways, but rather than refuse to examine whether the info itself is true or not, the point should be what to do if it is true, just in case, since no one knows for sure yet either way.

For instance, let's say it was shown that men have some sort of physiological reason that they steal things and burgle homes .1% more often than women do under the same social upbringing. Does that mean that society should allow a "couldn't help it cuz I'm male" defense in court? Of course not, but there would be some people who would try this.

The "issue" focus with all this evo-psych discomfort would be better off looking at how society could prevent any differences from affecting anyone in a bad way, rather than get offended that anyone is even trying to find out whether there even are differences.

If it turned out that women murdered more often when not brought up to be more passive than males, and that they have a female physiological trait of being a bit more murderous than males, then it must be figured out how to prevent murders, not how to accept that they will happen or excuse them.

The scary what-ifs of these sort of things should be thought about in search of solutions that will prevent any harm or inequalities. I don't like the idea of refusing to even look to see if such differences exist though. That doesn't make sense, since one doesn't even know if there ARE any differences yet, much less ones with potential social problems.

Posted by: broboxley OT | September 8, 2010 8:26 AM

#196 gah! my anecdote on and anecdote off blocks went missing!

Posted by: skeptifem | September 8, 2010 11:56 PM

@Sven, and all the other dudes who have simply *decided* that these differences exist as a matter of biology:

*eyeroll at stupid strawman* By all means read her book. But maybe read this one too.

Anyone who is half way honest about the progress of science KNOWS we are lightyears away from understanding complex functions of the brain like personality, thinking style, or behavior. How is it that without a real understanding of the mechanisms and relationships of the phenomenon, that scientists can claim that they understand how it relates to sex and gender? Its GUESSING, dressed up as science, just like when it was called eugenics (which you could study at college back in the day), and just like when it was called "functional education" in psychology. Its the status quo supporting crap that always gets filtered out years later because of how biased everything was.

Dudes who decide that the differences are gendered are announcing their willingness to adhere to an idea that has historically been used to oppress women and people of color. It is the myth of biological inferiority, and when acted upon the idea extremely dangerous. You don't have evidence, not anywhere NEAR what is required to assert something in other sciences, so kindly stfu. I am sick of hearing you prattle on about your stupid anecdotes and books filled with studies that don't actually mean much of anything.

Before anyone pulls that "women are different, not inferior!!!11" crap explain to me how segregated schools were separate AND equal. Oh, yeah, you can't. We live in a society that values the work and ideas typically associated with men so its a really insincere argument to begin with.

You dudes can *decide* whatever you want, it doesn't make it so. Being so comfortable adhering to this idea, one that PERSONALLY screws up my life (like when I need my car fixed, or take math in college, or try to fix things at my work) without real evidence is really really disgusting. You all are arguing for this idea against women who are affected negatively by it every single day. What you *mean* doesn't matter when you support the toxic ideology of biological inferiority of certain classes of people- what the support contributes to is clear to anyone who isn't completely blind to the conectedness of people in the world.

In the mean time I will just brace for the expected commentary of dudes who want to argue about this with me like it is some lofty academic exercise instead of my day to day life, and bs me about what it means. So, ahead of time:

I know what you are going to say, its nothing new, its still unsupported nonsense, and you are boring.

Posted by: skeptifem | September 9, 2010 12:12 AM

What about tendencies to be interested in different things.

well gee gordy, that would be just PEACHY if there wasn't a constant onslaught of propaganda that aims to steer the behavior of boys and girls in different directions (parents buy a lot more toys that way).

Posted by: Scented Nectar | September 9, 2010 3:16 AM

This reminded me of a lot of topics these days, including this one.
Bertrand Russell's Message to Descendants (1959):

Posted by: Deviant One | September 9, 2010 3:12 PM

A transcript of Scented Nectar's youtube video:

INTERVIEWER: One last question. Suppose, Lord Russel, this film were to be looked at by our descendants, like a Dead Sea scroll in a thousand years' time. What would you think is worth telling that generation about the life you've lived and the lessons you've learned from it?

RUSSEL: I should like to say two things; one intellectual and one moral.

The intellectual thing I should want to say to them is this: When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself [i]only[/i] what are the facts, and what is the truth that the facts bear out?

Never

Posted by: Scented Nectar | September 9, 2010 4:24 PM

It's beautiful, what he said. The other day, I was looking through new youtubes, clicked this one, and was blown away. I usually have little interest in philosophy, but this guy is quite profound and interesting. I'm a fan now and may actually read some things by him in the future.

Posted by: Carlos | September 16, 2010 1:52 PM

Methinks that until *most* people, including away to many scientists, really understand statistics the debate "nature vs nurture" will go on.

Ya see, saying that on average group A is better at X than group B does in no way mean that everyone in group A is better at X than everyone in group B nor does it mean that it's not possible for someone in group B to be better at X than most in group A. And it definitely doesn't say is *why* group A performs better than group B.

Posted by: sovsyn | December 25, 2010 2:45 AM

"And it's stupid denialism to reject data in favor of ideology."

Yes, like the way you reject data in favor of sexist ideology. Oh, it's always the people who disagree with you who are biased, and somehow never those who agree with you? Very convenient.