New APPS

Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science. Mostly Philosophy.

recent posts

about

    Gender differences in brain connectivity (if any) aren’t hard-wired

    A headline story this morning, featured in several news outlets, reported on a new study published online in PNAS yesterday that allegedly confirms that there are major brain differences between men and women. In the study Ragini Verma, an associate professor in the Department of Radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, and colleagues examined the neural connectivity across the whole brain in 949 individuals (521 females and 428 males) aged 8 to 22 years using diffuse tensor imaging (DTI).

    The researchers found that in certain age groups, females had greater inter-hemispheric connectivity in the supratentorial region (the part of the brain above the cerebellum), whereas males exhibited greater intra-hemispheric connectivity as well as greater interhemispheric connectivity in the cerebellum. The cerebellum has been implicated in certain forms of knowledge of action and knowledge-how, interhemispheric connectivity seems crucial for many social skills, and intrahemispheric connectivity in local sensory regions may lead to richer perceptual experiences. So, on the basis of these findings, many news reports concluded that men have a greater perception to action potential, whereas women have a greater potential for communicating and connecting “the analytical and intuition.” Some concluded that gender differences in brain connectivity are hard-wired.


    These reports, however, are for the most part based on a misreading of the article. It’s important to emphasize, as the authors do, that the study revealed very few gender differences in connectivity in children younger than 13 years of age. The differences in connectivity were mainly attributable to individuals between 14 and 22.

    Furthermore, the authors report that the behavioral study they conducted confirmed pronounced sex differences in the sample but primarily in individuals between 12 and 14 years of age. Female participants in this age group scored higher on attention, word and face memory tests as well as social cognition tests, whereas male participants performed better on spatial processing and motor and sensorimotor speed. So, the observed differences in behavior were restricted to the early teen years.

    The researchers, however, did not report pronounced differences in performance in older teens or young adults. Nor did they show that the changes in connectivity in the 14-22 age group will last beyond the twentysecond year. What the results do show is that gender differences aren't very significant until the early teen years. These are the years during which the brain undergoes massive pruning, and the activities children engage in at least partially modulate this pruning of neural connections. So, the study simply doesn't reveal “strong hard-wired differences” in men and women. Quite on the contrary. The findings seem to be inconsistent with genetic determinism as well as connectome determinism and consistent with the theory that if there is a pronounced and long-lasting difference in brain connectivity between men and women, then it is plausibly fostered by our societal norms.

    Posted in ,

    46 responses to “Gender differences in brain connectivity (if any) aren’t hard-wired”

    1. dmf Avatar
      dmf

      any plans for cross-cultural studies with differing norms?

      Like

      Reply
    2. Berit Brogaard Avatar
      Berit Brogaard

      Not that I know of. But, yes, that would be an obvious thing to look at.

      Like

      Reply
    3. Dan Avatar
      Dan

      These reports, however, are for the most part based on a misreading of the article. It’s important to emphasize, as the authors do, that the study revealed very few gender differences in connectivity in children younger than 13 years of age. The differences in connectivity were mainly attributable to individuals between 14 and 22.
      Can you substantiate this? There are several places in the paper that seem to contradict your claim. Here are two:
      “The youngest group (aged 8–13.3 y) demonstrated a few increased intrahemispheric connections in males and increased interhemispheric connections in females,suggesting the beginning of a divergence in developmental trajectory(Fig. 2B)”
      “Analysis of the three age-related groups demonstrated males having a higher global transitivity at all age ranges” (p3)

      Like

      Reply
    4. Berit Brogaard Avatar
      Berit Brogaard

      I don’t see how ‘a few’ contradicts ‘mainly’. Like the reporters, I am referring to the results of the connection-wise analysis. The connectivity that the reporters focused on wasn’t transitivity or the “few increased intrahemispheric connections” in the younger age group but the main results from the connection-wise analysis. The authors say more or less the same in the discussion.
      The increased changes in connectivity during the tween and teen years are consistent with the hypothesis that pruning is determined in part by different daily activities. There is no proof of any hard-wired gender differences.

      Like

      Reply
    5. Aaron Boyden Avatar
      Aaron Boyden

      Hmmm. While my first response to one of these studies is always that people should be taking more seriously the possibility that all that’s being revealed is the effect of the environment on brain development, you are perhaps too hasty to conclude that this study conflicts with genetic determinism. If the differences appear around 12 to 14, another obvious possibility is that genetically programmed hormonal changes are responsible for the differences.

      Like

      Reply
    6. Berit Brogaard Avatar
      Berit Brogaard

      Aaron, I grant that the data are consistent with that possibility. That would have to be ruled out empirically.

      Like

      Reply
    7. Neil Levy Avatar
      Neil Levy

      Nice discussion here:
      http://mindhacks.com/2013/12/03/are-men-better-wired-to-read-maps-or-is-it-a-tired-cliche/

      Like

      Reply
    8. Berit Brogaard Avatar
      Berit Brogaard

      Yes, thanks for the reference. Interesting commentary.
      Here is one of the points made:
      “Even if we assume this research is reliable it doesn’t tell us about actual psychological differences between men and women. The brain scan doesn’t tell us about behaviour (and, indeed, most of us manage to behave in very similar ways despite large differences in brain structure and connectivity). Bizarrely, the authors seem also to want to use their analysis to support a myth about left brain vs right brain thinking. The “rational” left brain vs the intuitive’ right brain is a distinction that even Michael Gazzaniga, one of the founding fathers of “split brain” studies doesn’t believe any more.”
      Interestingly, the researchers did conduct behavioral studies but did not report any behavioral differences, except in the 12-14 age group.
      Like the blogger, I was also surprised by the lack of reported data.

      Like

      Reply
    9. SocraticGadfly Avatar
      SocraticGadfly

      Just because this doesn’t happen until 13-14 doesn’t mean that it’s caused by societal norms.
      What happens at 13 or 14? Er, puberty? With different baths of sex hormones for young men and young women. Like Aaron above hints at.

      Like

      Reply
    10. Neil Levy Avatar
      Neil Levy

      True – if qualified by the recognition that the onset of puberty and the composition of those hormones is sensitive to social changes in various ways. The same qualification should be made with regard to the claim that this is compatible with a genetic base. Which genes are expressed and when – and therefore epigenetic factors – is also versus sensitive to environment. Nothing is hard wired, with the possible exception of some single gene abnormalities.

      Like

      Reply
    11. Neil Levy Avatar
      Neil Levy

      Another take very much worth reading (from the wonderful Cordelia Fine):
      http://theconversation.com/new-insights-into-gendered-brain-wiring-or-a-perfect-case-study-in-neurosexism-21083

      Like

      Reply
    12. Mikael Hall Avatar
      Mikael Hall

      Well, there are many proofs of gender differences and brain connectivity. You are just, most likely, exploiting or confusing the fact that the differences exist in the regions responsible for cognitive abilities. To say those findings ara wrong, since there is a lesser difference overall is nothing but misleading. I hope you are not willfully misleading.

      Like

      Reply
    13. Mikael Hall Avatar
      Mikael Hall

      Well, there are many proofs of gender differences in brain connectivity.

      Like

      Reply
    14. Ben Avatar
      Ben

      Maybe I’m a bit confused here, but isn’t the fact that the gender differences in behavior start at the onset of puberty fairly strong evidence that they are hardwired? If social conditioning really were the cause of the differences, you would expect the genders to start diverging pretty much at birth given that they are treated so differently right from birth. The fact that there are essentially no differences until puberty seems to suggest that the divergence is hormonally driven, and that social conditioning is powerless.

      Like

      Reply
    15. Carmi Turchick Avatar
      Carmi Turchick

      Yes, because we go through puberty because it is “fostered by societal norms?” This study shows your belief system to be wrong. Conclusively. Deal with it, be an adult with critical thinking skills and question your beliefs based on new evidence. The difference in wiring happens under the influence of the hormones that flood our bodies during puberty, and puberty is actually a biological innate feature of our species. Puberty does not happen because of societal norms.

      Like

      Reply
    16. John Protevi Avatar
      John Protevi

      To 14 and 15, in addition to the Cordelia Fine post linked in Neil Levy’s comment 11, I recommend this paper: http://download.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/pdf/PIIS1364661313002015.pdf?intermediate=true

      Like

      Reply
    17. Berit Brogaard Avatar
      Berit Brogaard

      The researchers did not report any behavioral gender differences, except in the age group 12-14. So, differences in connectivity apparently need not make any difference to behavior.
      We all have very different connectomes. An interesting question is how those differences influence behavior (if at all). The reported data do not contribute anything significant in this regard.

      Like

      Reply
    18. Berit Brogaard Avatar
      Berit Brogaard

      Thanks! Yes, Cordelia Fine also emphasizes what I said in my reply to 12. and 13.:
      “In an larger earlier study (from which the participants of the PNAS study were a subset), the same research team compellingly demonstrated that the sex differences in the psychological skills they measured – executive control, memory, reasoning, spatial processing, sensorimotor skills, and social cognition – are almost all trivially small.”
      and
      “Yet the authors describe these differences as “pronounced” and as reflecting “behavioural complementarity” – scientific jargon-speak for “men are from Mars, women are from Venus”. Rather than drawing on their impressively rich data-set to empirically test questions about how brain connectivity characteristics relate to behaviour, the authors instead offer untested stereotype-based speculation. Even though, with such considerable overlap in male/female distributions, biological sex is a dismal guide to psychological ability.”

      Like

      Reply
    19. Carmi Turchick Avatar
      Carmi Turchick

      Berit, you can repeat it over and over, but your claim is not true.
      “The researchers did not report any behavioral gender differences, except in the age group 12-14. So, differences in connectivity apparently need not make any difference to behavior.”
      Actually:
      “The findings were also consistent with a Penn behavior study, of which this imaging study was a subset of, that demonstrated pronounced sexual differences. Females outperformed males on attention, word and face memory, and social cognition tests. Males performed better on spatial processing and sensorimotor speed. Those differences were most pronounced in the 12 to 14 age range.” (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131202161935.htm)
      There is a big difference between “most pronounced” and “no difference.”

      Like

      Reply
    20. Berit Brogaard Avatar
      Berit Brogaard

      To 14. and 15., quoting from the article Protevi linked to above:
      “Curiously, the scientific ideas implicit in these popular understandings have long been left in the dust: assumptions that brain circuitry is largely fixed by a genetic blueprint, that there is a unidirectional, causal pathway from genes to behavior via hormones and brains, and that evolution has left us with brains and mental processes strongly reminiscent of our Paleolithic ancestors, have been widely rejected following conceptual and empirical upheavals in the relevant scientific fields.”
      “It is now clear that the functional and even structural organization of the human nervous system is a continuous and dynamic process that persists throughout one’s life. ‘Experience-dependent plasticity’ has been demonstrated time and again in the acquisition of skills as wide ranging as musical performance, basketball, dancing, taxi driving, and juggling (reviewed in [3] ).”

      Like

      Reply
    21. John Protevi Avatar
      John Protevi

      Sure, and it’s possible that these differences, which are “most pronounced” in the 12-14 age range, are also “almost all trivially small.” (Per the Fine analysis linked in comment #11 and upon which Brogaard comments in 18.)

      Like

      Reply
    22. John Protevi Avatar
      John Protevi

      Further quotes from the Fine post under discussion: “To give a sense of the huge overlap in behaviour between males and females, of the twenty-six possible comparisons, eleven sex differences were either non-existent, or so small that if you were to select a boy and girl at random and compare their scores on a task, the “right” sex would be superior less than 53% of the time.
      Even the much-vaunted female advantage in social cognition, and male advantage in spatial processing, was so modest that a randomly chosen boy would outscore a randomly chosen girl on social cognition – and the girl would outscore the boy on spatial processing – over 40% of the time.
      As for map-reading and remembering conversations, these weren’t measured at all.”

      Like

      Reply
    23. Carmi Turchick Avatar
      Carmi Turchick

      Also, it has to be pointed out that Berit, Cordelia Fine, and the author here are telling a just-cannot-be-so story. Evolution does not select for biological differences between the sexes which arise at a critical developmental stage just for kicks. The chance that these differences have no effect on behavior is nil. Unless we want to reject the Theory of Evolution, there is no way that the story these three are selling here could possibly be true. Differences in our brains must result in differences in our behavior. Whether these researchers have identified them or not makes no difference to the fact that they must exist.

      Like

      Reply
    24. Carmi Turchick Avatar
      Carmi Turchick

      Plasticity. Well, what exactly do you propose that females and males uniformly start practicing by sex at puberty?
      Everyone understands that we are talking, as always, about differences in average distribution of these skills. But these differences are clearly biological in origin, not created by plasticity. The dogma that there is even some nature vs nurture debate to be had is widely rejected in all but the most backwards of academic fields (Sociology, Women’s Studies, Cultural Anthropology…). Everyone else accepts the obvious; nature via nurture. That some amount of the variation in abilities for a certain mental task is based on biology, and that some of that is based on the particular sex of the individual, is now known. That some variation between individuals is based on experience is also known and accepted by everyone.
      This is really a bizarre discussion. If I asserted that there is a biological and sex based difference in ability to lift large amounts of weight with your arms there would be no debate. Yet this difference in ability begins at puberty, and there is lots of overlap between men and women in the distribution, and practicing lifting weights makes a big difference. There is no logic to the de-facto assertion here that the brain is somehow different in some way, a special category where differences are not allowed to be biological or dependent on the sex of the individual.

      Like

      Reply
    25. John Protevi Avatar
      John Protevi

      “But these differences are clearly biological in origin, not created by plasticity…. Everyone else accepts the obvious; nature via nurture.”
      Amazingly enough, you don’t understand that “plasticity” is the biological term for “nature via nurture.”

      Like

      Reply
    26. Berit Brogaard Avatar
      Berit Brogaard

      Cordelia Fine does indeed provide another possible explanation for differences in structural connectivity:
      “One important possibility the authors don’t consider is that their results have more to do with brain size than brain sex. Male brains are, on average, larger than females and a large brain is not simply a smaller brain scaled up.”
      “Larger brains create different sorts of engineering problems and so – to minimise energy demands, wiring costs, and communication times – there may physical reasons for different arrangements in differently sized brains. The results may reflect the different wiring solutions of larger versus smaller brains, rather than sex differences per se.”
      “But also, popular references to women’s brains being designed for social skills and remembering conversations, or male brains for map reading, are utterly misleading.”

      Like

      Reply
    27. John Protevi Avatar
      John Protevi

      In re this sentence @23: “Differences in our brains must result in differences in our behavior.”
      See this: http://sciencegrrl.co.uk/brains-sex/
      “if we could fully understand the structural differences, does this tell us anything about how these connections could be used? No. For me, the scientists’ biggest error is the massive leap from structure to function – this really is a cardinal sin in cognitive neuroscience circles.”

      Like

      Reply
    28. Neil Levy Avatar
      Neil Levy

      I assume that this is addressed to me. You went from my claim that onset of puberty is sensitive to social norms to imputing to me the claim that we undergo puberty at all because of social norms. You might want to wonder about your own ‘belief system’ before offering advice to others. You can’t even quote correctly, let alone offer interpretations of this study which are worthwhile.

      Like

      Reply
    29. Ben Avatar
      Ben

      “To give a sense of the huge overlap in behaviour between males and females, of the twenty-six possible comparisons, eleven sex differences were either non-existent, or so small that if you were to select a boy and girl at random and compare their scores on a task, the “right” sex would be superior less than 53% of the time.”
      I don’t know what to make of this, and I can’t access the scientific article from which it is drawn. If there is a difference at all between men and women (in favor of men, let’s say), then the difference would have to vary with task difficulty. Thus on easy items, men and women would perform about the same, but on harder items, men would do much better. I don’t see how it’s possible that men could be superior exactly 53% of the time on all items, and yet I don’t know how else to read that quote…

      Like

      Reply
    30. Carmi Turchick Avatar
      Carmi Turchick

      Amazingly enough, you do not understand “biological.” If the differences were due to plasticity they would not always arise at puberty. That they do arise at a specific developmental stage means that they are biological, and not due to plasticity. Get a dictionary and look these words up, maybe then you can understand what I am writing.

      Like

      Reply
    31. Carmi Turchick Avatar
      Carmi Turchick

      An interesting conjecture which Cordelia Fine might test in a variety of ways. There is lots of overlap between the sexes in terms of brain size. Are small male brains wired like large ones? Is there a similar difference in chimp or bonobo brains? No one knows right now.

      Like

      Reply
    32. Carmi Turchick Avatar
      Carmi Turchick

      The theory of evolution, John, is where you need to start to try to gain an understanding of this topic. You will note that I have not asserted specific differences must exist, which is what the quote you posted critiques doing. However, especially in critical highly adapted organs like the brain, there is a certainty that evolution would not select for a sex-specific developmental stage triggered change in the structure of the organ unless there was an adaptive benefit. If there is an adaptive benefit to changes in the brain, it can only be because those changes result in changes to behavior. Therefore, logically, these changes in structure must result in changes in behavior, or they could not have arisen. There really is no way around it; we know the physical differences exist and arise at puberty, therefore they must affect behavior.
      With all due respect to Cordelia’s conjecture about brain size, our brains do not actually grow at puberty, so why do we need these changes when our brains are already basically adult size? I guess a vague possibility exists that it is just a by-product of some other adaptation, related to hormones or something incidentally. But both of these are Occams Complex Swiss Army Knife solutions, and in science we usually prefer his razor since way more often than not, it is the razor that cuts to the heart of the issue and gives the correct answer.

      Like

      Reply
    33. John Protevi Avatar
      John Protevi

      @30: Dude, seriously, if you’re relying on dictionaries, that should be a clue you need to rethink things. Look, “plasticity” is a biological term; its opposite would not be “biological,” but “determined.”
      Now to understand puberty as “plastic,” we could refer to Neil Levy’s characteristically concise formulation in 10: “the onset of puberty and the composition of those hormones is sensitive to social changes in various ways. The same qualification should be made with regard to the claim that this is compatible with a genetic base. Which genes are expressed and when – and therefore epigenetic factors – is also versus sensitive to environment. Nothing is hard wired, with the possible exception of some single gene abnormalities.”
      (I recommend Neil’s comment at 28 as well.)

      Like

      Reply
    34. Mark Avatar
      Mark

      It’s what men do, strive for the technical nut cracking of issues essential to life. The evolution of the very idea of the second sex (the male form) is where the start of your quest should begin. The invention of gender is no accident, but a successful essential evolutionary development. This is of course only one step in the evolutionary journey of modern humans but considering it’s early placement in the genome legacy, the invention of the first boy particle has some lessons for us. The male type brain is tweaked for a specific task often in a direct response to environment.Women often do not care how clever the men are, for they know how easily they submit to foolishness.

      Like

      Reply
    35. Carmi Turchick Avatar
      Carmi Turchick

      Amazing how much knowledge people acquire in their quest for ignorance:
      “Now to understand puberty as “plastic,” we could refer to Neil Levy’s characteristically concise formulation in 10: “the onset of puberty and the composition of those hormones is sensitive to social changes in various ways. The same qualification should be made with regard to the claim that this is compatible with a genetic base. Which genes are expressed and when – and therefore epigenetic factors – is also versus sensitive to environment. Nothing is hard wired, with the possible exception of some single gene abnormalities.””
      Yes. In the same way we can say that walking is not biological or hard-wired in humans. It is sensitive to the environment too. If you chain a baby to a bed, they are unlikely to walk for a really long time. So walking is all about plasticity and social influences. Eating solid food, too. Like you say, “nothing is hard wired.” We might just as easily be raised to run on all fours and drink nectar from flowers.
      By this kind of argument we can only say “we have no idea” or “it depends” to every question about humans. If ignorance is our goal, this is a sure and solid path to get there. If, on the other hand, we want to get past the point where medicine was four hundred years ago, talking about the humors and so on, in our knowledge of human behavior and psychology, then we must accept that humans evolved, that this means that their brains evolved, and that brains evolve in specific ways which tend to create certain behaviors which are adaptive. In fact, there is no argument one can make in light of the fact that humans evolved which would allow for the possibility that human behavior did not evolve. It is impossible for only the body of a species to be subject to selection.
      Now, yes, there is plasticity…evolved plasticity. We are hard wired for plasticity. There is culture…evolved culture. We are hard wired to produce and transmit culture.
      Not being able to grasp the concept of evolution in the modern era is like not being able to drive a car, use a computer, cook with a gas stove. Evolution is something you need to understand, John, to understand anything about humans or our society. Right now you are coming to the discussion about particle physics with your stone ax and knowledge of rain forest animals. When you understand evolution you will understand that all of your views are just-cannot-be-so stories. Either they are right, or the theory of evolution is.

      Like

      Reply
    36. Jake Avatar
      Jake

      Warning, misogyny level in the comments is getting pretty intense! Abandon ship!
      I love how the anti-feminists here are talking about evolution as if it has Goals (and claiming that disagreement means rejecting the entire theory — it’s like a goddamn creationist parody), and outright ignoring anything that contradicts what they’ve already decided is true, as if it were never said.

      Like

      Reply
    37. Carmi Turchick Avatar
      Carmi Turchick

      Also, no, “determined” is not the opposite of “plasticity.” Look, if you want to play the “guess what novel meaning I have for these words I am using” game, that is fun but not actually productive for discussions. An autonomic or fixed action pattern
      behavior is the opposite of a plastic one.

      Like

      Reply
    38. Carmi Turchick Avatar
      Carmi Turchick

      I love how you cannot actually point to anything that would support this straw-man of yours “I love how the anti-feminists here are talking about evolution as if it has Goals.” I also love how you think people who believe in evolution are therefore anti-feminists. Women, I have observed, also have boobs and vaginas and I guess your side would have to say that both are socially determined, not hard wired, and not in any way different from a penis. Because any observation of difference between men and women, I guess according to your post here, is anti-feminist.
      Yes, your views and the anti-difference views of others here are exactly like a goddamn creationist parody. There is literally no argument that would both support your views and be consilient with evolution. It is impossible for a sexually dimorphic species which has structural brain differences to evolve to not also have behavior differences.
      Now, there has been no judgement used here, or above. No one is saying one is better than the other. But men and women are different.
      Finally, it is truly incredible that while you all work so very hard to deny what science just demonstrated to be true empirically with your amateur sophistry you then accuse others of “outright ignoring anything that contradicts what they’ve already decided is true, as if it were never said.” It is your side which is responding desperately to data which disproves your views, not mine.

      Like

      Reply
    39. anonymous Avatar
      anonymous

      A suggestion to the participants–try to avoid attacking one another. There are important issues here, they are hardly clear-cut, and it won’t do us any good if one side tries to shut the other down.

      Like

      Reply
    40. John Protevi Avatar
      John Protevi

      Oh, don’t worry. I think the probability of CT shutting anyone else down is quite slim. Unfortunately, the probability of him shutting himself down is even slimmer.

      Like

      Reply
    41. Neil Levy Avatar
      Neil Levy

      Evolved plasticity. That’s exactly right. But that’s also exactly why this study – by itself – just doesn’t say what you want it to.
      Because the brain is evolved to be sensitive to the environment, you can’t look at the phenotype at any particular developmental stage and say that the characteristics are the product of evolution, except in the trivial sense that every biological trait is the product of evolution. What we’re interested in is a causal level that is proximal, not the distal causal level of evolution. These distal triggers will often include environmental events and states the phenotype ‘expects’ to get: their stable availability played an evolutionary role. And they will also include triggers that are more recent and variable in history.
      So now we look at brain connectivity in the adolescent girl (assuming that there really is something to explain here, and that what there is to explain drives behavior – unsafe assumptions up for reasons already mentioned, but I’m going to go ahead and make them) and ask what causes it. The answer “evolution” is true but trivial. Evolution plus expected environmental stimuli is more interesting and informative. It doesn’t tell you whether it is hard wired though: are the stimuli of a kind that, though little variable in our evolutionary past, can be avoided today? If so, would there be costs to avoiding them? In other words, how accessible are environments in which the stimuli don’t produce these traits?
      On the other hand, if the answer is evolution plus variable proximate triggers, then there is a prima facie case that the proximate triggers can be avoided (that environments that lack them are accessible).
      This study can’t tell us which of these is true, by design.
      To answer these questions, it takes very different approaches those used in the study. The only practical way is to look for evidence of variability across environments using natural experiments (given human lifespans and ethical considerations, you need natural experiments because the controlled ones can’t be done) and also to work at the molecular level at the same time.
      In the meantime, this study should be interpreted through the lens of available evidence concerning (a) the actual observed differences at the behavioral level between men and women (oddly, the study tells us that this data supports behavioral data from an overlapping population but doesn’t correlate the connectivity differences with the behavioral differences) and (b) our existing evidence that relatively few phenotypic traits are developmentally canalized across accessible environments.
      I do hope you found this primer informative.

      Like

      Reply
    42. Berit Brogaard Avatar
      Berit Brogaard

      I think people get rubbed the wrong way when you keep insisting that the Verma, et al. study “demonstrated” or “proved” that there are significant differences in connectivity or behavior between men and women. The study didn’t prove or demonstrate this.

      Like

      Reply
    43. strobi Avatar
      strobi

      You would need a control group for that. As far as I know, controls aren’t often used in these kinds of studies. Having this study made in populations with different cultural settings would help, and also to study teens in single sex schools.

      Like

      Reply
    44. Cat Avatar
      Cat

      Within just the 4 members of my immediate family some of the claims made about the gender differences are debunked. My mother is almost certainly the best driver I have come across yet, and has never had any issues with things such as parking, certainly no more so than any man I’ve seen/experienced parking. My father has all the coordination, muscle control and spatial awareness of a drunk jellyfish. Always has, always will. My sister is a girly girl though I have never thought of her as particularly empathetic.
      I myself am female and personally don’t view my communication skills as any better than any guy of the same age I’ve spoken to. Although, during my childhood and all the way through my teens I was a definite tomboy and felt more at home with male friends. I actively disregarded anything people thought I should do or like as a female. I wonder if this has had any bearing on the way my own brain works.

      Like

      Reply
    45. Joe Avatar
      Joe

      “especially in critical highly adapted organs like the brain, there is a certainty that evolution would not select for a sex-specific developmental stage triggered change in the structure of the organ unless there was an adaptive benefit. If there is an adaptive benefit to changes in the brain, it can only be because those changes result in changes to behavior.”
      I have no horse in the adaptationism race, but anyone who claims that it is just obvious that some change in brain structure would have to be adaptive is assuming the truth of what I do know to be a controversial research program. The link between structural changes and behaviour is also not necessary… the brain regulates an enormous amount of non-behavioural bodily functions. One standard rhetorical tactic these days is to shout “evolution!” and then assume that evolutionary change operates according to one’s preferred model, neatly glossing over the fact that the field now contains a huge array of differing approaches to various methodological questions.

      Like

      Reply
    46. plus.google.com/108752938854297636642 Avatar
      plus.google.com/108752938854297636642

      @Cat Claim about gender differences is a statistical claim, it’s an elementary fallacy to claim that facts about your few relatives “disprove” it
      @All Is it not true that the significance of the evidence provided by the research is meaningful ONLY in comparison to the weight of the evidence for the opposite view? It’s the relative evidence that we care about. What is the “opposite” view? That gender differences do not have any effect on any cognitive functions? What research ever provided a “compelling” or even significant evidence for that? It seems to me that given the weakness of the evidence for the cognitive “gender equality” (it’s a shortcut for the bunch of claims), data mentioned in the article strongly suggest the existence of cognitive differences between genders.

      Like

      Reply

    Leave a reply to Carmi Turchick Cancel reply