Male and Female brains wired differently, scans reveal. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43053457]If people want to get rid of negative stereotypes they'll need to get rid of positive stereotypes as well.[/QUOTE] Good

[QUOTE=27X;43053445]You can't fix stupid or lack of context. All you can do is call it when you see it. Stereotypes exist whether you acknowledge them or not, whether they enforce positive/negative social paradigms or not. The human brain is [b]literally[/b] wired to sort things into ascending/descending patterns and then associate those patterns with others. That's the how the hardware works. Social conditioning can only overcome so much.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that stereotypes are inherently dangerous or that they need to go away. Its the fact that people are unaware that stereotypes are incomplete views. A person just acknowledging the fact that their view of a person or people is incomplete, because they base it on a stereotype, can help a lot. People can become aware of this.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43053457]If people want to get rid of negative stereotypes they'll need to get rid of positive stereotypes as well.[/QUOTE] Like he said, it's HARDWIRED into us. You can't overcome it entirely. It's pretty much a survival trait. Again, if you go back to when we lived in tribes you had to very quickly make assessments on different animals and humans who appeared different than you (from different tribes for example) with limited sample sizes in order to survive. If you met two dozen individuals who wore different garments to you, had a different skin tone to you and had different physical attributes to you back then and they were hostile towards you it was in your best interest to assume that all people that fit that description are hostile. That might not have been the case, they might have been scared of you and your people and attacked preemptively in the mistaken belief that you meant THEM harm, but it was safer to assume hostility than it was to assume something like that. It's hardwired into us as a survival feature so that we can make quick judgement calls without having to do prolonged sociological experiments to figure out what the fuck is going on.

Another thing that can be done is studies have proven having standardized testing students list their gender before taking the test makes women perform worse in math and science. Just reminding them that they're female has a negative psychological impact. That's why the identification should be at the end of the test. These are the kinds of actions I was referring to, not plugging our ears and ignoring studies

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43053457]If people want to get rid of negative stereotypes they'll need to get rid of positive stereotypes as well.[/QUOTE] Most "positive" stereotypes end up being pretty negative though.

[QUOTE=sltungle;43053185]And they're the outliers. We don't have 'women driver' jokes for no reason. It is somewhat based off of fact. Insensitive? Perhaps. But it's not like it's a joke that materialised out of nothing.[/QUOTE] And this is why I despise studies like this. All of a sudden people feel their sexist bullshit is justified. Just because they may be wired differently does not make any of the stereotypes true.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053535]And this is why I despise studies like this. All of a sudden people feel their sexist bullshit is justified. Just because they may be wired differently does not make any of the stereotypes true.[/QUOTE] no one cares if you "despise" a study. It is very worrying when people say they despise science because it doesn't give you comfortable lies.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;43053562]no one cares if you "despise" a study. It is very worrying when people say they despise science because it doesn't give you comfortable lies.[/QUOTE] People are literally using this study to justify sexism when it proves nothing of the sort. This more about the wording of the article when it said "a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes" which is possibly the worst thing that could have been said.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053575]People are literally using this study to justify sexism when it proves nothing of the sort. This more about the wording of the article when it said "a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes" which is possibly the worst thing that could have been said.[/QUOTE] Guess what? Men are also, on average, naturally quite a lot stronger than women. That's an 'old stereotype', but is it unfair to claim that? No. Because it's fucking true and it's backed up by a vast collection of scientific data. There are many biological and psychological differences between men and women. I don't care if you don't like them, but you're an ignorant fool if you deny them, especially in the face of scientific evidence. I don't think anybody in this thread has ONCE said that this is justification to mistreat people of different sexes or give them different opportunities - it's just an acknowledgement of differences.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43052750]beyond the fact that there's no such thing as proof, there's one pretty big systematic bias here: this study has not controlled for gender (mainly because it's fucking difficult to do so), which has been shown to [I]change the physiology of the brain[/I].[/QUOTE] Here's another flaw: Diffusion MRI has an inherent resolution problem. Results literally only fucking matter in combination with fMRI data. This has none. To quote a better source: [QUOTE=http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131202161935.htm]Next steps are to quantify how an individual's neural connections are different from the population; identify which neural connections are gender specific and common in both; [B]and to see if findings from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies fall in line with the connectome data.[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053575]People are literally using this study to justify sexism when it proves nothing of the sort. This more about the wording of the article when it said "a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, said the greatest surprise was how much the findings supported old stereotypes" which is possibly the worst thing that could have been said.[/QUOTE] People? who? People who were already sexist? And? Literally do some of you just live in a bubble that does not interact with people outside of gender issue blogs or something? Do you actually engage people in the real world and see what they think of certain issues? But I'm digressing, again dude, it is so fucking irrelevant how you *feel* about the study. You're basically saying they should've shut their mouths and not done the research because this is making you uncomfortable. At some point this line of thinking turns into intellectual dishonesty and its the kind of shit that invades science and leads to bad studies and manipulation of data to serve a means to an end, e.g see several large corps (monsanto, GlaxoSmithKline, etc) and some advocacy groups. Its a dangerous mindset to have. Its much more damaging to want to silence science because it makes some people uncomfortable than it is that it might cause a little bit more sexism in the short term. There is nothing wrong about the wording either. So it proves some old stereotypes are more accurate than we have been led to believe - [B]so fucking what?[/B] Its not a problem until someone uses it to create a problem. I take it you've heard of the norwegian gender paradox yes? Is it a "problem" than despite being one of the most allegedly "equal" countries that men and women are moving towards their respective gender normative roles? If thats what they feel inclined to do, who is it a problem for?

[QUOTE=sltungle;43053613]Guess what? Men are also, on average, naturally quite a lot stronger than women. That's an 'old stereotype', but is it unfair to claim that? No. Because it's fucking true and it's backed up by a vast collection of scientific data. There are many biological and psychological differences between men and women. I don't care if you don't like them, but you're an ignorant fool if you deny them, especially in the face of scientific evidence. I don't think anybody in this thread has ONCE said that this is justification to mistreat people of different sexes or give them different opportunities - it's just an acknowledgement of differences.[/QUOTE] You advocated [I]"acknowledging differences to make life easier"[/I] That is incredibly open to interpretation, I honestly can't figure out what positive line of reasoning you could have been trying to make with that. I'm not going to talk against dimorpohism since it clearly exists, but it's influence on every day life is basically nil and should not even begin to override peoples actual, tangible merits.

[QUOTE=sltungle;43053613]Guess what? Men are also, on average, naturally quite a lot stronger than women. That's an 'old stereotype', but is it unfair to claim that? No. Because it's fucking true and it's backed up by a vast collection of scientific data. There are many biological and psychological differences between men and women. I don't care if you don't like them, but you're an ignorant fool if you deny them, especially in the face of scientific evidence. I don't think anybody in this thread has ONCE said that this is justification to mistreat people of different sexes or give them different opportunities - it's just an acknowledgement of differences.[/QUOTE] The only reason men are stronger is because women are taught to try and be thin and weak by pretty much most things in their life. Look at girls toys compared to boys toys and you'll notice they teach both genders to be two different things, women should be carers and interested in being pretty while men should be strong and do all the heavy lifting. Are you honestly going to tell me that women are incapable of being as strong as men, despite there being plenty of women who are stronger than many men. The presence of women who are capable of doing what men do and who do the same jobs as men are evidence that is isn't as "hardwired" as sexists like to believe,

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053660]The only reason men are stronger is because women are taught to try and be thin and weak by pretty much most things in their life.[/QUOTE] That is [B]a[/B] reason but it is not the only reason. Certainly doesn't help though, as you are correct, being strong is considered a masculine trait and that is liable to make women neglect their personal fitness. Predisposition exists to varying degrees on an individual by individual basis, but the effects of any gender predisposition are greatly exacerbated by cultural standards, which is obviously a bad thing. One shouldn't be belittled or automatically have a bad first impression of their merits simply because they were born as one of the binary sexes.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053660]The only reason men are stronger is because women are taught to try and be thin and weak by pretty much most things in their life. Look at girls toys compared to boys toys and you'll notice they teach both genders to be two different things, women should be carers and interested in being pretty while men should be strong and do all the heavy lifting. Are you honestly going to tell me that women are incapable of being as strong as men, despite there being plenty of women who are stronger than many men.[/QUOTE] There it is again, this is intellectual dishonesty at its core. "the only reason" No lets, try, the scientifically proven influence of androgens from a very young age and then to a much larger degree in puberty, leading men to have central nervous systems that are more adaptable to stressors, larger and more quickly growing skeletal muscle, higher bone density, on average larger in stature, i could go on about this all day if you really wanted me to. You keep talking to statistical outliers, but they are just that. Cut that shit out ffs.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053660]The only reason men are stronger is because women are taught to try and be thin and weak by pretty much most things in their life. Look at girls toys compared to boys toys and you'll notice they teach both genders to be two different things, women should be carers and interested in being pretty while men should be strong and do all the heavy lifting. Are you honestly going to tell me that women are incapable of being as strong as men, despite there being plenty of women who are stronger than many men. [/QUOTE] Actually, the reason men are on average stronger is one of our main hormones is a steroid that promotes muscle growth.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43053699]Actually, the reason men are on average stronger is one of our main hormones is a steroid that promotes muscle growth.[/QUOTE] androgens have a cascade of effects and its much more than simply muscle growth. Muscle size in and of itself isn't the sole factor in strength. But yes, the stereotype of men on average being more robust in physical adaptation is true.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;43053670]That is [B]a[/B] reason but it is not the only reason. Certainly doesn't help though, as you are correct, being strong is considered a masculine trait and that is liable to make women neglect their personal fitness.[/QUOTE] "the only reason" was a bit of a hyperbole, but it's certainly an important factor.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;43053704]androgens have a cascade of effects and its much more than simply muscle growth. Muscle size in and of itself isn't the sole factor in strength. But yes, the stereotype of men on average being more robust in physical adaptation is true.[/QUOTE] Yeah, what I said is just a simple explanation, there are many other effects, but it easiest to explain to those who do not understand is to just say muscle growth and steroid. People will think that means stronger, despite being incomplete.

[QUOTE=omggrass;43053255]yes i do, i hear that men are terrible nurses because we aren't socially empathetic enough. plus the current nurse training programs at CSM and canada college are 99% female, most guys end up dropping.[/QUOTE] wtf are you on about lol the stereotype about men being terrible nurses isn't that they're not socially empathetic enough, it's that nurse isn't seen as a manly role and seem feminine hence why say people use 'male nurse' while raising their eyebrow and giggling why is that every time something about men comes up, you post here and make up total bullshit that likely involves anecdote with no substance behind it?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053660]The only reason men are stronger is because women are taught to try and be thin and weak by pretty much most things in their life. Look at girls toys compared to boys toys and you'll notice they teach both genders to be two different things, women should be carers and interested in being pretty while men should be strong and do all the heavy lifting. Are you honestly going to tell me that women are incapable of being as strong as men, despite there being plenty of women who are stronger than many men.[/QUOTE] You seem to be incapable of understanding the concept of 'averages' and 'outliers' as mentioned above. On AVERAGE most men are naturally stronger than women. NATURALLY. As in a male's body is naturally more inclined to build muscle and we naturally have a lower body fat content than women. A female's body is naturally less inclined to build muscle and is naturally inclined to store more fat. There are evolutionary reasons for this such as the fact that our young gestate within females for nine months and increased body fat levels aid in the survival of both the mother and the baby (to a degree - obviously too much body fat is bad). You are correct, there are women who are naturally stronger than the average man, and there are indeed men who are naturally weaker than the average woman. But on average this is not the case. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;43053641]You advocated "acknowledging differences to make life easier" That is incredibly open to interpretation, I honestly can't figure out what positive line of reasoning you could have been trying to make with that. I'm not going to talk against dimorpohism since it clearly exists, but it's influence on every day life is basically nil and should not even begin to override peoples actual, tangible merits.[/QUOTE] Well for example on a more personal level learning to drop arguments because men are cold and stubborn while women usually come from a more emotional perspective would probably benefit a lot of people. It's not worth arguing when you're not even using the same 'type' of logic - you're obviously not going to come to any decent conclusion. Personal relationships would probably be a lot easier if people realised this and just decided the argument is pointless because neither party is likely to convince the other. Of course if you ARE both arguing along the same lines then you probably will come to a conclusion eventually. In the workplace knowledge on sexual dimorphism can be used positively (although some would see it as a 'negative' because it doesn't allow 'equal opportunity'). For example I work part time at a supermarket at the moment (which I'm leaving to go to in about 40 minutes to work). If a fill charge is on who likes to choose what aisles people are working usually the women are given aisles with generally lighter items in them than the males (and when a fill charge is on who lets people choose the aisles they work the women pick these aisles anyway). That's working smart - you give the heavier items to the individuals who are naturally going to find them easier to carry and fill in the shelves. Minimises the incidence of strains, general injuries, and increases productivity. I get asked every now and again by the women I work with to help move heavy things around so evidently I am naturally stronger than them (I don't work out or anything, so any strength I have is merely natural).

even if wiring is different between men and women, it doesn't prove any physiological or inherent psychological difference. remember guys, drugs can change the way your brain is wired. the brain's "wiring" isn't completely inherited. it's influenced by an individual's experiences and environment. if women are expected and taught to focus their energy on socializing from a young age, and men are expected to focus on physical tasks that require coordination, then men and women will have, in general, different brain wiring. best way to account for this is cross cultural study. looking at brain wiring of fetuses before culture can drastically alter things could also help shed light on the cause of this result.

[QUOTE=sltungle;43053721]Well for example on a more personal level learning to drop arguments because men are cold and stubborn while women usually come from a more emotional perspective would probably benefit a lot of people.[/QUOTE] This is a terrible idea [quote]In the workplace knowledge on sexual dimorphism can be used positively (although some would see it as a 'negative' because it doesn't allow 'equal opportunity'). For example I work part time at a supermarket at the moment (which I'm leaving to go to in about 40 minutes to work). If a fill charge is on who likes to choose what aisles people are working usually the women are given aisles with generally lighter items in them than the males[/quote] A womans physical capabilities should be judged on how big and strong she actually is. It's really not fucking hard to tell, is it? You just look at them. You wouldn't tell some 5'4 slim-build dude to carry 70 pounds of slate rock around a house just because he's a guy, would you?

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43053716]wtf are you on about lol the stereotype about men being terrible nurses isn't that they're not socially empathetic enough, it's that nurse isn't seen as a manly role and seem feminine hence why say people use 'male nurse' while raising their eyebrow and giggling why is that every time something about men comes up, you post here and make up total bullshit that likely involves anecdote with no substance behind it?[/QUOTE] He is right, actually. Men do usually find empathising more difficult than women. There's a great book called, "Why men don't listen and why women can't read maps." It's a pretty good read and it discusses stuff like this. Evolution favoured men who were more emotionally cold it seems. [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=hypno-toad;43053746]This is a terrible idea A womans physical capabilities should be judged on how big and strong she actually is. It's really not fucking hard to tell, is it? You just look at them. You wouldn't tell some 5'4 slim-build dude to carry 70 pounds of slate rock around a house just because he's a guy, would you?[/QUOTE] You're right, and in that case you don't give the tiny dude a huge amount of heavy stuff to carry (unless he's insanely muscular - but the same applies for women, too). I don't think there's probably a single women at my work who is naturally stronger than any of the men there though which is why they go for the lighter items and we guys go for the heavier ones.

Another good book is called "The Beast Within". It examines male violence and finds that, while plenty of it is instinct and biology, a large portion of it is social and can therefore be reduced by changing ideas about male gender roles in society. There is no answer that is just biology or just society. Your body influences your behavior but so does the way you are socialized.

simplification of science not understood by people into pop science news articles is harmful to the advancement of science and society as a whole. you can barely understand the true meaning of this article and its results when the language is so charged. lets look at the title. "Male and Female brains wired differently, scans reveal." wired differently? this is non-sense. Male and female brains are wired absolutely the same, they just exhibit and express neurological signals differently. we can't simply say they're "wired differently" because that's exactly the problem here, they're wired the exact same yet act differently. now how that wiring manifests itself into [b]real behaviors[/b] which we separate from neurological functions is a mystery and not part of this study. even these comments [quote]The scans showed greater connectivity between the left and right sides of the brain in women, while the connections in men were mostly confined to individual hemispheres. The only region where men had more connections between the left and right sides of the brain was in the cerebellum, which plays a vital role in motor control. "If you want to learn how to ski, it's the cerebellum that has to be strong," [/quote] are assumptions and not actuated science. what is a "strong" cerebellum??? not only that, but a cerebellum also plays a role in language and cognitive functions. you could have a "strong" cerebellum and have that trait be exhibited in better understanding of languages which is a "social skill". this article also fails to mention that women on average have more mass in their cerebellum than men. that still means nothing, and the way that trait is exhibited is still ruled by a huge amount of factors. basically the problem here is the same exact problem evolutionary psychology has. people with no understanding or background using this science to support a narrative. the very scientist in this article is forced to make statements in order to generate something tangible from this article, while in reality these scientific findings simply tell us about the brain structure, not the way it behaves. that would make an article no-one would care to read.

[QUOTE=sltungle;43053749]He is right, actually. Men do usually find empathising more difficult than women. There's a great book called, "Why men don't listen and why women can't read maps." It's a pretty good read and it discusses stuff like this. Evolution favoured men who were more emotionally cold it seems.[/QUOTE] when was 'MEN HAVE HARDER TIME SOCIALLY EMPATHIZING' ever been used to keep them out of nursing? omggrass is trying to imply as if men are getting bullied out of nursing cause they're not socially empathetic enough, while thats one of the dumbest thing i have ever heard lol btw, the pease couple who wrote this book don't even have degrees in biology from what i know, they're communication speakers lol

[QUOTE=sltungle;43053749]He is right, actually. Men do usually find empathising more difficult than women. There's a great book called, "Why men don't listen and why women can't read maps." It's a pretty good read and it discusses stuff like this. Evolution favoured men who were more emotionally cold it seems. [/QUOTE] IS that scientifically proven though? That definitely sounds like something that would be impacted by societal norms since men are generally EXPECTED to be less emotional than women and this idea is imposed on male children at a young age, like how it's more socially acceptable for a woman to cry than for a man too.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43053773]when was 'MEN HAVE HARDER TIME SOCIALLY EMPATHIZING' ever been used to keep them out of nursing? omggrass is trying to imply as if men are getting bullied out of nursing cause they're not socially empathetic enough, while thats one of the dumbest thing i have ever heard lol btw, the pease couple who wrote this book don't even have degrees in biology from what i know, they're communication speakers lol[/QUOTE] I don't think he said anywhere than men were bullied out of nursing, just that they dropped out because of their poorer skills with empathy. They may just have thought they weren't up to scratch with the job because they didn't 'care' enough about patients. He didn't specifically say why they dropped out. Wasn't one of them a psychologist from memory?

[QUOTE=sltungle;43053749]He is right, actually. Men do usually find empathising more difficult than women.[/QUOTE] research has shown this to be false btw, in fact "empathy" is such a difficult thing to define that it would be impossible to say it with any authority. ironically if men had "stronger" cerebellums then they should be more empathetic considering the role it plays in sympathetic motor response.