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

[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] Honestly? yes I would. I used to run a makeshift farmhand crew that would do everything from catching chickens, to hoisting, loading, assembling and fastening machinery. I've seen scrawny guys adapt to the workload in 3 weeks flat. No change in size, just a simple nervous system adaptation. The 10 women we've had over a 2 year period, every single one of them quit because the workload was literally running them into the ground and they couldn't keep up. Thats not sexism at work, there is literally no discrimination at work here, they can get a job there any time they like because its always looking for workers, but 100% of the women who have come, have not lasted.

[QUOTE=thisispain;43053768]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 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] excuse me, are you trying to tell me just because i have no in-depth knowledge about biology or neurology, i cannot make biased quick assumptions about the data that i cannot make out because i can't understand the context or meaning of it??? fuck off!!!!

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;43053797]Honestly? yes I would. I used to run a makeshift farmhand crew that would do everything from catching chickens, to hoisting, loading, assembling and fastening machinery. I've seen scrawny guys adapt to the workload in 3 weeks flat. No change in size, just a simple nervous system adaptation. The 10 women we've had over a 2 year period, every single one of them quit because the workload was literally running them into the ground and they couldn't keep up. Thats not sexism at work, there is literally no discrimination at work here, they can get a job there any time they like because its always looking for workers, but 100% of the women who have come, have not lasted.[/QUOTE] very interesting anecdotes. please observe the rest of the world where women do such work out of necessity.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053788]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] You're right. As person11 said (not in these exact words, though): it's a case of nature and nurture. The way you're raised, the effects of society are obviously going to influence this stuff, but all of the things we're talking about DO have a natural component too, and that you CAN'T overcome unfortunately. Like I mentioned a page or two ago, the idea is that the trade off for men was lowered emotional skills for a heightened spatial awareness to assist in hunting animals, tracking them away from the camp, and getting back in one piece. Women didn't need the same abilities to navigate because they stayed at the camp most of the time, so to aid in socialisation and such they developed greater skills to socialise. If you remove the 'nurture' aspect there'll still be a bias towards men having better spatial awareness than women and women having better emotional skills, but it'll be a smaller bias of course.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;43053803]excuse me, are you trying to tell me just because i have no in-depth knowledge about biology or neurology, i cannot make biased quick assumptions about the data that i cannot make out because i can't understand the context or meaning of it??? fuck off!!!![/QUOTE] ;(

Is it just me or has the word "anecdote" been thrown around a lot here on Facepunch lately?

[QUOTE=sltungle;43053791]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] no, this is omggrass, he honestly thinks men are disadvantaged poor souls and believes in the friendzone, that quote from him was in response to someone asking has anyone ever used a study to discourage people from attending a course they wanted and theres nowhere saying they have a degree, all i see is COMMUNICATION EXPERT, BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT, SPEAKER

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;43053797]Honestly? yes I would. I used to run a makeshift farmhand crew that would do everything from catching chickens, to hoisting, loading, assembling and fastening machinery. I've seen scrawny guys adapt to the workload in 3 weeks flat. No change in size, just a simple nervous system adaptation. The 10 women we've had over a 2 year period, every single one of them quit because the workload was literally running them into the ground and they couldn't keep up. Thats not sexism at work, there is literally no discrimination at work here, they can get a job there any time they like because its always looking for workers, but 100% of the women who have come, have not lasted.[/QUOTE] "I have the best kind of evidence, it's called anecdotal evidence" Honestly even if your observations had any credibility it could just as easily point to the implication that women simply aren't conditioned for labor because of a cultural standard. Your experience means nothing.

[QUOTE=sltungle;43053809] Like I mentioned a page or two ago, the idea is that the trade off for men was lowered emotional skills for a heightened spatial awareness to assist in hunting animals, tracking them away from the camp, and getting back in one piece. Women didn't need the same abilities to navigate because they stayed at the camp most of the time, so to aid in socialisation and such they developed greater skills to socialise.[/QUOTE] this is also a myth btw. the hunter/gatherer story is an anthropological rationalisation. there have been tribes which historically had 0% separation in genders out of necessity. most interestingly, tribes which settled down and discovered farming have bigger gender differentiation than societies that did not have farming, something visible even today. what men are you talking about? some men in the history of civilisation did not hunt animals.

[QUOTE=Limed00d;43053814]Is it just me or has the word "anecdote" been thrown around a lot here on Facepunch lately?[/QUOTE] There's a [I]lot[/I] of anecdotes on facepunch Even that was an anecdote

[QUOTE=Limed00d;43053814]Is it just me or has the word "anecdote" been thrown around a lot here on Facepunch lately?[/QUOTE] Basically some people really don't like others using personal experiences to justify their beliefs.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;43053797]Honestly? yes I would. I used to run a makeshift farmhand crew that would do everything from catching chickens, to hoisting, loading, assembling and fastening machinery. I've seen scrawny guys adapt to the workload in 3 weeks flat. No change in size, just a simple nervous system adaptation. The 10 women we've had over a 2 year period, every single one of them quit because the workload was literally running them into the ground and they couldn't keep up. Thats not sexism at work, there is literally no discrimination at work here, they can get a job there any time they like because its always looking for workers, but 100% of the women who have come, have not lasted.[/QUOTE] I find it pretty funny you blasted me for using statistical outliers as proof but then proceed to use anecdotal evidence.

[QUOTE=Limed00d;43053814]Is it just me or has the word "anecdote" been thrown around a lot here on Facepunch lately?[/QUOTE] if you have a better word for "not supported by anthropological or scientific data" id love to see it [editline]2nd December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;43053837]Basically some people really don't like others using personal experiences to justify their beliefs.[/QUOTE] i thought the idea of science was to blast beliefs out of the water? or is that only when it's convenient

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;43053828]"I have the best kind of evidence, it's called anecdotal evidence" Honestly even if your observations had any credibility it could just as easily point to the implication that women simply aren't conditioned for labor because of a cultural standard. Your experience means nothing.[/QUOTE] You asked the question retard, I answered it. Its not evidence, you asked me If I would make a small guy lift 70lbs. My honest answer is if thats the job that needs doing, then yes I'd make him do it. My experience tells me he'd probably adapt to it with little trouble. Would you like me to lie or something? [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] its not like you're posing a scientific hypothesis or something ffs

[QUOTE=thisispain;43053768] 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] unfortunately most of us who are not incredibly educated in science or how to interpret scientific data. even relatively scientifically literate people need things explained in "layman's terms". that means whoever is translating the information has the power to hide their own agenda in the explanation for political/social/financial reasons. it's the same as how people say the arctic sea ice is at "record highs" or making a "big comeback". we don't know how to interpret the data so the people interpreting it for us end up misleading us for their gain.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;43053850]You asked the question retard, I answered it. Its not evidence, you asked me If I would make a small guy lift 70lbs. My honest answer is if thats the job that needs doing, then yes I'd make him do it. My experience tells me he'd probably adapt to it with little trouble. Would you like me to lie or something? [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] its not like you're posing a scientific hypothesis or something ffs[/QUOTE] Wait so if you had a small man and a bigger woman you'd pick the tiny man, just for being a man? How does that even make sense. that's pretty much standard sexism to me if you would pick a less capable man over a more capable woman on the basis of gender.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053838]I find it pretty funny you blasted me for using statistical outliers as proof but then proceed to use anecdotal evidence.[/QUOTE] you used statistical outliers to say an established scientific fact was false. I used an anecdote to respond honestly to a general question. Its hardly the same thing, u totes got me bro

[QUOTE=thisispain;43053840]if you have a better word for "not supported by anthropological or scientific data" id love to see it [editline]2nd December 2013[/editline] i thought the idea of science was to blast beliefs out of the water? or is that only when it's convenient[/QUOTE] Just like how you discredit his experiences as anecdotes because it is convenient? It is hard to remove someones beliefs when they are supported by actual experiences. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053858]Wait so if you had a 70lbs man and a 90lbs woman you'd pick the tiny man, just for being a man? How does that even make sense. that's pretty much standard sexism to me if you would pick a less capable man over a more capable woman on the basis of gender.[/QUOTE] Where did this new woman come from? He was asked if it was something he'd expect of a scrawny guy, nothing about a woman. And it is carrying 70 lbs not being.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;43053850]You asked the question retard, I answered it. Its not evidence, you asked me If I would make a small guy lift 70lbs. My honest answer is if thats the job that needs doing, then yes I'd make him do it.[/QUOTE] And the sole binary reason for not asking a woman to do the same is....?

[QUOTE=sltungle;43053721]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. 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).[/QUOTE] I think the point is if one of your female coworkers were a bodybuilder would she be getting the light lifting? If no then it has nothing to do with your sex, it's just that all you individuals happen to fall in line with the stereotype.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;43053850] Its not evidence, you asked me If I would make a small guy lift 70lbs. [/QUOTE] any woman of normal size who cant lift 70 pounds suffers from a muscle disorder, btw

[QUOTE=thisispain;43053833]this is also a myth btw. the hunter/gatherer story is an anthropological rationalisation. there have been tribes which historically had 0% separation in genders out of necessity. most interestingly, tribes which settled down and discovered farming have bigger gender differentiation than societies that did not have farming, something visible even today. what men are you talking about? some men in the history of civilisation did not hunt animals.[/QUOTE] a modern hunter-gatherer society iirc in southeast asia/pacific islands has both men and women hunting together, and hunting success is greatest when both men and women work together. most hunter-gatherer societies that still exist have little overall separation between men and women. sometimes the culture leans towards matriarchy or patriarchy(often the former though), but they tend to be surprisingly egalitarian.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43053857]unfortunately most of us who are not incredibly educated in science or how to interpret scientific data. even relatively scientifically literate people need things explained in "layman's terms". that means whoever is translating the information has the power to hide their own agenda in the explanation for political/social/financial reasons. [/QUOTE] exactly. in the case of the guardian, they want those residual "battle of the sexes" views.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;43053864]And the sole binary reason for not asking a woman to do the same is....?[/QUOTE] Do you even attempt to follow conversations?

[QUOTE=thisispain;43053833]this is also a myth btw. the hunter/gatherer story is an anthropological rationalisation. there have been tribes which historically had 0% separation in genders out of necessity. most interestingly, tribes which settled down and discovered farming have bigger gender differentiation than societies that did not have farming, something visible even today. what men are you talking about? some men in the history of civilisation did not hunt animals.[/QUOTE] You're right, and there are also matriarchal societies in which the women developed along the same lines that men did in regions of the world mainly dominated by western civilisation today, and the men in those societies more developed along the lines that women did in our societies. But for the way our society has developed it's come mainly from the kind of tribal background that lead to the kind of sexual dimorphism that generated more aggressive males and more caring females. Again, a lot of it is nurture, but part of it is nature, too.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43053871]a modern hunter-gatherer society iirc in southeast asia/pacific islands has both men and women hunting together, and hunting success is greatest when both men and women work together. most hunter-gatherer societies that still exist have little overall separation between men and women. sometimes the culture leans towards matriarchy or patriarchy(often the former though), but they tend to be surprisingly egalitarian.[/QUOTE] that's because those hunter-gatherer societies never "evolved" to the next step in development of agriculture, meaning it was economically unfeasible for gender inequality. a society whose food input is of that low grade (agriculture nets huge productions in food with far less manpower) would surely die off.

[QUOTE=thisispain;43053888]that's because those hunter-gatherer societies never "evolved" to the next step in development of agriculture, meaning it was economically unfeasible for gender inequality. a society whose food input is of that low grade (agriculture nets huge productions in food with far less manpower) would surely die off.[/QUOTE] So essentially gender roles are too recent to have been evolutionary?

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43053868]I think the point is if one of your female coworkers were a bodybuilder would she be getting the light lifting? If no then it has nothing to do with your sex, it's just that all you individuals happen to fall in line with the stereotype.[/QUOTE] No, if the female coworker was huge and buff she'd be given heavier items to work (unless she expressed a strong desire to not do so - although if she was the only one strong enough to do so and anyone else would injure themselves doing so then she'd probably be told tough luck in that case and that she had to do it). But that's the thing, naturally women usually aren't stronger than men, so we don't see that kind of thing happening at my work.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43053862]Just like how you discredit his experiences as anecdotes because it is convenient?[/QUOTE] im sorry did i do something wrong? i disagree on the basis that it was a limited experience and not backed by a larger perspective, i don't think that's improper or convenient. [editline]2nd December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sltungle;43053877] But for the way our society has developed it's come mainly from the kind of tribal background that lead to the kind of sexual dimorphism that generated more aggressive males and more caring females. Again, a lot of it is nurture, but part of it is nature, too.[/QUOTE] "our" society being western society yes. there in lies the problem of making judgments about men vs women in terms of scientific data, not to mention the huge taboo and ignorance in science when it comes to racial differences.

[QUOTE=thisispain;43053892]im sorry did i do something wrong? i disagree on the basis that it was a limited experience and not backed by a larger perspective, i don't think that's improper or convenient.[/QUOTE] Claim that his anecdote is unnecessary, despite it being his experiences and justification for his choice. If everyone based their choices purely on scientific studies and data, we would be no better than computers with no individuality. Yes, calling out his experiences as anecdotal evidence was an act of convenience to discredit him.