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

[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 simply isn't true. There's a reason the best male athletes preform at a substantially higher level than the best female athletes, even in sports like running where skill can only take one so far. This truth also applies to black people, who naturally have a higher muscle mass than white people. ([URL]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1392.full[/URL]) Also, individual women being stronger then individual men is literally useless to mention. Only averages matter.

[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. 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] Women do tend to be weaker even in the upper echelons of bodybuilding, because there's a limit caused by the amount of mass they have which can be used for moving things (see: "Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics" for general populations and "A cross-sectional study of muscle strength and mass in 45- to 75yr-old Men and Women" for older people) and men have an easier time on average getting that mass to peak levels. So that's a thing. Women will never match a man kg for kg of lean body mass, so they'll never have the same maximum lifting capacity. There are areas of the body where sex is meaningless ("Muscle Size Responses to Strength Training in Young and Older Men and Women"), and for things like grip strength it's huge. So specific parts of the body have different respective lean body mass upper boundaries, those boundaries limit the maximum strength somebody can ever have, and men can reach those limits more easily. Now, if any of the fat neckbeards who talk about this shit like it matters for the general population can present a study wherein a set of equally-active men and women of similar diet and living conditions for one year's time had a difference in lean body mass that correlated with more than total mass and height to any degree of statistical significance, I'll eat a fucking hat. It doesn't exist. Nobody's surveyed a military academy or something with a weight room and looked at eighteen year olds in the same living conditions and doing the same workouts for more than three months to see if this would make a damn bit of difference to a less sexist society.

[QUOTE=sltungle;43053891]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] So if you're actually taking time to evaluate each individual you're not basing it on the grounds of sex and it's not the efficient streamlined process you make it out to be because you yourself are consciously aware of and testing for outliers in the system at all times

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053889]So essentially gender roles are too recent to have been evolutionary?[/QUOTE] we have zero understanding of any of that. macro-evolutionary epigenetics is an incredibly new field. the human genome project was completed in 2004, and that only gave us the classifications needed to actually study the human genome.

Science finally proving what men have known since the dawn of civilization.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43053903]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.[/QUOTE] Anecdotal evidence is absolutely useless when trying to prove that women are less capable than men since it's utterly unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;43053926]Science finally proving what men have known since the dawn of civilization.[/QUOTE] men don't know anything, literally their only use is to eject sperm. [editline]2nd December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;43053903] If everyone based their choices purely on scientific studies and data, we would be no better than computers with no individuality.[/QUOTE] beep boop

[QUOTE=thisispain;43053892]making judgments men vs women[/QUOTE] This, in general is just an issue. Nobody, ever, should be judged by a first impression [I]that they didn't even make.[/I] Obvious merits -> Intangible sex/gender concepts

[QUOTE=sgman91;43053907]That simply isn't true. There's a reason the best male athletes preform at a substantially higher level than the best female athletes, even in sports like running where skill can only take one so far. This truth also applies to black people, who naturally have a higher muscle mass than white people. ([URL]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/6/1392.full[/URL])[/QUOTE] You dense motherfucker. [QUOTE]Wagner and Heyward's (3) comments about Chaldeans as a Middle Eastern population classified as white but with body-composition variables similar to those of blacks, and about the variable results from comparisons of leptin concentrations within and across ethnic groups, [B]point to the fallacy of assuming that ‘blacks' and ‘whites' are genetically homogeneous. They note that they cannot account for the “dilution factor,” ie, that the conventional classification is really a proxy for ‘European white' and ‘other’ (‘nonwhite’) and that socioeconomic and lifestyle factors also influence many body-composition variables... The black-white differences indicated by Wagner and Heyward may be more contextual than biological[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053889]So essentially gender roles are too recent to have been evolutionary?[/QUOTE] gender roles aren't necessarily "women pick berries, men hunt". idk if gender roles require gender inequality. behaviors and personal identity associated with your sex and sexuality might be beneficial since they can play a role in sexual selection. if the framework for gender roles didn't evolve naturally, idk why they would be present now. that doesn't justify any inherent differences between men and women, only that sexuality was important and having malleable sexual perceptions that were influenced by culture was naturally selected for some reason. but idk i'm not an evolutionary biologist or anthropologist so i might be talking completely out of my ass.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43053907] Also, individual women being stronger then individual men is literally useless to mention. Only averages matter.[/QUOTE] Only matter in what, confirming your own bias?

[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. [editline]2nd December 2013[/editline] "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] Yes it is, and you attempted to combat a fact with a socially fluffy generalization. The neural connections in the brains of men and women are, in fact different, in specialized areas of the brain. Are those areas small? Yes. But they still exist. Men and women have different anatomies, they have slightly different nervous systems. [quote] not to mention the huge taboo and ignorance in science when it comes to racial differences. [/quote] Medical science disagrees with you directly, and that's one field. Why don't you start giving us some links and stuff that aren't reactionary social anecdotal sites so we can evaluate your socially enlightened claims on a factual basis instead your usual spergy "my opinions am facts cause muh beliefs".

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43053931]Anecdotal evidence is absolutely useless when trying to prove that women are less capable than men since it's utterly unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.[/QUOTE] He was asked for how he would respond to the situation, and you blast him for it saying that his evidence is anecdotal. What do you expect someone to do when you ask for their decision on a job, question if your boss is using the most efficient lighting? Using science to justify your every decision is foolish if your experiences show that statistics do not fit with the situation.

[QUOTE=27X;43053948]Yes it is, and you attempted to combat a fact with a socially fluffy generalization. The neural connections in the brains of men and women are, in fact different, in specialized areas of the brain. Are those areas small? Yes. But they still exist. Men and women have different anatomies, they have lsightly different nervous systems.[/QUOTE] no they arent different, their nervous systems are the same and any neurologist worth their salt would tell you that ^_^ this was a study done with MRI's. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_MRI[/url] if their nervous systems were different the MRI wouldnt work because they wouldnt be able to map things out lol. what is different is the diffusion of water in certain places, and why this happens is a mystery. but certain the neural networks are the same. it's a huge difference. to use the article's analogy, the roads aren't different, but the traffic seems to be [QUOTE=27X;43053948]Medical science disagrees with you directly, and that's one field. Why don't you start giving us some links and stuff that aren't reactionary social anecdotal sites so we can evaluate your socially enlightened claims on a factual basis instead your usual spergy "my opinions am facts cause muh beliefs".[/QUOTE] im such a sperg you sure got me. [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] article failed to say this but ill say it yeah. MRI's measure the excitation of water, nothing else.

[QUOTE=deadoon;43053965]He was asked for how he would respond to the situation, and you blast him for it saying that his evidence is anecdotal. What do you expect someone to do when you ask for their decision on a job, question if your boss is using the most efficient lighting? Using science to justify your every decision is foolish if your experiences show that statistics do not fit with the situation.[/QUOTE] "hey should we give the most bare minimum effort and check to see how much people are comfortable lifting nah fuck that just assign them by sex"

Actually I just talked this over with a doctoral candidate in neuroanatomy and he says you're full of shit, so apparently your generalization about neurosurgeons is just that, a generalization. ^_^ As a homosexual man this is something of direct interest to him, as he's due to do some research into whether or not it also extends to people of differing sexual orientation, not just men and women. The tensor model is also being phased out due to being notoriously inaccurate. Funny how you forgot to mention that.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43054003]"hey should we give the most bare minimum effort and check to see how much people are comfortable lifting nah fuck that just assign them by sex"[/QUOTE] And where did he say that? 70lbs isn't as much as you think, and this is from someone who practically has spaghetti arms. Proper grip and gloves and it isn't much of an issue.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;43053943]You dense motherfucker.[/QUOTE] Can I ask where you are getting that quote from? I searched the full PDF of the study and it wasn't there. Single quotes are near useless without context.

[QUOTE=thisispain;43053922]macro-evolutionary epigenetics [/QUOTE] that name is a fucking mouthful. has science gone too far?

I'm surprised the guardian would produce such shit journalism, this is something you'd expect from the dailymail. Although after that horrible abomination of a transgendered article maybe I shouldn't be so surprised [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;43054012]And where did he say that? 70lbs isn't as much as you think, and this is from someone who practically has spaghetti arms. Proper grip and gloves and it isn't much of an issue.[/QUOTE] He said he'd pick a tiny man to lift it rather than a woman. There is literally no reason to do that other than sexist bias.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43053945]Only matter in what, confirming your own bias?[/QUOTE] Only matters in every form of scientific inquiry. Outliers are never used to prove any sort of general point.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43054016] He said he'd pick a tiny man to lift it rather than a woman. There is literally no reason to do that other than sexist bias.[/QUOTE] And what did he use as the basis of the undefined woman? The women he tried to work with which could not keep up with the job. And you discredit his decision to choose the guy because it is anecdotal. Do you really not see the issue in this?

[QUOTE=sgman91;43053907]Only averages matter.[/QUOTE] if the diversity among individuals in their own group(this case their sex) is more pronounced than the average difference between two groups(men and women), how are you supposed to interpret it?

[QUOTE=27X;43054011]Actually I just talked this over with a doctoral candidate in neuroanatomy and he says you're full of shit, so apparently your generalization about neurosurgeons is just that, a generalization. ^_^ As a homosexual man this is something of direct interest to him, as he's due to do some research into whether or not it also extends to people of differing sexual orientation, not just men and women. The tensor model is also being phased out due to being notoriously inaccurate. Funny how you forgot to mention that.[/QUOTE] you are really aggressive for no reason. if that "doctoral candidate" has anything new to share about brain anatomy id love to hear it, but i think its more likely you misunderstand him. there's a difference in brain mass and acc. to this article a difference in diffusion, not brain neurology. and if the tensor model is being "phased out" or not cool, but this article was done with that. i don't know why i'd mention that or how that's funny but ok

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43054032]if the diversity among individuals in their own group(this case their sex) is more pronounced than the average difference between two groups(men and women), how are you supposed to interpret it?[/QUOTE] You are comparing the average man vs the average woman based on likely a bell curve type system.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43054032]if the diversity among individuals in their own group(this case their sex) is more pronounced than the average difference between two groups(men and women), how are you supposed to interpret it?[/QUOTE] Is there any study you know of that shows the strength diversity in men and women of similar living patterns?

[QUOTE=sgman91;43054021]Only matter is every form of scientific inquiry. Outliers are never used to prove any sort of general point.[/QUOTE] but the diversity within a group is important. you don't use outliers to "prove a point", you acknowledge that individual differences seem to be greater than sexual differences. that makes those sexual differences fairly meaningless to base your perceptions, worldview, or, god forbid, legislation/economic organization on. [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;43054039]You are comparing the average man vs the average woman based on likely a bell curve type system.[/QUOTE] well yea, but the width and shape of that "bell" means a lot. if it's a thin one, it shows that there isn't much diversity. if it's wide, there is a ton of diversity. that diversity can be powerful enough to make sexual dimorphism sorta marginal by comparison.

[QUOTE=sgman91;43054013]Can I ask where you are getting that quote from? I searched the full PDF of the study and it wasn't there. Single quotes are near useless without context.[/QUOTE] Same issue, same journal. Try reading shit you cite before you cite it, chuckles.

[QUOTE=thisispain;43054034]you are really aggressive for no reason. if that "doctoral candidate" has anything new to share about brain anatomy id love to hear it, but i think its more likely you misunderstand him. there's a difference in brain mass and acc. to this article a difference in diffusion, not brain neurology. and if the tensor model is being "phased out" or not cool, but this article was done with that. i don't know why i'd mention that or how that's funny but ok[/QUOTE] Yes, asking for objective proof you have yet to provide other than an incredibly generic link that's only partially germane to the subject sure is aggressive. grr. rawr. I mentioned it because even with greater granularity compared to newer models, it was able to produce objective results which backs up data collated thirty years ago, which again contradicts your generalist folksy wisdom that apparently isn't factually accurate.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;43054051]but the diversity within a group is important. you don't use outliers to "prove a point", you acknowledge that individual differences seem to be greater than sexual differences. that makes those sexual differences fairly meaningless to base your perceptions, worldview, or, god forbid, legislation/economic organization on.[/QUOTE] So because individual differences are so great, sexual differences are meaningless? So comparing the average of two groups is meaningless because the outliers of both groups are extremely different?