So, all the way through the article you characterize your two subjects in extreme terminology, calling them evangelists, etc., and characterize things in lampooned terms ("fetishizing testosterone and oxycotin") and yet the best conclusion you can really draw from your piece is "maybe their wrong" (don't forget to add in the raised eyebrow for effect).

Great survey article, examining the landscape of gender difference as percieved by two doctors, but the language used doesn't fit the conclusion drawn or the weight of the analysis. You summarily conclude a number of things ("too complicated" and "still murky") yet ask your readers to accept your premise based on the same conclusory analysis you yourself have used.

There are differences in the male and female brains, this is a physiological fact, until we know for certain what those difference mean and how they manifest themselves, expect medical science to offer various theories and expect the industry to follow suit with experiments to test those theories. If you have something better to offer, other than "nuh-uh," then by all means cough it up.

"There are differences in the male and female brains, this is a physiological fact..."

If this is established fact, can you link to your cut and dried evidence of it?

Not without infringing the copyright on my neuroscience textbook. John P.J. Pinel, Biopsychology, any edition since 1991.

Contrary to the mistaken perspective of some, the Internet is not a source for credible scientific research.

It's ironic that Miss Schaffer accuses her targets of over simplifying, and then makes broad and rather self-serving generalizations to come to her pre-ordained conclusion. Its also rather funny, in the article on Larry Summers, that Miss Schaffer refers to Summers' point that male IQ scores are more variable than female scores, and then uses content-based tests to try to prove him wrong. I wonder if Miss Schaffer realizes the difference between an IQ test and a math test, or language test, or geography test, etc.? Or maybe she willfully misunderstood the point so that she could argue against a straw man. Sign Miss Schaffer up for the XX factor!

Great posts. This article was an assertion without the argument. It made me more likely to believe that there really is something there.

" Not without infringing the copyright on my neuroscience textbook. John P.J. Pinel, Biopsychology, any edition since 1991.

Contrary to the mistaken perspective of some, the Internet is not a source for credible scientific research."

In fact, most credible scientific research is available in the Internet. Most journals may be behind a paywall, but abstracts are usually not. A mention of what differences you had in mind would have been better, and a link to a review paper showing that between sex differences are higher than within sex variability would be a plus.

Here's the problem with your reasoning:

MariaE:

"

In fact, most credible scientific research is available in the Internet.

Can you provide a web link for this?

MariaE:

"Most journals may be behind a paywall, but abstracts are usually not. A mention of what differences you had in mind would have been better, and a link to a review paper showing that between sex differences are higher than within sex variability would be a plus.

So you want others to do your research for you? Instead of informing one's self on a topic you just mimic the author of this article and say "nuh-uh, prove it!" and then when the person responds you say "nuh-uh, prove it!" then the person provides additional evidence and you say "nuh-uh, prove it" then the . . . wait, haven't we been here before? Yes, that's right, it's called the one way street. What good is it argue a topic with someone when they don't even have grasp of the basics? Who wants to spend their time explaining basic economics, physics, biology, neuroscience or whatever, when the antagonist is just going to say "nuh-uh, prove it!"

The Internet is not a source of credible scientific research. Getting something published on the internet does not make something credible. If something has only been published onthe internet, as opposed to reprinted, it's probably a good bet that it was rejected for wider publication due to lack of merit.

It is a physiological fact that male and femal brains are different, just as it is a physiological fact that male and female bodies - of which the brain is a part of - are different. I would list some of these differences, which can be found in any biopsychology 101 book, but what's the point when I know what the response will be (Nuh-uh, can you link to your proof?)

Maria,

If you like abstracts listed on the internet you can look:

here, here, here, and here is the full text of a Nature review article discussing the topic. It begins with the sentence: "A rapidly burgeoning literature documents copious sex influences on brain anatomy, chemistry and function."

The above are from the first HALF page of a google search for "anatomical brain gender differences."

WassabiCracker:

Can you provide a web link for this?

Sure. Here's PubMed. Google Scholar is also a good source.

WassabiCracker:

So you want others to do your research for you? Instead of informing one's self on a topic you just mimic the author of this article and say "nuh-uh, prove it!" and then when the person responds you say "nuh-uh, prove it!" then the person provides additional evidence and you say "nuh-uh, prove it"

The article was pretty clear. Looking at the articles cited by the book authors themselves, you find that the variability within a gender is usually much greater than that between genders. That makes the use of gender stereotypes pretty useless. It's like saying that men are taller than women. That's absolutely true, but you wouldn't make a claim on who the tallest person is out of a specific man and woman without looking at them first.

As for asking for someone's sources for an opinion, in my view it helps make the debate clearer. When we have the same facts, we can argue about the interpretation. It also helps me to learn, that's for sure. The good thing of talking to experts on a subject is that they have enough exposure to a topic to be able to guide you through the literature, as well as provide context. I certainly enjoy doing that in my field of expertise.

I like how you went through several iterations of this conversation... all in your head. If that isn't the hallmark of an open-minded, rational dialogue, I wonder what is.

WassabiCracker:

If something has only been published onthe internet, as opposed to reprinted, it's probably a good bet that it was rejected for wider publication due to lack of merit.

Nice backpedaling. Of course I meant "reprints" (although there are some good online-only journals).

As for the actual claims in your post. I don't dispute that there are differences between female and male brains - why wouldn't there be? This doesn't mean that the differences are relevant to activities that have gained importance in the past few centuries. It also doesn't mean that we're anywhere near the point where differences in socialization don't matter.

StevieN, I know how to look up links, thanks. I was wondering if certain articles were the most relevant. As I said, I lack the context of having actually studied physiology.

MariaE:

WassabiCracker:

Can you provide a web link for this?

Sure. Here's PubMed. Google Scholar is also a good source.

Neither one of those support your broadly asserted premise, which was my point.

MarieE:

The article was pretty clear. Looking at the articles cited by the book authors themselves, you find that the variability within a gender is usually much greater than that between genders. That makes the use of gender stereotypes pretty useless. It's like saying that men are taller than women. That's absolutely true, but you wouldn't make a claim on who the tallest person is out of a specific man and woman without looking at them first.

You're arguing about something completely different. Re-read my post, you haven't challenged anything I have said with a relevant point. I didn't employ "gender stereotypes", but on that subject, pattern recognition is an innate character of our brains because it helps the brain organize the world around it. :-)

MariaE:

As for asking for someone's sources for an opinion, in my view it helps make the debate clearer. When we have the same facts, we can argue about the interpretation. It also helps me to learn, that's for sure. The good thing of talking to experts on a subject is that they have enough exposure to a topic to be able to guide you through the literature, as well as provide context. I certainly enjoy doing that in my field of expertise.

I like how you went through several iterations of this conversation... all in your head. If that isn't the hallmark of an open-minded, rational dialogue, I wonder what is.

I really don't see any strength in this position, it's pointless to talk to someone about, say, the color of the sky if they don't understand light refraction. NONE of what you are saying gets to my point that the author basically spends the whole article basically saying "nuh-uh" and "but maybe not!"

MariaE:

WassabiCracker:

If something has only been published onthe internet, as opposed to reprinted, it's probably a good bet that it was rejected for wider publication due to lack of merit.

Nice backpedaling. Of course I meant "reprints" (although there are some good online-only journals).

Backpedalling? LOL, ok, I'm not sure where your reading comprehension broke down, but re-read my post, both of them in fact. The premise stands unchallenged, it's a waste of time to argue a point when one party simply criticizes the foundation of an understood principle ("You stated that rainbows are light refracted through water molecules, can you point me to an internet cite proving the sky is blue?")

MariaE:

As for the actual claims in your post. I don't dispute that there are differences between female and male brains - why wouldn't there be?

Well what the hell then? THIS is backpedalling, AND this proves my point about going in circles with people like you. Not sure why I bothered.

MariaE:

This doesn't mean that the differences are relevant to activities that have gained importance in the past few centuries. It also doesn't mean that we're anywhere near the point where differences in socialization don't matter.

Ok, you need to share what's in your bong, because its apparently some really high grade dank. Gimme gimme!

Another B- in reading comprehension. I think you have me confused with that Paxterminus weirdo.

Goodbye

That WassieBCracker is so ... *horrid*.

I read (on the internet) that a magic unicorn said that gender is just a social construct. And neither magic unicorns nor the internet are ever wrong.

WC, you've placed emphasis on the authors being doctors, but what Ms. Schaffer has done a good job of is showing where the authors either overreach or simply misstate the evidence they use. Another poster linked to an interview where one of the authors ignored the conclusion of the author of the research she cited, while using incorrect math to side-step the researcher's conclusions.

The problem is not that we're in the early stages of research into how the brain works; it's that the authors are ignoring evidence that doesn't suit their polemics. Ms. Shaffer often quotes evidence that is not neither "too complicated" nor "murky" when countering the claims of the two authors. Yet she's honest enough about the state of the research to acknowledge when significant uncertainty exists. If the authors were less sloppy and more honest about uncertainty, the books would be better.

This article repeats the same dogma...

<link>

It also raised two interesting ideas in my mind:

1. Whenever scientific articles suggest something should just be taken as a fact without a source it makes it sound like opinion.

2. Evidence for activation of different brain regions in male and female brains could actually cancel out any differences in anatomy.

"Great survey article, examining the landscape of gender difference as percieved by two doctors, but the language used doesn't fit the conclusion drawn or the weight of the analysis."

You're being charitable. This article primarily discusses women's ability at mathematical calculation, as if demonstrating no innate disparities in that one area would disprove all the other traditional stereotypes too. There are a lot more, and more important, differences between men and women than ability at arithmetic, differences this artcle doesn't touch.

I was born after the women's movement was well under way, and thus I was raised to believe that any differences between men and women are basically just anatomical, and of trivial importance in most situations. That was my operating philosophy well into adulthood. Then I got to engineering school. The female students I knew were equal to or better than most men when it came to pure math. But in design, where one needs an intuitive grasp for how something actually works, they were uniformly, profoundly, shockingly inept. I wish I could draw you pictures, because you guys out there would be flabbergasted at some of the seemingly simple ideas that the women I knew couldn't get.

Obviously, those women are not a statistically valid sample. But it opened my eyes to something that every five-year-old is keenly aware of: men and women are different from each other. We can argue about the degree and statistical relevance of these differences, and I don't think anyone would seriously doubt that social expectations mask a lot of biological truth. But the differences are there. And they are in more than just ability at arithmetic.

Men are better with spatial relationships. Women are better at handling small children. Men are physically bigger, stronger, and hardier. Women tend to be better multi-taskers. Women are good about asking for directions, men usually want to find their own way around. Men have a fight-or-flight response to stress, women have a tend-or-befriend response.

We all know there are plenty of exceptions to these trends, so nobody should be so foolish as to pre-judge some individual on gender alone. But the trends are real, and when we add them up, we get a clear pattern: men are equipped to go out and slay dragons, women are equipped to maintain families. Neither gender would be quite as good at the other's role, and this goes a long way towards explaining every sexual steryotype that has existed in every culture since the beginning of time. Those steryotypes are a social response to biology.