[Closed] Male brain? Female brain?

I've seen some previous work about this and it seems fairly clear that despite evidence in later life, there are very little differences at birth (at that includes any effect of hormone release etc).
This strongly supports the nurture argument and reinforces how dangerous it is if we want to progress as a collective both socially and scientifically.

Where I've seem some disagreement is around studies on twins that were separated early in life. Many exhibit similar traits and it would be good to see that addressed by further research. It could be it just demonstrates how ingrained societal norms are into our personal development, or it could be that our brains development is also linked to our nature and this is not evident until later in life.

For about a zillion years there probably was (and for all other species there apparently still is) but since about 12 months ago, not any more in humans.

Of course it's entirely plausible to believe that an organ as complex as the human brain functions differently in different people and therefore however hard you'll look you'll always find both conformity and exception to a hypothesis.

For those that dare to see the lighter side of how far things have progressed...

"For about a zillion years there probably was"... sounds like a straightforward enough presumption, but there is actually very little evidence for this.

If you look at the barrage of gender norms a child is exposed to, combined with the malleability of any young mind, nurture clearly plays a strong role. Until this is eliminated, you can't establish the influence of nature either way due to the noise - though many studies appear not to have managed to show a difference in nature, and I'm quite happy to proceed on this assumption.

According to recent gender studies, it appears that the more you offer equality of opportunity for girls to access education and careers in STEM fields - the more likely they are to choose traditional gender-normal pursuits such as dog-grooming, secretarial work, nail-art and nursing.

It's been dubbed 'the gender equality paradox'

The gender equality paradox is interesting data point that strongly suggests some innate difference between men and women’s preferences even accounting for culture. The greater male variance hypothesis is another.

There is an established variance between men and women for preference (men with things women with people, a variance that can also be found in other primates) and in personality type (men are prone to lower agreeabiliry, women are prone to higher levels of trait neuroticism).

Despite much anatomical exploration scientists can find no meaningful difference between men and women’s brains and yet men and women, in general, look quite different. Clearly something physiological takes place in the majority of people to delineate between male and female.

That said, the overlap in personality type and preference is far greater than the measured differences in these variables.

Despite much anatomical exploration scientists can find no meaningful difference between men and women’s brains and yet men and women, in general, look quite different. Clearly something physiological takes place in the majority of people to delineate between male and female.

its not the brain that determines how people look tho?

Men and women have different:

eyes / sight
hearing
skin
hair
metabolisms
blood
skeletons
physical responses to stimuli
muscle density
type of muscle (fast / slow twitch)
organs (sexual as well as relative sizes of others)
voices
size
etc

and, importantly, brain structure.

The differences in brain structure appear around mid-gestation i.e before feminists can blame "the patriarchy" / nurture. Admittedly I'm no neuroscientist, but how can we possibly expect brain function in sexes to be due to nurture when brains are so physically different before socialisation plays a role. I think the 'woke' bias of academia partially to blame.

It seems foolish and completely in the face of Occam's Razor to suggest that despite this myriad of differences, we must think the same or that differences can only be due to socialisation. Maybe not foolish - I think that some find it hard to conflate difference in outcome with sex-based mental differences. The whole 'poor women as the oppressed sex' argument falls apart if you acknowledge that men may be innately better at some things and vice versa. I especially love it when the women feminists who deny innate gender (the ones who rightfully complain about trans people competing in sports) put their heads in the sand when it comes to suggestions that at a population level, men and women will best each other in different areas because of biology.

We've spent millions and millions of years of evolution being 'bred' for different roles. It seems eminently likely that we will excel at these different roles. It's a social construct (and a failing one) to aim for equality of outcome. We aren't the same and therefore, statistics with large numbers will show biases of sex or gender or race or what have you.

@Geetee1972 - are you mental. There are over 100 sex-based differences in the brain.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women

https://curiosity.com/topics/is-there-a-difference-between-male-and-female-brains-curiosity/

They are different in both function and form and are so from ~25 weeks utero.

So not different before 25 weeks? What happens to trigger the differences? Hormones?

Yep, a testosterone dump which has an effect on brain (and other physical) development. For example, male brains are larger than female brains at birth by ~10-15% but that's because they shrink at a faster rate. I'm not sure socialisation is predictive (hint, it can't be, by definition).

Testosterone Rex by Fine is an interesting read. She's great at finding holes in shit experiments but doesn't prove any of her own assertions.

I honestly think it's arrogance to view humans as so different to all the other animals with sex-based differences to be above such things. It's sad that, as a human race, we expect some classes to be the same. People accept that there are multiple intelligences and that some people will lack in all 9 or excel in certain areas but the idea that men and women could distinguish themselves in distinct areas (at a population level) really makes some hysterical.

We accept (through observation as much as research) that there is difference in races or sexes in physical ability - look at an NFL team or a marathon or a rugby team or an Olympic swimming pool but it seems moronic to me when sex-differences in outcome are explained as bad men oppressing women.

"it seems moronic to me when sex-differences in outcome are explained as bad men oppressing women."

Because pointing out those differences has historically been used for oppression.

And rarely are the differences of any use to anyone.

And just because a difference might be observed now, it is very difficult to split from the environment in which that difference was nurtured and then observed.

I honestly think it’s arrogance to view humans as so different to all the other animals with sex-based differences to be above such things.

Pretty much sums it up. At the end of the day we are still mammals. Look at any other group of intelligent mammals that live in social groups and you will see distinct differences between the roles played by either sex. It’s neither good, bad or sexist. It just is, probably for evolutionary reasons that are way beyond my ability to fully comprehend

Just because animals live like that, doesn't mean that we have to.

We are animals though. There is no getting away from that. There will be differences due to the history of our species. Some of these won’t just go away simply because we wish them to. It doesn’t have to be a bad thing.

Look at any other group of intelligent mammals that live in social groups and you will see distinct differences between the roles played by either sex.

So that is proof that the brains are different? Or just conditioning and social structures play a big part in how peiple/animals develop.

According to recent gender studies, it appears that the more you offer equality of opportunity for girls to access education and careers in STEM fields – the more likely they are to choose traditional gender-normal pursuits such as dog-grooming, secretarial work, nail-art and nursing.

Question would have to be asked on timescales, 50-100 years would probably be a valid time to start and observe society level changes accurately. Consider how different we are now to 1919.

But it has been used to justify some very bad things, so I hope you can understand peoples's sensitivity around the points.

Here we go again.

We aren’t the same

Statistically, we may not be. But point is, it doesn't matter. We can't say that every woman is like X and every man like Y. So we have to treat everyone the same just in case. You allow both men and women to enrol in Engineering courses, and if only 20% of applicants are women, then so be it.*

* bad example, since that may be because of other gender stereotyping in earlier life, but you know what I mean. Equality of opportunity.

So that is proof that the brains are different? Or just conditioning and social structures play a big part in how peiple/animals develop.

Could be either, I didn’t specify and don’t know. I just think it’s daft for us to presume that on a base level we are that different from other animals.

Just because (sic) animals live like that, doesn’t mean that we have to.

As some have correctly noted, we are animals (mammalian primates). We also (for example) tend to be both more-violent or less-violent than average examples of our nearest primate relatives (bonobos and chimpanzees respectively.

We also (within our own species) display often wildly different cultural traits (including sex/gender/social norms) throughout history and between cultures.

We aren’t the same and therefore, statistics with large numbers will show biases of sex or gender or race or what have you.

The point of the article is that physiologically its very hard to see any differences in brain structure bewteen sexes, likewise if you compared/liver/colon/lungs of a woman, or a man or even a person of a different race its very hard to tell the difference (of course race is impossible to define, genetically anyway)
They will be differnt though (between genders at least), having been bathed in different hormones since conception, but then even those can have broad ranges between individuals.
Brains are hugely plastic so social factors make it incredibly hard to differentiate, memes(not the cat kind) & genes!

Because of the massive overlap in inhereted traits if you pick a random brain from a jar you can’t know for certain if it is male or female.

But 'on average' male and female brains differ relatively e.g. males bigger hippocampus females thicker cortices, men's are generally larger overall (as are their bodies) and more varied, at least 20 other differences. The size of these areas of the brain have a direct effect on ability and behaviour. That's a proven fact.

The first point supports equal opportunity but the latter is why equal outcome will never be realised.

What the article seems to be saying is these physical differences are the result of social conditioning and ‘plasticity’ accounts for it. But given they are found in other mammals and every culture across the globe, seems like a reach.

Admittedly I’m no neuroscientist...

Gina Rippon says "Forget the male and female brain; it’s a distraction, it’s inaccurate", and she is a neuroscientist.

But ‘on average’ male and female brains differ relatively e.g. males bigger hippocampus females thicker cortices, men’s are generally larger overall (as are their bodies) and more varied, at least 20 other differences. The size of these areas of the brain have a direct effect on ability and behaviour. That’s a proven fact.

If I understand the article, Rippon is arguing that once you account for differences in brain size and recognise the plasticity of the brain, the conventional view of gendered brains is not supported by the scientific evidence.

Very interesting article. For me, the big takeaway was "Lego for all"! That's good science in my book.

Comparisons between humans and animals are largely anthropological, attributing human emotions to survival behaviours. We generally apply the same subjective approach to studying humans, projecting perceived emotions and traits on others and even on to ourselves to suit our views. "Even accounting for culture", have you heard of the Mosuo? They would be just one example of different gender norms. You're also ignoring the fact that Abrahamic religions which are misogynistic, spread over 90% of the world; Africa was a fairly liberal before we kindly introduced christianity below the Sahara.
There's no doubt that there are variations between what we class as male and female anatomically and in size, but 0.5% of the population have ambigous genitalia and size variations can also be noted across continents, countries and communities. @makecoldplayhistory it's not equality that's the social construct, it's race, gender and sexuality that are. "American Anthropological Society Washburn (1963) strongly argued against the existence of such entities, especially when limited to what we commonly know as Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid classification. He wrote that such classificatory schemes were a product of nineteenth-century thinking, and that to appreciate human variation it is much more productive to examine an individual’s culture, ancestral migratory patterns, and environmental adaptation than to target a minor factor like skin color as a racial determinant. As an example he asks whether it makes any sense to place the relatively isolated Australian Aborigine into the same group as the inhabitants of Africa just because of skin color? Further, he points out that even within groups emanating from Africa such as the Pygmies, there are at least three different origins for people so classified. The point being that because of a variety of historical factors homogenous genetic groups are not existent in today’s world. More recently, biologist, Richard Lewontin reaffirmed Washburn’s contention in stating: "if you pick at random any two ‘blacks’ walking along the street, and analyze their 23 pairs of chromosomes, you will probably find that their genes have less in common than do the genes of one of them with a random white person" (Begley, 1995). Data from the Human Genome Diversity Project confirms these assertions by showing that inter-individual genetic variation between people in the same sociological racial grouping is much greater than between the averages contrasted across different classifications (Begley, 1995)

. He wrote that such classificatory schemes were a product of nineteenth-century thinking, and that to appreciate human variation it is much more productive to examine an individual’s culture, ancestral migratory patterns, and environmental adaptation than to target a minor factor like skin color as a racial determinant.

absolutely

its amazing that in the genomic age we still cling to these centuries out-of-date classifications

@Geetee1972 – are you mental. There are over 100 sex-based differences in the brain.

Goodness no and ironcially you and I agree almost 100%. I was merely referencing scientific commentary I had read recently that stated there is no anatomical difference between the brains of men and women. I'm not well informed enough to know; I am only well informed enough to comment on the trait psychological differences (and preferences) between men and women. I think like you I also subscribe to the notion of 'evolutionary psychology' and the (important) role that plays in socialising men and women in society.

its amazing that in the genomic age we still cling to these centuries out-of-date classifications

it's not really amazing though, is it?

In an age of reality TV, donald trump, religious fundamentalism, flat-earthers, holocaust-deniers, moon-landing deniers, etc.

When Dean Friedman said "we're not as smart as we'd like to think we are" he was actually talking about the human race...