<p>WARNING: If you are MIT Biology professor Nancy Hopkins DO NOT read this article; it will cause you to run from the room gasping for air, with your heart pounding, feeling nauseous.</p>
<p>The rest of you may find it interesting</p>
<p><a href=“Deep, Dark Secrets of His and Her Brains”>Deep, Dark Secrets of His and Her Brains;
<p>It is interesting, and it should not offend anyone. Summers was stating that men ARE inherently better in math; this article merely details the differences in functions between the brain but also points out that, despite radical anatomical differences in processing, the result is the same.</p>
<p>thanks for posting, that was interesting. I was particularly intrigued with the mention of the hermaphrodite at the very end (having just read the novel Middlesex for my book club).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No he wasn’t. He was saying all the evidence pointed that way, and it is an area that should be studied.</p>
<p>I not only find it interesting; it supports similar differential conclusions in the book “Brain Sex.” The spectrum concept is an important one, btw. A brain can be anywhere on that “number line” (my term), irrespective of gender, but tending to correlate with gender. It is about tendencies & orientations & styles, not limitations necessarily – although that may follow in some cases.</p>
<p>When I ran that book by some of my younger female friends, who were raised in a highly biased PC/reactionary environment, they went ballistic on me (naturally). One of my female friends replied angrily that she “has no trouble with maps,” as if there were such a statement in the book. </p>
<p>The science is very important, but to some people, politics (read, emotion) is MUCH more important than science. (And there I rest my case.)</p>
<p>Reminds me of the phrenologists of the 19th century. And then there were the Jukes and Kallikaks (remember them?)</p>
<p>Cockroaches will inherit the earth. The less brain to mess things up, the better. ;)</p>
<p>Great comments, all. Does the name Richard Haier ring a bell with anyone? He’s the UC Irvine neuroscientist cited in the above-posted article for his recent research on male/female brain differences. Guess who Larry Summers was citing when he set off the firestorm? Yes, he was citing the study by Dr. Haier and his female associate (Larry named them both, but hers is escaping me). One thing that intrigued me about the article (besides the idea of driving around with Einstein’s brain in your trunk) was the striking contrast of the three female scientists (Sandra Witelson, Marion Diamond, and Dr. Haier’s partner) who were fully comfortable using scientific method to explore the topic of male/female brain differences–even postulating possible cognitive differences–with the Brown “gender studies expert” who dismissed it out of hand, and the MIT bio prof who got a case of the vapors instead of being motivated to use science to challenge the proposition.</p>
<p>For what ever reason, the whole underlying notion of statistics, and the idea that conclusions drawn from stats are descriptive of whole populations, not predictive of the behavior, fate, intelligence or even eyecolor of a specific person, are both ideas that many people, including people who should know better, refuse to understand.</p>
<p>Anyone who has studied medicine or raised children should be able to tell you that the X and Y chromosomes have powerful effects upon the body, going way beyond basic genital differences. Also, that it not such a great leap that the brain should be affected in some way. It is not good or bad, inferior or superior, it is just different - and individuals can fall anywhere on a wide spectrum of expectations for the whole population.
We all have “one in a billion brains” (and bodies for that matter), just for some the tiny one in a billion differences are more profound or useful than for others - now where did I leave my keys?!</p>
<p>I attended a fascinating lecture on brain development. It focused on the role of pre-natal development. </p>
<p>An oversimplification of the lecture: hormones secreted during pregnancy profoundly affect the brain of the developing fetus… from influencing sexually-typical M/F abilities & traits (for example, male = spatial ability) and even sexual orientation. </p>
<p>You begin with a boy or girl baby and the genetic boyness or girlness of that baby; then you add the hormone baths to which that baby’s brain is subjected for 9 months. (Stress hormones have potent effects.) So essentially there is a spectrum from girly girly girl to boyish boyish boy and everything in between… boysih boyish girl, etc.</p>
<p>One theory is that if a society is undergoing major stress (say war, famine) there are good biological/survival reasons for there to be more homosexual offspring. Less procreation = conservation of resources, so ultimately the society as a whole will have a better chance to survive.</p>
<p>I am one of the less typical females who is extremely good at “male” things like maps, directions, visual/spatial orientation.</p>
<p>But why can’t I work a clicker?!? :eek:</p>
<p>hahaha, that study gotta be wrong, I’m a guy and I’m damn bad in all the areas they mentioned</p>
<p>I have an extraordinary spatial ability which I put to good use as an architect. We build models to communicate designs to clients; a result of 28 years of experience. I can count on one hand the number of female clients who can read plans adequately, though I suspect that many male clients fake it.</p>
<p>Not a particularily girly girl, the spatial skill really came on when I was in my twenties and in architecture school. Despite being surrounded by men for the last three decades, I admit I was gobsmacked by the singularity of my boy’s development.</p>
<p>First word: Bus, Motorcycle
First toys: Anything with wheels</p>
<p>First obsession: Vehicles</p>
<p>Second obsession (age 4): Anything militaristic (despite having no ‘real’ toy guns or knives or TV or Playstation).</p>
<p>Third obsession: (age 8) Sports, anything to do with balls of any kind.</p>
<p>Final obsession: (lifelong) Statistics, especially team and professional sports.</p>
<p>As ‘masculine’ as my spatial, high conflict brain is, I have little interest in any of the above. I have learned all the rules of the major sports–including rugby and cricket–so that I don’t bore myself to death watching the games with DH but that would never be my first choice of entertainment and I cannot recall any plays in any of the games–much to the disappointment of my Ss who want to talk about such and such a game they played when they did such and such and …aaaargh! How do they remember all that detail?</p>