Men and women's brains are wired differently. Really..........

[JapaneseMargaret]

BBC article here.

Anyone know where a more in-depth article might be, so that I can come to my own conclusions?

They do say brain connections are not set, and can change throughout life. But absolutely no mention is made of the affects of society and nurture over nature. Both of which have a fundamental impact, surely...?

Haven't read the original paper, just the Independent article, but the main thing that struck me was that they didn't find any difference in brain 'wiring' in the under 13s. But there are gendered differences in behaviour for that age group. So surely that provides evidence against brain wiring determining gendered behaviour?

Anyway, sure someone more knowledgable will be along soon with a better understanding.

My reaction was similar to that of funnyvalentine

The human brain is not a fixed thing IYSWIM. Study after study shows that the way you use it influences what it physically becomes. This does not show that there is something inherent in the brain that produces gender differences: rather it shows that socialisation results in different brain structures by gender.

Cordelia FIne 'Delusions of gender ' is a great book and has lots about what she calls ' the seductive allure of neuroscience' Of course nurture has a fundamental impact and the trouble with studies such as the one you drew attention to is that they don't account for expectations. Women do well on eg social cognition tasks, arguably, because they know they are expected to!

I'd really like to read the original paper, and also to see a specialist analysis of the research. The findings as currently reported are very general and hard to assess.

The adult brain is a trained neural net.

Anyone know where a more in-depth article might be, so that I can come to my own conclusions

WTF can't the BBC provide a reference to the PNAS article they cite?

My gut tells me that all this is going to prove is that humans are socialised differently, i.e. confirm what I've always believed to be true anyway.

OK, abstract is here but you need a subscription to the journal to see the full text.

I saw this on the BBC today and it stuck me as well that they totally overlooked the possibility that the different wiring is a result of different socialisation from birth.

So I was a bit annoyed.

If male and female brains are literally wired differently from birth then you wouldn't have any crossover in what are considered "men's" skills and "women's" skills. The evidence of my eyes and experience tells me that is simply not true.

Is it necessarily a bad thing if we ARE wired differently?

We are so different physically and hormonally that surely it makes sense that we think and feel differently too? We don't fall in love/ lust with the opposite gender simply because of anatomy...doesn't it go beyond that and we feel attracted to other inherent differences too?

Also, are the long pathways in the brain plastic? They may be, but I don't necessarily think all the brain is plastic. My severely autistic son has very limited plasticity of the brain, sadly.

Lastly, isn't there an argument that nature shapes nurture?

Just surmising really.

I am not sure it would be bad if we were 'wired' differently. But humans aren't 'wired' at all.

Nor do humans lust necessarily lust after the opposite sex.

When I see a media report implying or stating the contrary, I have to wonder what their vested interest is, because they must know they are over-simplifying at best and falsifying at worst.

(Delete duplicate 'lusts' there. Clearly I am either fixated on sex in a traditionally masculine fashion, or I am a crap typist.)

googly thinking about what you said "We don't fall in love/ lust with the opposite gender simply because of anatomy" - do you mean gender or sex? And of course lots of people don't fall in love with the opposite gender or sex. And homosexuality aside, some people fall in love with people of the same sex but opposite gender, and some people fall in love with people of the opposite sex but the same gender.

This sort of thing goes back to a gender binary which I personally feel is narrow and limiting.

If it is a FACT that people born with female genitalia are "wired" for empathy and people born with male genitalia are "wired" for spacial awareness then where does that leave people with male genitalia who want to work in caring roles and people with female genitalia who want to be black cab drivers, for example? Does it mean they shouldn't be allowed to do it as they will never be able to do it terribly well as their brain is wrong for it? Does it mean that those people have brains of one sex and bodies of another and maybe surgery is required to reconcile the two? Where does it all leave us? With the same two tiny little boxes that we've had since time immemorial which has resulted in an awful lot of desperation and grief for the many many people who do not fit into their assigned boxes.

Interesting review here www.jpehs.co.uk/2013/12/03/brain-scans-prove-there-is-no-difference-between-male-and-female-brains/

Also (and thinking some more) I have to say that from my perspective the reason I fancy men rather than women is because I like their bodies. Take bodies out of the equation and you have a person who you may like / get on with or you may not. The difference is the body, and I like ones with male genitals and big hard muscles. I imagine that many men would also take issue with the idea that the person's physical sex has nothing to do with physical attraction - whether they are straight or gay. When people get aroused by looking at pictures of others, there is nothing there except the external sexual characteristics and physique.

I am not sure what other "inherent" differences you are talking about. It would be interesting to hear further on that, although I will probably just disagree with you

Oooh good article MK5BM3

Ok, I have found the full article.

They begin by saying they're working backwards from studies showing what men and women are better at, and trying to explain why. They claim their study finds (looking at people aged 8-22) that males brains [at this age - that's my interpolation!] were 'structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analysed and intuitive processing modes'.

I can't help pausing to notice that their language is deeply dodgy here. Male brains are 'structured', but female brains are 'designed'. As a historian/lit type, I will point out that this is buying into a hugely misogynistic stereotype whereby male characteristics are the default, but women are 'designed' or 'shaped', as if we're Ikea flatpack versions.

To be entirely fair, later in the article the reverse the terminology, but this bugged me. I don't understand why 'designed' is an appropriate term in this context. But then I am a humble arts student and a woman at that.

They are drawing on studies done on tiny samples (just over a hundred) and apparently belive their study (only just over a thousand, men and women included) is 'large scale'. They don't mention the social background of participants, but (rather disturbingly IMO, as it indicates circular logic), they do mention 'race'. Apparently, they chose participants of different races (Caucasian, Hispanic, 'mixed', etc.). They do not comment on social factors.

I think their findings are interesting, and I do see that the media have jumped on them and made them look more dubious than they might have done. But it's made clear in the article they are looking at people who've been exposed to social conditioning for years if not decades, so it's mostly interesting as a study of differences that seem to exist in a population, and doesn't really say a lot about what might be innate.

Ah, I witter on and miss nice's brilliant point.

I totally agree. What is the point of categorizing people into little boxed that will only harm them?

All I can say is that I am wildly skeptical about studies that report significant 'hard-wired' differences in neural function between men and women. None of the ones I have seen from my own field seem convincing to me. Remember there is a publication bias against experiments that demonstrate a null hypothesis ...

If 'females have superior memory and social cognition skills' then why are the vast majority of memory champions male?

How the full article break down the numbers, LRD? Do they work out an average level of the relevant type of connectors in male versus female brains, or what?

They looked at the different kinds of connection between different areas of the brain, basically.

Basically they claimed that men's brains connect better across the hemispheres, whereas women have stronger connections within the hemispheres. I can send you the PDF if you want specific numbers but it'll take me ages to quote them because my own brain is spectacularly fucked in that area. Sorry!

Actually I'd love the PDF if it's no trouble. Will message you.

LunaticFringe that is an excellent point.

The press in our country of course work very hard to prop up the institution of gender, even ones like the BBC and the Independent, and that is troubling.

Yes indeed Tabard. And the reports of these sort of studies just regurgitate the press releases with no critical input whatsoever.