Wonderings about brains and being good at things.

[Ozziegirly]

Following on from the very interesting thread on fewer girls doing A Level Physics than boys, it made me wonder, are there some actual proper built in differences between boys' and girls' brains which make more boys interested in maths/science etc and girls more interested in languages/english etc?

Or does it come down purely to social conditioning from an early age?

Because there seems to be a received wisdom that "girls talk earlier and better, and boys do the physical stuff earlier and better", suggesting that their brains are different, or at least learn differently. I know we can all point to individuals where this doesn't apply, in the same way that we can point to women who are scientists or computer programmers, and men who are midwives and carers, but I'm more talking about the majority, rather than the minority.

So, what do you think? Nature or nurture or a a combination of both?

And if so, I suspect my next question would be; if there are these differences, does it matter if fewer girls are doing physics - so long as the ones who are able and interested are able to do so. If the statistic was turned around and showed that "1/2 of state schools have no boys studying French", would we express the same concern?

Experimental social psychology does exist but is open to much criticism - in main that it's values are too Wesrern white make, based on a model of z human being as a rational information processor with inputs and outputs. The fact is that the kind of experimental results you get, depend on the questions you aka and then how you interpret that data.

I was very cynical about phenomenology, critical social psychology and social psychoanalytic theory but when I studied it, I found that it had do much to offer science of social psychology.

I think the work being done usjng qualitative measures is significant, Potter and Wetherell etc, not only in social psych but also in child development.

Also - I was taught to use the methodology which fits the question you are asking, surely many researchers use quantitative and qualitative data?

LeggyBlondeNE I went to a single sex boarding school, and I got very good at sports, excellent at sciences, and completely crap with women until my 20s.

I suspect had it not been a boarding school, my science would still have been excellent, sports rubbish but better with women.

Separate classes for girls sounds rubbish, tbh; bit ghetto-ising.

About - the issue of experimental confounds and fitting method to question applies to biological sciences too though. I agree that it's an issue but I don't agree it's unique to social psych. Plenty of neuropsychology is guilty of over-extrapolating (and being phenomenological in my opinion!). Zoology has issues of wild/free populations and 'proto-cultural' variation. I suppose my main point is that you can't look at research which focuses on social factors vs research that focuses on biological factors and assume that the latter is 'better'.

I agree there's some really interesting qual work out there (Potter/Reicher in particular for me) but I know very few people who mix qual and quant. It's what we used to teach at the OU but it's rubbish. Most people in Psychology in the UK at least use quantitative approaches. A minority use qualitative methods, and of those, some mix in numerical stuff too. But I think that's a distraction from the issue really, as gender research in Psychology is heavily quantitative. Can't speak for Sociology of course...!

The problem is, I think, that social psychology falls between two stools - the biological sciences and sociology.

I don't think single sex schools are a good idea at all from a social development point of view. I went to a Catholic girl's school in Ireland and grew up thinking that boys were from another planet, an idea that was reinforced by all the adults around me too. I remember going to university and being a bit giddy at the thought that I was allowed to talk to boys and sit next to them in class and stuff - I didn't really know how to react to be honest. I would say it took until my late 20s until I was actually comfortable working alongside men and chatting with them just as I would a woman. I still feel more comfortable around women.

Some people think that having a sibling of the opposite sex means you're quite clued up and comfortable being around other members of the opposite sex, but I don't think that works IME. My brother was not 'a boy', he was just my brother - I didn't fancy him for a start (!), and he had always been there and we had our own, not always very pleasant, way of interacting with each other. It was totally different to meeting boys/men socially or at work and having to build a relationship from scratch. And totally different again from meeting a boy/man who you fancied - that really was a minefield!

I recently read Baron-Cohen's book and thought it was a pretty crap book. But I say that as one who basically agrees with his approach and acknowledges the emerging science behind it - I just think he did a really bad job of describing it, and devoted far to much of it to cliche and speculation, weakening his credibility.

But the question that always occurs to me is: why would there NOT be differences between the nature of male and female intelligence and what they're most likely to be interested in and good at?

For a start, it's well know that these things are influenced by hormones, and the hormonal make-up of men and women is different. The influence of testosterone on all kinds of mental and emotional factors is well documented, including several references in B-C's book to traits of infant girls with unusually high testosterone levels. Women and men also have different organs, and these organs affect their psychology. No-one can deny that the menstrual cycle, or menopause, for example, affects psychology. So if you have half of humanity subject to a whole different set of physical factors than the other half, of course it will have mental effects.

Furthermore, strong differences of behaviour and functioning within the social group, between males and females, are clear in studies of all kinds of other animals that aren't subject to cultural conditioning. Why would we assume that humans are different? It seems to me those who assume male and female mental and emotional functioning would be the same if it weren't for conditioning, are making as much of an assumption as anyone else. We are comparing things that are different, so there's no more basis for assuming that the level of "innate" difference between them would be 0, than any other number.

As for IQ, the current thinking seems to be that average scores between the genders are about the same - sometimes males score slightly higher, but hardly significantly. However the distribution among males seems to be wider. ie there are more males geniuses and more male idiots (to the extent that such things can be measured by IQ tests anyway, which is debateable).

But the most important thing with all these things is that they're about averages. They don't negate the fact of a full range of intelligence or personality types being found among all genders, races or anything else. Or the rightness of treating people equally and without prejudice so that they can best express their own personal nature.

Fast - you might find Cordelia Fine's book interesting. She talks about the weaknesses of hormonal arguments IIRC.

I don't argue that it's all social FWIW, I argue that we can't know because we have never raised a child without the social.

That's interesting. I do mean to read the Fine book sometime soon.

Haven't read whole thread, but always loved physics as it was very easy and not very labour intensive I.e no essay writing etc. basically I am lazy. Infer what you will about what that says about men/boys (joking!). But in all seriousness, I have always preferred more formulaic, logical subjects. That's the way MY brain works. The fact that I also happen to be female is irrelevant.

Saying that, I am also into more "girly" pursuits such as sewing, cooking etc. perhaps because I don't allow my gender to influence what I "should" be interested in.

I wonder if many really good physicists, applied mathematicians and computer wizzes are just touching the AS spectrum.

DH has an ability to become totally obsessed with a subject and very quickly learn vast numbers of facts about it.

He doesn't seem to need mental down time, he rarely watches films and frequently wanders back to the study, refuses to watch much other TV at all except science Progs.

Reads way way more non fiction than fiction. Doesn't seek out friends. Although he's a very loyal and helpful one.

Simply doesn't get distracted like a normal human being.

He is also very cleaver, he can combine rearrange and use all this stuff, in a way an autistic person could not.

I've met other men who are similar, but never a woman for certain, one of his collages wives I suspect gets close.

Maybe there are more male techies because the obsessive brains occur slightly more often in males.

I wonder if many really good physicists, applied mathematicians and computer wizzes are just touching the AS spectrum.

LOL oh yes, that's why there is a problem with Silicon Valley with rates of Autism increasing.