~ archived since 2018 ~

Equal ≠ The Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain

ThePoliticalHat

April 18, 2014

13 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2014/Equal_≠_The_Same__Sex_Differences_in_the_Human_Brain/

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Equal ≠ The Same: Sex Differences in the Human Brain
Author	ThePoliticalHat
Upvotes	13
Comments	17
Date	April 18, 2014 4:37 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/23d7uh/equal_the_same_sex_differences_in_the_human_brain/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/equal-the-same-sex-differences-in-the-human-brain.1001548 https://theredarchive.com/post/1001548

Comments

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Well, it's complexity of the whole brain that matters when it comes to smarts. Eg: Elephants and whales have bigger brains than humans, but they're not smarter. Not saying size doesn't yield differences, or that it doesn't impact number of neurons available, just that size differences may produce different outcomes than one may first think.

I'm interested as to the other effects that size differences might cause. Neurotransmitter chemicals present at a synapse must be cleared away before that site can become active again, so more room would tend to allow more fluid to help clear the sites sooner and allow faster firing of a neuron. Slower cleared synapses could allow higher neuron action potentials to accumulate before firing off and cascading. Due to the inverse square law of EM fields even slightly closer packed neurons can become excited by the brain-wave eddy currents more easily; Perhaps yielding a more excitable, distributed or active neural pattern whereas a larger brain may yield similar degree of intelligence given approximately same neuron counts but more focused or deliberate thinking due to higher reliance (less interference) upon the physical axon connections.

In my simulated neural networks these differences can yield an array of interesting cognitive effects, from using more of the brain to compute a problem at once to more localized and specialized problem solving. Sometimes small tweaks to such characteristics in my simulations that size or brain hormone chemistry may affect in real brains yields different problem solving methods. Differentiation is very evolutionarily advantageous, thus why we even have sexual dimorphism in the first place (greater genetic diversity, and thus protection of some part of a populace from certain viruses). I look forward to much more research in this area.

The difference in size and cognitive wiring of brains, along with observable cross cultural personality differences between the sexes, and our new brain imaging capabilities stand poised to yield ever clearer insight into the way men and women think... It would be great to acknowledge and celebrate the advantages of our sex differences, if we could just get feminists to stop silencing such research.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]LadySerenity 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Well the context most people use "equal" in is that one sex is not better than the other.

It's undeniable that men and women are different. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately, we are far more alike than different - as we're all humans.

There are a lot of differences between the rich and the poor - even down to the way they think. Does that mean one is better than the other or were they just born to cultures that placed different opportunities and expectations on them?

Men and women differ by one chromosome. The testosterone in males makes everything develop a little differently in men.

Men generally develop to be bigger, stronger, hairier, and more aggressive than women. Obviously genitals develop differently. There are also differences in the way men and women process information.

Women develop to be smaller, weaker, less hairy and less aggressive than men. They develop breasts, small waists, wide hips, and several more subtle differences to visually display their health and fertility. Women also have higher pain tolerance and can see colors better.

And I mean, I think these differences are awesome, but in the end, we're all human and us such we all share undeniably human traits. Men and women have a highly similar, if not equal capacity to be intelligent, to make discoveries, to accomplish things, and to be great or terrible people.

I'm sure its easy to look at the elite - politicians, business executives, top-earning doctors, renowned scientists... and think "Wow. There are a lot more guys here. Maybe that means men are better." But when you look closer, you will find a lot of social roadblocks holding women back or urging them to choose different life paths. This is also true for African Americans and other minorities in our society.

Yes, I know that men have difficulty in certain women-dominated fields and in other areas like child custody in divorce cases. I'm looking at this subreddit to get better perspective on these issues, honestly.

I can't say if one sex is better. All I can say is that such a discussion can wait until there are more equal opportunities available to women and minorities, as well as more scientific discoveries like the ones this article mentioned.

[–]xNOM 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

All I can say is that such a discussion can wait until there are more equal opportunities available to women and minorities

Considering that such equal opportunity has been fully available for over three decades, I would suggest you rethink things a bit. First, that women's and men's bodies are very different, and brains are not immune to sexual dimorphism -- they're even bathed in different hormone soups. So, consider that women and minorities ALREADY HAVE equal opportunity and that women and men may just be more free to choose what fields they want to work in, because more egalitarian societies yield greater behavioral sex differences. The gap in STEM fields could be because in silicon valley you're considered dead at age 40, seriously, that's a DUMB career choice for anyone, especially those who take any time out at all for social life or family (which more extroverted females just might do, while more introverted and risk taking males may chance anyway). 40's right at the age many folks will still be raising a family. Kind of stupid to do STEM work since mathematicians and scientists scrap for funding living life one grant to another, and have high churn rates, just like IT/CS. Engineering is OK, but the market is saturated (there is no shortage of STEM workers) because corporations just want to drive down worker wages and employ more H1B visa employees and outsource.

IMO, it's no wonder more women want to work in a slightly lower pay but more stable, people oriented and family friendly environment, especially when you factor in the expense of continued education required of STEM workers frequently on their own dime to keep up with the fast changing and competitive tech environment. I WOULD OPT OUT OF STEM TOO... if I weren't socially awkward, reclusive, and prone to stay up night and day neglecting to do basic home maintenance or even sleep because I'm driven to create software only a hand full of grateful people will ever use (that's what I find "fun").

Not that I don't have great respect for the capability of female hackers, just that there are less of them. It's OK to acknowledge that sexual dimorphism will produce trends in the graph of preferences. We can accept that men and women are different in general, while ALSO allowing opportunity for those outliers to be different and not follow the graph if they don't want to.

As for the pain tolerance, there are different kinds of pain. Women tend to be better at enduring long lasting pain, while men are better at coping with shorter and more severe pain: The difference between child birth and hand to hand combat.

when you look closer, you will find a lot of social roadblocks holding women back or urging them to choose different life paths.

Nope. Sorry. That's an unproven claim. Where is the ONE STUDY, just ONE FLIPPING STUDY that shows the degrees of enjoyment women and men get out of doing a job -- Not just whether they THINK they'll enjoy a job, but what they actually enjoy doing.

I wouldn't jump the gun and start calling everyone racists because there are so many white people everywhere. The USA is 77% white, and terms like "sexist", "racist", or "anti-semetic" are VILE career ending labels, not to be bandied about lightly. You had better have some extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim. If you think there are actually sexist or racist things holding women and minorities back that aren't holding men and majorities back as well (poverty is blind), then you have not looked hard enough. Sorry. You haven't.

How's this for being held back: A poor black girl can get special grants for females and minorities to assist her in education and in starting a business. A poor white boy can not, only due to the color of his skin and sex. Now who's being held back? Shouldn't we just get rid of sexist and racist government programs and assist any individual who needs help regardless of race, creed, or sex?

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]LadySerenity 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LadySerenity 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well the context most people use "equal" in is that one sex is not better than the other.

But one sex is better than the other in many areas of human experience.

but ultimately, we are far more alike than different - as we're all humans.

And cats and dogs are all mammals, so they're more alike than different?

Men and women have a highly similar, if not equal capacity to be intelligent

Nope, not even close. While men and women have the same average intelligence, men have a larger standard deviation than women do. As such, those who are very bright or very dumb are much more likely to be men than women. IQs of 120+ are 2:1 men and IQs of 170+ are 30:1 men.

I'm sure its easy to look at the elite - politicians, business executives, top-earning doctors, renowned scientists... and think "Wow. There are a lot more guys here. Maybe that means men are better."

Men are not better, but those who are better are much more likely to be men.

But when you look closer, you will find a lot of social roadblocks holding women back

Nope. That's where the argument falls apart entirely. Men and women are fundamentally different. It's not that women are held back, it's that the best are so much more likely men that the new fields were built by men upholding to male ideals. Because men created these new fields in their own ideals, of course women don't fit in as well as men do: because women are not men. Women don't think the same way as men.

It's not a "social roadblock" it is that men created things. Men, thinking in male ways, created things because those at the top to create said things were men. So women, and women's way of thinking doesn't fit as well into the system and flooding those fields with women changes the system and causes it to fall apart.

I can't say if one sex is better.

One sex is better, depending on the goal. If you want to build society, you want men. But if you want to influence and reward men in order to get them to build society, you need women. And women have decided "fuck that, we want to be like men... but not really cuz we want male fields to change to be more female friendly" they've fallen down on their role, disincentivizing men, and leading to the decline of our society.

[–]LadySerenity -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

And cats and dogs are all mammals, so they're more alike than different?

Cats and dogs are different species. Hell, they're from a different Family. Men and women are of the same species.

Nope, not even close. While men and women have the same average intelligence, men have a larger standard deviation than women do. As such, those who are very bright or very dumb are much more likely to be men than women. IQs of 120+ are 2:1 men and IQs of 170+ are 30:1 men.

Have you considered that there must be social factors influencing this? Women who want to go into male-dominated fields are discouraged from early childhood on, being told that they should go into more feminine fields or stay home and raise kids. Even now that our culture is becoming less restrictive, this holds true.

At a certain point, even the peers of young girls will make fun of them for getting good grades "Wow what a nerd." Girls are often pressured to focus on making friends and focusing on their appearances at the age when they should be studying.

Even once a woman has graduated college and established herself in field, she will have an enormous social pressure from friends, family and even strangers that she needs to stop and make babies sometime soon before she gets too old.

Men for the most part aren't faced with that pressure. If a man wants to devote his life to studying and creating without ever taking a wife or having children, people will look at him weird, but let him be for the most part.

Haven't you heard of nature vs. nurture? Most psychologists and sociologists agree that both nature and nurture affect how an individual will develop.

Men are not better, but those who are better are much more likely to be men.

I already said it. Men, particularly white men, have a much easier time climbing ladders than women or minorities do. A female scientist has to do twice the work of a male in the same field to get the same level of recognition as him. I would imagine males from minority groups face similar issues.

If a white boy says "I want to be a scientist some day." people say "Okay. Follow your dreams!"

If a black boy says it, people say "Are you sure you don't want to be an athlete?"

If a girl says it, people respond with "Are you sure you don't want to be a science teacher instead?"

Here are words on that from Neil Fucking DeGrasse Tyson himself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEeBPSvcNZQ#t=3692

Because men created these new fields in their own ideals, of course women don't fit in as well as men do: because women are not men. Women don't think the same way as men. It's not a "social roadblock" it is that men created things. Men, thinking in male ways, created things because those at the top to create said things were men.

I hope you realize you just contradicted yourself. You said it yourself, all of these fields are male-dominated; they were created by men.

Historically, men have taken great measures to block women out and keep them in their place, even going as far as writing that women are property in religious texts.

If you honestly think these industries were all created by men because men are better, then you clearly have a very narrow worldview. They were created by men because women were too busy being systematically suppressed and told to stay in the kitchen to create anything themselves.

So women, and women's way of thinking doesn't fit as well into the system and flooding those fields with women changes the system and causes it to fall apart.

And you're basing this claim off of what exactly...?

If you want to build society, you want men. But if you want to influence and reward men in order to get them to build society, you need women.

This commentary seems to be heading very far into the realm of opinion. There have been women throughout history who made an impact somehow or did things to build society:

Clara Barton - founder of theAmerican Red Cross
Cleopatra
Elizabeth Blackwell - founder of the first Medical School for women
Marie Curie - won two fucking nobel prizes and made several huge advancements in Chemistry

I could list more, but this reply is getting really long.

And women have decided "fuck that, we want to be like men... but not really cuz we want male fields to change to be more female friendly"

First of all, nice Strawman Fallacy. It was really cute how when imitating a woman, you abandoned grammar and even went as far as to use "cuz" in place of "because".

Second, we don't want fields to change and be more "female-friendly", we just want to be able to pursue jobs in the fields of our choice without facing sex-based discrimination or a glass ceiling.

they've fallen down on their role, disincentivizing men, and leading to the decline of our society.

Really? You think women are only good for giving men an incentive to work or make advances in the world? You really think having women in the workplace is going to cause our society to decline because men won't have enough incentive to work?

I'm not even going to give an explanation as to how full of shit that statement is.

Finally, I have never in my life said this, but Jesus Christ... You are the textbook definition of a misogynist and a chauvinistic pig.

Tl;dr: Your claims are nearly all biased and unsubstantiated, and eventually devolved into pure opinion and bigotry. Furthermore, fuck you.

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Cats and dogs are different species. Hell, they're from a different Family. Men and women are of the same species.

So? I can still wrap cats and dogs under a larger heading (mammals) so why aren't they more alike than different. It's the same logic you are using.

Have you considered that there must be social factors influencing this?

No, because there isn't. You will find in all mammalian species that the males have larger standard deviations than females for every measurable trait. TL;DR: Mother nature was too smart to waste reproductive potential on environment testing.

I already said it. Men, particularly white men, have a much easier time climbing ladders than women or minorities do.

Bullshit. That's nothing more than the apex fallacy.

I hope you realize you just contradicted yourself. You said it yourself, all of these fields are male-dominated; they were created by men.

Nope. I understand how you think I did, but I didn't. Women can advance just as well in male dominated fields as long as they are willing to fit in and think and act like men. But most don't. They, like you, think that the fields have to change to suit them, and then wonder why they have such a hard time.

If you honestly think these industries were all created by men because men are better, then you clearly have a very narrow worldview.

Nope. I think industries were created by men because of those who are better there are more men than women. And that's reality, rather than the androgynous fantasies you are pushing.

This commentary seems to be heading very far into the realm of opinion.

Nope. It's demonstrated fact. But it's politically incorrect, so that's why you've likely never heard it. Read "Is There Anything Good About Men" by Baumeister and "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin. They'll teach you the politically incorrect reality from which you've been shielded.

Second, we don't want fields to change and be more "female-friendly"

Bullshit you don't. Google "Metroacrcy of Github" and get back to reality.

Your claims are nearly all biased and unsubstantiated

You wish they were, but they backed by research and reality.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link