You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
227 reviews for:
The Gendered Brain: The New Neuroscience That Shatters the Myth of the Female Brain
Gina Rippon
3.85 AVERAGE
227 reviews for:
The Gendered Brain: The New Neuroscience That Shatters the Myth of the Female Brain
Gina Rippon
3.85 AVERAGE
The Gendered Brain is a fascinating feat in popular science writing, and this topic certainly has been a point of discussion in the media especially over the past few years. In The Gendered Brain, neuroscientist Gina Rippon delves deep into the topic of whether or not we actually have 'female brains' and 'male brains' in a scientific sense, and how much of the perceived brain differences actually depend on societal attitudes and performativity of gender.
This book definitely gripped me and gave me lots to think about, but overall I found the structure to be too long and meandering, often repetitive to the point where it was no longer repetitive in an educational sense, but in a more frustrating sense. However, the merit and importance of this book should not be understated, and I do recommend it for everyone even though I feel it could have done with being cut down a bit.
This book definitely gripped me and gave me lots to think about, but overall I found the structure to be too long and meandering, often repetitive to the point where it was no longer repetitive in an educational sense, but in a more frustrating sense. However, the merit and importance of this book should not be understated, and I do recommend it for everyone even though I feel it could have done with being cut down a bit.
This is a tough one to rate for me because, whilst whole heartedly agreeing with it's message and outlook, I didn't realise that's what it was getting at for the majority of the book.
It got off to a bad start when in the introduction it says that because, traditionally, the default pronoun to refer to someone of indeterminate gender (in a study for example) had always been he or s/he at best, then the author was going to redress the balance by using she where possible. When there's perfectly good gender neutral pronouns out there like they/them, this came across as either ignorant, petty, or as biased as previous studies - none of which you want tainting your serious academic information. This isn't helped by 80% of the book seemingly treating gender as a binary and devoting most of its time to proving that there isn't a scientific difference between male and female brains. It came as a genuine shock that in the conclusion the author finally suggests that gender might actually be a spectrum not a binary, and emphasises the danger of a gendered world in reinforcing that. For a message this important to only occur at the end of quite a long book, after being masked under a lot of writing that came across very 'us vs. them,' it does it a real disservice.
Partly it's my own fault for not paying enough attention to the subtitle of the book, and for having too high an expectation that a book on gender in 2019 would start where this one leaves off rather than take 400 pages to get there. It's a shame, because all of that aside, the book is really well written and eloquently conveys a lot of information to thoroughly debunk the female brain myth and the centuries of bias that accompany it.
Maybe my real problem with it is that it's still necessary to retread all of this stuff in a supposedly modern world, but then again looking around in 2019 there's definitely a resurrgence of outdated, unfounded, dangerous ideas. That said, if it managed to make someone who agreed with it's message entirely think it was heavily biased and potentially untrustworthy before revealing its hand, then I don't see it winning over anyone who strongly disagrees with the sentiment.
Ultimately I think it probably comes down to the circles you roll in how much you'll get out of it. If you're still surrounded by people who think men and women are genetically unequal then this book is important and a great resource to gather strength from to demonstrate how maybe they're wrong. If, however, you reached this conclusion a long time ago and are interested in knowing more about the full range of gender and any modern science related to it then is a lot of pages with little reward.
It got off to a bad start when in the introduction it says that because, traditionally, the default pronoun to refer to someone of indeterminate gender (in a study for example) had always been he or s/he at best, then the author was going to redress the balance by using she where possible. When there's perfectly good gender neutral pronouns out there like they/them, this came across as either ignorant, petty, or as biased as previous studies - none of which you want tainting your serious academic information. This isn't helped by 80% of the book seemingly treating gender as a binary and devoting most of its time to proving that there isn't a scientific difference between male and female brains. It came as a genuine shock that in the conclusion the author finally suggests that gender might actually be a spectrum not a binary, and emphasises the danger of a gendered world in reinforcing that. For a message this important to only occur at the end of quite a long book, after being masked under a lot of writing that came across very 'us vs. them,' it does it a real disservice.
Partly it's my own fault for not paying enough attention to the subtitle of the book, and for having too high an expectation that a book on gender in 2019 would start where this one leaves off rather than take 400 pages to get there. It's a shame, because all of that aside, the book is really well written and eloquently conveys a lot of information to thoroughly debunk the female brain myth and the centuries of bias that accompany it.
Maybe my real problem with it is that it's still necessary to retread all of this stuff in a supposedly modern world, but then again looking around in 2019 there's definitely a resurrgence of outdated, unfounded, dangerous ideas. That said, if it managed to make someone who agreed with it's message entirely think it was heavily biased and potentially untrustworthy before revealing its hand, then I don't see it winning over anyone who strongly disagrees with the sentiment.
Ultimately I think it probably comes down to the circles you roll in how much you'll get out of it. If you're still surrounded by people who think men and women are genetically unequal then this book is important and a great resource to gather strength from to demonstrate how maybe they're wrong. If, however, you reached this conclusion a long time ago and are interested in knowing more about the full range of gender and any modern science related to it then is a lot of pages with little reward.
A very interesting subject matter, however let down by the author’s confusing exploration of it! Ripon seems to jump from subtopic to subtopic, without logically bridging the gap between them.
Although the book gives a thorough overview of the case for and against a gendered brain, in some areas it fails to acknowledge the role of other factors. For example, when highlighting a study which shows similar oestradiol and testosterone levels in women and men, Ripon makes no mention of the fact that women have more oestrogen receptors than men, making them more susceptible to the effects of oestrodiol than men.
Overall, informative but unnecessarily complex.
Although the book gives a thorough overview of the case for and against a gendered brain, in some areas it fails to acknowledge the role of other factors. For example, when highlighting a study which shows similar oestradiol and testosterone levels in women and men, Ripon makes no mention of the fact that women have more oestrogen receptors than men, making them more susceptible to the effects of oestrodiol than men.
Overall, informative but unnecessarily complex.
ma ei saa anda üle kolme tärni raamatule, mille lugemine võttis mul aega üle üheksa kuu - ilmselgelt NII haarav ei olnud. aga huvitav ja vajalik oli küll ja kuskiltmaalt alates teadusest lugemine nõuabki veidi rohkem jõupingutust. täiendus: ei, ma ikkagi annan neli, sest see kolm jäi mind piinama ja tundsin, et raamat väärib enamat.
siin võetakse süstemaatiliselt ette kogu teaduse ajaloo jooksul tehtud uuringud, mis on püüdnud välja selgitada, kas ja miks on meeste ja naiste ajud bioloogilises mõttes erinevad. selliseid uuringuid on tehtud kohutavalt palju ja väga erineval moel, alates kranioloogiast ja haavlite abil koljumahu mõõtmisest, lõpetades MRI uuringutega. ja siis analüüsib Rippon, kas need tegelikult ka mingi hea teadus olid ja kas nende tulemusi (mis enamasti leiavad erinevusi) tasub uskuda. kiire vastus: pigem ei. küll on lihtsalt olnud tegu pseudoteadustega (vt ka: kranioloogia), küll on valimid olnud väiksed või kallutatud, küll tulemusi "cherrypickitud" või lihtsalt oma maitse järgi ümber sõnastatud, küll jäetud olulised kontrollmuutujad (nt aju maht) arvesse võtmata, küll nimetatud kokkuvõttes suurteks ja tähtsateks erinevusi, mis on statistilises mõttes kaduvväiksed (aa, ja lisaks see, kuidas statistiline olulisus ja olulisus pärismaailmas on ka kaks eri asja)... küll lihtsalt teadusuuringute tulemusi ajakirjanduses valesti kajastatud ja seega müüte taastoodetud.
mõned uuringud on ikka vettpidavalt ka tehtud. aga siis räägib Rippon veel palju ja huvitavalt aju plastilisusest ja sotsiaalsusest, ja kuidas nende kombinatsioonina soostereotüübid päriselt ka inimeste ajudes muutusi esile kutsuvad. ja sellest, et enamus tavaliselt sooerinevusteks peetud omadusi (ruumiline mõtlemine nt) on harjutatavad ja et sõltuvalt juba kasvõi hobidest harjutavad mõned inimesed neid rohkem. aga seda pole meeste ja naiste ajude erinevuste uurijad ikkagi arvesse võtnud ja nii võidavad ruumilise mõtlemise testis need, kes mängivad rohkem arvutimänge, ainult et seda juhtumisi teevad mehed rohkem. näiteks.
ajude võimalikke sooerinevusi ta otseselt ei eita, lihtsalt näitab, et midagi sisuliselt tõestatut, mida tõesti saaks kaasasündinuks pidada, ei ole kokkuvõttes (veel) ette näidata (nii vähe, kui vastsündinuid on uuritud, pole soopõhiseid vahesid leitud, kuni muu teadus korralikult tehtud on).
siin võetakse süstemaatiliselt ette kogu teaduse ajaloo jooksul tehtud uuringud, mis on püüdnud välja selgitada, kas ja miks on meeste ja naiste ajud bioloogilises mõttes erinevad. selliseid uuringuid on tehtud kohutavalt palju ja väga erineval moel, alates kranioloogiast ja haavlite abil koljumahu mõõtmisest, lõpetades MRI uuringutega. ja siis analüüsib Rippon, kas need tegelikult ka mingi hea teadus olid ja kas nende tulemusi (mis enamasti leiavad erinevusi) tasub uskuda. kiire vastus: pigem ei. küll on lihtsalt olnud tegu pseudoteadustega (vt ka: kranioloogia), küll on valimid olnud väiksed või kallutatud, küll tulemusi "cherrypickitud" või lihtsalt oma maitse järgi ümber sõnastatud, küll jäetud olulised kontrollmuutujad (nt aju maht) arvesse võtmata, küll nimetatud kokkuvõttes suurteks ja tähtsateks erinevusi, mis on statistilises mõttes kaduvväiksed (aa, ja lisaks see, kuidas statistiline olulisus ja olulisus pärismaailmas on ka kaks eri asja)... küll lihtsalt teadusuuringute tulemusi ajakirjanduses valesti kajastatud ja seega müüte taastoodetud.
mõned uuringud on ikka vettpidavalt ka tehtud. aga siis räägib Rippon veel palju ja huvitavalt aju plastilisusest ja sotsiaalsusest, ja kuidas nende kombinatsioonina soostereotüübid päriselt ka inimeste ajudes muutusi esile kutsuvad. ja sellest, et enamus tavaliselt sooerinevusteks peetud omadusi (ruumiline mõtlemine nt) on harjutatavad ja et sõltuvalt juba kasvõi hobidest harjutavad mõned inimesed neid rohkem. aga seda pole meeste ja naiste ajude erinevuste uurijad ikkagi arvesse võtnud ja nii võidavad ruumilise mõtlemise testis need, kes mängivad rohkem arvutimänge, ainult et seda juhtumisi teevad mehed rohkem. näiteks.
ajude võimalikke sooerinevusi ta otseselt ei eita, lihtsalt näitab, et midagi sisuliselt tõestatut, mida tõesti saaks kaasasündinuks pidada, ei ole kokkuvõttes (veel) ette näidata (nii vähe, kui vastsündinuid on uuritud, pole soopõhiseid vahesid leitud, kuni muu teadus korralikult tehtud on).
I can't finish this one. It has definitely helped to dispel myths regarding the differences between "male" and "female" brains. That being said, the ordering of the chapters seems backwards and the text is so dry it might as well be a textbook. Each chapter, while focusing on an interesting topic, seems to beat a dead horse. There's only so much I want to hear about pink and blue toys before I am burnt out on the topic.
I had to tap out once I realized chapter 10 is about the scientific method of accurate studies. This is many, many chapters after discussing how many of the so-called published studies had very small variances or very small sample sizes and should not be considered fact. This chapter should have come first or not been included at all.
I had to tap out once I realized chapter 10 is about the scientific method of accurate studies. This is many, many chapters after discussing how many of the so-called published studies had very small variances or very small sample sizes and should not be considered fact. This chapter should have come first or not been included at all.
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
informative
slow-paced
'The Gendered Brain’ focuses on ‘shattering the myth of the female brain’, but really it’s about dismantling all myths/psychobabble/neurobullshit/etc. relating to the role of sex (and gender, and all the many crossovers)
I loved this read. It was thorough, analysing and criticising methods and perspectives from as far back as some of the origins of such [mis]conceptions. Allowing for both the ‘hard’ science of biological contributors, and the role of environment, social influence- ‘softer’ scientific arguments. Both are equally important (well, debatable, but we move) and Rippon discussed both in great detail, referencing and critiquing relevant studies when applicable.
The breadth, and in times depth, covered by ‘The Gendered Brain’ made for a fascinating read the entire way through- providing what feels like quite the comprehensive report on gender bias, beliefs, and the impact on each respective sex. It covers the science, the life impact, and everything inbetween. It really makes you think and ruminate, even after you've finished reading.
Admittedly, there were times I felt I’d heard some of this before, or that it could do with less explaining- which is how I get to the only criticism I really had for this book: the target audience feels somewhat unclear.
On one hand, the language used and terms references are specific to certain fields of study (scientific in nature) and aren’t explained in enough detail for the layperson- however, enough explanatory detail is given in other circumstances that would feel unnecessary for a target reader who is studied in a relevant subject. As such, a middle ground is established where the explanations can feel like either too much or too little.
In spite of this, it still makes for a brilliant read that unpicks many common gender-difference misconceptions, and explains how these beliefs and ‘findings’ came about. Balanced, yet with clear direction and argument (supported thoroughly by the science) I’d recommend this, but as long as you have an interest in the subject!
I loved this read. It was thorough, analysing and criticising methods and perspectives from as far back as some of the origins of such [mis]conceptions. Allowing for both the ‘hard’ science of biological contributors, and the role of environment, social influence- ‘softer’ scientific arguments. Both are equally important (well, debatable, but we move) and Rippon discussed both in great detail, referencing and critiquing relevant studies when applicable.
The breadth, and in times depth, covered by ‘The Gendered Brain’ made for a fascinating read the entire way through- providing what feels like quite the comprehensive report on gender bias, beliefs, and the impact on each respective sex. It covers the science, the life impact, and everything inbetween. It really makes you think and ruminate, even after you've finished reading.
Admittedly, there were times I felt I’d heard some of this before, or that it could do with less explaining- which is how I get to the only criticism I really had for this book: the target audience feels somewhat unclear.
On one hand, the language used and terms references are specific to certain fields of study (scientific in nature) and aren’t explained in enough detail for the layperson- however, enough explanatory detail is given in other circumstances that would feel unnecessary for a target reader who is studied in a relevant subject. As such, a middle ground is established where the explanations can feel like either too much or too little.
In spite of this, it still makes for a brilliant read that unpicks many common gender-difference misconceptions, and explains how these beliefs and ‘findings’ came about. Balanced, yet with clear direction and argument (supported thoroughly by the science) I’d recommend this, but as long as you have an interest in the subject!
informative
medium-paced
Excellent. Particularly good at eviscerating crappy studies, patiently pulling them apart and explaining why their conclusions are a load of rubbish. The title was quite clever - the core argument of the book being that there's no real evidence for hardwired, innate biological differences between male and female brains, but what IS demonstrated over and over is that brain plasticity means brains are "gendered" by the highly gendered world in which they develop and exist. i.e. whatever differences that can be found between male and female brains are often far better explained by gender-differentiated factors in upbringing etc., e.g. playing tetris or similar spatial problem-solving games. Rippon dug into a lot of the complexity around the way that attitudes and expectations influence abilities. Very young children have well-developed social perception are highly attuned to parental disaproval in particular, e.g. little boys will pick up on their dad's discomfort with them wearing a princess dress even if the dad doesn't say anything negative (and if asked would say he's fine with it). I think Rippon referred to children as "expert gender detectives" or something similar. I found the discussion around women in STEM particularly interesting and useful because it articulated and backed up a lot of the things that I had long thought/suspected but not been able to express as clearly or succinctly; the complex layering of factors from the types of toys young children play with, the association of maths and science with "genius", early beliefs about boys' vs girls' likelihood of being geniuses, and teachers' biases all feeding into maths anxiety in girls, then coupled with visibility of clear existing gender imbalance and blatantly hostile work/study environments... It's a hell of a lot more complicated than just needing to encourage more girls to do science.
adventurous
challenging
informative
slow-paced