Take a photo of a barcode or cover
vforvanessa 's review for:
A measured and thorough takedown of the science of “male” vs “female” brains, from the dawn of science to modern neuroscience studies. (Sadly, the latter seem just as prone as the former to massage results to emphasize female inferiority, even when the opposite result is found).
Spoiler: we’re not that different. Once you control for shoddy science and brain size, there aren’t that many differences left - and many of those are shrinking over time (suggesting social rather than biological causes).
Some supposed differences, like men’s superior spatial skills, turn out to be primarily environmental and can be trained (control for time spent playing video games and differences in spatial skill all but disappear). Ladies, play Tetris. It’s good for you.
Other differences vary based on setting and context, like the phenomenon of “stereotype threat”. Tell women that “men normally do better on this task” and watch their performance plummet. (Interestingly the reverse, telling men that women are better at a task, does not have the same effect on their performance.)
This is as much worth reading for the review of sex differences research, as for its broader examination of the ways in which scientific inquiry can fail to be impartial. How studies showing no differences are less likely to publish than ones finding differences (not necessarily for nefarious reasons, but because negative results are boring), how minor numerical differences can be twisted by university publicists or science media into “significant” findings, how studies on mice and hamsters are reported by mainstream media as conclusive evidence that men are more aggressive or women are more nurturing, etc. etc. etc. Take everything with a grain of salt.
Spoiler: we’re not that different. Once you control for shoddy science and brain size, there aren’t that many differences left - and many of those are shrinking over time (suggesting social rather than biological causes).
Some supposed differences, like men’s superior spatial skills, turn out to be primarily environmental and can be trained (control for time spent playing video games and differences in spatial skill all but disappear). Ladies, play Tetris. It’s good for you.
Other differences vary based on setting and context, like the phenomenon of “stereotype threat”. Tell women that “men normally do better on this task” and watch their performance plummet. (Interestingly the reverse, telling men that women are better at a task, does not have the same effect on their performance.)
This is as much worth reading for the review of sex differences research, as for its broader examination of the ways in which scientific inquiry can fail to be impartial. How studies showing no differences are less likely to publish than ones finding differences (not necessarily for nefarious reasons, but because negative results are boring), how minor numerical differences can be twisted by university publicists or science media into “significant” findings, how studies on mice and hamsters are reported by mainstream media as conclusive evidence that men are more aggressive or women are more nurturing, etc. etc. etc. Take everything with a grain of salt.