Here's a short video on YouTube about the topic of male and female brains.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Ene-femjvI

Excuse me, but women are not stupid enough to think that cars and copy machines have feelings and thoughts; this is a ridiculous and false example. And, the differences between men and women in mathematical abilities are statistically significant but VERY small.

Additionally, our socialization for god knows how many centuries has been that women are inferior in logic, science, mathematics, etc. While none of this is true, we see these stereotypes manifest themselves in self-fulfilling prophecies and in the phenomenon called "stereotype threat." As many meta-analyses have shown, the majority of psychological differences between the sexes are very small.

In fact, while men are better at mental rotation of objects than women are, women are better at computation. So in some specific aspects of mathematics, one sex beats out the other. It is not a black-and-white situation of "men are better at math than women." Please stop taking tiny bits of information and turning them into huge generalizations. This is how stereotypes are maintained.

You are relying far too much on evolutionary psychology. The field is useful and important, but it is contrived completely through retrospect (we see a "characteristic" and decide what it means and why it benefited survival), and it does not provide a full picture of psychology. You need to consider the powerful effects of socialization as well. Put more thought into your next posting, please.

From the comment above...

>>
It is not a black-and-white situation of "men are better at math than women." Please stop taking tiny bits of information and turning them into huge generalizations. This is how stereotypes are maintained.
>>

Men are taller than women. Whoops... guess I shouldn't have said that, cuz the folks are unable to understand what a generalization is.

>>
You are relying far too much on evolutionary psychology. The field is useful and important, but it is contrived completely through retrospect
>>

To the contrary, evolutionary theory predicted sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations regarding events that trigger jealousy before the data supporting the hypothesis was collected.

Perhaps you should "...put more thought into your next posting, please."

This post gives your opinions, without a shred of data or evidence to back anything up, so why waste time writing it? I can get half-baked speculations from my grandson, and they'll be better because he isn't a misogynistic pompous blowhard.

I apologize for the name-calling. Better to say, in my opinion the post is misogynistic and arrogant, as are many others by this author.

this is very interesting and makes a lot of sense. thanks for this article...

What's wrong with generalizing everything? If evolution created us, I would think it explains every facet of human behavior except for behaviors that arise out of imperfections in the system or competing interests that create erratic results.

Before talking about the of integrating all fields of psychology for the optimal result, it might be helpful to take a look at the evolution of psychology itself. I wouldn't be mixing in any Freud into that the final mix. Nor would I be letting babies scream in their cribs through the night. And it seems to me that one specialization is better than another when you can ask why, and get another answer underneath. Ask why again, get another answer under that. And keep asking why until you get to the very bottom. Evolutionary psychology answers everything down to the atom, which is far more than most other fields in psychology can say.

I had a Christian roommate, and over dinner asked him to find one thing humans do that can't be explained away in terms of evolutionary drive. He got so exasperated at the end, that his final complaint for the evening was that the theory must be too general because it explains everything. I responded that that just makes it a good theory.

And I think I get you when you're talking about socialization. But isn't that just an extension of evolutionary psychology? Our emotions, tendencies, and instincts are the hardware, our culture is the software, and the latter is inextricably tied and subservient to the fore? Sure there's a bazillion cultures, that could trap men in woman in their respective roles by way of belief in stereotypes. But I suspect as studies continue in this relatively new thrust in psychology, it will show that whatever code is written for that software will by and large take a form that serves the evolutionary goals of those emotions, tendencies and instincts from an individual and a collective action standpoint.

And true, women are just as good at math and science as men. I went to an all engineering school, worked as an engineer in four different countries, and can say so from experience. Also I do take note of the fact that women tend to score better in math than men, until they hit puberty (which it's interesting that the decline in interest in the field occurs once sex hormones kick in no?). But I can say for certain that women gravitate naturally to empathic careers while men go straight for the more systematic analytical careers. So I might get in trouble for twisting the bloggers words but perhaps he's not observing the capabilities of men and women so much as the path they are driven to travel down. If you disagree, I would ask that you provide a significant list of countries where woman pursue majority of technical careers, and men pursue the majority of empathic careers.

I would ignore this if you don't think the Economist is a respectable journal, but...

Men and women average the same intelligence. But men have more outliers, i.e. both more bricks and shining stars than women. The distribution of female intelligence is more concentrated around the middle of their curve.

I seems that would result in the male side as a whole having more people who can make fundamental advances is math and science, but also more people sitting on death row (as the average intelligence for that crowd is extraordinarily low).

I'm not exactly sure why such conclusions would create insult. Studies of women in corporations show them as better team builders, which is surely an advantage stemming from empathic abilities, and women are marching into college at an ever higher ratio than men. I suspect there's an evolutionary psychology reason for that too.

Finally, whatever the current state of evolution is, means nothing for the future. For all we know the next trend could be women getting high dollar educations so they can raise children comfortably on their own, giving them the opportunity to pick the best male genes without having to worry about depending on anyone else for their survival. A couple generations later, that will be what you see the blogger generalizing on his website. The very nature of the science is that what is concrete now, can so easily be swept away by the next waive of sexual selection, which is where women, by the way, are the ones calling the shots.

The author may be generalizing and stereotyping, but it seems the others commenting on here are the ones drawing the conclusion that somehow his ideas equate to one gender being better than the other.

The annual meeting of the "You Have To Listen To Experience" Club is now in
session. Our Achievement Awards this year are in the fields of publishing,
advertising and industry. For best consistent contribution in the field of
publishing our award goes to editor, R.L.K., <>..] for his unrivalled alle-
giance without variation to the statement: "Personally I'd love to do it,
we'd ALL love to do it. But we're not going to do it. It's not the kind of
book our house knows how to handle." Our superior performance award in the
field of advertising goes to media executive, E.L.M., <>..] for the continu-
ally creative use of the old favorite: "I think what you've got here could be
very exciting. Why not give it one more try based on the approach I've out-
lined and see if you can come up with something fresh." Our final award for
courageous holding action in the field of industry goes to supervisor, R.S.,
<>..] for her unyielding grip on "I don't care if they fire me, I've been
arguing for a new approach for YEARS but are we SURE that this is the right
time--" I would like to conclude this meeting with a verse written specially
for our prospectus by our founding president fifty years ago -- and now, as
then, fully expressive of the emotion most close to all our hearts --
Treat freshness as a youthful quirk,
And dare not stray to ideas new,
For if t'were tried they might e'en work
And for a living what woulds't we do?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://blurty.com/users/arturocaseygq

Feminist thought is irrational and based on ego. They have harmed our society, families, and most importantly the education system. Many of their beliefs are extremely harmful to an individuals pursuit of happiness, as they try to change who we are. Mens brains work differently from womens. They are not better or worse, just different, but in point of fact, very different. Never let a feminist engage you in discussion. Dismiss their value-system as archaic and primitive and move on.

An idea: The human psyche is a define system that can be broken down and analyzed. The result of the analysis can then be used as input variables in determining the best feedback for creating the desired response in said human. Wouldn't the 'male-brain' take care of the interpersonal stuff as well?

Facts are: The male brain in general is responsible for tyranny, domination, war, slavery, murder, domination, oh yes and domination, and all this with a "look at me, look how great I am" attitude, that's a generalization, now isn't it? And yet it still rings true, because what was it?; "exceptions do not invalidate generalizations".

Oh ha ha, this is ridiculous, how so many people are arguing over their assumptions of what the article says/implies. It can be summarized as "much ado about nothing," and the topic of male vs. female is very much reminiscent of that play too.

To the Feminazis: this article is NOT calling you stupid, calm down. It's saying that the majority of human women tend to have one way of thinking, while the majority of men think another. There are exceptions, probably a lot of exceptions. Notice this article doesn't say what percentage of women think this way, nor what percentage of men. But all you have to do is go into any college and do a poll of what sex is going for what career and you'd find it to be accurate. The one thing this article does NOT discuss is whether this pattern is upheld by genetics or social expectation---probably because there is no real way to know without an extremely intensive study, which probably they don't have funding for. So no, this article isn't great, but it's not as offensive as you think. Stop looking for an excuse to be offended.

To the Macho Men: Feminism isn't all that bad. It can be annoying, but it's not causing you any harm. You, too, need to calm down. Yes there was a lot of overreaction to this article. But someone else getting offended by something that is not offensive to you is not an excuse to be offended. In fact, it's hypocritical.

Can't we all just get along?

I hope this wasn't a serious written article.

oh yes, I've heard from COUNTLESS numbers of women that say that they have SUCH A PASSION for mathematics, but were discouraged by SEXIST MALE mathematicians to major in these related fields.... yup...

It is also important to note that Susan B. Anthony once defended the tabula rasa theory, which solely blames social roles and expectations in gender differences, by declaring that if you were to dress and educate a woman like a man, no man would recognise her as a female.This "all or nothing" approach is sophomoric.

The borders dividing men and women made from organized society and experiential differences.

What makes you a dominator (male brain) or the dominated (Female brain)? Are physical skills the only formula used for dominating? “Hell no.” The battle of the sexist’s is byproduct of humanity’s quest for domination.

What are other attributes used for dominating other people? Our body and mind attributes define as exterior influences are presented. Naturally, females are physically weaker then males, forcing females to find other attribute to gain the upper hand on males opponents.
Why do females mature earlier then males? Realizing male’s superior physical strength, females and weak males are at a disadvantage. Females and weak males must learn to predict the actions of the physically stronger opponents. Empathy and early maturity are not just female qualities; empathy and early maturity are defensive attributes obtainable by both sexes. Empathy used as a homing device for manipulation. Manipulation is a complex mental attribute obtained by either sex. Women’s physical limitations encourage their mental skills. The dominated or (female brain) is a powerful force able to mislead and predict actions. The (female brain) is just a word made-up. Women can just as easily be dominators (male brains) as men can be come dominated (female brains).

Methods are not the same between the dominated and the dominators. (Female brain) (Male brain) the (transsexual brain) this is stupid ideology, go fix autistic and schizophrenic

It's most likely the environment that you are brought up in that makes you that way. When writing this they should at least show a control group showing that people act like this when there is no stereotypical gender pressure being placed on people. Also, the comment about women not understanding that they can't relate to machines sounded a bit sexist.

This is probably exactly the kind of validation he's looking for. All really valid ideas seem to be offensive to the individuals of the era it is proposed in. People get in a rut of believing one thing and don't take a look at the facts objectively. Among other articles I think he's citing here (without citing them) is "Foetal testosterone, social relationships, and restricted interests in children" by Baron-Cohen (et al). There is a lot of hard data in there anyone freaking out right now should read.

A lot of what happens here, however, is that people get research and don't seem to understand what to do with it. Partial non-objective education is very dangerous. There's also other posts by him about tall people being more intelligent, men being afraid of tourism, and men being more intelligent than women (apparently despite being afraid of other countries, lol). It seems as though he takes a LITTLE BIT of research and fits it into a framework he's fabricated with the intention of being controversial, but "backed up" by research. I really think anyone who berates him is hand feeding him exactly the kind of validation he's looking for.

The problem with this is, some people seek controversies as proof that they're right because the past has proven that good theories are controversial at first. However, I doubt Newton or Darwin went about their studies trying to find what will be controversial, assuming that will be proportional with its correctness.

Also, I think that putting pictures of more credible, objective professionals in the post even though they have nothing to do with this kind of study (as I mentioned in the last one about the fetal testosterone study, which is a correlational study on autism like most all of Baron-Cohen's other work) is pretty pathetic and does little to raise the credibility. If anything is actually taken from their work, it is just misappropriated empirical data that's actually irrelevant to any male vs female study. It certainly The author of this post is banking on this not being "peer-reviewed", so no one should take it more seriously than anything else that is not peer reviewed (i.e. religious speculation or political commentary on FOX).

The writing has a strong bias for the superiority of males that makes the entire message unpalatable and validly irrelevant, so don't get too worked up. One cannot possibly imply that the example of what women "realize" (an extremely demeaning word) or talking to a car is at equal with the example of over-rationalizing relationships, even when the bias is obfuscated with notes about female-mind-oriented higher professions (although, it is difficult to argue reasonably that primatology is an intuition or empathy based discipline). There is a vast hierarchy of mental subsystems at play during any given action that no simplified umbrella theory can take into account. The generalizing, speculation, and near religious devotion to a specific one-sided interpretation of the data is just an embarrassing side effect of an immature science in low-intelligence theorists.

No one should have been threatened enough by this to take it seriously or worry that this kind of writing will ever amount to any academic or professional praise for the author. No one else finds it fun to go into a YouTube blog and post some ridiculously atheist, fundamentalist, democratic, or republican stereotypical comment and watch the cattle trample each other trying to end the eternal debates once and for all right there in the blog? :-D He's just poking.