Paper is saying that not only do cultural aspects shape same-generation brain development, it is then also selected for, amplifying the sexual dimorphism in the next generation
I hope people are more willing to acknowledge the society selective forces that perpetuate every behavior we disagree with.
> Paper is saying that not only do cultural aspects shape same-generation brain development, it is then also selected for, amplifying the sexual dimorphism in the next generation
No, it does not.
The paper advances two potential reasons for the difference and selection is not one of them. Actually, genetics seem to have nothing to do with it. The two are: stress linked to the adverse environment and early disturbances in development.
"Overall, the observed association may result from exposure to an adverse environment and subsequent stress response throughout life. This would imply that sex differences in the thickness of those regions would be smaller in early development and increase during aging. This resonates with evidence highlighting the role of gender inequality in the higher prevalence of depression in girls which appears in adolescence (33)"
It's a good paper by the way. They are very careful with both their statistics and what they claim.
I added the part about selection because its the followup that exacerbates this, yes, the paper stops short of that
It does say the other part, which you wrote as adverse environment and I wrote as culture. Because the paper points out that there are environments/countries that aren't gender unequal, the entire basis of being able to do this study
To me, that basis then suggests that the unequal countries are perpetuating it far beyond culture, since people grow up and are available for mating based on some attributes over others, but you’re correct that the paper itself doesn’t go there and we dont have confirmation that the brain aspects are sex linked traits
Trauma can cause changes in your brain, this includes cPTSD comming from long term constant stress and abuse where each situation by itself might not be traumatizing but the commulation is.
and systematic discriminatory can be quite traumatizing
They allege something of the sort in the discussion, but the paper itself only reports an association. It is rather straightforward to imagine potential causality hypotheses ranging from what you've just said to something so politically incorrect nobody would dare publish it.
I don't think it's controversial, I just think the title isn't great. It's not saying that differences in the brain between men and women cause gender inequality.
Instead, it's saying that gender inequality has been associated with effects on the brain. We are fairly confident that the environment you grow up can affect how your brain develops. It's not unreasonable that growing up in a society with gender inequality will have an effect on how the brain develops.
Reversing causality to try and turn evidence against pure egalitarianism into a pseudo-scientific argument for oppression narrative based political views IS controversial. It just doesn't appear to be to people mired in neo-marxist culture (see the large swatch of Californian natives that frequent this site).
it's controversial because it uses loaded terms like 'inequality'. Differences in brains, yeah well that's a no duh. So mens brains develop around a high risk tolerance because they're expendable in mines, fighting trenches, lumber operations, fishing, and so forth?
I'm not clicking on it, however what I am more interested in is how does the paper determine that mental inequality is influenced by exterior factors, instead of inherent gender differences causing exterior inequalities?
> however what I am more interested in is how does the paper determine that mental inequality is influenced by exterior factors, instead of inherent gender differences causing exterior inequalities?
It's not looking at causality, just association, so it doesn't do what you're asking. What it does do is show that countries with more inequality have more brain differences between genders. You can make your own hypotheses about the causality, for instance, if it was inherit then why would the differences be less prevalent in countries with more equality? There is some discussion in the discussion part of the paper.
Sure, and then you explore that further. If it's genetic, look at first generation immigrants that moved from places with low gender equality to places with high gender equality. If it's something in the environment, research what it could be. Slowly data accumulates and someone can try to show causality, and that's science in a nutshell (as I understand it).
Alternatively, we get really good human models and simulate everything, sci-fi style.
Some science on the subject exists but considered too controversial for the mainstream. IQ, SAT scores, crime all show similar correlations even after socioeconomic factors are taken into account.
One explanation for the gap in SAT scores I've seen is that women and minorities (except asians) perform worse because they expect to perform worse. Plausible to an extent sure but today it seems the science is jumping through all kinds of hoops to prove that genetics have an effect on every part of our body except the brain.
I'm not trying to deny that culture and nurture plays a big role, but we choose dog breeds based on personal traits, so why do we expect ourselves to be any different? It applies to all animals but us, nonsense if you ask me.
Where I live the second generation immigrants are more prone to crime than their parents were. What's the explanation for that?
Teachers give higher grades to girls than to boys with the same academic ability, according to a study published today in the British Journal of Sociology of Education.
right caudal anterior cingulate, right medial orbitofrontal, and left lateral occipital cortex
Does we know what this difference does? If you waved a magic wand and turned an equal-country brain into an unequal-country brain, how would the person's behavior/feelings change?
Article aside, scanning the comments, it is interesting to note the conditioned reluctance to admit the obvious, viz., that men and women are different, that this difference is profound, and that this difference would manifest anatomically/physiologically, including the brain.
It'll be a generation before people can once again admit there is a difference between men and women. If we admit men and women are different its the same a direct attack on much of the LGBT community.
The LGBT community is well aware that men and women are different. The existence of trans people is itself strong evidence if this. That is why the trans community is interested in gender affirming care.
No, it is an attack on much of the trans community.
"The LGBT community" is in and of itself a part of this weird usage of group terminology to muddy the waters. It's pretty much a political device invented for that purpose - if you don't support all you support none, which is clearly ridiculous.
For example, trans women not being permitted to compete in women's sports has exactly zero bearing on the life of gay men, and is actually in the interest of gay women.
This is what you often see LGBTQ+ (the plus means anyone marginalized). Yes, it typically has to do with gender or sexual differences but that is pretty much marketing. It is easier to organize if you have a relatively clear community.
Groups have always had ways to define who was part of the group whether that group was political, religious, or a group of gamers. Calling it "marketing" sounds a little dismissive.
I said part of the reason for association was a shared experience of ostracism. Another is being outside the mainstream in a sexual and gender sense.
In recent years, there have been some efforts to tie racial justice into the LGBT identity, but that has been controversial as there is less alignment around issues. Black and brown bands were added to the rainbow flag as part of this, and that was also controversial. The feeling was that that flag was not originally racially focused.
> It’ll be a generation before people can once again admit there is a difference between men and women. If we admit men and women are different its the same a direct attack on much of the LGBT community.
As phrased its…not, though.
Each of the L, G, B, and T (well, perhaps not the B in all cases) relies pretty centrally on there being a difference between men and women.
(Now, if you were to say, “‘men’ and ‘women’ are defined by gender externally ascribed on the basis of (at least notionally) immutable non-identity characteristics”, then that’s a different story, but that’s a lot different than “there are differences between men and women”.)
It depends on what aspect of men and women you mean. Socialization, biology, endocrinology, reproduction? Saying "Men and women are different" is an easily defendable conclusion. However, the implications that you are making from that regarding anatomy, physiology, and psychology are very hard to prove. There is significant overlap between men and women in each aspect.
PS: This type of argument is called a Motte and Bailey. You provide two arguments, one weak and one strong then fall back to the strong argument when challenged.
My pet theory is that that the the differences are usually minor. But differentiating between men and women is deeply wired into out brains. Some people are self aware enough to realize that and others like yourself are not.
37 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 63.6 ms ] threadI hope people are more willing to acknowledge the society selective forces that perpetuate every behavior we disagree with.
No, it does not.
The paper advances two potential reasons for the difference and selection is not one of them. Actually, genetics seem to have nothing to do with it. The two are: stress linked to the adverse environment and early disturbances in development.
"Overall, the observed association may result from exposure to an adverse environment and subsequent stress response throughout life. This would imply that sex differences in the thickness of those regions would be smaller in early development and increase during aging. This resonates with evidence highlighting the role of gender inequality in the higher prevalence of depression in girls which appears in adolescence (33)"
It's a good paper by the way. They are very careful with both their statistics and what they claim.
It does say the other part, which you wrote as adverse environment and I wrote as culture. Because the paper points out that there are environments/countries that aren't gender unequal, the entire basis of being able to do this study
To me, that basis then suggests that the unequal countries are perpetuating it far beyond culture, since people grow up and are available for mating based on some attributes over others, but you’re correct that the paper itself doesn’t go there and we dont have confirmation that the brain aspects are sex linked traits
and systematic discriminatory can be quite traumatizing
Otherwise, you wouldn't have the ability to recall that experience. ^-^
you could say on is changes to the parameters of your brain
and the other are more fundamental changes
like trauma can cause brain damage which can show up on scans in similar form to physical caused brain damage....
As for me, I’m not sufficiently educated to evaluate a paper like this.
Instead, it's saying that gender inequality has been associated with effects on the brain. We are fairly confident that the environment you grow up can affect how your brain develops. It's not unreasonable that growing up in a society with gender inequality will have an effect on how the brain develops.
That's an interesting result, and worth discussing.
You should :)
> however what I am more interested in is how does the paper determine that mental inequality is influenced by exterior factors, instead of inherent gender differences causing exterior inequalities?
It's not looking at causality, just association, so it doesn't do what you're asking. What it does do is show that countries with more inequality have more brain differences between genders. You can make your own hypotheses about the causality, for instance, if it was inherit then why would the differences be less prevalent in countries with more equality? There is some discussion in the discussion part of the paper.
Maybe that's the causality? Chicken and the egg.
Alternatively, we get really good human models and simulate everything, sci-fi style.
One explanation for the gap in SAT scores I've seen is that women and minorities (except asians) perform worse because they expect to perform worse. Plausible to an extent sure but today it seems the science is jumping through all kinds of hoops to prove that genetics have an effect on every part of our body except the brain.
I'm not trying to deny that culture and nurture plays a big role, but we choose dog breeds based on personal traits, so why do we expect ourselves to be any different? It applies to all animals but us, nonsense if you ask me.
Where I live the second generation immigrants are more prone to crime than their parents were. What's the explanation for that?
Teachers give higher grades to girls than to boys with the same academic ability, according to a study published today in the British Journal of Sociology of Education.
Does we know what this difference does? If you waved a magic wand and turned an equal-country brain into an unequal-country brain, how would the person's behavior/feelings change?
"The LGBT community" is in and of itself a part of this weird usage of group terminology to muddy the waters. It's pretty much a political device invented for that purpose - if you don't support all you support none, which is clearly ridiculous.
For example, trans women not being permitted to compete in women's sports has exactly zero bearing on the life of gay men, and is actually in the interest of gay women.
The LGBT community is, in part, built on bonds of similar experiences of ostracism by the larger society.
In recent years, there have been some efforts to tie racial justice into the LGBT identity, but that has been controversial as there is less alignment around issues. Black and brown bands were added to the rainbow flag as part of this, and that was also controversial. The feeling was that that flag was not originally racially focused.
As phrased its…not, though.
Each of the L, G, B, and T (well, perhaps not the B in all cases) relies pretty centrally on there being a difference between men and women.
(Now, if you were to say, “‘men’ and ‘women’ are defined by gender externally ascribed on the basis of (at least notionally) immutable non-identity characteristics”, then that’s a different story, but that’s a lot different than “there are differences between men and women”.)
PS: This type of argument is called a Motte and Bailey. You provide two arguments, one weak and one strong then fall back to the strong argument when challenged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
My pet theory is that that the the differences are usually minor. But differentiating between men and women is deeply wired into out brains. Some people are self aware enough to realize that and others like yourself are not.