34 is a ridiculously small sample; not very scientific. Inconclusive results that basically boil down to "boys and girls think differently". Reporting via Time magazine . . . it's surprising.
Why is 34 a small number? 10-20 subjects is the typical range for fMRI studies. While this is probably underpowered, even this number is not ridiculously small. A satisfactory sample size depends on the experiment; sweeping statements don't make much sense without the context.
Here's a study that looked at the statistical validity of the usual sample sizes in fMRI experiments http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi...
Scientists asked 34 healthy kids, ages 8 to 17, to look at pictures of 40 other boys and girls and judge how much they would like to interact with them online. The kids were asked to rate those in the photos on a scale from 0 ("not interested at all") to 100 ("very interested").
"Good enough"?
34 is a decent number for the ruse. (As the article stated, the whole experiment was a ruse).
Since the sample population was ages 8-17, that gives an age range of the sample population being 10 years +/- 1. The brain can develop a lot in ten years.
I like evidence. No sense in killing the messenger.
The age distribution is a valid question, but tangential to the subject sample size. Increasing the number of subjects to 340 still won't resolve your problems with the distribution.
The statistical validity of the brain regions differentially lighting up holds even if the networks in the brain changed drastically with age. You can definitely argue the assumptions behind the study, but the methodology is pretty standard and has better-than-average rigor.
My guess (anyone know first hand?) is that they can stand in front of the mirror for a minute or two and exchange there statuses while checking and adjusting their hair/shirt/makeup.
Underground lair buried deep in the center of the Earth. They have to enter a code in one of the stalls to be transported down. I don't have any concrete proof of this.
I always find these articles frustrating. They usually seem to boil down to "we found some area of the brain linked to what the subject is doing showing more/less activity when the subject does whatever it is they're doing". Whether the scientists themselves have a deeper understanding of what that means or not (and I'm not convinced that they always do), I certainly don't. Follow with some handwaving argument about cavemen hunting mammoths, and end with the truism "We act the way we do because we're wired that way".
It's a thoroughly unsatisfying read.
Maybe it's because it reminds me of trying to explain why a program works the way it does by tracking which parts of the computer use more electricity when you run it - you don't have a debugger, let alone the source code. What can you possibly learn?
Yeah, the headline says "Why...", but the article doesn't actually explain why. There is some guesswork about the reason, but that seem to be independent of the experiment - you don't need brain scans to be able to make wild guesses about the evolution of a certain behavior.
Brain scannings can't explain behavior, just as heightened heart rate is not an "explanation" for love or anger.
The scientists involved all seem very honest about this potentially meaning lots of different things, and further research being necessary to find out. Unfortunately, "We found something, but we don't know what" doesn't make for good news, so journalists often make up conclusions that aren't really supported by anything.
"hardwired"... hmmm??
Nothing new under the sun, it doesn't tell anything new that can't be based on the fact that we are social products and learn our roles (which were specialized during our history). So it doesn't at all explain why, but tries to see in the brain "how" does it happen.
The research is good, but the article title is misleading; what they've shown is that females devote more mental activity to interpersonal relationships. Males are far more disengaged. This is consistent with other data. For instance, we know that women are better at reading social cues, prefer jobs where interpersonal relationships are central, enjoy CS classes more if programming is done with a partner, etc.
Perhaps the fact that women are so interested in interpersonal relationships explains partly why so few of them gravitate towards jobs in which one programs all day :).
Your comment prompted me to go back and double-check the article. You're right: the finding is simply that certain regions of the brain are more active in girls than boys when considering potential new social interactions. The "BFFs and packs" business was fabricated by the article writer. You could just as easily claim the opposite: girls are more interested in people, so they're interested in more people, so they're more likely to have many friends.
Amusing, because a few years ago a friend quoted some research that said exactly the opposite: girls tend to socialize with lots of people while boys are more likely to stick with one friend. I remember this because it matched my kids' behavior exactly (I have a daughter and son) and made me worry less about my son.
26 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 58.7 ms ] threadYou try hunting a mammoth with a BFF instead of your pack.
34 is NOT ridiculously small. It is good enough.
"Good enough"?
34 is a decent number for the ruse. (As the article stated, the whole experiment was a ruse).
Since the sample population was ages 8-17, that gives an age range of the sample population being 10 years +/- 1. The brain can develop a lot in ten years.
I like evidence. No sense in killing the messenger.
The statistical validity of the brain regions differentially lighting up holds even if the networks in the brain changed drastically with age. You can definitely argue the assumptions behind the study, but the methodology is pretty standard and has better-than-average rigor.
Can't really imagine a man saying "Hey guys! who wants to come with me to the toilet?" to his friends.
It's a thoroughly unsatisfying read.
Maybe it's because it reminds me of trying to explain why a program works the way it does by tracking which parts of the computer use more electricity when you run it - you don't have a debugger, let alone the source code. What can you possibly learn?
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/beyond_the_beyond/2009/07/...
Brain scannings can't explain behavior, just as heightened heart rate is not an "explanation" for love or anger.
But that doesn't stop Time Magazine from doing so.
Perhaps the fact that women are so interested in interpersonal relationships explains partly why so few of them gravitate towards jobs in which one programs all day :).