The Truth About 'Pink' and 'Blue' Brains

[Quail]

I'm loath to weigh in on the "war on men" conversation, but... alas.
While one can use both logic and data to poke gaping holes in Fox News contributor Suzanne Venker's argument that women need to surrender to their femininity (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/24/war-on-men/) and let men think that they're in charge (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/07/let-call-truce-in-war-on-men/) if they ever want to get married, I just want to point out one thing, one endlessly repeated thing that she gets very, very wrong.
Venker claims (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/07/let-call-truce-in-war-on-men/) that there has "been an explosion of brain research" that proves that men and women have different brains. This research, she claims, shows that men are loners who like to hunt and build things and women are nurturers who like to talk and take care of people.
This is false on two fronts.
First, she's wrong about the brain research. The books and articles claiming that there are "pink" and "blue" brains are not consistent with existing research. (They are out there because people can make a lot of money by confirming other people's biases.)
What does the research say?
It's true that scientists have documented a number of small, average sex differences in brain anatomy, composition and function, as well as differences in size and tissue ratios. (Other differences, such as the size of the corpus callosum and lateralization -- whether one sex uses one side of their brain more than the other -- have proven to be wrong.)
So scientists do find some differences, but they have largely failed to link these to differences in men's and women's observed emotions, cognition or behavior. That is, we've found some differences, but we have no proof that they translate into anything. Moreover, new research suggests that differences we observe may be designed not to create differences between men and women but to reduce them. The brain may have two strategies for achieving the same outcome, or one difference may compensate for another. (For more, see Brain Gender (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Medicine/Neuroscience/?view=usa&ci=9780195188363) by Melissa Hines.)
That's one reason why Venker is wrong.
The second reason is even more damning. Most of the research attempting to explain gender difference assumes that there are differences to explain. In fact, meta-analyses aimed at summarizing the literature on human sex differences and similarities in traits, personality, cognitive abilities, sexuality, temperament and motor skills offer better evidence for similarity than difference. On the vast majority of traits, men and women overlap tremendously.
Janet Hyde, a pioneer in this area, did a meta-analysis of meta-analyses (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16173891) that combined the results of 7,084 separate studies. She found evidence for a large or very large difference on 8 percent of characteristics and evidence for medium-sized differences on 15 percent. She found evidence for small differences on another 48 percent. What does a small difference look like? Here's an example of a mid-range small difference (for self-esteem):
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2012/12/26.jpg
For the final 30 percent of characteristics, she found no evidence of gender difference. So, on 78 percent of characteristics, she found teensy differences or none at all. Wow, "opposite sexes," indeed.
The truth is that men aren't loners and women aren't talkers. Venker assumes the stereotypes and counts on her readers to agree that they are true, but the data doesn't back her up.
Two excellent books summarize the debates over gender and neuroscience. Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender (http://www.cordeliafine.com/delusions_of_gender.html) is great for a beginner. She's funny, and you'll learn a lot. Rebecca Jordan-Young's Brain Storm (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674057302) is great for someone who wants and intermediate to advanced introduction to these issues. Her book is downright brilliant. I highly recommend both.


From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-wade/the-truth-about-pink-and-blue-brains_b_2265866.html?utm_hp_ref=science

[human strike]

Cordelia Fine's is indeed a very good book.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Wait, a Fox News contributor is ignorant? :ohmy:

[GPDP]

Good to have some actual data to back up what anyone with a functioning brain should have already realized. Sadly, I doubt anyone who doesn't already agree will change their minds, particularly the virulent misogynists out there who would dismiss this as feminist propaganda.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, I imagine that the standard response will be "obviously you have a woman's brain to even believe that".

[Tenka]

Yeah, I imagine that the standard response will be "obviously you have a woman's brain to even believe that".

Albert Einstein's brain was the "female average" in size or smaller, funnily enough (in the face of someone who would respond thus). :)

The OP does well to confirm my own biases on the matter, which are at least backed up by evidence. This is why I never bought the "mismatched brain" theory (maybe I made up that name for it...) of transgender identity. Can't a male-bodied person be a woman without having a "female"-looking brain? We must not submit to the neurotyrants waving their brainscans at us with their totally out of proportion and ridiculous and sexist inferences therefrom.

[Monkeyboy]

I'm going to be a bit of a cheeky monkey here.

First off, I do not think one article is the truth. I'm not dismissing it, but I would like to know more before I can say: this is the truth.

I would agree that men and women are a lot alike, but I do think their are, be it small, differences. For example I have this book on evolutionary psychology by David M. Buss (not necessary the truth though, but it does have evidence, but so does your article), and at least when it comes to mating females and males have different preferences (both males and females pursue short term and long term mating, in that way we are the same). I believe this.

I believe that we are different nature and nurture. I believe the nurture (what we are learned) is wrong, and I believe feminism should try to abolish this. However their is also nature which cannot be changed. I think we should acknowledge this and try to search for solutions for the problems that nature may bring us.

[Blake's Baby]

7,084 studies say you're wrong, and there is no significant difference in 'nature'. How do you respond?

[Monkeyboy]

7,084 studies say you're wrong, and there is no significant difference in 'nature'. How do you respond?

I must admit, I didn't see that or read that. That does make it more credible. Though I do not know the 7,084 studies. I did a quick look, it seemed reasonable, but there are no studies regarding folk psychology and folk physics in which I think the sexes differ. Maybe it is there, but in other words.

The article itself says:

the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological variables. That is, men and women, as well as boys and girls, are more alike than they are different.

I agree that we are more alike, than we are different, but little differences do exist.

Let's take a look at what was found to be different:

The largest gender differences in Table 1 are in the
domain of motor performance, particularly for measures
such as throwing velocity (d 2.18) and throwing distance
(d 1.98) (Thomas & French, 1985). These differences
are particularly large after puberty, when the gender gap in
muscle mass and bone size widens.

Makes sense, no comment.

A second area in which large gender differences are found is some— but not all—measures of sexuality (Oliver & Hyde, 1993). Gender differences are strikingly large for incidences of masturbation and for attitudes about sex in a
casual, uncommitted relationship. In contrast, the gender
difference in reported sexual satisfaction is close to zero.

Masturbation, makes sense. The attitudes about sex in casual, uncommitted relationship. Makes sense evolutionary wise, for a female casual, uncommitted relationships would result in children without a parent (in the past, but our brains don't know that).


Across several meta-analyses, aggression has repeatedly shown gender differences that are moderate in magnitude (Archer, 2004; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Hyde, 1984, 1986). The gender difference in physical aggression is
particularly reliable and is larger than the gender difference in verbal aggression. Much publicity has been given to gender differences in relational aggression, with girls scoring higher (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). According to the Archer (2004) meta-analysis, indirect or relational aggression showed an effect size for gender differences of 0.45 when measured by direct observation, but it was only 0.19 for peer ratings, 0.02 for self-reports, and
0.13 for teacher reports. Therefore, the evidence is ambiguous regarding the magnitude of the gender difference in relational aggression.

I would like to know what rational agression means. But this does make sense.


folk psychology and folk physics in which I think the sexes differ.

I'm not just saying this out of the blue, I'm saying this because I've read about the extreme male brain theory of autism. Please read this:

Empathizing–systemizing theory See wikipedia, I can't link.

This theory is being critized and may not be true, so I'm not saying it's the truth but I do believe in it.

And to be honest I thought your post was quite rude. I appreciate that you do not agree, or correct me, but you did it in a way I find rude. It felt like a personal attack.

[Tenka]

Which of the above-noted differences are not wholly dependent on socialisation and average levels of hormones?

[Luís Henrique]

Makes sense evolutionary wise, for a female casual, uncommitted relationships would result in children without a parent (in the past, but our brains don't know that).

Do you know what I think makes evolutionary sence, in the case of humans?

The less information is hardwired, the best. This way the human brain can be more intensely used for what it does best: to obtain and keep new information. The smaller the part of the HD is used for the operational system, the biggest the part that can store applicatives and utilitaries.

Considering the formidable effort that cultural institutions have historically put into teaching girls and young women that they should not get involved in casual relationships, I don't think this information is hardwired in an efficient way, if at all. We are able to learn that, and it is enough.

Now, of course, that it is no longer true, we will start, gradually, teaching our daughters different lessons. As it is already happening, if we compare the attitudes of Victorian women (and men) to their modern counterparts.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

Well, there were 1/4 million prostitutes in Victorian London, out of a population of about 5 million. Which would equate to 1/2 million today. So I'm not really so sure how good the 'education' you speak of was then either. I think of the Victorian 'attitude' to sex was just rank hypocrisy.

[Luís Henrique]

Well, there were 1/4 million prostitutes in Victorian London, out of a population of about 5 million. Which would equate to 1/2 million today. So I'm not really so sure how good the 'education' you speak of was then either. I think of the Victorian 'attitude' to sex was just rank hypocrisy.

Prostitution is of course the necessary opposite side of the coin of "family values".

So less family values, less prostitution.

(But... sources, please. Statistics and prostitution are two things that don't mix well in my experience. Indeed I have been tempted to start a thread titled "Sex, Lies, and Statistics".)

Luís Henrique

[Monkeyboy]

Do you know what I think makes evolutionary sence, in the case of humans?

The less information is hardwired, the best. This way the human brain can be more intensely used for what it does best: to obtain and keep new information. The smaller the part of the HD is used for the operational system, the biggest the part that can store applicatives and utilitaries.

Considering the formidable effort that cultural institutions have historically put into teaching girls and young women that they should not get involved in casual relationships, I don't think this information is hardwired in an efficient way, if at all. We are able to learn that, and it is enough.

Now, of course, that it is no longer true, we will start, gradually, teaching our daughters different lessons. As it is already happening, if we compare the attitudes of Victorian women (and men) to their modern counterparts.

Luís Henrique

I must admit I only gave one reason, my fault. And I was actually going to disagree with it, but than I thought "Hey, it makes sense evolutionary." but this may be wrong*. It is a fact both females and males pursue short term and long term mating strategies be it they both have different preferences. I believe I made a false ?conclusion?, the reason why women participate in short term mating can be explained evolutionary, but not more than that.

And you'll be suprised how much is universal (nature), beauty you may think this is cultural, well some of it is but not all according to David M. Buss, evolutionary psychology, facial attractiveness is rated the same across cultures, standards of beauty emerge early in life. Others like slim versus plump body build are different accross cultures, and within these cultures men prefer heavier women when there are economic hard times, when they are hungry and when they feel poor.

I also remembered that when if a stranger would ask a women to have sex unlike a man they would say no (most of them I believe). However when they changed the stranger for someone they knew (?a friend?) more women did say yes. I have no source for it though, I might remembered it uncorrectly.

*And prostituties they would almost make no sense at all evolutionary wise, however chimpansees also do prostitution, and I know of a story of penguins doing the same. I might have made a error about the casual sex, it's perfectly reasonable that this is cultural. But I want to stress don't ignore nature! Feel free to disagree! And I hope you'll have read the Empathizing–systemizing theory.

[Luís Henrique]

Statistics and prostitution are two things that don't mix well in my experience.

The total population of London in 1861 was 2,300,000, not 5 million. It would mean about 1,200,000 women lived in London at the time. Perhaps, considering the age pyramids typical of the 19th century, 450,000 women between 15 and 40 years old. I don't think it possible that out of these 450 thousand women, 250,000 were prostitutes. Even if we take the figure of 5 million inhabitants in Victorian London, this would mean about 1,000,000 women between teenage and 40 years old. 250,000 is a fourth part of 1,000,000; I don't think it in any way reasonable to assert that a fourth part of young adult women in Victorian London were prostitutes.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_London#Population

The population of London was 6.5 million in 1901, the year Victoria died. In 1891, it was 5.5 million. In 1851, it was 2.36 million. It almost certainly hit the 5 million mark some time in the mid-1880s.

EDIT: I don't think it's reasonable to assume that prostitution was limited to 'young adult women' either. But I have little doubt that the (unsourced) figure I have for prostitutes is that for female prostitution. However, as I know there were girls as young as 12 forced into prostution (and in all likelihood some even younger, though the numbers of girls involved is likely to have been small, I would think), 'adult women' seems an over-strict limitation; and as it has regularly been asserted that women in their 60s were working as prostitutes, to restrict it to 'young women' seems incorrect too.

So, out of a female population of approximately 2.5 million in c1886, 250,000 females engaged in prostitution (1/10 of the female population, or maybe 1/8 of those between the ages of 13 and 60) doesn't seem quite so unreasonable; especially as these will not all have been 'full time' by any means.

[Luís Henrique]

The population of London was 6.5 million in 1901, the year Victoria died. In 1891, it was 5.5 million. In 1851, it was 2.36 million. It almost certainly hit the 5 million mark some time in the mid-1880s.

Yes, that is true, though the figures for 1891 and 1901 are for Greater London, and the one for 1851 for London only.


EDIT: I don't think it's reasonable to assume that prostitution was limited to 'young adult women' either. But I have little doubt that the (unsourced) figure I have for prostitutes is that for female prostitution. However, as I know there were girls as young as 12 forced into prostution (and in all likelihood some even younger, though the numbers of girls involved is likely to have been small, I would think), 'adult women' seems an over-strict limitation; and as it has regularly been asserted that women in their 60s were working as prostitutes, to restrict it to 'young women' seems incorrect too.

That may well be. The figures I have seen are on the order of 40-80,000 for the height of the Victorian era (1860), which seem more reasonable. For a country of similar mores and legislation, it is calculated that there are some 1,000,000 prostitutes in the United States (0.33% of the population). 80,000 on 2.8 million makes 2.86%, a whole lot bigger. True, London was a city even then, while the US comprises a lot of rural areas; and the economic situation of the working classes was certainly a lot worse than in modern US.

Anyway, I would stick with those figures - 40-80,000 in 1860, probably inflating to some 100-200,000 in 1901 due to the growth in the population.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, that is true, though the figures for 1891 and 1901 are for Greater London, and the one for 1851 for London only...

That did seem like a large rise in 40 years, I hadn't realised that there was a 'boundary change' in that time, well spotted.



...
That may well be. The figures I have seen are on the order of 40-80,000 for the height of the Victorian era (1860), which seem more reasonable. For a country of similar mores and legislation, it is calculated that there are some 1,000,000 prostitutes in the United States (0.33% of the population). 80,000 on 2.8 million makes 2.86%, a whole lot bigger. True, London was a city even then, while the US comprises a lot of rural areas; and the economic situation of the working classes was certainly a lot worse than in modern US.

Anyway, I would stick with those figures - 40-80,000 in 1860, probably inflating to some 100-200,000 in 1901 due to the growth in the population.

Luís Henrique

As I say, my figure of 1/4 million is not scientifically sourced. But then I can't find a source for your '40-80,000' either except an excerpt from the video of the french Lieutenant's Woman' that claims 80,000 in 1857. Given that we see a greater-than-100% jump in population over the period (which to be sure includes Central London, which will have a higher density of prostitues, and then Central and Outer London, which will produce an overall lower density of prostitutes) but also improved travel (eg the Tube) which will increase the size of the 'market' in Central London, I don't think a greater-than-100% increase in the number of prostitutes is unreasonable. So if we take the 80,000 in 1857 as being somewhat in line with your figure, we're talking something in the order of 160-200,000 by 1891, and with another nearly 20% increase by 1901, that's between 190-235,000 by 1901. That's close enough to my 250,000 to make me pretty phlegmatic about using it as a ball-park figure. maybe 'around 200,000' might be a bit more exact but I don't think '1/4 million' is wildly off the mark.

[Luís Henrique]

As I say, my figure of 1/4 million is not scientifically sourced. But then I can't find a source for your '40-80,000' either except an excerpt from the video of the french Lieutenant's Woman' that claims 80,000 in 1857.

Quite certainly following Lisa Rogers, How widespread were concerns about prostitution? (http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/rogers/3.html), who in turn seems to have taken the figure from Henry Mayhew. But note that Mayhew states that there were 8,600 prostitutes known to London Police, and "estimated" that the actual figure would be "closer to 80,000".

So, yes, the 80,000 figure is sourceable, as sourceable is its uncertainty, and the fact that it was extrapolated (by what method? I don't know) from a much smaller figure.


Given that we see a greater-than-100% jump in population over the period (which to be sure includes Central London, which will have a higher density of prostitues, and then Central and Outer London, which will produce an overall lower density of prostitutes) but also improved travel (eg the Tube) which will increase the size of the 'market' in Central London, I don't think a greater-than-100% increase in the number of prostitutes is unreasonable. So if we take the 80,000 in 1857 as being somewhat in line with your figure, we're talking something in the order of 160-200,000 by 1891, and with another nearly 20% increase by 1901, that's between 190-235,000 by 1901. That's close enough to my 250,000 to make me pretty phlegmatic about using it as a ball-park figure. maybe 'around 200,000' might be a bit more exact but I don't think '1/4 million' is wildly off the mark.OK, but I wouldn't take "1901" and "the Victorian Era" as synonimous, too.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Concerning Mayhew, it is to notice that he does include "kept mistresses" as prostitutes - so we have to take into account that what he calls a "prostitute" does not necessarily match our views of what a prostitute actually is.

(and it is funny that he uses the phrase "gay woman", referring not to a lesbian, but to a prostitute.)

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

I certainly am not taking the date of 1901 as synonymous with 'the Victorian Era'; especially as the census on which the population data was gathered was in April that year and Victoria died in January. But it was more the rapid increases in population I was getting at, including an 18% increase in the last decade of Victoria's reign.

If the estimate of c80,000 is accepted for the period c1857-60 (and it doesn't have to be), then I don't see that by the mid-1880s-1901, after an increase in the London population (taking into account boundary extensions, to be sure) of more than 100%, then I think it's reasonable to posit a similar growth in prostitution figures, giving figures around 200,000, which is close enough to my '1/4 million' to satify me that the source I had (I think, some TV documentary in the 1980s?) might not have been totally wide of the mark.

It's a good question about what constitutes a 'prostitute'. My own view, based on nothing more than impressionist guesswork, is that the majority of women who derived some of their income from prostitution were probably not full-time prostitutes.

[RedAtheist]

And you'll be suprised how much is universal (nature), beauty you may think this is cultural, well some of it is but not all according to David M. Buss, evolutionary psychology, facial attractiveness is rated the same across cultures, standards of beauty emerge early in life. Others like slim versus plump body build are different accross cultures, and within these cultures men prefer heavier women when there are economic hard times, when they are hungry and when they feel poor.]

And what do you propose we do with the women whose faces don't meet the biological specifications for "attractiveness". Do we ask them all to undergo radical cosmetic surgery for the sake of placing men who are supposed slaves to their genetic code? Or do we discourage men from choosing sex partners based on physical traits? Even if men have a biological tendency to behave in ways that are harmful to women, there's no reason why we cannot attempt to curb these biological tendencies through education.

Thus I think debates about the evolutionary, behavioural characteristics of men and women are pointless. The debate should instead be about which is the best way for men to behave and for women to behave, which sort of behaviour will lead to a better, fairer world. According to this criteria gender roles fail every single time.