4 ms·

Firstly you're implying that psychology is entirely defined by physiology. Secondly, and because you're making the first mistake, you're assuming that the stud

by xutopia 10y ago

Firstly you're implying that psychology is entirely defined by physiology. Secondly, and because you're making the first mistake, you're assuming that the study says there can't be psychological sexual differences. All this study shows is that the brains are pretty much the same physically. Now as someone who has seen the effect of hormones on friends going through a gender change, have seen girlfriends use hormones as birth control methods I can tell you that hormonal activity can have a huge impact on the way the hardware runs. Consider for a moment that the hardware is the brain and the hormonal activity brought forth by the body is like the OS.

mordocai 10y ago
There is a good amount of evidence, much of it studied, (and much from the transgender community, but not just there) that there is -something- inherent in gender psychology besides hormones. What it is no one knows, but there are clear examples of people who grow up their whole lives with say testosterone but their "intrinsic sex" is female.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>All this study shows is that the brains are pretty much the same physically. // Apart from the cutely glossed over 11-12% size difference, which seems like a major physical difference (remember we're ignoring function/structure here and only concerning ourselves with macroscopic physical aspects). Even when normalised though they found a 2.5% difference. Not huge, but still seems of note. The set-up is this: >“Despite the common impression that men and women are profoundly different, large analyses of brain measures are finding far more similarity than difference,” said Lise Eliot, PhD, principal investigator and associate professor of neuroscience at RFU’s Chicago Medical School. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811916307431 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811916...) // Professor Eliot is said to work closely with the study's writers. So, at least in Science Bulletin, and for the department performing the study the macroscopic brain morphology is being used to argue against the idea that men and women are different. This gets to newspapers as "neuroscientists find mens' and womens' brains identical" and Eliot seems, with her comment, to be encouraging that viewpoint. The final part of the study abstract: > it is not accurate to refer to the human amygdala as “sexually dimorphic.” (ibid) // Presumably they mean except for the 11-12% (+2.5% of that) volume difference which for some reason doesn't count. I guess it's like "men aren't bigger if their trousers are proportionally bigger than women's trousers"?? Your idea has a lot going for it, but you have to remember then that the hardware is not fixed at the point at which hormonal activity starts to have effect. Perhaps the brain hardware is more like a software programmable array that can affect its own continued construction rather than a fixed silicon die. [Probably a terrible analogy].

by xutopia 10y ago

mordocai 10y ago

There is a good amount of evidence, much of it studied, (and much from the transgender community, but not just there) that there is -something- inherent in gender psychology besides hormones. What it is no one knows, but there are clear examples of people who grow up their whole lives with say testosterone but their "intrinsic sex" is female.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

>All this study shows is that the brains are pretty much the same physically. // Apart from the cutely glossed over 11-12% size difference, which seems like a major physical difference (remember we're ignoring function/structure here and only concerning ourselves with macroscopic physical aspects). Even when normalised though they found a 2.5% difference. Not huge, but still seems of note. The set-up is this: >“Despite the common impression that men and women are profoundly different, large analyses of brain measures are finding far more similarity than difference,” said Lise Eliot, PhD, principal investigator and associate professor of neuroscience at RFU’s Chicago Medical School. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811916307431 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811916...) // Professor Eliot is said to work closely with the study's writers. So, at least in Science Bulletin, and for the department performing the study the macroscopic brain morphology is being used to argue against the idea that men and women are different. This gets to newspapers as "neuroscientists find mens' and womens' brains identical" and Eliot seems, with her comment, to be encouraging that viewpoint. The final part of the study abstract: > it is not accurate to refer to the human amygdala as “sexually dimorphic.” (ibid) // Presumably they mean except for the 11-12% (+2.5% of that) volume difference which for some reason doesn't count. I guess it's like "men aren't bigger if their trousers are proportionally bigger than women's trousers"?? Your idea has a lot going for it, but you have to remember then that the hardware is not fixed at the point at which hormonal activity starts to have effect. Perhaps the brain hardware is more like a software programmable array that can affect its own continued construction rather than a fixed silicon die. [Probably a terrible analogy].