3 ms·

The amount of gray and white matter that the brain has is very much a combination of nature and nurture, as shown by the study on London cab drivers who grew mo

The amount of gray and white matter that the brain has is very much a combination of nature and nurture, as shown by the study on London cab drivers who grew more gray matter in the parts of their brain related to navigation while they were learning to navigate the streets of the city. So a study showing a difference in gray or white matter between men and women does not immediately prove that this difference has to be due to a biological sex difference, since social gender roles can directly influence this. What makes it even harder is that it would be highly unlikely that any research in this topic can control for all the differences in how men and women lead their daily lives. Anyway, I'm not criticizing the study cited, but just be careful that to not draw any conclusions about why those brains ended up the way they were from it.

jdthedisciple 2y ago
Even if, for the sake of argument, the amount of gray matter was 100% nurture, that would show that men for some reason pursue particularly those activities which cause them to end up with 7x more GM on average. That would still be a very relevant (and curious) finding that would support my argument, given the correlation between GM and Autism, do I see that right?
mrangle 2y ago
This post has skill issues. The cab driver study has no bearing on a sex difference study. The subject groups are intentionally too different. One cannot port a conclusion from it to the other study. Only as a theme in a hypothesis. Ergo, you can not say that a study that showed a difference in gender brain matter "does not immediately prove" the conclusion due to the cab driver study. It may immediately prove, and it may not. But the reason that it would not is not the cab driver study. The reason would be other aspects of the gender study. Such aspects, like deficiencies in study design, should be in the discussion regardless of the cab driver study. But the real issue is that "immediately prove" is simply unscientific language that should be revised. You're also asking everyone to accept that cross-gender nurture, all other variables accounted for and including "gender role" volunteerism, is definitely the deciding factor. Sorry. And I say that as someone who could care less if my opposite gender has a brain that has 3x "better" architecture according to any study.

jdthedisciple 2y ago

Even if, for the sake of argument, the amount of gray matter was 100% nurture, that would show that men for some reason pursue particularly those activities which cause them to end up with 7x more GM on average. That would still be a very relevant (and curious) finding that would support my argument, given the correlation between GM and Autism, do I see that right?

mrangle 2y ago

This post has skill issues. The cab driver study has no bearing on a sex difference study. The subject groups are intentionally too different. One cannot port a conclusion from it to the other study. Only as a theme in a hypothesis. Ergo, you can not say that a study that showed a difference in gender brain matter "does not immediately prove" the conclusion due to the cab driver study. It may immediately prove, and it may not. But the reason that it would not is not the cab driver study. The reason would be other aspects of the gender study. Such aspects, like deficiencies in study design, should be in the discussion regardless of the cab driver study. But the real issue is that "immediately prove" is simply unscientific language that should be revised. You're also asking everyone to accept that cross-gender nurture, all other variables accounted for and including "gender role" volunteerism, is definitely the deciding factor. Sorry. And I say that as someone who could care less if my opposite gender has a brain that has 3x "better" architecture according to any study.