I don't know if you're airing your thoughts on this paper specifically, or on "this type of research" in general. If it is about this particular paper, the ent

I don't know if you're airing your thoughts on this paper specifically, or on "this type of research" in general. If it is about this particular paper, the entirety of the paper is actually up (the link at the bottom of the article). I gave it a skim. This research isn't about "what are the root causes of differential behavoir in boys and girls", but "what are the structural changes in the human brain that occur in humans as they mature", and their data set also shows that while the same structural changes occur in both boys and girls (more or less anyways), just that they tend to occur sooner/faster in girls. In other words, there's no attempt to look for "genetic reasons". Now that the specific case as been addressed, I'm going to try to deal with your general concern, which I feel is certainly valid. The nature vs nurture debate is long-standing, and it certainly looks like with every stone we turn over, we just find more and more layers of interactions between nature and nurture. The short answer for why we are looking for genetic factors, is that if we do find strong genetic factors, despite all the noise that nurture injects, that it's likely going to be a very robust effect, which circularly means that since its robust enough to not be overwhelmed by "nurture", then its pretty much guaranteed to be useful enough despite the nurture aspect.