×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Brains of Men and Women Are 'Wired Differently'

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the brain-and-brain-what-is-brain dept.

Science 509

Rambo Tribble writes "Research out of the University of Philadelphia concludes there are major differences in the neural pathways in the brains of men and women. Men, they say, are wired more front-to-back, women more side-to-side. 'The results establish that male brains are optimized for intrahemispheric and female brains for interhemispheric communication. The developmental trajectories of males and females separate at a young age, demonstrating wide differences during adolescence and adulthood. The observations suggest that male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.' They propose this may explain why women have been found to be better multitaskers. Of course, this may also have ramifications for what skill and career proclivities each sex exhibits."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

509 comments

Social division of labor (5, Funny)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 5 months ago | (#45588193)

And the poisonous ideologies invented to justify it, and the pervasive violence employed to enforce it. For women's liberation through socialist revolution! Abolish the family!

Re: Social division of labor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588571)

WTF......

Re:Social division of labor (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588611)

...and kill all the intolerant people, too!

Oh noooos! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588199)

Don't tell me! Men and women might be different!?!?!?!?!?

Equality (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588327)

No! Men and women are EQUAL, dammit! I'm not listening, lalalalalala...!

Re:Equality (5, Insightful)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 5 months ago | (#45588667)

No! Men and women are EQUAL, dammit! I'm not listening, lalalalalala...!

One of the great myths of our time is that "equality" is the same as "identicality."

Re:Equality (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588705)

Or that equality is the same as fairness

Re:Equality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588739)

In fact, only by being qualitatively different, we can claim to be equal in principle, since if we differed only in quantity, it would be possible to sort people.

Re:Equality (1, Insightful)

x0ra (1249540) | about 5 months ago | (#45588799)

This is newspeak. If 'equality' is neither fairness or identicality, then the concept you are trying to describe is not 'equality'. What is so wrong about the denial that men and women are "equal" ? Egalitarianism is total bs, women and men will never be equal, let's keep it that way...

Re:Oh noooos! (5, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 5 months ago | (#45588523)

Yes, so can we please stop pretending that it is a travesty that few women are interested in IT?

Sure, let them do it if they're interested, but if they aren't interested they don't need to have their noses rubbed into it in high school with the expectation that the gender gap in that particular career field will close.

Re:Oh noooos! (5, Interesting)

bondsbw (888959) | about 5 months ago | (#45588715)

I'm curious whether this difference is caused by by genetics.

Boys and girls at a young age also learn to dress differently, that doesn't mean it's genetic. Our brains are environmentally influenced to some degree; do we know how much that was found by this study is environmental vs. genetic?

Re:Oh noooos! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588725)

"to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes"
Seems pretty ideal for IT.

What anti-equality people always forget is the huge influence of socialisation. Girls are most often TAUGHT what's approbate for a girl and what's more boyish.
The reason why so few girls are in IT and business is neither their inability nor their lack of interest. The reason are the parents and the social peers.

" but if they aren't interested they don't need to have their noses rubbed into it in high school"

It's the opposite. Their noses are pushed aways.

Re:Oh noooos! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588801)

Nope, who said anything about IT geeks being included, much less the target, of such a study?

Get back in your cave and develop a cure for the common code!

Re:Oh noooos! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588807)

How can they be interested in it if they're never exposed to it or encouraged to try it? Isn't that precisely why we expose kids to a variety of things in high school?

Re:Oh noooos! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588817)

My theory is that women are far to smart to get suckered into IT.

Re:Oh noooos! (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 5 months ago | (#45588775)

Don't tell me! Men and women might be different!?!?!?!?!?

Reminds me of that Pop-psychology of Men Are From Mars and Women Are From Venus - granted that was a load of BS by an utter fraud, he did indicate men and women approach things from different angles. I wonder how cross-cultural this study is.

Is this new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588223)

.... Considering the different Tate's and preferences?

Science... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588245)

... sometimes centuries ahead of society, sometime millenniums behind..

Re: Science... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588387)

Millennia, mayhaps.

Re:Science... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 5 months ago | (#45588581)

intrahemisphere vs interhemisphere wiring in the brains is millenniums behind? I guess so, Jesus did build the first fMRI, right?

Oh, you only read the title and decided to make a funny about it. Carry on.

Re:Science... (2)

almitydave (2452422) | about 5 months ago | (#45588781)

Just to be pedantic: the wiring is not science; our understanding of it is. So the GP's point is that science (in general an ordered body of knowledge, in this case empirical and deduced knowledge about the physical world) comes to reflect some aspect of society present for millenia.

Which is not of course to make a moral argument, just [paraphrasing] an observation that society has been traditionally structured in a way that utilizes the biological strengths of the sexes. Which I'm sure will not be a controversial statement at all.

In other news ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588257)

Water is wet.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588259)

No Shit Sherlock

Women in STEM (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588263)

Can we please stop posting articles about having more women in STEM.

It will never be 50/50 and won't ever get much higher than it is now. It is what it is.

Re:Women in STEM (2)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#45588287)

The thing about people who go into STEM, they like solving problems.... 'it is what it is', is rarely a good reason to not examine and improve something.

Re:Women in STEM (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588491)

Don't fix what isn't broken is a good reason.

Re:Women in STEM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588757)

No it isn't. It's an excuse for the lazy people who want to avoid to improve things
Cause that means work. And has risks. Scary stuff.

"Don't fix what isn't broken" is the most stupid line in the entire IT.

Re:Women in STEM (2)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | about 5 months ago | (#45588791)

Don't fix what isn't broken is a good reason.

Please tell me you're not in IT, because clearly you don't know what preventative maintenance is.

Re:Women in STEM (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 5 months ago | (#45588709)

Which is why we have so many top ranked women going into STEM fields here at the UW. People who want to become engineers or work in genetics want to do that.

Putting artificial barriers in their way by saying "women should not be engineers or do science" is the wrong message.

Re:Women in STEM (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588819)

Putting artificial barriers in their way by saying "X number of women should be engineers or do science" is equally wrong.

Re:Women in STEM (2)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about 5 months ago | (#45588323)

Can we please stop posting articles about having more women in STEM. It will never be 50/50 and won't ever get much higher than it is now. It is what it is.

Then why was the ratio closer decades ago?

Some of the best database and analytics people I've had the honor of working with are women, and wouldn't be surprised if their gender gives them an advantage at times.

Re:Women in STEM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588407)

...and they have had the burden of working with women more often than the honor.

Re:Women in STEM (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 months ago | (#45588521)

"some of the best" sounds like a sub-sample of the population. You can easily have a lower average and a higher standard deviation simultaneously.

Re:Women in STEM (2)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 5 months ago | (#45588653)

Scott, I'll have to agree, I'd much prefer looking at the female of our species in a meeting than looking at you.

Advantage, hers.

Re:Women in STEM (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 5 months ago | (#45588737)

Actually, I think some of the "sterotypically male" STEM fields here at the UW have more women than men in them - both at the undergrad and graduate level.

2014 is coming whether 2000 wants it to come or not. Adapt or die.

Re:Women in STEM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588405)

It certainly won't get much higher if you act like including the other half of the population is some huge personal detriment to you.

Re:Women in STEM (3, Interesting)

Psykechan (255694) | about 5 months ago | (#45588497)

"It is what it is" only because we're still getting out of the dark ages where women were being held back. I'm not saying that it will gravitate towards 50 percent and then stay there, but it will certainly change.

These studies are only trying to explain why there are differences between the sexes. This is news for nerds, stuff that matters. Personally I've always wondered exactly why I've found I could handle multiple projects much more easily than my male co-workers. Just getting a "you're a girl, duh" response is pointless. Back that up with some research and now you're cooking!

Also, this could also show why a corpus callosotomy [wikipedia.org] can be more problematic for females than males.

University of Philadelphia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588289)

Is there such a thing? There's University of Pennsylvania... also something called "Philadelphia University".

First BBC link says UPenn. UPenn always likes being mixed up with Penn State. Never heard them mixed up with other universities though.

Re:University of Philadelphia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588767)

lmgtfy. uh, http://philau.edu. Yup, there _is_ a University of Philadelphia.

But as you note, the BBC article (was updated?) says University of Pennsylvania, where the study's leader Ruben Gur is on the faculty.

But why would we expect Slashdot editors to do anything as rudimentary as fact check.

phew (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588291)

Well, this article should prompt a small number of tame and boring comments, due to the lack of interest and enthusiasm regarding this topic.

Programming? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588293)

female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes

Ah, this must explain why most programmers are women.

Re:Programming? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588783)

You apparently haven't used many programs.

What about gays and lesbians? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588305)

Would be interesting to see if their pathways follow that of the gender they were born in, or the one they have chosen.

Re:What about gays and lesbians? (3, Interesting)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#45588397)

There has actually been some rather cool work with brainscans of transgendered people, and often they will show neurological structures indicative of the sex they feel rather then the one their primary and secondary sex characteristics indicate.

Gay and lesbian generally just show up as whatever cis body they are.

Re:What about gays and lesbians? (4, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | about 5 months ago | (#45588707)

Citation....desired. I really don't mean to be a dick, I am really curious to read more about this. I actually have a few tranny friends and find this pretty interesting. One of the people in their circle of friends actually found out, at somewhere around 40 years old, that desipite being outwardly born male, she actually had ovaries!

I always find this interesting because I tend to be a bit gender blind. I never really had this strong notion of basic mental differences and ability differences between men and women. As it turns out women I get along with well, including my own wife, tend to identify themselves as tomboys, but, I never really notice or think of them that way.

so it starts coming down to.... what causes these differences? The brain changes all the time based on what we do. You can find differences in brain connectivity just based on people's activities and lifestyles. So.... is it hormonal? (maybe not if the transgender thing translates to these connections), is it social? (women and men socialize in different groups that tend to do different things, and so, grow different types of connections?)

another interesting question is when and how this happens. If a transexual is more like their claimed sex than their outwardly visible one.... is that innate? or does that come from years of practice at trying to be the opposite sex?

One observation I have made is that.... well... I don't like young trannies, they annoy me. What annoys me, and this goes for both MTF and FTM is that (and I am generalizing) they tend to take on a characture of the gender they want to emulate. Some younger, less experienced FTMs tend towards being loud, overtly macho. Likewise MTFs tend towards well... acting like they learned to be a woman from watching Zsa Zsa Gabore (get off my lawn). You kinda get the idea they are overacting, faking it a bit. Its a vibe I don't get at all from older trannies who are more experienced.

This makes me think.... maybe its in fact acting out our expected social roles that changes the brain in these ways? Or maybe its a feedback loop, a bit of the chicken, a bit of the egg.

Re:What about gays and lesbians? (1)

Altus (1034) | about 5 months ago | (#45588409)

ummm.... what?

perhaps you mean transgendered individuals but a gay man is still a man and a lesbian is still a woman. It would be interesting to look at transgendered individuals but I suspect that if the difference is caused by nurture and not nature that you would still see these effects in transgendered people because most of them do grow up in their birth gender and only transition later in life.

Re:What about gays and lesbians? (1)

Verdatum (1257828) | about 5 months ago | (#45588661)

I think GP misspoke, but it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be interesting to see how homosexuals compare with heterosexuals of the same sex in this quality, in addition to looking at transgendered.

Re:What about gays and lesbians? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588563)

IMHO it's the wrong question because gender and sexuality are social constructs. There are probably dozens of major genetic types that might increase your odds of becoming gay or transgender. These genetic types interact with social constructs.

Don't buy that? OK then explain why India has Hijras, but the West doesn't. It's not like Indians are that much different in their genome. The Indian culture processes the non-normative genotypes and labels them as Hijras. The West labels them as gays or transgenders. Have you noticed that the more "out" society gets, the longer the alphabet soup gets? That's because the social constructs are catching up with the genome.

Re:What about gays and lesbians? (2)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 5 months ago | (#45588711)

>because gender and sexuality are social constructs

WTF?

There may be social constructs around gender and sexuality, but for sure no body's bits change gender when they move to a new social situation. Gender and Sexuality are physical constructs. Don't try and inject your social construct voodoo into physical reality.

The differences between genders... (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#45588329)

..is still dwarfed by the differences between individuals of a gender. None of these articles about statistical differences will ever justify the prejudices and social roles some people want to enforce on others to make things simpler.

Re:The differences between genders... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588453)

Won't stop them from using it like it is evidence.

Re:The differences between genders... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588473)

Indeed. The number of human beings who are able to grasp even simple concepts is vanishingly small regardless of gender.

Re:The differences between genders... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 5 months ago | (#45588511)

Depend on which difference we are talking about. Some actually are, others are not.

Re:The differences between genders... (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#45588559)

Nope. If you think that, that just means you haven't had enough exposure to different people. There are a lot of people in the world, and nothing, even the completely obvious secondary sex characteristics break this rule.

Re:The differences between genders... (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 5 months ago | (#45588789)

for a lot of physical characteristics gender plays a bigger role than anything else, why wouldn't it be the same for at least some mental characteristics. Only your prejudices and wishful thinking tell your otherwise. Evolution drove us to different paths, and more and more researches show this regardless of what you want to believe.

Re:The differences between genders... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588519)

..is still dwarfed by the differences between individuals of a gender. None of these articles about statistical differences will ever justify the prejudices and social roles some people want to enforce on others to make things simpler.

Their claim is backed by research and can be replicated or falsified. What, pray tell, backs your claim?

Re:The differences between genders... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588713)

The problem, of course, is that it takes time, money and certain skills to assess the differences between individuals. Lacking those resources, either perceived or real, it makes sense to act on the available statistical information. It is better than nothing, it reduces your risk.
It is only prejudice if you let the statistics control your decision despite the availability of the means to do the job properly.

Obvious, albeit boring, explanation (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588331)

As the article notes, the pathways being studied can change throughout life.

Presumably they change to fit the tasks the person spends most time on.

So... it seems plausible that the pathways reflect gender stereotypes because gender stereotypes created them in the first place.

What about the not-wholly-one-gender brain? (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 5 months ago | (#45588335)

What about people whose brains are "intersexed" - the brain analog to those whose reproductive organs are neither wholly male nor wholly female?

What about the mistaken social assumptions that come when a person is physically one gender and self-identifies as that gender (i.e NOT a traditional "transgender" person) but whose brain is wired the other way?

Re:What about the not-wholly-one-gender brain? (2)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#45588365)

Usually in intersexed brains it depends on what hormones and other bits were doing at the time the particular structures developed. So you generally end up with a mish-mash of gendered neurology.

Re:What about the not-wholly-one-gender brain? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588377)

Shh! You're ruining the "scientific" "evidence" that I need to defend why I treat women like they're idiots.

Re:What about the not-wholly-one-gender brain? (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 5 months ago | (#45588451)

Sorry to burst your pretend bubble but: do they have an X and Y chromosome or not? The end.

Re:What about the not-wholly-one-gender brain? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588589)

Sorry to make generalization harder for you than a checkbox, but there are plenty of exceptions, because biology is messy. For example, there's a condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome in which cells are partially or completely immune to male hormones specifically, and so an XY individual can grow up female for all intents and purposes, because all the triggers that were supposed to make the body male just don't work. Chimerism also complicates things, as do various forms of trisomy with the sex chromosomes.

Re:What about the not-wholly-one-gender brain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588601)

Unless the answer is none of the above [wikipedia.org]. But, I guess you're not the type to rush to informed thought when kneejerk ignorance is available.

It's not so simple (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588677)

Sorry to burst your pretend bubble but: do they have an X and Y chromosome or not? The end.

Yeah, sorry, but nature leaves humanity much more mixed up than your simple world view wishes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRY [wikipedia.org] Have fun learning about "XX males" and "XY females"!

Re:What about the not-wholly-one-gender brain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588825)

Here's the thing. Intersex covers a wide variety of gender disorders and unique cases that it is not as clear cut as asking for X or Y chromosome. For example:

  • One part of the intersex talks about cases where a person has XXY chromosomes, so to answer your question: BOTH!
  • Another part is genetic disorders where tissues are not receptive of testosterone/androgen (hormone used to develop boy characteristics) in XY "boys" so the body defaults to the female blueprint. What should the answer be to your question? "Shle" does have the Y chromosome, but the body ignores it. Will the brain wire like a female or male?

Intersex is the gray area between your black & white definition of "X or Y chromosome". Sorry to burst your bubble.

Re:What about the not-wholly-one-gender brain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588495)

Presumably they were not included in this study. If you have a study that includes them please post a link otherwise there is no information about them to discuss.

Great.... (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#45588343)

So a study noted some interesting neurological structural differences, which is cool.

What is likely to be not cool are the coming comments about how this is just more evidence that divides in fields like STEM, management, finance, etc, are somehow the result of natural drives/talents and that women really do just want to be relegated to the low paid, low respect fields which have minimal chances for advancement, and that they are paid less because they are simply less capable.

Re:Great.... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588465)

What really gets me is this part, quoted from a neuroscientist:

We know that there is no such thing as 'hard wiring' when it comes to brain connections. Connections can change throughout life, in response to experience and learning.

So the brain connections men and women develop from their experiences happen to reflect the roles we tend to nudge men and women into.

Hmmm.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588569)

It *is* more evidence towards exactly that, regardless of whether you find it cool or not.

Re:Great.... (2)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 5 months ago | (#45588693)

Not that I agree with the idea of predetermined castes based on genders, I'd just like to point out that some of the most lucrative STEM fields such as biology, chemistry and medicine are currently at least 50/50 and sometimes more than that in favor of women. It's only a few very specific fields such as maths, computer science and physics where females are still underrepresented. At my own university, the ratio of male to female in medicine especially is staggering; it's a complete flip from what it was a few decades ago.

At this rate, I wouldn't even be surprised if we ended up having to worry about not enough men attending university in the coming years. Females are already over 50% of the graduates in many universities. There are still inequities in many areas regarding sex issues, but I don't think university attendance is the largest. Again, a few fields have the issue, and we should definitely look into it, but it'd be a good idea to acknowledge the progress made instead of blanket statements like "STEM" as a whole. My biggest question, honestly, is why biology and related fields have had such a huge intake, but not physics or maths? Is it that maths are considered "for men"? Can it be related to neurological differences, or not? Is it more of a societal problem? Even more importantly, can we correct it?

Uh... (5, Insightful)

tthomas48 (180798) | about 5 months ago | (#45588375)

" is a huge leap to extrapolate from anatomical differences to try to explain behavioural variation between the sexes. Also, brain connections are not set and can change throughout life."

So... basically this could be 100% enculturation and there could be zero genetic differences. This is essentially the equivalent of pointing out that people who do a lot of running have strikingly different looking cells in their leg muscles than people who sit on the couch all day. Jumping to the runners being born with different leg muscles might not be the correct answer.

Cause and effect? (2, Insightful)

Zumbs (1241138) | about 5 months ago | (#45588393)

As I understand it, the brain is highly adaptive. This begs the question that early conditioning and training may very well have long term consequences to how our brains develop. If boys and girls are subjected to different stimuli and expectations, it follows that their brains are also going to develop differently. Or, to be more blunt, any change in development trajectories that happen after birth could be due to different biology just as well as environmental pressure on the child. This, naturally, makes it very difficult when one wants to consider which is cause and which is effect.

Re:Cause and effect? (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 5 months ago | (#45588525)

In other words, you can buy a windows PC then put Linux on it. Unfortunately, it was still designed for Windows so it still won't work 100% as well. The hardware is simply different. Women's brains are wired to be able to jump around from thought to thought and make rapid connections. Men's brains are more suited to focus on one task at a time and sort of put it in a box then move around as a whole. That means men are generally advantageous at focusing deeply on one thing like an unbelievably complex math problem that should probably be done on a calculator instead and women are better are solving abstract riddles and puzzles and mysterious because of their ability to make rapid connections between related thoughts. I know some women that suck at that sort of thing and men that are terrible at focusing on one thing so yeah, other things can change it. But that's what the "hardware" was designed to do regardless of the end result.

Re:Cause and effect? (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 5 months ago | (#45588641)

You do realize there is no such thing as hard wired and that you cannot use anatomical differences to try to explain behavioural variation between the sexes.

Re:Cause and effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588805)

In other words, you can buy a windows PC then put Linux on it. Unfortunately, it was still designed for Windows so it still won't work 100% as well. The hardware is simply different.

Huh?

If you buy a PC with Windows on it, remove Windows, and install Linux, you have... a Linux machine. The only way anyone can tell that it is "actually" a Windows machine is if they see the adhesive left behind by the "Windows Genuine Advantage" sticker.

For all we know, it could be the same for brains. It might be that the differences we see between male and female brains are entirely due to the enculturation process (which would make the term "[fe]male brain" as dumb as the term "Windows hardware").

Jumping to conclusions (1)

ja (14684) | about 5 months ago | (#45588443)

Different wiring for different sexes does not in itself imply genetic predetermination but might as well be a consequence of differences in what challenges grown ups are likely to present to the child. ... Oh! I see Heidi Johansen-Berg says something to that effect as well in the last paragraph - good!

It's the University of Pennsylvania (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588561)

It's not the University of Philadelphia.

SHOCKER! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588633)

Really? What a shock! You mean men and women... think... differently!? No. It can't be! Brain... exploding.. can't... process... data...

Better multitaskers? Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588643)

Any neurological study that perpetuates the myth that women are better at multitasking is suspect.

Numerous studies show that no one* is capable of multitasking to any degree of usefulness.

*Exception being people that have had their corpus callosum physically cut.

Tell me when they can compare what sex feels like (1)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about 5 months ago | (#45588651)

Spatial skills for men, verbal dexterity for women. Got it, thanks. But tell men what sex feels like for a woman and women what it feels like for a man. Only then can we bridge the divide between the genders.

I wonder... (1)

MondoGordo (2277808) | about 5 months ago | (#45588663)

what implications this has for sexual preference & gender self-identification ? I expect that there is full spectrum of "wiring diagrams" not just male=front/back & female=left/right just as there is a full spectrum of gender identification. Could there be a direct correlation, even causation? Somebody please prove that sexual preference and gender identity is hard-wired by cerebral development and let's shut up the religious asshats once and for all.

Median or Mean is not the Individual (4, Informative)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 5 months ago | (#45588665)

The problem when discussing gender differences is that there is no stereotypical male or stereotypical female.

The difference in genetic makeup between the average male and the average female is LESS than the difference between one individual and another individual.

Trying to create more "gender ghettos" is the wrong response. Here at the UW there are many women engineers and scientists, and not in the fields old fogies think they "should" be in.

We are all individuals. How we use what we have differs, but that doesn't make it "better".

It's like a study on Mergers and Aquisitions reported today saying boards with only one female member were less likely to do a merger than boards with all male members - the problem is that mergers are usually a bad idea for shareholder value in the first place.

"wired differently" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588671)

how about the fact that guys actually are confronted and have to explain themselves about 1000 more times than women before adulthood?

how is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588703)

"In other news, scientists have confirmed that the sky is, in fact, blue."

It's depressing that time and energy are being wasted on mind-numbingly obvious things like this when we still don't know how to cure cancer, prevent aging, or even permanently leave the planet.

Totally shocked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588759)

Of course it would take a team of MALES to come to this conclusion. We are no different. I'm shocked and offended.

Propaganda at its worst (-1, Flamebait)

epyT-R (613989) | about 5 months ago | (#45588809)

This article is a propaganda piece. Take a fact or two, wrap it up in a bunch of science fiction, and present it as an implied justification for social policy. Then end it with a catch-all that denies all culpability for being incorrect, leaving the reader with the emotional implication of the possibility. This is no different than the christian right making correlations between non-atheism and better lifestyle and using it to justify brainwashing kids with the bible in public school. It's despicable no matter who does it.

Historically, most of the philosophers, writers, inventors, creators, and capable leaders of society were men, not women. In fact, if women were truly wired better for this, men would not have been able to do anything about it. This would suggest that this study's data is incomplete, at best, and deliberately misrepresenting the truth at worst. If women were the better cross-hemisphere thinkers, then history would reflect this, as their superior intuition and abstract reasoning skills would've allowed them to dominate entire societies. Today, socialists would be fighting to get more men into STEM career paths.

TROLLKORE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45588821)

Very sick and its frre-loving climate of OpenBSD. How Exemplified by
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...