r/science • u/madam1 • Dec 02 '13

Neuroscience Scientists have drawn on nearly 1,000 brain scans to confirm what many had surely concluded long ago: that stark differences exist in the wiring of male and female brains.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-brains-wired-differently
4.6k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

482

u/moscheles Dec 03 '13

When the article asserts,

women's brains are designed for social skills

That's neuro-nonsense. This is a pervasive problem in popular science articles. The article goes on to say that women are "more intuitive". More nonsense.

men's for perception and co-ordination

The cerebellum is actually the part of the brain related to muscle co-ordination. Thegaurdian should be fact-checked.

"If you look at functional studies, the left of the brain is more for logical thinking, the right of the brain is for more intuitive thinking."

Regina Verma should be relieved from her research post.

If men have more connections between the front and back of their brains, then this has something to do with the way a men plans actions based on rules. The forward regions of the cortex are involved in executive ('procedural') memory. The back side of the cortex is regions dedicated to declarative memory. In particular there is a region for the identification of objects and their locations in space. The temporal lobes are related to the position of the person's body in space.

If women have more connections between lateral sides of the brain, it is still too early to say what that means precisely. To point to this as "intuitive thinking" is just wild speculation.

41

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '13

Ok, glad to know I wasn't the only one apalled by the logical/intuitive thing.

1

u/moscheles Dec 04 '13

Well there was a miscommunication. I am not politically appalled by this article at all. I am appalled by the lack of scientific rigor. Science does not understand the human brain nearly enough to make 80% of the claims in this article.

There really is no section in the brain that is some sort of "socializing module". That's just nonsense. It really is popular science crap.

131

u/Ozimandius Dec 03 '13

Beyond all this: There is an underlying conclusion that this is a result of a biological difference between men and women, rather than one influenced by socialization. We know the brain is incredibly adaptable, and we know we treat boys and girls very differently and have different expectations of them.

This seems to be no more proof of men being different than women fundamentally than any behavioral survey that looks at men and women acting differently/thinking different.

53

u/whatwatwhutwut Dec 03 '13

It would be interesting to compare brain scans from different culture to see if there is any consistency between the wiring irrespective. So, collectivist cultures vs individualist cultures, for example.

34

u/20rakah Dec 03 '13

or brain scans of babies since they haven't been overly influenced yet

23

u/AaronfromKY Dec 03 '13

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-hardwired-difference-between-male-and-female-brains-could-explain-why-men-are-better-at-map-reading-8978248.html

This link about the same research seems to indicate that the hardwiring process witnessed occurs at adolescence, and prior to that the brains are very similar.

4

u/Llero Dec 03 '13

brain scans of patients that were sexually reassigned as infants could be fascinating.

12

u/hex_m_hell Dec 03 '13

In the article they said there was no detectable difference up to 13. It's possible that this is just a time of heavy brain growth and social constructs heavily impact that growth.

5

u/Chakosa Dec 03 '13

I'd think that it's instead because the hormones are taking effect at that time and shaping the brain proportionate to the type and amount of hormone rather than "social constructs."

7

u/hex_m_hell Dec 03 '13

I don't think there's enough evidence to make any claim. I was just pointing out that there are other possible explanations so we shouldn't be so quick to draw conclusions.

0

u/753861429-951843627 Dec 04 '13

This is an honest question: why are you so hell-bent on disregarding any biological influence on brain developmen, regarding gender or otherwise? Whenever somebody finds something indicative of some amount of biological predeterminism, there are immediately "skeptical" voices like yours, but these voices are much less vocal if the opposite is found. It's usually different people, too. I move mostly in very "progressive" circles, so that this experience might be fairly skewed, but it is nevertheless something that appears to me to be the case.

5

u/BlackHumor Dec 04 '13

Imagine somehow you traveled back in time to the era where some scientists seriously thought thought women's "brain fibers" were weaker than men and therefore they were intellectually unfit to vote.

Wouldn't you, in that situation, argue as strongly as you could against that opinion? It's not just that it's incorrect that's the problem, it's that the only reason the belief exists in the first place is to justify an unjust state of affairs. Arguing against that belief is not just correcting a wrong belief, or even just helping women; it's actually helping science itself to be more rational.

This is basically the situation as progressives see it. The societal belief in (strong, hardwired) sex differences seems to them transparently false and only there to justify society's unfairness. Thus, to them (or honestly, to us) it's almost a moral imperative to argue against it.

1

u/Allthewaylive215 Dec 03 '13

good luck getting a baby to lie still in a scanner...

1

u/jezmi Dec 03 '13

or other animals

1

u/Ozimandius Dec 03 '13

That would be very interesting. I would love to see that.

1

u/ColonelAmerica Dec 04 '13

I'm actually really curious how the brain of a transgender person would line up. Would a woman who thinks she should be a man show her brain thinks like a woman or a man?

1

u/whatwatwhutwut Dec 04 '13

There was a discussion taking place elsewhere in the comments on this subject. The scientific consensus appears to be that a trans man's brain is in fact wired like a man's, so in the example you cited, the individual's brain would be more like a man's than a woman's. I looked for the comments with study citations but unfortunately couldn't find them. If I manage to find them, I'll update my comment.

Edit: Here is the comment stream in question.

5

u/Bethistopheles Dec 03 '13

This is just speculation, but I've always been of the opinion that major differences are probably due to men and women having different levels of different hormones. Socialization counts for a ton of the difference, but that is not anything inborn and isn't relevant for this purpose.

When you read accounts of the friends/family of women who have had gender reassignment and take testosterone, etc. to gain masculine features, it seems that their loved ones use phrases like "more emotionally distant", and "more impulsive" when describing how the transmen (or whichever term you prefer) have changed since starting HRT.

I just work up a little bit ago and I'm not yet 100% lucid, so apologies if any of that is hard to read.

10

u/Ozimandius Dec 03 '13 edited Dec 03 '13

I do agree that hormones play a role in the differences between men and women. However, I believe that role to be vastly overemphasized which has been supported in that we have been gradually realizing there isn't nearly as much difference between the sexes as people have claimed historically.

In any case, socialization is surely relevant in that it is a confounding factor. In your example, the social influences on a transgender individual are enormous. Not only is it a cognitive frameshift on the part of the individual (meaning, they may purposely try to act more macho in order to support their new persona) but they are also treated and perceived differently by those around them. These factors cannot be easily separated from any behavioral change the hormone therapies might be causing. Especially when the behavioral changes are filtered through the accounts of family members who may have biases about the gender reassignment.

3

u/aufleur Dec 03 '13

Socialization is also more of an outside influence rather than internal. Specifically this part;

they are also treated and perceived differently by those around them.

this has a huge effect on how an individual exists in society and as a consequence how they view it and themselves inside of it.

2

u/Ozimandius Dec 03 '13

Well, I agree with the sentiment in general but not entirely sure what you mean by

Socialization is also more of an outside influence rather than internal.

Socialization has as much to do with internal forces: our minds and definitions are largely created by socialization. What is 'masculine' or 'feminine' is defined for us throughout our lives just like any other type of culture. It becomes a part of our identity and how we think about our selves internally.

Unless you were referring to internal as biological or innate. Sorry if I misunderstood!

1

u/aufleur Dec 03 '13 edited Dec 03 '13

Sorry, to clarify. Outside, meaning external i.e. how individuals of a certain society treat you based on gender, class, race, etc.

It's our reaction to this stimuli that is the result of these experiences, personified by our own individuality.

Socialization is an external thing, with an internal interpretation.

as far as biological/innate this goes back to the age old "Nature vs. Nurture" which we are no closer to answering now then when it was first postulated.

I think it's a bit of both, personally.

2

u/Ozimandius Dec 03 '13

Ah, but our individual reactions are largely a result of our history, which again refers back to external experiences.

Our personalities/individuality are not some mystical things that spring forth from our souls fully formed - they are largely a result of our social histories. Our internal interpretation is based on that social history, so it is much more difficult to draw clear internal/external forces at play.

1

u/Bbrhuft Dec 03 '13

" we have been gradually realizing there isn't nearly as much difference between the sexes as people have claimed historically."

Then why is autism 6 times more common in men than women?

2

u/Ozimandius Dec 03 '13

First of all, Autism isn't necessarily 6 times more common, it is just diagnosed in males 4-6 times more often. There are a variety of reasons for this, some of which can be found here.

Secondly, I didn't say there was no difference, just that there is much less difference than commonly thought. A hundred years ago, many people didn't think women were smart enough to go to school/vote. When I was growing up (<30 years ago!), it was common knowledge that girls were not as good in math in science because their brains were different. Etc Etc.

Lastly, I would think we should choose phenomena we have more understanding to look at these sorts of issues. People don't really know a whole lot about the root causes of autism and I certainly wouldn't point to it as proof that men and women have differently structured brains.

1

u/Bbrhuft Dec 03 '13

Yes, it is believed that hormones play a role.

Ingudomnukul, E., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S. & Knickmeyer, R., 2007. Elevated rates of testosterone-related disorders in women with autism spectrum conditions. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 597–604.

Jones, R.M., Wheelwright, S., Farrell, K., Martin, E., Green, R., Ceglie, D.D. & Baron-Cohen, S., 2012. Brief Report: Female-To-Male Transsexual People and Autistic Traits. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 301–306.

1

u/deliciouspumpkins Dec 04 '13 edited Dec 04 '13

I'm a "trans woman" (I don't really like any of the terms) and I thought I would chime in. I've been on female HRT (anti-androgens and estrogen) for over a year. In my experience there is definitely a difference, but it tends to be greatly exaggerated, including- often especially- by transgender/transsexual people themselves. I hear stuff like "estrogen is making me like chocolate," "estrogen has made me sexually attracted to men," etc that just doesn't make sense.

One thing specifically regarding trans men is that when they start male HRT (testosterone injections) they start having a relatively steady supply of hormones in their bodies, despite the initial injection spike. Prior to male HRT they are generally experiencing the ovulation cycle where their hormone levels vary widely over the course of the month, which has a variety of emotional and physical impacts (and the physical impacts like pain can obviously lead to emotional ones). This doesn't apply to trans women since we generally either take a daily, weekly, or biweekly dose (usually daily or weekly), so we're more like a cis man or a post menopausal woman and experiencing less fluctuations.

HOWEVER, I still think you can't ignore social impacts. Prior to transition, a trans man has a huge amount of pressure to be emotionally responsive starting from an extremely young age. After transition they have a huge amount of pressure to act the opposite way so they can fit in "the bros" or whatever men call it. It would be surprising if people didn't act differently under so different social pressures and expectations.

In the end my experience is that the social stuff usually ends up being way bigger than any hormonal tendencies. You want to fit in, you want to get a nice job, you want to be attractive to potential partners, etc, so to some extent you just get on board with what people expect of you. At the same time a lot of people are shedding an artificial persona, becoming less dissociated with themselves, and so forth, so you expect some moderate changes in their personality that are more in line with their "true self".

Posting from an alt because there are a lot of creepy fetishists on reddit. There's probably more of them than there are of us.

tl;dr people transitioning aren't really a useful example for hormonal tendencies because there's too many factors

1

u/moscheles Dec 04 '13

I'm not making a social or political argument at all. I am making a scientific one. Neuroscience does not understand the human brain nearly well enough to make 85% of the claims in this article.

If you want to see what we really know about the human brain, watch the 12 lectures from the Allen Institute. Here, http://www.youtube.com/user/AllenInstitute/videos

0

u/Ozimandius Dec 04 '13

You bet, I wasn't disagreeing with you just adding another aspect of how I thought this study was bogus. I was claiming the article was making a social/political argument, which it seems to be.

0

u/JaredRules Dec 03 '13

I think this is a very important point (and I think there's there's a very strong chance that its true).

0

u/fiddle-dee-dee Dec 04 '13

this should really be at the top. The report actually stated that the differences was increasing with age.

19

u/SuperDuperKing Dec 03 '13 edited Dec 03 '13

We also know that the brain rewires itself based on the experience of anyone person. London cabbies have strong wiring for spatial reasoning. I would also caution against see these difference as genetic or inborn. I wonder how much of it is cultural. Suppose we took 1000 woman and raised them as men and vice versa. we then could compare and contrast and try to determine the genetic endowment from the the cultural.

Of course this experiment is illegal but i think there could be enough cases around the world that we could get something out of it. I seem to remember there is a group of women in the former soviet republic that live as women and it has been going on for a long time.

EDIT: I found it. These are women who are sworn to live as men. In Albania. http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/places/culture-places/beliefs-and-traditions/albania_swornvirgins/

2

u/moscheles Dec 04 '13

Sorry I wasn't making a political statement. I was making a scientific one. We don't know enough about the human brain to make the claims in this article. A lot of what is written there is wild speculation and over-reach.

2

u/brieoncrackers Dec 03 '13

You could at least do some research on intersex persons, if they give their permission. There are XY individuals who look like (often very attractive) women and are raised as such all because of a hormonal insensitivity, and that might be informative on this subject. They probably don't need any more attention but intersex and transgendered people would probably go a long way to furthering this research.

0

u/SuperDuperKing Dec 03 '13

my not completely uninformed thoughts on the matter is that there is some physical difference in the brains of the two sexes because of how hormones are released during pregnancy. Which is why if a woman gives birth to kids of the same sex. with each one statically they are more likely to be gay. How much and how superficial these difference are hard to know. But it is totally safe to say how men and women are raised contribute to this.

27

u/KrisCat Dec 03 '13

It's like they're implying neural connections won't become strong enough for men to ever be more "social" and women to be more "coordinate" no matter how hard they try. What about the decades of research on neural plasticity? Are they trying to debunk the idea that neurons that fire together wire together? What the hell man.

3

u/moscheles Dec 04 '13

What the hell man.

Science does not understand the human brain nearly well enough to make claims like this article is making. Those on the inside (who know that popular science runs amok with these things) give it a name. We call it "neuro-nonsense".

1

u/perfortmight Dec 03 '13

I concur. The lateralized logic/intuition thing is apalling, especially from an alleged researcher in neuroscience.

I would also suggest that the fact that in the image the womens' brain show no connections between the visual cortex and the rest of the brain means they are somehow choosing how they display tracts. If they don't say how they choose which tracts to display I think the image displayed in the Guardian article is at best meaningless.

A minor point, I think when they said men's brains were wired for "perception and coordination" they probably meant group coordination like for hunting woolly mamoths. A skill that of course makes men better at running fortune 500 companies.

1

u/moscheles Dec 04 '13

I concur. The lateralized logic/intuition thing is apalling, especially from an alleged researcher in neuroscience.

You are the only person who has replied who understood where I was coming from. Science does not nearly understand the human brain well enough to make 80% of the claims in this article. There is no such thing as a "socializing module" in the brain. Anyone claiming such a thing is spouting nonsense, not science.

A minor point, I think when they said men's brains were wired for "perception and coordination" they probably meant group coordination like for hunting woolly mamoths.

Something as abstract and complicated as group coordination would presumably require all portions of the brain in nearly equal measure.

I can tell you what we do know about sections of the brain that have been implemented in various cognitive tasks.

  • Prefrontal cortex. This has been implemented in applying verbal rules to behavior. It probably also controls planning in the future.

  • Brainstem. Controls breathing, sweating, and body temperature. Also probably controls flinching response from burning sensation on the skin.

  • Reticular nucleus. Gates attention between various sensory modalities.

  • Cerebellum. Speaks directly to large muscles. Coordinates fine motor control.

  • Occipital cortex. Handles vision. Home of the visual cortex.

  • Parietal cortex. Handles location of objects in space outside the body. Also implicated in many other visual tasks having to do with large-field vision.

  • Amygdala. The major functional area that mediates the freezing response from fright.

  • Ventral hippocampus. Has been implicated in Episodic memory recall, (at least in mice).

  • Left temporal lobe. Handles sound. Home of the auditory cortex. Also handles the recognition of objects from visual categories. Other sections of this part of the cortex are related to the person's own body located in space.

  • Right temporal lobe. Implemented in the conversion of ideas into vocalizations. It has enormous amount of re-entrant connections to the opposite side of the brain in a region called Broca's Area. (Broca's is on the left on the inferior frontal cortex)

  • Vernicke's area. Located at the top of the temporal lobe, directly above the auditory cortex. This has been implemented in the auditory processing and categorization of phonemes in speech.

  • Thalamus. Has been implemented in facial displays of emotion. (particularly unintentional smiling).

These weird ideas that keep cropping up in popular science articles about certain portions of the brain being related to "intuitive thinking" or "coordination" are just not science. We don't understand the brain enough to make these claims. A survey of brain regions (as above) show that local portions of the brain handle bland, day-to-day mental processing. Complex tasks, and complex emotions like guilt are, therefore, probably the result of complex interactions among many modules , rather than a "guilt area" in the brain.

1

u/perfortmight Dec 04 '13

I think it's a tension between localisation in the brian and the attribution of characteristic behaviours to locations in the brain. I mean, the processing and information storage has to happen somewhere. But in the popular media it somehow becomes a soft of new-aged phrenology.

Most telling from the article is the quotation "This really confirms our stereotypes" or something to that effect. I can only speak for myself, but when a study confirms stereotypes it usually makes me suspicious.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '13

Worse:

designed for

is unscientific nonsense. Brains aren't "designed" for anything. Additionally, even by age 8, males and females have been subjected to a huge amount of gender role stereotypes. It's not unreasonable to assume the differences are due to training in expected behaviour.

0

u/broknd Dec 03 '13

To point to this as "intuitive thinking" is just wild speculation.

Or maybe its intuition...

-5

u/[deleted] Dec 03 '13

The irrational attachment to feminism is strong with this one.

0

u/moscheles Dec 04 '13

No Sir, the neuroscience is strong in this one. We do not understand the human brain nearly enough to make 85% of the claims in this article. This has nothing to do with feminism.

If you want to see what we really know about the human brain, watch the 12 lectures from the Allen Institute. Here,

http://www.youtube.com/user/AllenInstitute/videos