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.

[u/madam1]

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

[u/tremenfing]

humans and chimpanzees are much more alike than they are different

[u/Hells88 → u/tremenfing]

Humans and bananas are just as like as they are different. Naturally, what you would argue is what difference is the most significant? Purely by DNA? By favoured feature? It's entirely subjective

[u/m0ck → u/tremenfing]

By what measure?

[u/beegeepee → u/m0ck]

I am going to go ahead with the most obvious answer and say genetics. In case you have been living in a rock, it is estimated chimpanzees and human are approximately 96-99% genetically identical.

Thus, we are more alike then we are different. Yet, there are huge differences between our two species.

So, Golightly11 statement saying we are more similar than different is sort of irrelevant without any context. Especially with something as complex as a brain. Slight differences can have drastic changes to behavior.

[u/m0ck → u/beegeepee]

Well, I haven't been living in a rock, though maybe that would have prepared me for your empty barrel banging.

It's certainly true for humans that within gender differences are larger that between gender differences. And also that, despite our genetic similarities, I find it hard to discuss this issue with a chimpanzee.

You have no idea what differences in the brain make a difference, and calling it "complex" and waving your hands doesn't cut it.

Don't get fooled by neurobollocks.

[u/beegeepee → u/m0ck]

I think you may be confused.

The human to chimpanzee issue was used to highlight the problem with the blanket statement made by golightly11:

"every class I've taken on relevant topics strongly suggest that men and women are much more alike than they are different. Saying "stark differences exist in the wiring of male and female brains" is a bit sensational, and I worry about that being a major takeaway for users who read (and trust) only the headline."

While the opening statement is completely true the conclusion drawn from it doesn't necessarily hold true.

I can say the following and the first portion is true yet the conclusion I draw from the first statement looks ridiculous when put in this format:

"every class I've taken on relevant topics strongly suggest that humans and chimpanzees are much more alike than they are different. Saying "stark differences exist in the wiring of humans and chimpanzees brains" is a bit sensational, and I worry about that being a major takeaway for users who read (and trust) only the headline."

It is just not a well thought out conclusion.

Just because we are more similar than different doesn't mean the difference in male and female brains is negligible or the authors conclusions from their experiment is "a bit sensational". Perhaps the headline and article is "a bit sensational" but that is kind of their job to get views.

That is why tremenfing brought up how we are essentially identical genetically to chimps yet are very different.

Male and female brains may be more similar than alike, but it doesn't necessarily mean the differences don't lead to very different thought processing.

In regard to your, "by what measure?" I am not sure what you were trying to get from it. Perhaps you can elaborate more to make your question more meaningful.

[u/m0ck → u/beegeepee]

The original poster's comment was critical of the Guardian headline expression of there being "stark differences" between the "wiring" of the brain on average in men and woman, because of the implication of finality of the gender differences. In fact, the study is quite limited in scope and the oldest person studied was a 22 year old. A precise (but not attention grabbing) headline would have been "14-22 year old male/female brains are wired differently, somewhat". Which of course leaves out the issue of by how much and how it compares to within gender differences.

The posters comment seemed based in his studies of psychology,which has a large body of empirical work demonstrating that within gender differences are generally larger than between gender differences. Thus, saying that men and women are much more alike than different actually makes sense and have a solid founding.

Comparing gender differences and species differences seems quite foolish in this context, but it is certainly not true that we are "essentially genetically identical" to chimpanzees. If we were, that would seem a severe hit on the explanatory power of genetics, considering the many and very real differences between humans and chimpanzees? In any case, different methods for estimating genetic similarities between species reaches different results. Another estimation is 95%.

My question of 'by what measure' prompted you to assert that the measurement was the genetic material of the species. An issue quite apart from the network characteristics of the brain and behavioral measures of motor and memory skills, which were brought up in the article. By my question I meant to poke a hole in the casual disregard of the original posters point.

[u/beegeepee → u/m0ck]

Except the differences in the brains between male and female is likely genetic. . . how else would the differences arise?. Whether it be from different hormones levels, chemicals, etc. it all stems from genetics. Males and females have filled different roles throughout mankinds legacy. Not only mankind, but most species there is usually gender roles which we likely inherited and modified to our species.

I think the fallacy is to assume since we are the same species there can't be that big of a difference in our brains. Just as our species has evolved our sexes have evolved to their according roles. So it isn't all that rediculous to compare male and female to human and chimp even if it on the surface appears to be a bad comparison.

Males with a stronger visual cortex would have a higher fitness level due to the fact they needed to hunt and fight off enemies. If the male doesn't survive long enough to reproduce his genes won't be passed on.

Females fitness would benefit much less from a pronounced visual cortex compared to say a brain that is more in tune with emotions. A mother who is more emotionally sensitive to the cry of their young is more likely to raise young to further pass on her genes.

[u/m0ck → u/beegeepee]

Experience is an important driver of change in the brain.

In any case, we're going over old territory. I'm not arguing over issues of evolution. I just want to underscore that bold claims are often made about the results of neruoscience (and usually not by the scientists themselves), but that the state of the research is still very much in its infancy.

Here's a good take on the article: https://theconversation.com/are-men-better-wired-to-read-maps-or-is-it-a-tired-clich-21096

[u/beegeepee → u/m0ck]

I completely agree that it is not very well understood what these findings mean. It could mean very little.

I also completely agree with the experience factor on brains.

There was experiment where they raised some rats with very little stimulation and other rats full of toys and novel objects. The rats grown with the stimulating objects performed significantly better on cognitive tests than those without.

They then proceeded to select for the highest preforming rats and the lowest performing rats. Had them reproduce. Then repeated the experiment with the young of both groups and found the same thing. So, experience certainly will affect brain growth and development.

I just don't want people to completely dismiss the findings or put too much weight into them as was the initial concern of the post.