By the plasticity argument-also made explicitly by neuroscientist Lise Eliot in her book Pink Brain Blue Brain-small sex differences in human brains at birth are increased by culture’s influence on the brain’s plasticity. Eliot further argues that we can avoid “troublesome gaps” between the behaviors of adult men and women (a curious contradiction, by the way, of the view that there are no behavioral differences between the sexes) by encouraging boys and girls to learn against their inborn tendencies. It is critical to understand where the fallacies in this argument lie. First, it is false to conclude that because a particular behavior starts small in children and grows, that behavior has little or no biological basis. One has only to think of handedness, walking, and language to see the point. Second, this argument presupposes that human “cultural” influences are somehow formed independent of the existing biological predispositions of the human brain. But third, and most important, is the key fallacy in the plasticity argument: the implication that the brain is perfectly plastic. It is not. The brain is plastic only within the limits set by biology. To understand this critical point, consider handedness. It is indeed possible, thanks to the brain’s plasticity, to force a child with a slight tendency to use her left hand to become a right-handed adult. But that does not mean that this practice is a good idea, or that the child is capable of becoming as facile with her right hand as she might have become with her left had she been allowed to develop her natural tendencies unimpeded. The idea that we should use the brain’s plasticity to work against inborn masculine or feminine predispositions in the brains of children is as ill conceived as the idea that we should encourage left-handed children to use their right hand. The presence of biological limits to plasticity-and hence the presence of limits to how much experiences can affect the brain-is perhaps made most clear in elegant studies by J. Richard Udry. In his paper entitled “Biological Limits of Gender Construction,” Udry examines the interaction between two factors-how much a mother encouraged her daughter to behave in “feminine” ways, and how much the daughter had been exposed to masculinizing hormonal influences in the womb-on how “feminine” the daughter behaved when she was older. The more mothers encouraged “femininity” in their daughters, the more feminine the daughters behaved as adults, but only in those daughters exposed to little masculinizing hormone in utero. Crucially, the greater the exposure to masculinizing hormonal effects in utero, the less effective was the mother’s encouragement, to the point where encouragement either did not work at all or even tended toward producing the opposite effect on the daughters’ behavior. All those wishing to understand sex influences on the human brain need to fully grasp the implications of the animal literature, and then think about the Udry data, which captures an incontrovertible fact from brain science: Yes, brains are plastic, but only within the limits set by biology. It is decidedly not the case that environmental experience can turn anything into anything, and equally easily, in the brain. The specious plasticity argument invoked by anti-sex difference authors appears to be just a modern incarnation of the long-debunked “blank slate” view of human brain function, the idea that all people’s brains start out as blank slates, thus are equally moldable to become anything through experience.
Thanks for flagging these issues. I started reading and saw this: In a 2000 issue of the American Sociological Review, Udry articulated the sociobiological claim that prenatal hormone experience influences women’s adult gendered behavior and then provided statistical analyses of longitudinal data that he claimed supported the argument (Udry 2000). The next year, the American Sociological Review published critiques from several scholars (Miller and Costello 2001; Kennelly, Merz, and Lorber 2001; Risman 2001), along with responses by the author and editor (Udry 2001; Firebaugh 2001) Have you engaged the back and for that occurred with this article? Or did you just take Udry as giving “incontrovertible facts from brain science”? (Ie if you say you read the exchange and still come down on the author’s side, I get it. Just want to know about your level of engagement)
No reason to feel left out. Men being less empathetic than women does not mean that men are not empathetic. We have the same things but not in the same proportions because we do not use them the same way. Great way for balance.
Unfortunately what she said sounds wonderful but it's just not true. The malebrain is bigger and that doesn't mean that he's more intelligent and the female burn is smaller because we use certain areas more than the other. But we have similarities in like sex and certain things. You're similarities but even on mate selection we select for different things. Man select four different reasons and women select for different reasons. That's why women look for quality and man look for quantity. We balance each other out. We don't need to be the same thing cuz I don't need to sleep with myself. That last part was a joke😂
I feel that this requires a different kind of studying. Lets take for example the more gender defining aspects of sex. Which is, sexual attraction. By default the majority of people for example are attracted mostly or solely by the opposite sex and we respond to different stimuli. Anthropological studies show a lot of variety in sexual expression and attraction but the opposite sex attraction is more or less a lot more prominent which then leads to how we strengthen in terms of culture some impressions and norms. And there are some universal traits. Although new neuroscience shows that our brains are more or less the same, men and women are attracted to different things sexually. Are they cultural? I dont know. Probably not, probably yes, probably partially. If not, and it doesnt show in brain studies, maybe what consists of sex differences require a different kind of approach and research.
I have a question. How do males and females bond with each other? I don't see how men and women can bond (especially romantically) with each other. Women can build incredible friendships and become very close to each other in a way men can't bond, and science shows that women can bond very well with each other. Generally, women are even more social than men are. After something bad happens, a woman quickly rushes to talk to all of her female friends to get support, whereas a man can isolate himself and grief alone. Women tend to be more emotional, more caring, more empathic, more compassionate, more affectionate, more loyal, more nurturing, more understanding, more sympathetic, more sensitive, more kind hearted, more peaceful, more calmer, more gentle, more expressive, more intuitive, and more outward than men are, and thus bond more with other women in a special way that they can’t with men. Men, on the other hand, are not that emotional, and thus can’t bond with other men in a special way. Women are more comfortable being around with other women than they are with men. They have a type of bond that usually men with women won’t really have, or with men and men. Men are usually much lonelier than women are. Men don't often talk about their personal problems with their male friends like how women do with their female friends. Females produce a lot more oxytocin than males do. And that's a reason why women tend to hug a lot more and be a lot more physically affectionate than men do.
Because we're not the same bro. She's talking crap. We see it every day. Socially woman and man are different. Not just sexually but also in interest. We're on a spectrum so you got guys who are hardcore. You got guys who are soft. They got guys who are curious. You know a little bit of feminine and the same for women. You got women who are so off the feminine you got women who are tough but the interest is always go. Differ guys like things women like people and social setting. Majority of female that is a majority of males like things like they will look at tractors fight for dominance a lot of that stuff so we're different. Not in every way but some keen ways that will cause problem. If you tell us where the same ocean act the same
@@markgordon2660 I heard that lesbian relationships are healthier because they understand each other. If both partners understand each other, they won’t want to break up with each other. I also heard that women have higher rates of depression when married (in straight relationships). There is a very small percent of women that are happy in heterosexual relationships. So it's very hard for men and women to bond with each other and have a strong bond with each other. Both men and women think differently, behave differently, react in a different way. The more similar two people are, the easier it is to relate and understand each other, resulting in a better, more fulfilling connection. I also read somewhere that even with the divorce rates what they are, most heterosexual marriages that don't end in divorce are still unhappy, and can absolutely relate to experiencing significantly more depression while married than while single.
What about the motivation of the aggression. In women it would most likely be to protect the ones they love. In men it might be to dominate and control others, or a feeling of superiority.
Female animals are aggressive even before and during the heat. They are not aggressive just to protect the ones they love. What you said here is totally wrong.
I don’t agree that power drives commitment towards sex difference, as if men are jealously guarding difference as a way of maintaining power. I think this is a uniquely woman’s perspective and dare I say sexist perspective. As a man I’d say that if you do present feminine characteristics then men will see those characteristics as a sign of weakness and will dominate that man. There is no underlying competition between men and women, it’s a cultural man thing.
By the plasticity argument-also made explicitly by neuroscientist Lise Eliot in her book Pink Brain Blue Brain-small sex differences in human brains at birth are increased by culture’s influence on the brain’s plasticity. Eliot further argues that we can avoid “troublesome gaps” between the behaviors of adult men and women (a curious contradiction, by the way, of the view that there are no behavioral differences between the sexes) by encouraging boys and girls to learn against their inborn tendencies.
It is critical to understand where the fallacies in this argument lie. First, it is false to conclude that because a particular behavior starts small in children and grows, that behavior has little or no biological basis. One has only to think of handedness, walking, and language to see the point. Second, this argument presupposes that human “cultural” influences are somehow formed independent of the existing biological predispositions of the human brain. But third, and most important, is the key fallacy in the plasticity argument: the implication that the brain is perfectly plastic. It is not. The brain is plastic only within the limits set by biology.
To understand this critical point, consider handedness. It is indeed possible, thanks to the brain’s plasticity, to force a child with a slight tendency to use her left hand to become a right-handed adult. But that does not mean that this practice is a good idea, or that the child is capable of becoming as facile with her right hand as she might have become with her left had she been allowed to develop her natural tendencies unimpeded. The idea that we should use the brain’s plasticity to work against inborn masculine or feminine predispositions in the brains of children is as ill conceived as the idea that we should encourage left-handed children to use their right hand.
The presence of biological limits to plasticity-and hence the presence of limits to how much experiences can affect the brain-is perhaps made most clear in elegant studies by J. Richard Udry. In his paper entitled “Biological Limits of Gender Construction,” Udry examines the interaction between two factors-how much a mother encouraged her daughter to behave in “feminine” ways, and how much the daughter had been exposed to masculinizing hormonal influences in the womb-on how “feminine” the daughter behaved when she was older.
The more mothers encouraged “femininity” in their daughters, the more feminine the daughters behaved as adults, but only in those daughters exposed to little masculinizing hormone in utero. Crucially, the greater the exposure to masculinizing hormonal effects in utero, the less effective was the mother’s encouragement, to the point where encouragement either did not work at all or even tended toward producing the opposite effect on the daughters’ behavior.
All those wishing to understand sex influences on the human brain need to fully grasp the implications of the animal literature, and then think about the Udry data, which captures an incontrovertible fact from brain science: Yes, brains are plastic, but only within the limits set by biology. It is decidedly not the case that environmental experience can turn anything into anything, and equally easily, in the brain. The specious plasticity argument invoked by anti-sex difference authors appears to be just a modern incarnation of the long-debunked “blank slate” view of human brain function, the idea that all people’s brains start out as blank slates, thus are equally moldable to become anything through experience.
Read this : www.sciencenews.org/article/female-animal-myths-lucy-cooke-new-book-bitch-biology-sexism
Thanks for flagging these issues. I started reading and saw this: In a 2000 issue of the American Sociological Review, Udry articulated the sociobiological claim that prenatal hormone experience influences women’s adult gendered behavior and then provided statistical analyses of longitudinal data that he claimed supported the argument (Udry 2000). The next year, the American Sociological Review published critiques from several scholars (Miller and Costello 2001; Kennelly, Merz, and Lorber 2001; Risman 2001), along with responses by the author and editor (Udry 2001; Firebaugh 2001)
Have you engaged the back and for that occurred with this article? Or did you just take Udry as giving “incontrovertible facts from brain science”? (Ie if you say you read the exchange and still come down on the author’s side, I get it. Just want to know about your level of engagement)
No reason to feel left out. Men being less empathetic than women does not mean that men are not empathetic. We have the same things but not in the same proportions because we do not use them the same way. Great way for balance.
Unfortunately what she said sounds wonderful but it's just not true. The malebrain is bigger and that doesn't mean that he's more intelligent and the female burn is smaller because we use certain areas more than the other. But we have similarities in like sex and certain things. You're similarities but even on mate selection we select for different things. Man select four different reasons and women select for different reasons. That's why women look for quality and man look for quantity. We balance each other out. We don't need to be the same thing cuz I don't need to sleep with myself. That last part was a joke😂
Hats off to unbiased scientists around the world. Our egos must be kept in check.
I feel that this requires a different kind of studying. Lets take for example the more gender defining aspects of sex. Which is, sexual attraction. By default the majority of people for example are attracted mostly or solely by the opposite sex and we respond to different stimuli. Anthropological studies show a lot of variety in sexual expression and attraction but the opposite sex attraction is more or less a lot more prominent which then leads to how we strengthen in terms of culture some impressions and norms. And there are some universal traits. Although new neuroscience shows that our brains are more or less the same, men and women are attracted to different things sexually. Are they cultural? I dont know. Probably not, probably yes, probably partially. If not, and it doesnt show in brain studies, maybe what consists of sex differences require a different kind of approach and research.
I have a question. How do males and females bond with each other? I don't see how men and women can bond (especially romantically) with each other.
Women can build incredible friendships and become very close to each other in a way men can't bond, and science shows that women can bond very well with each other. Generally, women are even more social than men are. After something bad happens, a woman quickly rushes to talk to all of her female friends to get support, whereas a man can isolate himself and grief alone.
Women tend to be more emotional, more caring, more empathic, more compassionate, more affectionate, more loyal, more nurturing, more understanding, more sympathetic, more sensitive, more kind hearted, more peaceful, more calmer, more gentle, more expressive, more intuitive, and more outward than men are, and thus bond more with other women in a special way that they can’t with men. Men, on the other hand, are not that emotional, and thus can’t bond with other men in a special way.
Women are more comfortable being around with other women than they are with men. They have a type of bond that usually men with women won’t really have, or with men and men. Men are usually much lonelier than women are. Men don't often talk about their personal problems with their male friends like how women do with their female friends. Females produce a lot more oxytocin than males do. And that's a reason why women tend to hug a lot more and be a lot more physically affectionate than men do.
Because we're not the same bro. She's talking crap. We see it every day. Socially woman and man are different. Not just sexually but also in interest. We're on a spectrum so you got guys who are hardcore. You got guys who are soft. They got guys who are curious. You know a little bit of feminine and the same for women. You got women who are so off the feminine you got women who are tough but the interest is always go. Differ guys like things women like people and social setting. Majority of female that is a majority of males like things like they will look at tractors fight for dominance a lot of that stuff so we're different. Not in every way but some keen ways that will cause problem. If you tell us where the same ocean act the same
@@markgordon2660 I heard that lesbian relationships are healthier because they understand each other. If both partners understand each other, they won’t want to break up with each other. I also heard that women have higher rates of depression when married (in straight relationships). There is a very small percent of women that are happy in heterosexual relationships.
So it's very hard for men and women to bond with each other and have a strong bond with each other. Both men and women think differently, behave differently, react in a different way.
The more similar two people are, the easier it is to relate and understand each other, resulting in a better, more fulfilling connection. I also read somewhere that even with the divorce rates what they are, most heterosexual marriages that don't end in divorce are still unhappy, and can absolutely relate to experiencing significantly more depression while married than while single.
I do believe in brain differences in males/females, especially in the amygdala.
First! As if anyone comes here 👀
This should be talked about more!!
What about the motivation of the aggression. In women it would most likely be to protect the ones they love. In men it might be to dominate and control others, or a feeling of superiority.
This is not true!! Read here : www.sciencenews.org/article/female-animal-myths-lucy-cooke-new-book-bitch-biology-sexism
And what about Baboons then?? Female Baboon is more dominant than male..
Female animals are aggressive even before and during the heat. They are not aggressive just to protect the ones they love. What you said here is totally wrong.
I don’t agree that power drives commitment towards sex difference, as if men are jealously guarding difference as a way of maintaining power. I think this is a uniquely woman’s perspective and dare I say sexist perspective. As a man I’d say that if you do present feminine characteristics then men will see those characteristics as a sign of weakness and will dominate that man. There is no underlying competition between men and women, it’s a cultural man thing.
Dope video.
Prof... what do you smoke?
The guys voice is disconcerting,
❤️