May 12, 2012
Testosterone on My Mind and In My Brain
Over at Edge, a conversation with Simon Baron-Cohen:
Many of you know that the topic of sex differences in psychology is fraught with controversy. It's an area where people, for many decades, didn't really want to enter because of the risks of political incorrectness, and of being misunderstood.
Perhaps of all of the areas in psychology where people do research, the field of sex differences was kind of off limits. It was taboo, and that was partly because people believed that anyone who tried to do research into whether boys and girls, on average, differ, must have some sexist agenda. And so for that reason a lot of scientists just wouldn't even touch it.
By 2003, I was beginning to sense that that political climate was changing, that it was a time when people could ask the question ā do boys and girls differ? Do men and women differ? ā without fear of being accused of some kind of sexist agenda, but in a more open-minded way.
First of all, I started off looking at neuroanatomy, to look at what the neuroscience is telling us about the male and female brain. If you just take groups of girls and groups of boys and, for example, put them into MRI scanners to look at the brain, you do see differences on average. Take the idea that the sexes are identical from the neck upwards, even if they are very clearly different from the neck downwards: the neuroscience is telling us that that is just a myth, that there are differences, even in terms of brain volume and the number of connections between nerve cells in the brain at the structure of the brain, on average, between males and females.
I say this carefully because it's still a field which is prone to misunderstanding and misinterpretation, but just giving you some of the examples of findings that have come out of the neuroscience of sex differences, you find that the male brain, on average, is about eight percent larger than the female brain. We're talking about a volumetric difference. It doesn't necessarily mean anything, but that's just a finding that's consistently found. You find that difference from the earliest point you can put babies into the scanner, so some of the studies are at two weeks old in terms of infants.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 11:52 AM | Permalink






















Comments
That was very interesting, but maybe someone familiar with these studies could tell me if they were all double blind? That is, if the researchers dissecting the brains and counting the seconds a baby looks at something know the gender? Probably they were, but I am just curious to know.
Posted by: ziv | May 12, 2012 2:33:12 PM
Studies of "now" that claim to make a stab at "then", i.e. the origin of this or that, are avoiding some rather astounding difficulties, especially when pontificating the latest hypothesis about human gender perplexities.
For example, Leiolepis Ngovantrii, a female only species that gives virgin birth.
Or the fact that some mammals, e.g. humans, can give birth only because of an encounter with a microbe some millions of years back, while other mammals do so not having made that ancient connection.
Thus, their elaborations are composed more of social pabulum than they are composed of mature science.
Posted by: Dredd | May 12, 2012 4:56:38 PM
Every member of the family Hominidae exhibits sexual dimorphism. Rather extreme in the case of Gorilla, less in genus Pan, and to a minor degree for H. sapiens. So what?
Most, not all, women have smaller shoe sizes than I do. So what?
Certainly, research into growth and development is a good thing. Using this kind of research for political purposes is not legitimate.
Unfortunately, research is conducted by flesh and blood humans, and keeping politics out is difficult.
Posted by: Mark | May 13, 2012 11:19:11 PM
Post a comment