Male and female ability differences down to socialisation, not genetics

[meh]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way

Interesting read.

[spacial]

This is the second press article I've read on this book. Both read like sleave note averts.

I recall a similar assertion was made by a number of apparently emenent women in the 70s. They were frequently cited by other femininsts, many of whom had not actually read any of the arguments.

The crux of the arguments then, which included specious claims about biology, physical structure and environment was that the differences between men and women were conditioned and part of a male conspiracy to repress women. The repression of women was never demonstrated other than through a number of selective and carefully crafted claims of women who had apparently suffered repression.

Eventually, most feminists decided not to opt for this notion, preferring instead the somewhat more nazi approach of women being somehow superior yet denied their rightful place. This, of course, eventually led to the outragious statement: All Men are Rapists.

I am pretty sure this book will present a number of new arguements along with a lot of rehashing of old notions.

The differences between male and female primates is well documented. They are apparent to almost anyone, including most primates and a large number of other animals.

What makes men and women different are the functional differences in their mental processes, their stark differences in biology and their environments.

To argue as, according to these press reviews, this book will attempt to do, that these differences are even significantly environmental will require some startling new evidence.

It seems unlikely that such earth shattering evidence could be uncovered yet be of such little importance, to simply produce it in a silly book.

At the risk of being accused of being closed minded, I'm pretty sure I can find more important things to do, that read such a book.

If anyone else does, it will be interesting to hear their comments.

If you read the 4 'responses' at the end of the article, by far the most interesting aspect of the piece, the first and third more or less sum up the feminist argument. Had a hard time in the past. Very sad. Get over it.

[Lepidoptera]

This is a bit old, but I wanted to comment because I've actually read the book. She isn't saying that men and women are exactly the same and it's entirely down to social differences. She discusses the physical differences between a male brain and a female brain and the apparent innate nature of identity, to start with. Then she goes into why a brain difference does not always equate into a mind difference and how the brain itself is very plastic and can adapt to a number of situations and expectations. This is much more a book of science than a book of feminist propaganda. There are no claims of conspiracy, but a fascinating and in-depth look at how our cultural expectations influence reality and how we view things.

A lot of things which people "know" aren't necessarily things that have been proven by science. A male rat--which normally have nothing to do with raising the young whatsoever--will cuddle and care for a baby rat if they're put in the same cage together. In one species of monkeys different troops have wildly different approaches to rearing their young, despite the troops not having any great genetic divergence. In a troop where the lead male nurtures the weaned infants, the young males will follow suit, going so far as to bully away the young females so that they can't have access to the babies. Yet in a troop where the lead male is aloof to infants, the young males will mimic him and care of the young remains with the females. This is the same species--the brains of the males in one troop are identical to those of the other--and yet their behavior can be dramatically different depending on what's expected of them.

Many of the studies that allegedly show an innate difference in cognitive capability between men and women are flawed, or else they are actually measuring cultural expectations in the same way that studies showing innate cognitive differences between races once did. Those differences aren't imaginary, but they are largely the result of culture and bias rather than biology.

Her main point isn't that men and women are identical, but that we shouldn't put a period where the facts have only a comma. Neuropsychology is a fascinating field, but we don't know everything yet and shouldn't assume that we do.