Quote from: DanaRSS on April 18, 2013, 03:27:37 PM
In addition to that, she's been called out publicly by multiple scientists for misrepresenting their research in those books, and some of the statistics she uses are false. Sometimes she states something as fact and cites a study in the footnotes/endnotes, but when you look up the actual study, it doesn't support her statement. If you take any information at all from her books, I'd be sure to look online at the abstract of the study before believing it. One of my favorites was when she supported her claim that women's hormones make them essentially more nurturing with a study done entirely on guinea pigs undergoing menopause.
There's a whole section in The Female Brain on differences in how many words men and women use when speaking, and the numbers she quotes aren't statistically valid. Here's a post from a linguist on the issue: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003419.html
Anyway, I hope I'm not coming off as too antagonistic, but from a purely statistical standpoint, pop psych books tend to greatly exaggerate the differences between male and female brains, and male and female behavior as well. IMO the best way to get the real picture is to stick to studies published in reputable scientific journals - the summaries are usually available for free online, and are jargon-free enough that you don't need a psych or stats degree to understand them.
I was going to type up a response, but you totally said everything I wanted to say.

Especially the part about investigating the research that pop psych authors use yourself. As a research psychologist-in-training, I can't emphasize it enough. Just because something has been published doesn't mean that its experimental design or statistics are sound, and there are peer-reviewed journals that will accept nearly anything. And especially in the area of gender differences in cognition, pop psychology writers absolutely do overemphasize the differences because that's what gets people's attention. I'm not saying that there are no differences to be found (I think there are small but significant differences, likely in the areas of spatial processing and language processing, which are probably due to a combination of nature and nurture--but even these effects need to be investigated further).
Please tolerate this brief aside, thread!
Take a look at this graph. It shows the distribution of scores for males and females (not sure on what task, but it doesn't matter). The middle of each curve is the average for that group.

Now, there are 2 ways of looking at this. One is seeing that the means are slightly different, and focusing completely on that difference. The other is seeing that
the vast majority of the population of males and females
overlaps. I don't want to get into statistics too much, but there are also issues with looking at p-values (likelihood that this is a "real" difference) and effect size (how "important" the difference is).
Now compare that to this one showing height differences between (likely cis) men and women:

This is a much, much bigger difference, and correspondingly we all know that cis-men tend to be taller than cis-women. Even given that, we also all know (and can see) that there is still a significant overlap there, too.
The first graph comes from this article:
Janet Hyde and Marcia Linn on the Psychological Similarity between Men and Women.
So, with all of that... Please don't take this as an attack or anything, just a caveat about books like those. I found that a more current, comprehensive book about gender differences in development is
Pink Brain, Blue Brain by Dr. Lise Eliot. (And a side note... M.D.s do not necessarily have much understanding of current research or statistical methods, whereas Ph.D.s are essentially required to stay on top of both. Doesn't mean that no M.D.s know what they're talking about when it comes to stuff like this or that all Ph.D.s do, but it raises a skepticism flag for me when I'm reading something about research.) And... if anyone wants me to interpret any abstracts for them into readable language, I'd be totally psyched to do so.