Brain Connectivity Study Reveals Striking Differences Between Men and Women
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131202161935.htm
A new brain connectivity study from Penn Medicine published today in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences found striking differences in the neural wiring of men and women that's lending credence to some commonly-held beliefs about their behavior.

Given the timing of the change, I imagine that it has something to do with hormones. But it may not be a direct link. Male and female interests tend to branch off sharply around this time, so it could be that these new interests drive the cognitive changes, rather than the other way around. I suggest this because another study ("Bad memory for faces? Blame your reading skills" New Scientist 12 Nov, 2010) claims that people who read a lot often have a hard time with face-perception, because the areas used for face-perception have been "hijacked" by our relatively new reading skills.

On another note, I wonder if this is why male adolescents suddenly start struggling with school compared with their female counterparts, who generally score higher in exams?

Indeed, I am poor at multi-tasking.

barbie~~

Interesting read. 

So, in your opinion, do you think that this would hold true to the GID group (supposing that the XY body would hold consistent with an XY brain and vice-versa), or do you suppose that the wiring would hold true to the personal identity?

To be honest, I have no idea, Emily. But I have a hypothesis.

The way I see it, hormones trigger certain behaviours which are in turn reinforced by gender-specific socialisation. But taking into account the second study that I cited, and highlighting the plasticity of the brain, I think the cognitive changes described in the first study are caused by the socialisation rather than the hormones themselves. That is, hormones trigger codified gender behaviours with the latter subsequently giving rise to cognitive changes in the brain (not unlike the way the brain changes in the second study I cited).

So, how does this relate to GID? Given what I have said above, which is of course total conjecture, you could argue that the cognitive differences between men and women could rely more on nurture and less on nature.

Yes. Nature vs. Nurture arguments are still valid here.

I was strongly encouraged to study math and science when I was kid, and I am still working on that area. Focusing on only one object, I pursue it.

On the contrary, my wife simultaneously takes care of three unique kids (2 sons and 1 daughter) and me while cleaning home, making dishes, going to market, and again simultaneously purchasing food, clothes, beverages for kids (e.g., orange juice) and me (e.g., wine), staples and shoes. I go for shopping to purchase only one item.

These different activities between my wife and me clearly show how socialization after birth has shaped our brain.

barbie~~
barbie~~

Quote from: Jenna Stannis on December 24, 2013, 12:28:36 AM
To be honest, I have no idea, Emily. But I have a hypothesis.

The way I see it, hormones trigger certain behaviours which are in turn reinforced by gender-specific socialisation. But taking into account the second study that I cited, and highlighting the plasticity of the brain, I think the cognitive changes described in the first study are caused by the socialisation rather than the hormones themselves. That is, hormones trigger codified gender behaviours with the latter subsequently giving rise to cognitive changes in the brain (not unlike the way the brain changes in the second study I cited).

So, how does this relate to GID? Given what I have said above, which is of course total conjecture, you could argue that the cognitive differences between men and women could rely more on nurture and less on nature.

Interesting conjecture, Jenna.  Thanks.