Thanks Baraka. I would point out some discrepency here.
"Among other things, these investigators found that parts of the frontal cortex, the seat of many higher cognitive functions, are bulkier in women than in men, as are parts of the limbic cortex, which is involved in emotional responses. In men, on the other hand, parts of the parietal cortex, which is involved in space perception, are bigger than in women, as is the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure that responds to emotionally arousing information--to anything that gets the heart pumping and the adrenaline flowing."
Shouldn't this be the opposite? In everything I've read the amygdala is larger in women than in men. And the frontal cortex... well, density is largely important there, and so size it's self doesn't indicate value. We should be careful how far we take this brain thing to say something about the individual. As neuroscientists well know, the brain of a white man, is different than the brain of an asian or black man. We can gender and race profile using some brain imaging, but I think that's dangerously close to stereotyping.
A fellow linked me an article to this website sciam.com (Scientific America) about the adolescent brain growth spurt in the frontal cortex. The article claimed that there was no growth during adolescence, contrary to Peter Griedd's discoveries and the whole of neuroscience which says that just prior to adolescence their is a spurt of thickening in the prefrontal cortex. This has been shown on MRI and explains the behavior of teenagers. But somehow this website was unaware of this and tried to argue that the brain of a 12 year old is the same as an adult brain. My trust in this website is null, though much of the article you linked is accurate.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! is a slogan on a popular T-shirt by Florida company David and Goliath. The slogan is printed next to a cartoon image of a boy running away from five stones flying in his direction.
People magazine ran a story on the T-shirt, opening with a quote from a then 10 year-old girl, "I want to make boys feel bad because it's fun."[1]
The T-shirt was designed by company founder Todd Goldman, who started David and Goliath in 1999 with Boys are Smelly T-shirts. It now features clothes with a variety of slogans, such as Boys tell lies, poke them in the eyes! or The stupid factory, where boys are made. Boys are stupid ... has evolved into a successful object for merchandise, which includes all types of clothes, mugs, key chains, posters and other items. In 2005 Goldman published a book with the same title (ISBN 0-7611-3593-6). In 2006, it was translated and published in Russia.[6]
Goldman claims that the campaign against his company boosted its sales. According to the Wall Street Journal, the sales volume of David and Goliath was expected to rise to US$ 100 million in 2005, up from US$ 90 million in the previous year.
Surely, this can't be accepted by feminist groups, if the shirts read "Girls are stupid, make them do the dishes." Goldman would be missing his testicles after a feminist mawling.
Professor Linda Scott of the University of Illinois expressed support for the T-shirts as payback for boys' "bullying".
Some, including the National Organization for Women (NOW), generally discounted the issue as unimportant
Ganahal argued that the T-shirts are perceived as harmless fun by children and that sexism against women is a far more widespread and substantial problem in United States' society.
Well, it seems some individuals stand in the face of irrationality,
Glenn Sacks responded to criticism of the campaign, asserting that the criticism was dismissive of the feelings of boys. The idea that boys should laugh at the joke at their expense creates a "double bind" for boys.
The campaign against the line received support from several men's rights groups, such as the National Coalition of Free Men, but also from groups with broader agendas, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center.[9] Many critics of the T-shirts pointed out that similar slogans directed against girls or ethnic groups would be widely regarded as unacceptable.
The Canadian Children's Rights Council termed the slogan hate speech.
The slogan has also been criticized by Bernard Goldberg in his book, 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America, where Todd Goldman, the shirts' creator, was listed as number 97.
Honestly, statments like "This is a man's world" amongst all the other misandry in this thread, are like the shirt and don't help a fucking thing.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Thanks Baraka. I would point out some discrepency here.
"Among other things, these investigators found that parts of the frontal cortex, the seat of many higher cognitive functions, are bulkier in women than in men, as are parts of the limbic cortex, which is involved in emotional responses. In men, on the other hand, parts of the parietal cortex, which is involved in space perception, are bigger than in women, as is the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure that responds to emotionally arousing information--to anything that gets the heart pumping and the adrenaline flowing."
Shouldn't this be the opposite? In everything I've read the amygdala is larger in women than in men. And the frontal cortex... well, density is largely important there, and so size it's self doesn't indicate value. We should be careful how far we take this brain thing to say something about the individual. As neuroscientists well know, the brain of a white man, is different than the brain of an asian or black man. We can gender and race profile using some brain imaging, but I think that's dangerously close to stereotyping.
I'm not formally schooled in the subject, so I honestly don't know the correct answer. Why don't you link me to the articles that suggest differently and I'll run both articles past my neuroscientist friend and see what he thinks.
I agree with being careful, or shall I say intelligent about how we interpret the data. Different brains work differently, no way is 'better'. A man and a woman may arrive at the same conclusion/answer to a complex math problem, but they might 'approach' it differently. Our brains find ways to compensate.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
One thing that struck me as very odd about the article & study: why would a toy truck have any meaning to a male monkey (or any monkey)? It's not like they know that a truck is a truck. What would be inherently masculine about a truck if you don't know what a truck is? Same with a ragdoll to a monkey. So, two other things come to mind as different between the two objects; color and texture. If you painted a toy truck light pink and dressed a ragdoll in bright primary colors, would you see any gender reversals in who chooses them? Boys play with 'dolls' too, ie action figures.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm not formally schooled in the subject, so I honestly don't know the correct answer. Why don't you link me to the articles that suggest differently and I'll run both articles past my neuroscientist friend and see what he thinks.
I agree with being careful, or shall I say intelligent about how we interpret the data. Different brains work differently, no way is 'better'. A man and a woman may arrive at the same conclusion/answer to a complex math problem, but they might 'approach' it differently. Our brains find ways to compensate.
Here is an excerpt from a much larger paper
Specifically,the female amygdala differs from the male in that it contains more densely packed and smaller neurons (Bubenik & Brown, 1973;Nishizuka & Arai, 1981); and smaller, closely packed neurons fire more easily and more frequently. This is significant as activation of the hypothalamus, for example, triggers and/or increases female sexual behavior including thrusting and sexual posturing even in the absence of a mate (Hartet al., 1985; Lisk, 1967, 1971; Maclean, 1973). The amygdala typically fires up and activates the hypothalamus. And the massive fiber pathway that connects the right and left amygdala, is 17% larger in women than men (Allen & Gorski, 1993). The tremendous expansion in the fiber pathways linking the two amygdala, provides these sexually active structures an enhanced capacity to communicate and to become mutually excited in the female brain. This also explains why females are generally more “emotional” than males (Joseph, 1996,2000a,b,).
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Specifically,the female amygdala differs from the male in that it contains more densely packed and smaller neurons (Bubenik & Brown, 1973;Nishizuka & Arai, 1981); and smaller, closely packed neurons fire more easily and more frequently. This is significant as activation of the hypothalamus, for example, triggers and/or increases female sexual behavior including thrusting and sexual posturing even in the absence of a mate (Hartet al., 1985; Lisk, 1967, 1971; Maclean, 1973). The amygdala typically fires up and activates the hypothalamus. And the massive fiber pathway that connects the right and left amygdala, is 17% larger in women than men (Allen & Gorski, 1993). The tremendous expansion in the fiber pathways linking the two amygdala, provides these sexually active structures an enhanced capacity to communicate and to become mutually excited in the female brain. This also explains why females are generally more “emotional” than males (Joseph, 1996,2000a,b,).
:eek: This is so weird. I just finished reading this exact article.
I think I interpreted this differently than you. The portion you pasted says this, "the female amygdala differs from the male in that it contains more densely packed and smaller neurons" and this "And the massive fiber pathway that connects the right and left amygdala is 17% larger in women than men" Unless I am misunderstanding the excerpt, I don't see where it mentioned the size of the actual amygdala except in the first statement I quoted which simply stated that it contained more densely packed & smaller neurons.
Again, the brain is quite remarkable in the ability to utilize alternative pathways to accomplish a function when another pathway is absent or disrupted, so no 'brain-type' is superior to another.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
:eek: This is so weird. I just finished reading this exact article.
I think I interpreted this differently than you. The portion you pasted says this, "the female amygdala differs from the male in that it contains more densely packed and smaller neurons" and this "And the massive fiber pathway that connects the right and left amygdala is 17% larger in women than men" Unless I am misunderstanding the excerpt, I don't see where it mentioned the size of the actual amygdala except in the first statement I quoted which simply stated that it contained more densely packed & smaller neurons.
Again, the brain is quite remarkable in the ability to utilize alternative pathways to accomplish a function when another pathway is absent or disrupted, so no 'brain-type' is superior to another.
Right, but sciam.com ignores these facts and implies that since men have larger amygdalas that it's cause for male aggression. Which simply is not true, the whole article is misleading in it's facts.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Right, but sciam.com ignores these facts and implies that since men have larger amygdalas that it's cause for male aggression. Which simply is not true, the whole article is misleading in it's facts.
Then what is it that causes males to be aggressive? Could it be too much testosterone? I kid, of course.
Look, these studies can be used to throw stones at both men and women. Like I said two other times, the brain is quite remarkable in the ability to utilize alternative pathways to accomplish a function when another pathway is absent or disrupted. These same studies have been used to argue why women are not up to par with men when it comes to math and sciences. You even had the president of Harvard making such claims. http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,1392808,00.html
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
:eek: This is so weird. I just finished reading this exact article.
I think I interpreted this differently than you. The portion you pasted says this, "the female amygdala differs from the male in that it contains more densely packed and smaller neurons" and this "And the massive fiber pathway that connects the right and left amygdala is 17% larger in women than men" Unless I am misunderstanding the excerpt, I don't see where it mentioned the size of the actual amygdala except in the first statement I quoted which simply stated that it contained more densely packed & smaller neurons.
Again, the brain is quite remarkable in the ability to utilize alternative pathways to accomplish a function when another pathway is absent or disrupted, so no 'brain-type' is superior to another.
Men "thrust" and sexually posture in the absence of a mate, too.
Then what is it that causes males to be aggressive? Could it be too much testosterone? I kid, of course.
Look, these studies can be used to throw stones at both men and women. Like I said two other times, the brain is quite remarkable in the ability to utilize alternative pathways to accomplish a function when another pathway is absent or disrupted. These same studies have been used to argue why women are not up to par with men when it comes to math and sciences. You even had the president of Harvard making such claims. http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,1392808,00.html
So, are you siding with the argument that aggresion, male aggression especially, is culture-based? I think you are.
Then what is it that causes males to be aggressive? Could it be too much testosterone? I kid, of course.
Look, these studies can be used to throw stones at both men and women. Like I said two other times, the brain is quite remarkable in the ability to utilize alternative pathways to accomplish a function when another pathway is absent or disrupted. These same studies have been used to argue why women are not up to par with men when it comes to math and sciences. You even had the president of Harvard making such claims. http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,1392808,00.html
Ok, this will only be like the umpteenth time I've cited this research, so it should be extremely well-known to everyone here. I'm sure some just choose to ignore it *cough* jeanie *cough*
1. Mead tells of Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. "She explained that nobody knew the degree to which temperament is biologically determined by sex. So she hoped to see whether there were cultural or social factors that affected temperament. Were men inevitably aggressive? Were women inevitably "homebodies"? It turned out that the three cultures she lived with in New Guinea were almost a perfect laboratory — for each had the variables that we associate with masculine and feminine in an arrangement different from ours. She said this surprised her, and wasn't what she was trying to find. It was just there.
• "Among the Arapesh, both men and women were peaceful in temperament and neither men nor women made war.
• "Among the Mundugumor, the opposite was true: both men and women were warlike in temperament.
• "And the Tchambuli were different from both. The men 'primped' and spent their time decorating themselves while the women worked and were the practical ones — the opposite of how it seemed in early 20th century America."
This is very well known and respected research. I'd be surprised if you didn't already know this Baraka.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh, I must add that in Canadian culture, the idea that "men are more aggressive" is an absolute social myth. I've cited statistics canada several times, suggesting that men and women are equally aggressive, but are aggressive in different ways. Men are more likely to spontaneously assault someone, women are more likely to poison their coffee, i.e. passion vs. premiditated
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
One more thing, if my memory serves me, 18% of lesbian couples report domestic violence...
I'll find the studies a bit later and post them.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh, I must add that in Canadian culture, the idea that "men are more aggressive" is an absolute social myth. I've cited statistics canada several times, suggesting that men and women are equally aggressive, but are aggressive in different ways. Men are more likely to spontaneously assault someone, women are more likely to poison their coffee, i.e. passion vs. premiditated
Show me the back-up, please. The large majority (I think 95-98%) of sexual assaults are perpetrated by men.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ok, this will only be like the umpteenth time I've cited this research, so it should be extremely well-known to everyone here. I'm sure some just choose to ignore it *cough* jeanie *cough*
1. Mead tells of Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. "She explained that nobody knew the degree to which temperament is biologically determined by sex. So she hoped to see whether there were cultural or social factors that affected temperament. Were men inevitably aggressive? Were women inevitably "homebodies"? It turned out that the three cultures she lived with in New Guinea were almost a perfect laboratory — for each had the variables that we associate with masculine and feminine in an arrangement different from ours. She said this surprised her, and wasn't what she was trying to find. It was just there.
• "Among the Arapesh, both men and women were peaceful in temperament and neither men nor women made war.
• "Among the Mundugumor, the opposite was true: both men and women were warlike in temperament.
• "And the Tchambuli were different from both. The men 'primped' and spent their time decorating themselves while the women worked and were the practical ones — the opposite of how it seemed in early 20th century America."
This is very well known and respected research. I'd be surprised if you didn't already know this Baraka.
I know Mead's research very well, but I'm not sure what this has to do with my post you quoted? What is your point? I'm not the one you need to convince, ahnimus. I think the only disagreement we might have on this issue is that although nurture is a very important determining factor, you can't discount nature.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I know Mead's research very well, but I'm not sure what this has to do with my post you quoted? What is your point? I'm not the one you need to convince, ahnimus. I think the only disagreement we might have on this issue is that although nurture is a very important determining factor, you can't discount nature.
Ok, this will only be like the umpteenth time I've cited this research, so it should be extremely well-known to everyone here. I'm sure some just choose to ignore it *cough* jeanie *cough*
1. Mead tells of Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. "She explained that nobody knew the degree to which temperament is biologically determined by sex. So she hoped to see whether there were cultural or social factors that affected temperament. Were men inevitably aggressive? Were women inevitably "homebodies"? It turned out that the three cultures she lived with in New Guinea were almost a perfect laboratory — for each had the variables that we associate with masculine and feminine in an arrangement different from ours. She said this surprised her, and wasn't what she was trying to find. It was just there.
• "Among the Arapesh, both men and women were peaceful in temperament and neither men nor women made war.
• "Among the Mundugumor, the opposite was true: both men and women were warlike in temperament.
• "And the Tchambuli were different from both. The men 'primped' and spent their time decorating themselves while the women worked and were the practical ones — the opposite of how it seemed in early 20th century America."
Show me the back-up, please. The large majority (I think 95-98%) of sexual assaults are perpetrated by men.
When did we start talking about sexual assaults? We are talking about aggressiveness in general. Certainly it would be more difficult for a woman to rape a man, just as it would be more difficult for a 5' tall woman to beat a 6' tall man to a pulp with her bare hands. Looking at those statistics alone will only give you a bias view of the aggressiveness of men and women in general.
The best way to look at it is total reported cases:
The 5-year rate of violence was similar for women and men (8% and 7%, respectively)(Figure 2.1). Overall, this amounts to approximately 690,000 women and 549,000 men who had a current or former partner and reported experiencing at least one incident of violence.
Of those who had a current partner in the 5-year period preceding the survey interview, 4% reported some type of spousal violence. Women (4%) and men (4%) were equally likely to report violence by a current partner. In previous relationships, women (28%) were more likely than men (22%) to report experiencing violence.
Again, if you look only at sexual assault then you are going to see a major bias. Like if I asked "What's the ration between male and female pregnancies" I could say "Well 100% of women get pregnant and 0% of men do, so that means women are less responsible with their bodies." it would be an absurd way of determining the statistical probability of male and female "responsibility with their bodies". Likewise, looking at sexual assault, which can only be perpretrated by men, gives you a drastically skewed view of "statistical aggressiveness between men and women".
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
.........
Likewise, looking at sexual assault, which can only be perpretrated by men, gives you a drastically skewed view of "statistical aggressiveness between men and women".
Here is a pretty good debate on the science of gender. This was in response to the remarks of the Harvard President, Summers (the link I posted earlier).
I know Mead's research very well, but I'm not sure what this has to do with my post you quoted? What is your point? I'm not the one you need to convince, ahnimus. I think the only disagreement we might have on this issue is that although nurture is a very important determining factor, you can't discount nature.
I've never discounted either. They are both important, but just important in different ways. I would say nature is repsonsible for men liking phsyically fit partners and women liking social proven men. That would be natural and not necissarly learned, but exacerbated to some degree by nurture as well.
The point was as far as temperment goes, it's clearly, largely influenced by culture.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh and I deliberately didn't look for stats on domestic violence because I thought the topic of the thread was men in politics and power?
For the sake of coherence, try using the term assertiveness instead of aggressiveness. Because assertiveness can't be interpreted as violence.
But, I think this is just back-peddling on your part.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
We should also take into consideration--concerning the nature vs. nurture debate-- that the development of the brain depends on stimuli and the efficiency of the brain is largely impacted by expectations. I can elaborate more later if you want. But I mean, just keep in mind that if the brain is different in men and women does not necissarly mean that it's caused by nature as opposed to nurture, since nurture impacts the development of the brain quite a lot.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
We should also take into consideration--concerning the nature vs. nurture debate-- that the development of the brain depends on stimuli and the efficiency of the brain is largely impacted by expectations. I can elaborate more later if you want. But I mean, just keep in mind that if the brain is different in men and women does not necissarly mean that it's caused by nature as opposed to nurture, since nurture impacts the development of the brain quite a lot.
I think nurture impacts the development of human behavior, whereas nature's impact on the brain is probably more sublimely neuroscientific.
what about assertive aggressiveness as opposed to, say, passive assertiveness?
lol, well, either way it's describing assertiveness. Or a person's motivation to get out and get the life they want. Whereas aggressiveness alone connotes violence.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
lol, well, either way it's describing assertiveness. Or a person's motivation to get out and get the life they want. Whereas aggressiveness alone connotes violence.
but, in terms of behavior, those are medical terms, of psychology. in this debate of nature and nuture, or testosterone and behavior: psychology is a low-roller. i mean, unless you want to get into a particular person's head, or something.
Comments
Thanks Baraka. I would point out some discrepency here.
"Among other things, these investigators found that parts of the frontal cortex, the seat of many higher cognitive functions, are bulkier in women than in men, as are parts of the limbic cortex, which is involved in emotional responses. In men, on the other hand, parts of the parietal cortex, which is involved in space perception, are bigger than in women, as is the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure that responds to emotionally arousing information--to anything that gets the heart pumping and the adrenaline flowing."
Shouldn't this be the opposite? In everything I've read the amygdala is larger in women than in men. And the frontal cortex... well, density is largely important there, and so size it's self doesn't indicate value. We should be careful how far we take this brain thing to say something about the individual. As neuroscientists well know, the brain of a white man, is different than the brain of an asian or black man. We can gender and race profile using some brain imaging, but I think that's dangerously close to stereotyping.
A fellow linked me an article to this website sciam.com (Scientific America) about the adolescent brain growth spurt in the frontal cortex. The article claimed that there was no growth during adolescence, contrary to Peter Griedd's discoveries and the whole of neuroscience which says that just prior to adolescence their is a spurt of thickening in the prefrontal cortex. This has been shown on MRI and explains the behavior of teenagers. But somehow this website was unaware of this and tried to argue that the brain of a 12 year old is the same as an adult brain. My trust in this website is null, though much of the article you linked is accurate.
Surely, this can't be accepted by feminist groups, if the shirts read "Girls are stupid, make them do the dishes." Goldman would be missing his testicles after a feminist mawling.
Well, it seems some individuals stand in the face of irrationality,
Honestly, statments like "This is a man's world" amongst all the other misandry in this thread, are like the shirt and don't help a fucking thing.
I'm not formally schooled in the subject, so I honestly don't know the correct answer. Why don't you link me to the articles that suggest differently and I'll run both articles past my neuroscientist friend and see what he thinks.
I agree with being careful, or shall I say intelligent about how we interpret the data. Different brains work differently, no way is 'better'. A man and a woman may arrive at the same conclusion/answer to a complex math problem, but they might 'approach' it differently. Our brains find ways to compensate.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Here is an excerpt from a much larger paper
Specifically,the female amygdala differs from the male in that it contains more densely packed and smaller neurons (Bubenik & Brown, 1973;Nishizuka & Arai, 1981); and smaller, closely packed neurons fire more easily and more frequently. This is significant as activation of the hypothalamus, for example, triggers and/or increases female sexual behavior including thrusting and sexual posturing even in the absence of a mate (Hartet al., 1985; Lisk, 1967, 1971; Maclean, 1973). The amygdala typically fires up and activates the hypothalamus. And the massive fiber pathway that connects the right and left amygdala, is 17% larger in women than men (Allen & Gorski, 1993). The tremendous expansion in the fiber pathways linking the two amygdala, provides these sexually active structures an enhanced capacity to communicate and to become mutually excited in the female brain. This also explains why females are generally more “emotional” than males (Joseph, 1996,2000a,b,).
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:2F90HRVk7FAJ:brainmind.com/1SexEvolutionAustralopithEtc.pdf+female+amygdala&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ca
At least it has citations
sort of.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
:eek: This is so weird. I just finished reading this exact article.
I think I interpreted this differently than you. The portion you pasted says this, "the female amygdala differs from the male in that it contains more densely packed and smaller neurons" and this "And the massive fiber pathway that connects the right and left amygdala is 17% larger in women than men" Unless I am misunderstanding the excerpt, I don't see where it mentioned the size of the actual amygdala except in the first statement I quoted which simply stated that it contained more densely packed & smaller neurons.
Again, the brain is quite remarkable in the ability to utilize alternative pathways to accomplish a function when another pathway is absent or disrupted, so no 'brain-type' is superior to another.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Right, but sciam.com ignores these facts and implies that since men have larger amygdalas that it's cause for male aggression. Which simply is not true, the whole article is misleading in it's facts.
Then what is it that causes males to be aggressive? Could it be too much testosterone? I kid, of course.
Look, these studies can be used to throw stones at both men and women. Like I said two other times, the brain is quite remarkable in the ability to utilize alternative pathways to accomplish a function when another pathway is absent or disrupted. These same studies have been used to argue why women are not up to par with men when it comes to math and sciences. You even had the president of Harvard making such claims. http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,9959,1392808,00.html
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Men "thrust" and sexually posture in the absence of a mate, too.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
So, are you siding with the argument that aggresion, male aggression especially, is culture-based? I think you are.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I think 'nurture' plays a big role, yes.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Ok, this will only be like the umpteenth time I've cited this research, so it should be extremely well-known to everyone here. I'm sure some just choose to ignore it *cough* jeanie *cough*
1. Mead tells of Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. "She explained that nobody knew the degree to which temperament is biologically determined by sex. So she hoped to see whether there were cultural or social factors that affected temperament. Were men inevitably aggressive? Were women inevitably "homebodies"? It turned out that the three cultures she lived with in New Guinea were almost a perfect laboratory — for each had the variables that we associate with masculine and feminine in an arrangement different from ours. She said this surprised her, and wasn't what she was trying to find. It was just there.
• "Among the Arapesh, both men and women were peaceful in temperament and neither men nor women made war.
• "Among the Mundugumor, the opposite was true: both men and women were warlike in temperament.
• "And the Tchambuli were different from both. The men 'primped' and spent their time decorating themselves while the women worked and were the practical ones — the opposite of how it seemed in early 20th century America."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Mead
This is very well known and respected research. I'd be surprised if you didn't already know this Baraka.
I'll find the studies a bit later and post them.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I know Mead's research very well, but I'm not sure what this has to do with my post you quoted? What is your point? I'm not the one you need to convince, ahnimus. I think the only disagreement we might have on this issue is that although nurture is a very important determining factor, you can't discount nature.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
determinism.
lol.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I treat your posting with the same respect and interest as you treat mine.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
When did we start talking about sexual assaults? We are talking about aggressiveness in general. Certainly it would be more difficult for a woman to rape a man, just as it would be more difficult for a 5' tall woman to beat a 6' tall man to a pulp with her bare hands. Looking at those statistics alone will only give you a bias view of the aggressiveness of men and women in general.
The best way to look at it is total reported cases:
The 5-year rate of violence was similar for women and men (8% and 7%, respectively)(Figure 2.1). Overall, this amounts to approximately 690,000 women and 549,000 men who had a current or former partner and reported experiencing at least one incident of violence.
Of those who had a current partner in the 5-year period preceding the survey interview, 4% reported some type of spousal violence. Women (4%) and men (4%) were equally likely to report violence by a current partner. In previous relationships, women (28%) were more likely than men (22%) to report experiencing violence.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:g-QBnkKRYfIJ:www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/0000085-224-XIE.pdf+domestic+violence+statistics+canada&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca#13
Again, if you look only at sexual assault then you are going to see a major bias. Like if I asked "What's the ration between male and female pregnancies" I could say "Well 100% of women get pregnant and 0% of men do, so that means women are less responsible with their bodies." it would be an absurd way of determining the statistical probability of male and female "responsibility with their bodies". Likewise, looking at sexual assault, which can only be perpretrated by men, gives you a drastically skewed view of "statistical aggressiveness between men and women".
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
??????? :rolleyes: oh.....what's the point?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I've never discounted either. They are both important, but just important in different ways. I would say nature is repsonsible for men liking phsyically fit partners and women liking social proven men. That would be natural and not necissarly learned, but exacerbated to some degree by nurture as well.
The point was as far as temperment goes, it's clearly, largely influenced by culture.
For the sake of coherence, try using the term assertiveness instead of aggressiveness. Because assertiveness can't be interpreted as violence.
But, I think this is just back-peddling on your part.
I think nurture impacts the development of human behavior, whereas nature's impact on the brain is probably more sublimely neuroscientific.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
what about assertive aggressiveness as opposed to, say, passive assertiveness?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
lol, well, either way it's describing assertiveness. Or a person's motivation to get out and get the life they want. Whereas aggressiveness alone connotes violence.
but, in terms of behavior, those are medical terms, of psychology. in this debate of nature and nuture, or testosterone and behavior: psychology is a low-roller. i mean, unless you want to get into a particular person's head, or something.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.