It is the mainstay of countless magazine and newspaper features.
Differences between male and female abilities — from map reading to multi-tasking and from parking to expressing emotion — can be traced to variations in the hard-wiring of their brains at birth, it is claimed.
Men instinctively like the color blue and are bad at coping with pain, we are told, while women cannot tell jokes but are innately superior at empathizing with other people. Key evolutionary differences separate the intellects of men and women and it is all down to our ancient hunter-gatherer genes that program our brains.
The belief has become widespread, particularly in the wake of the publication of international bestsellers, such as John Gray’s Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, which stress the innate differences between the minds of men and women. However, a growing number of scientists are challenging the pseudo-science of “neurosexism,” as they describe it, and its implications.
These researchers argue that in telling parents that boys have poor chances of acquiring good verbal skills and girls have little prospect of developing mathematical prowess, serious and unjustified obstacles are being placed in the paths of children’s education and development.
In fact, there are no major neurological differences between the sexes, says Cordelia Fine in her book Delusions of Gender, which will be published by Icon next month. There may be slight variations in the brains of women and men, added Fine, a researcher at Melbourne University, but the wiring is soft, not hard.
“It is flexible, malleable and changeable,” she said.
In short, she says, our intellects are not prisoners of our genders or our genes and those who claim otherwise are merely coating old-fashioned stereotypes with a veneer of scientific credibility.
It is a case backed by Lise Eliot, an associate professor based at the Chicago Medical School.
“All the mounting evidence indicates these ideas about hard-wired differences between male and female brains are wrong,” she said.
“Yes, there are basic behavioral differences between the sexes, but we should note that these differences increase with age because our children’s intellectual biases are being exaggerated and intensified by our gendered culture. Children don’t inherit intellectual differences. They learn them. They are a result of what we expect a boy or a girl to be,” she said.
Thus boys develop improved spatial skills not because of an innate superiority, but because they are expected and are encouraged to be strong at sport, which requires expertise at catching and throwing. Similarly, it is anticipated that girls will be more emotional and talkative and so their verbal skills are emphasized by teachers and parents.
The latter example, on the issue of verbal skills, is particularly revealing, neuroscientists argue. Girls do begin to speak earlier than boys, by about a month on average, a fact that is seized upon by supporters of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus school of intellectual differences. However, this gap is really a tiny difference compared to the vast range of linguistic abilities that differentiate people, said Robert Plomin, a professor at the Institute of Psychiatry in London.
His studies have found that a mere 3 percent of the variation in young children’s verbal development is due to their gender.
“If you map the distribution of scores for verbal skills of boys and of girls you get two graphs that overlap so much you would need a very fine pencil indeed to show the difference between them. Yet people ignore this huge similarity between boys and girls and instead exaggerate wildly the tiny difference between them. It drives me wild,” Plomin said.
This point is backed by Eliot.
“Yes, boys and girls, men and women, are different,” she said in a recent paper in New Scientist. “But most of those differences are far smaller than the Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus stereotypes suggest.”
“Nor are the reasoning, speaking, computing, emphasizing, navigating and other cognitive differences fixed in the genetic architecture of our brains. All such skills are learned and neuro-plasticity — the modifications of neurons and their connections in response experience -- trumps hard-wiring every time,” she said.
The current popular stress on innate intellectual differences between the sexes is, in part, a response to psychologists’ emphasis of the environment’s importance in the development of skills and personality in the 1970s and early 1980s, Eliot said. This led to a reaction to nurture as the principal factor in the development of human characteristics and to an exaggeration of the influence of genes and inherited abilities. This view is also popular because it propagates the status quo, she said.
“We are being told there is nothing we can do to improve our potential because it is innate. That is wrong. Boys can develop powerful linguistic skills and girls can acquire deep spatial skills,” she said.
In short, women can read maps despite claims that they lack the spatial skills for such efforts, while men can learn to empathize and need not be isolated like Mel Gibson’s Nick Marshall, the emotionally retarded male lead of the film What Women Want and a classic stereotype of the unfeeling male that is perpetuated by the supporters of the hard-wired school of intellectual differences.
This point was also stressed by Fine.
“Many of the studies that claim to highlight differences between the brains of males and females are spurious. They are based on tests carried out on only a small number of individuals and their results are often not repeated by other scientists. However, their results are published and are accepted by teachers and others as proof of basic differences between boys and girls,” she said.
“All sorts of ridiculous conclusions about very important issues are then made. Already sexism disguised in neuroscientific finery is changing the way children are taught,” she said.
So should we abandon our search for the “real” differences between the sexes and give up this “pernicious pinkification of little girls,” as one scientist has put it?
Yes, Eliot insisted.
“There is almost nothing we do with our brains that is hard-wired. Every skill, attribute and personality trait is molded by experience,” she said.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS