h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

aye adhd must ne like bread n bn butter to you

<>

Excuse me, but isn't this Mr Abstract speaking?

az

sounds like sam the surrrealist

hi toxx,

<>

Is there any scientific basis for these sorts of generalisations? Why should male and female brains be so different? Hormones? That extra chromosome? Isn't a lot of this social conditioning as well? Just wondering.

az

cranial size is one factor

I've seen those generalisation before; along with women are better at multi-tasking versus men being more focused. I'm pretty certain there is something scientific about them, but not being a neurologist I couldn't understand it.

That *was* the idea, but so it didn't go...

Really crazyhorse? My cranium is physically larger than those of most men yet I get confused reading a map. Yet I am very good with mechanical things. Yet with languages I intuit them more than properly learn them. Go figure.

az

just goes to show there are no absolutes

I don't think they're meant to be anything more than loose tendancies really. I'm sure there are plenty of women who are terrible conversationalists .

And there are probably even women who don't put the toilet seat down!


az

Which is why the word "see" is in quotation marks.

For example (with apologies to toxx)

"If the laws of physics are invariant through rotation (ie are the same for all observers) then the existence of the universe *must* be underpinned by a conserved quantity"

will appear as gobbledygook if you can't visualise what the words describe. (There is a mathematical proof of this, but without the visualisation that's just gobbledygook, too).

Outside the abstract the case is less clear, but if I was putting together flatpack furniture I'd lay the bits out in the right order before starting so I could see what was going on.

People are another matter, of course, but even a personality has some sort of "shape" to it, rather than being a set of disconnected bits thrown together at random (usually).

Noggin

how would you chararachterise a severe personalitlity disrder?

"Is there any scientific basis for these sorts of generalisations? Why should male and female brains be so different? Hormones? That extra chromosome? Isn't a lot of this social conditioning as well? Just wondering."

IIRC, the classical IQ test (which was callibrated using Western, white subjects) used to demonstrate from its results that women did less well in numbers and slightly less well in spatial tests and better in language. A number of problems arose from this:
(a) the classical IQ test relied on only those three parameters, so it could be argued it was skewed against women (but the original subjects were predominently male and middle class, so no suprise there)
(b) people who were of a different cultural background were also disadvantaged by the language test, which relied on Enlgish and on cultural reference points

Later IQ tests have sought to balance the test to make it valid across the board. However, AFAIK there still appears to be a tendency for men to do better in spatial awareness than women.

This tests purports to 'test the sex of your brain':
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/intelligence/brain_sex_quiz.shtml

My brain is 'male', surprise! For years I've been very good at spatial and reasoning tests. But I also do well at language. it's the maths that lets me down, otherwise I guess I'd be completely 'male'!

"how would you chararachterise a severe personalitlity disrder?"

DSMIIIR (I haven't read DSM IV) defines these loosely as personality traits which are maladaptive and inflexible, producing either emotional distress or behavioural impairment.

DSM is tha standard work on psychology and stands for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is always a work in progress and things change from issue to issue. However, there was nearly 20 years between DSMIIIR and DSMIV.

DSMIIIR recognised the following: paranoid personality disorder (PD), schizoid PD, schotypical PD, borderline PD. Borderline could be subdivided into: histrionic PD, narcissistic PD, avoidant PD, dependent PD, obbsessive-compulsive PD, passive-aggressive PD and antisocial PD (psychopathy or sociopathy), but all of these are hotly debated and some of these have changed in DSMIV.

Borderline PDs are characterised by lability (quick changes and extremes of mood), impulisve behaviour, an unclear self image, difficulty in being alone, lack of empathy (inability to evaluate others or feel real concern for them), and manipulative behaviour.

IME borderline PDs are domestic tyrants fond of manipulating or tyrannising those they live with by their moodswings; bullies at work; fundamentalists in matters of religion or conviction and, I would suggest, terrorists on the international scene.

I am actually quite good at map reading, mechanical things and fixing them...I like to build the stuff that comes in kits, and take great satisfaction when I have completed it

I am not a very good verbal conversationalist at all!

Morning everyone,

"I am not a very good verbal conversationalist at all!"

but fine with non-verbal?

*hehehehe*

Hi az.

<<>

Is there any scientific basis for these sorts of generalisations? Why should male and female brains be so different? Hormones? That extra chromosome? Isn't a lot of this social conditioning as well? Just wondering.>

Innate differences between the sexes almost HAVE to be due to the genenetic difference and its expression in different hormonal balance. We can also look at performance by Turner's Syndrome subjects (chromosomally: XO). There are also grounds for supposing that at least some of the difference is due to social learning. It's something we can't really control, and the alternative is to test young babies before these things can be differentially acquired. Clearly, that rules out the verbal stuff so we're left with the best indications from adults.

As HS has said, the phenomenon is real enough whatever its origins. It's only a statistacal trend and there are plenty of exceptions, even right here on h2g2!

Noggin. Didn't Einstein say that he thought in pictures? I had a search for the quote, but didn't get anywhere in the time available.

toxx

I believe he did say something along those lines. He was also a late developer, because his verbal skills (which mature earlier than maths skills) were nothing special. Hence one of his teacher's remarks that "he would never amount to much."

Noggin