I know the title could be misinterpreted as “demeaning”, but I’m just being literal. There’s no emotionally charged subtext. Science is free of egotistical emotions, or it at least tries to be, & it is based on truth, or at least the search for truth, rather than what’s popular.
I’ve already explained some neurological realities of sex differences in another note regarding the cognitive findings by neuroscientist Simon Baron Cohen. This is a further explanation.
Our society often does not understand that there are major sex differences in the brain; such scientific analysis is often dismissed as “sexism”. Well, by the popular culture, maybe it is, maybe it isn’t . Meanings of words get lost & altered by pedestrian communication to the level of very little meaning anyway. (Which is why I really wish to have very little to do with it & rather attend to intricacies & maintain these studies, while some slanderous idiots who don’t even know me can just assume that I’m a faker of some sort.) Is it sexist? By definition, it is “sexist”, but it’s also science. Such anti-science dismissals is what I neologize as “personality-ism”.
Meaning: such people are anti-ratiocinitive. I am not speaking of a personalism as a pychiatric appraoch, but is akin to a racialist. The foundation of the latter is not of concern but exemplary. Throughout history, highly intelligent, scientific, & philosophical types have been disliked, or only used, and the source of this dislike is the fact that many feel unpleasant when such people retain the attention that they desire.
There are other much more technical factors regarding sex differences in cognition & behaviour. Here is just one study. & remember, don’t get your feelings involved. Be patient. Science is not meant to entertain you, so don’t have an automatic repulsion because a tone or glimpse gave you a rash ideation:
According to Steve Moxon, a distinction is that women have more white matter, described as intelligence-related connectivity, than males. What is meant by this “connectivity” is that females’ innateness for empathy is involved in subjectively accounting multiple aspects in terms of interacting.
However, men have more grey matter than women, which is described as intelligence related processing. For systemising, processing is crucial. This means that men have more skill in information processing, while co-ordination between centres is more frequent in women. This accounts for womens’ thicker corpus callosum. Certain parts in the brain also discloses sex differences. For spatial skill, reading, & mathematics, mens’ I.Q.-related grey matter is prorated equivelently between parietal lobes & the frontal lobes. A large percentage of mens’ I.Q.-related white matter is in the area of the temporal lobes, which processes memory & sound. In the frontal lobes, used for, mobility, emotions, judgement, speech, & reasoning, women have a large percentage of grey & white I.Q.-related matter.
Even though this I.Q.-related tissue is only a portion of all neurological tissue, it validates that there are differences in cognitive abilities by the sexes. It validates understanding of female dissipation & male focus, via Simon Baron Cohen’s model of male systematizing & female “empathy” – amorality, especially when used for accepting many forms of boastful provision for the potential offspring.
Such clues that major functional & structural differences made distinctions of the sexes had been pondered by scientists since they began to analyze a difference by way of influence of one half of the brain. The issue was specifying what locations of the brain are designed for what. Techniques of brain envisioning were enhanced to partly elucidate this. Because sometimes other parts of the brain replace action of other parts in cases of injury, & because the brain is interspersed, an absolutely ascertained center for any distinct operation is still a little ambiguous. Female brains are more involved in this sort of action – female brains being more involved with connectivity & less with processing. Research indicates that female brains have less definitive separate operation of the hemispheres. In other words: there is more of a trend for female brains to be wired to allow females to be simply concrete rather than complexly abstract, hence their general tendency for secretary type of professions. In contrast, it was apparent that if the brains of men are more differentiated than women, then this entails that males have more complicated, refined minds.
It’s paradoxical that boys tend to be much more distracted – or exploratory – but once they find something fascinating, they obsess over it (Baron Cohen’s model)
Along with a study confirming toddler boys generally attracted to automobile toys & other objects associated with mechanization, while toddler girls generally being attracted to doll toys & objects associated with emotive expression, again, the distinction between male methodizing & female relating is a scientific analysis emphasized by Simon Baron Cohen. This answers what is so obvious, which is kind of sad we need science to confirm it, but is largely due to the latter factor of female empathizing being over-emphasized in society instead of male methodizing, that many are unwilling to acknowledge – generally speaking, males construct, females mingle.
Extent to which operation are in one as against both hemispheres, the amount of connections between hemispheres, & brain proportion – all are distinctive by sex. What is also distinctive is the contrast of the amount of I.Q. related processing tissue, which males have more of, & I.Q.-related connective brain tissue, which females have more of.
Source: ‘The Woman Racket The New Science Explaining How The Sexes Relate At Work, At Play, & in Society’ by Steve Moxon, Pages 78 – 81