By: Bergen

Bergen — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:55:46 +0000

It seems that the real issue here is Brizendine’s extremely poor choice of descriptive language in her book, and not the validity of her research.
Normally, I love the posts on Mind Hacks, but I have to say that this one is disappointing. It seems to be selectively erroneous. For example, a quick google search yields research based verification that dorsal premammillary nuclei are identified as a mammalian trait, and The Dictionary of Human Anatomy (Martin C. Hirsch, 2000)lists dorsal premammilliary nuclei as a human feature.
More disturbingly, however, is the study linked to in the post supposedly supporting the argument that there is no substantial size difference between the male and female amygdala. First of all, take a look at the gender sample distribution in the study: 21 males and 9 females. Nowhere near evenly distributed by gender (not to mention it’s a very small sample). Secondly, the study specifies using cytoarchitectural delineation to define the size of the amygdala. But Neuroscientists, such as Manfred Gahr, point out that amygdala size varies greatly depending on what you measure; cytoarchitecture,cytochemicals, or projection properties. These elements each change in ‘size’ independently of one another. This article details the importance of understanding how ‘size’ is defined in neurological research (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/3/255).
The point is that most research defining the ‘size’ of the male v. female amygdala can differ greatly depending on what exactly is being measured. We’re not talking about measuring a lump of tissue here. We’re talking about measuring the spiderweb of neuron connections in a quantifiable way. The majority of research on amygdala ‘size’ agrees that there is a gender specific ‘size’ difference. And many of those experiments involve over 100 individuals in a sample with an even gender distribution, as opposed to the questionable numbers and distribution in the article linked to the mind hacks post.
Basically, I think this mind hacks post is reacting more to the terrible terrible word choices by Brizendine and hiding behind an erroneous claim of bad science. Carefully selecting only the research that agrees with your hypothesis doesn’t make your claims correct. You have to take into account all accessible research on the subject.

By: JohnPkc

JohnPkc — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 01:29:51 +0000

Does she mention gay males? That testosterone would seem to be driving more of a penis-driven trance in them. I have not read her books, nor do I have any desire to. I’ll take Richard Dawkins instead, thanks.

By: Lilian Nattel

Lilian Nattel — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:13:05 +0000

Those poor dear weak males. Did she
suggest there should be a special
compound for them for their own
protection? Oh well, no, that would
defeat the whole monetary benefit
of feeding social stereotypes with
bogus science. Your comment about the
rats made me laugh btw.

Comments on: Brizendine, true to stereotype

By: Bergen

By: JohnPkc

By: Lilian Nattel