“A new study from Stanford shows remarkable differences between female and male brains. The researchers found no overlap between male and female, and rejected the idea of a "continuum."”
Results from the discussion section in the original paper.
“The brain features identified by XAI that reliably distinguished functional brain organization between sexes also predicted unique cognitive profiles in females and males.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There is a widespread perception that women face stronger pressures to be physically attractive, but it doesn’t seem clear to me that this is the case.
There is pressure to be attractive and how that pressure is experienced. This is where I think you see the differences. 🧵
The bodies that are modeled for men and women as the ideal are as unrealistic (if not more so) for boys as they are for girls.
Big things have been made of Barbie being unrealistic - but she a body that is within a natural and healthy range.
Not so for many boys toys:
Female models have been called “unrealistic” despite being real people, but what is clear is that they are simply conventionally attractive women who are thin.
Men who are handsome, lean, and also muscular are similarly selected for male advertisements:
I rarely comment on the “bad dating behavior” vid genre, but this one is worth seeing.
The affective shift between video part 1 and part 2 is remarkable. He calmly tells her he will just drive her home (after she refuses to leave the car because she doesn’t like the restaurant).
Stated vs revealed preferences: we know women report wanting taller men (6' or bust!), but in actual partner selection male height is only a little above what you would expect from random mating.
As an undergraduate I remember learning that peer review was the litmus test for reputable, good science. It was this iron-clad thing. The ultimate seal of approval that lets you know if a paper is trustworthy.
But we were never taught what peer review actually consists of. 🧵
I suspect this is the case for most people: everyone learns that it’s really important, but not how the process works.
They imagine peer review as this well-oiled machine - rigorously vetting your methods and results - combing through your data to make sure it checks out.
Here is an illustration of the peer review process from Taylor & Francis.
At its core it’s a feedback system: 2-3 anonymous reviewers (other people in your field) read your paper and provide feedback.