Alexander Profile picture
Jun 25 2 tweets 2 min read Read on X
“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."”
Image
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.”


Image
Image
Image
Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alexander

Alexander Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @datepsych

Jul 2
Revisiting beauty standards, many female fashion trends do not make women more attractive to men - and actually make them less attractive.

Men do not demand (or even like) these. In some cases they may appeal to a niche, but tend to impair attractiveness more than enhance it. 🧵 Image
Nope men aren’t demanding that. Lowest on the list:

Image
Image
Image
Occasionally I read women say, “men do not need to look like a jacked and lean male model to attract a woman, therefore men face no beauty pressures.”

This is true - but also of women. You don’t need lip fillers or a BBL. In fact in many cases these make you less attractive.
Read 10 tweets
Jul 2
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:
Image
Image
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:


Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 25 tweets
Nov 19, 2023
Fat women are perceived as less attractive and less feminine, and subsequently receive less benevolent sexism. Image
From this paper: Image
Also true for older women and Black women: Image
Read 5 tweets
Oct 13, 2023
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).
There is a lot of discourse on “entitlement” and “delusion” that I think is driven by these viral videos.

Understandable - it’s behavior that is entitled and delusional.

The behavior of a spoiled child.
Read 18 tweets
Oct 8, 2023
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.

journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…
The median stature of men preferred by female reports: 178.4cm, or 5'10.

The median difference in actual partner selection: +.99cm, or .39 inches taller.

Very low correlation between stated preference and actual partner height:

journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…
Image
The first paper found two effects:

1. A selection for taller men.
2. A "not-too-tall" effect: male partners generally weren't that much taller.
Read 13 tweets
Oct 6, 2023
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. Image
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(