>males on average have larger total brain volumes than women (by 8-13%). On average, males had larger absolute volumes than females in the intracranial space (12%; >14,000 brains), total brain (11%; 2,523 brains), cerebrum (10%; 1,851 brains), grey matter (9%; 7,934 brains), white matter (13%; 7,515 brains), regions filled with cerebrospinal fluid (11.5%; 4,484 brains), and cerebellum (9%; 1,842 brains). Looking more closely, differences in volume between the sexes were located in several regions. These included parts of the limbic system, and the language system.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/males-and-females-differ-in-specific-brain-structures#.dpuf
Outrage incoming. Funny how scientific facts won't matter when fee-fee's are about to get hurt
Isn't the difference in volume just due to the fact that male bodies are larger on average than females'
>I haven't read the article
>>7980984
Two things:
1) Neanderthals had bigger brains than humans and they went fucking extinct, and were dumber. This point illustrates how your insinuation is based on your lack of understanding of basic biology. Off yourself.
2) Don't off yourself yet, off yourself knowing that there are women in STEM RIGHT NOW with smaller brains than you and have achieved a lot more and are far smarter than you will ever be.
>inb4 reddit
>inb4 librul
>inb4 white knight
>>7981009
Look at this reaction to a scientific study. Laughable. Are your poor feelings hurt?
>>7981015
it was covered in the inb4s you fagit. Stupidity isn't one of the things commonly tolerated by /sci/ so don't be surprised by the response.
>>7981009
>Neanderthals were dumb
Your information is out-dated
>>7981009
>neantherthals went extinct because they were dumb
there is no evidence as to why they went extinct
>>7981018
Throwing a fit isn't a response. Point out flaws in the study. Do you think the University of Cambridge would allow and publicize a study that could be debunked by someone crying about how men are bigger then women? Did you even read the article?
>>7980984
size =/= intelligence.
>see hydrocephalus
One guy with hydrocephalus, and hardly any brain, has an IQ of 126
http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm
There's probably a better source but still, there it is.
>>7981026
>Did you even read the article?
I did in fact:
>It is important to note that we only investigated sex differences in brain structure, so we cannot infer anything about how this relates to behaviour or brain function. Integrating across different levels will be an important goal for future research.
My problem was with OP using valid scientific research as a genderbait thread, along with the first response. The very researchers debunked their insinuations. I indeed didn't need to write an actual response, but just offer the quote like I did now.
>>7981009
Here comes the red pill
>>7981021
Here is some common sense you little fuckwit:
Male bodies are larger, so male brains are also larger. It has nothing to do with movement or whatever the fuck you are on about
>>7981038
^this
>>7980984
>Doing a fucking review article as part of your PhD
Fuck this asshole honestly, he probably got a bunch of undergrads to do the grunt work for him to, this is some fucking cancerous bullshit you should be actually contributing to the field before you write review articles.
>>7981037
>Australia
>Uninhabited
Abos are off the scale
>>7981021
what
>>7981033
>males on average had larger volumes and higher tissue densities in the left amygdala, hippocampus, insular cortex, putamen; higher densities in the right VI lobe of the cerebellum and in the left claustrum; and larger volumes in the bilateral anterior parahippocampal gyri, posterior cingulate gyri, precuneus, temporal poles, and cerebellum, areas in the left posterior and anterior cingulate gyri, and in the right amygdala, hippocampus, and putamen.
By contrast, females on average had higher density in the left frontal pole, and larger volumes in the right frontal pole, inferior and middle frontal gyri, pars triangularis, planum temporale/parietal operculum, anterior cingulate gyrus, insular cortex, and Heschl’s gyrus; bilateral thalami and precuneus; the left parahippocampal gyrus, and lateral occipital cortex.
The results highlight an asymmetric effect of sex on the developing brain. Amber Ruigrok, who carried out the study as part of her PhD, said: “For the first time we can look across the vast literature and confirm that brain size and structure are different in males and females. We should no longer ignore sex in neuroscience...
Seems like a lot of structural differences to amount to no impact on behaviour
>daily /pol/ack link random article
>claims brain size determines intelligence
>remind him black people usually have bigger craniums (and brains) than white people
>suddenly brain size is no longer that important
Great thread
>>7981038
>Hey you fucking idiot, I can only understand shit when I place it in stupid dumbed down black and white boxes, don't try and make THINK about shit!
Read my post again, read the article again, then actually read about the structures and realize they are not all tied bodily/motor function, in particular higher densities in these are not related to body control
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala
>processing of memory, decision-making, and emotional reactions,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocampus
>short-term memory to long-term memory and spatial navigation
People like you need a fist through your face hard enough so you stop talking for the rest of your miserable life.
>>7981063
>Seems like a lot of structural differences to amount to no impact on behaviour
Okay. Read my post again and the text I quoted. You're on /sci/ m8, not /pol/. Making insinuations starting with 'seems like' and no definitive evidence, especially when there's conflicting evidence (see the posts above yours about brain size) is only going to make people dismiss you.
>>7981044
Your even worse you piece shit, you couldn't even find the balls to spout bullshit yourself, but you had to latch on to another retard to hold your hand.
>>7981077
...ok.
You going to comment on the huge list of structural differences or are you going to stick your fingers in your ears and rant about /pol/?
>>7981063
We have extremely little understanding of how brain structure translates to behavior. It may have no impact at all. It may just be bigger. It's not good to make assumptions. The article itself says that we cannot infer how it affects behavior, yet you insist we do just that.
>>7981102
>We
*I
>>7981100
Yes the structure is different, male brains are bigger and that has been known for a long time, but you can't relate that to intelligence because the link between size and intelligence is unclear yet, even the article says it.
>It is important to note that we only investigated sex differences in brain structure, so we cannot infer anything about how this relates to behaviour or brain function.
>>7981111
quads confirm.
/thread
>>7981009
You can't inb4 the truth, retard. Please go extinct.
>>7981098
>muh /pol/
Just because you disagree with someone you don't have to try to slander them. That's a childish tactic.
>we cannot infer anything
Direct quote and weasel words to be frank. Compiling a catalog of structural brain differences and then refusing to offer a theory. If the actual researchers themselves are going to play so coyly, don't expect me to make concrete statements.
Why do you think the structure of the brains are so different
>hard, unpopular study
>presented to 'scientists'
>refuse to engage with topic; refuse to research deeper; refuse to accept data; spew buzzwords; cry about conclusions
this board is an embarassment
>>7981125
They're dogmatized undergrads fresh out of the state controlled high-school propoganda fest. Don't pretend you weren't just like them at one point.
>>7980984
This means nothing
I have a tiny brain but a massive dick
>>7981131
>They're all sheeple, but I've seen the light, I swear I'm not ignorant of all science
>>>/po... come on, you know what to do
>>7981131
>complains about buzzwords
>uses 7 buzzwords to criticize people who contradict him
>>7980984
DELETE THIS NOW
>>7981009
>neanderthals went extinct
explain why there's neanderthal DNA in our own
>>7981009
>, and were dumber.
Do you even have any proof of that (other than Flintstone cartoons)?
>>7981131
I hope I wasn't. The entire study is linked on that article. Research, results, methods, citations, further reading. Instead they link to a throwaway quote from one scientist given to a journalist as if that's the important information.
One persons opinion is all that matters because it validates their preconceptions.
>>7981037
w...wtf is this thing next to Australia?
>>7981153
Atlantis you fuckin moron.
>>7981149
Yes they aren't even considering the evidence or any of the central arguments. They ignore it entirely and focus on trivialities which in turn changes the framework of discussion to one where they can more easily parrot simplistic dogma. It's exactly what most religious people and communists do. They aren't debating to resolve or understand something, they are arguing to "win", it's kind of pointless and better to ignore them untill they decide to leave their eco chambers.
I can't be more socially left, but I can't stand the posters ITT, it's disgusting to be honest.
>>7981149
>They are just quoting one line of the article !!!
>OP did the same thing but somehow that's fine
>>7981166
>OP quotes controversial line to garner attention
>pretend scientists ignore study and focus on journalistic copy
>>7981166
OP qouted a quantitative distillation of the results not an a tidbit opinion for jounos.
Just remember that brain size doesnt absolutely relate to intelligence. This could reflect on the fact that men have larger muscles with more nerves to be processed.
>>7981171
>>7981172
>OP links to journalistic copy
>Takes quote out of context
>Starts thread with "I'll just leave this here"
>People reply to him with a quote from the article and the prior knowledge that size doesn't affect intelligence
>Somehow they're indoctrinated for not taking to the time to read 80 pages of research that's already summed up, but OP who did the same thing is alright
>>7981106
>implying you did
>>7981187
>the .pdf is 17 pages.
>there are 'scientists' here repeatedly screaming about size when the article and study very clearly notes dramatic STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES
>starting an OP like a prick is the best way to draw attention to your thread
>the journalistic quote being used to ignore this study is in itself out of context - no-one is quoting the preceding line
>>7981196
Starting an OP like a prick is a good way to get a lot of (You)'s but not a legitimate discussion. If OP was really interested in this study he'd have started with something like "how much of intelligence can be determined by structure and size ?".
He would've had less answers, but the people answering would've either looked more into it or already be familiar with the subject, instead he acts like an edgelord so of course people just reply with a "l2read" since the same article he quoted also contains a few counter arguments to his edgy post. And instead of linking to a deeper part of the actual pdf to put those quotes in context he acts like he's persecuted by highschoolers.
You reap what you sow.
>>7981215
>legitimate discussion
>4chan
No matter how this topic was put forward the result was going to be the same. That paper has copious data showing clear structural differences between male and females brains with the probability this effects behaviour. However the type of 'scientist' that frequents this board has no interest in information contrary to their personal belief system.
It's a deep failing of academia that someone will become extremely defensive just because they're exposed to difficult information.
The funniest irony is reading that paper made me think that a study on transsexual brains would be enlightening. Of course then these same fuckers will undoubtably be straight in saying of course men and womens brains are different, blah blah blah.
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug
>>7981009
>OP makes no claims
>OP is making insinuations
>>7981009
This is very obvious bait. Grats on getting so many replies.
>>7981153
Polynesian islands.
If you didn't know, there are a thousand inhabited islands between Australia and the Americas.
>>7981077
OP DIDN'T MAKE ANY CLAIMS HE JUST POSTED A LINK AND A QUOTE ROASTE
The only important brain matter of this, is grey matter. The matter which is where your logical intelligence comes from.
Women have 9% less grey matter. Therefore on average women are 9% dumber than men.
>>7981037
Why is South America giving the peace sign?
>>7980984
brain volume=/=intelligence
and yes, i am a white knight faggot who loves strap ons
I'm definitely proud to be a male and all, and I wouldn't be surprised if scientific evidence did find that men are, on average, more intelligent, more competent, or more whatever standard you want to measure people by, but I don't really see the point in bashing women so much and bashing on other men/women who don't do the same.
It's like you won't be happy until every single woman in the world personally comes up to you and confirms that you are better than they are. Or they're max extinction. Who the fuck knows what you faggots even want anymore.
>>7981037
Why is Latin America a shithole then? They should at least be at Eastern Europe levels of development by now.
>>7981223
>The funniest irony is reading that paper made me think that a study on transsexual brains would be enlightening. Of course then these same fuckers will undoubtably be straight in saying of course men and womens brains are different, blah blah blah.
Off-topic question: Have you heard of Milo Yiannapolous?
>>7981520
No. I'm guessing he's Greek? And from the bit you're quoting a transsexual
>No eugenics and gender circlejerk
Man, this is so comfy.
Why can't more threads be like this one?
>>7981037
wtf UK is same tier as middle east. I swear on me mum ive got a big fookin ed.
>>7981536
Lol nah. He is gay, but he doesn't make much of a show of it, since he's very anti-leftist and anti-SJW. The part you mentioned about transsexuals reminded me of something he said. Here it is: https://youtu.be/1FvADt-mJ_o?t=1834
>>7981565
It's obviously a bait chart. It has no source, and comes from /pol/.
>>7981488
should stupid people be allowed to vote?
>>7981089
>they are not all tied bodily/motor function, in particular higher densities in these are not related to body control
Nobody said anything that even implied this.
Read this.
>>7981111
Now understand that men's brains are not bigger because of intelligence, but because men are larger, therefore the brains are larger. What we did NOT say was that "Men need bigger brains to control their bodies because the bodies are bigger", what we ARE saying is that brain size does not directly affect intelligence, so the fact that the brain is bigger influences nothing and is not "caused" by more intelligence.
>>7981129
>If science proves me right, I'm right
>If science proves me wrong, I'm still right.
>>7981569
>but he doesn't make much of a show of it
>literally tweets daily about sucking black dicks
>>7981009
angry female brainlet detected
>>7981009
>triggered
To this day I find it more amusing how butthurt people get over average brain structure differences than what they may actually mean.
>>7981578
companies and political parties won't allow it
>>7981587
>Now understand that men's brains are not bigger because of intelligence, but because men are larger, therefore the brains are larger. What we did NOT say was that "Men need bigger brains to control their bodies because the bodies are bigger", what we ARE saying is that brain size does not directly affect intelligence, so the fact that the brain is bigger influences nothing and is not "caused" by more intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#Brain_volume
>>7981587
>Brains have tons of filler that do absolutely nothing
That is not how physics works in the slightest and you know that. Things that exist do things. I believe the fact that you are trying to bring up about bigger brains=/= more intelligence is based on cross species analysis talking about neuron density. Of course neuron density matters, but if you find that men and women on average have similar neuron density that should imply that men have on average whatever that difference is in intelligence because there isn't much of a part of your physical brain that does absolutely nothing.
>>7981598
He's j-j-just being cheeky, senpai
>>7981608
from your link
A meta-analytic review by McDaniel found that the correlation between Intelligence and in vivo brain size was larger for females (0.40) than for males (0.25).[14]
If women have 9% smaller brains on average, then given the factor of 0.4 compared to male 0.25, they are smarter than men.
>>7981508
i would be asking similar things about the Patagonic area, they're the least developed areas in their respective countries. yet aparently the average brain size is among the biggest
>>7981037
lol @ the east african rift valley.
>>7981037
all those brainlets
why do we even let them live?
This is not your personal opinion dumping ground.
Mods: lock this thread.
>>7981769
Don't fucking reply to me again unless you're contributing to the thread
>>7981666
Then there it is, brain size matters! Glad that you can change your opinion.
>>7980984
And then people interpreting the study will forget that averages are simply only averages. Take pretty much any male and there a plethora of females with larger brains.
>>7981902
>she's trying pretty hard to rationalize this
>>7980984
>LOOK AT DIS GRAPH/STUDY PROFING IM RIGHT
>FACTS OVER FEELS™
>PRO LOGIC™ AND ANTI-BULLSHIT™
go back to your antifeminism threads on /b/
>>7981902
>only average
Of course there are people above the average, but the average matters. Society is very mush a reflection of the average.
>>7981972
>/sci/
>doesn't want to discuss science for once
>would rather post a hundredth homework thread
Is the study interesting to read?
>>7981978
>science
this is bait my friend.
>>7981985
Yeah, but it's a bait with science attached. That's better than all the regular bait on this board.
>>7981985
>Cambridge study
>neuroscience
>bait
Just because it's not telling you what you want to hear doesn't make it bait. This thread has shown up this board
>>7981009
>Neanderthals went extinct
No they didn't, they became what we call whites and asians, keeping their distinctive traits: pale skin, and big brain.
>>7981769
Roastie Internet Defense Force: protecting women from reality
>>7981102
the big assumption would be to say big differences in brain = no difference at all in behavior.
>>7981077
>black people usually have bigger craniums (and brains)
Nope.
>>7981488
Also this fact (men are smarter) makes affirmative action a disaster, beyond its manifest unfairness.
To those people who think women are the equal of men intellectually, I suggest you go and peruse the two things created by women: feminism and romantic novels. Both are retarded and derivative.
It must be embarrassing to be a woman.
>>7981666
Of course. Glad to see this data brought forward. It is the logical answer to the swathes of great female thinkers - the female philosophers, the female mathemathicans, the female physicists, the female economists, the female politicians, the female generals and military minds, the great female composers and artists. This truly explains the depth and greatness of the female mind and why STEM is awash with women
>>7981077
>remind him black people usually have bigger craniums (and brains) than white people
Nope
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001071
>>7981974
Average matters a lot in determining the numbers at the extremes, The higher male average and higher standard deviation makes for huge disparities in favour of men at the top. At the very bottom there are more men also, though in the moderately low range the two factors cancel out and the numbers are roughly equal.
Also worth bearing in mind that the female IQ is skewed to verbal IQ i.e., the ability to bullshit, lie and spew out SJW drivel. A lot less useful than the engineering and math skills that men have more of.
>>7981102
You can use empirical evidence, though. No women have ever contributed anything to any intellectual field, barring some minor concrete thinking a la Marie Curie. If we study the most accomplished mathematician's brains, we could collate the data for patterns. You can work backwards, so to speak, and learn more about the relevance of brain size—and independent regions—in relation to real world performance. Most science devlops this way, actually.
>>7981111
Brain size and intelligence obviously has some link. We wouldn't have evolved large craniums if that wasn't the case. Brains are very taxing, so the long-term benefits would have to outway the increased calorie requirements, not to mention the increased chance of death during childbirth for the mother.
It is also simple reasoning, though as you correctly pointed out, uncertain, that if you took the same brain, with the same structure and proclivities, and isometrically scaled it up, you would end up with a more intelligent individual. The resources that a large brain consume are doing something. Maybe it isn't related to intellect, but it is providing some evolutionary advantage. More resource expenditure in an intellectual area would ostensibly lead to greater intelligence, as any brain mass that wasn't actively providing a benefit (intelligence, hand eye coordination, sensation, etc.) would be selected against during the evolutionary process.
>>7982597
>Cultural issues
Get out
>>7981179
Once again, ignore the conjecture that can't be substantiated. Men make up the vast majority (some would argue all) of top-level athletes and intellectuals. Men seem to specialize from an evolutionary standpoint. Rarely do you have a man with a world-class intellect and the body of a football player.
Women on the other hand, don't seem to specialize to nearly the degree men do. I believe this is self evident. If you look at height averages around the world, women group closer than men. The same is true with intelligence tests (which aren't that accurate, in my opinion). All great proclivities seem to be found on the Y chromosome, whether it relates to intelligence or athletic ability. I can't think of any field where women can compete with men on fair grounds. Nature seems to have, contrary to the feminist cant, made women childbearers and nurturers. Men have been the lab rats that try new adaptations.
>>7982574
>neuroscience
>Literally just an anatomical survey of relative brain volumes
>neuroscience
Lol.
>>7980991
Like r9k isn't just jerking itself off to how great males are because Jane rejected them from the prom.
>8-13% difference
Lmao
>>7981125
But we are engaging and researching, just very angrily.
What is there to discuss on this matter?
>>7982616
Make me :^)
>>7982645
>published in the journal of Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Review
>i-it's not neuroscience!
Why don't you sperg out at Cambridge then anon? Oh right they'd laugh you out of the building
Lol.
>>7982703
So what is the conclusion of the study?
>>7982659
>we are engaging and researching
I guarantee you no-one here has read the study the article links to, nor the myriad of further reading said study leads to
>>7982710
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763413003011
Part 3 - Results
Why not read the fucking thing instead of bitching about it?
>>7981009
>muh reasoning skills
>inb4ing muh self
Literally the reason why whites are going extinct
>>7982718
Nice. Why are there so many assblasted faggots ITT?
>>7982749
Reality isn't matching up to their preconceptions so they're lashing out. Makes a mockery of this being a scientific board
>>7982859
>humans beimg humans
Really?
Elephant master race reporting in.
