Why women continue arguments about things their husbands have forgotten years ago.
A team of University of Pennsylvania boffins appears to have confirmed the commonly held notions that while women are absolutely useless at parking cars, they thrash blokes when it comes to multitasking and empathy. The scientists scanned the brains of 949 peoples aged 8-22 - 428 male and 521 female - and discovered "unique …
A more useful measurement would be to express that as a percentage of the total number of drivers. As it stands, the figure is fairly meaningless, as we have no context.
(Not saying that male drivers are the epitome of safe and careful drivers - but I have also witnessed female drivers doing equally stupid and dangerous things as men do).
There are other factors to consider too. For example, expressing it as a percentage per million miles driven or somehow factoring in the risk factors where pedestrian accidents tend to occur ( CBD, near schools, near gatherings of inebriated people, after sporting events or near shops) and what the relative gender balance is in such situations.
Simply saying that men are more dangerous because they are in more accidents is stupid. You need to normalize the stats such as per KM driven or some other appropriate base. Men drive much more KM than women - so they are more likely to be in accidents. But they are not necessarily worse drivers.
>Is this figure correct? Are you sure about it. I thought the figures showed that women have more crashes overall, its just that men have more bigger crashes.
That was the conclusion I read about some years ago, I can't remember the source but I think it was from car insurers. There is no reason why small bumps would be reported to insurers.
If we agree that the difference between a small 'bump' and a 'crash' is that a bump doesn't cause damage that either party cares about, then we need to look at car design. It depends on the design of car bumpers, which, alas, aren't as robust as they used to be, and many are damaged by bumps of less than 5mph ('Which?' magazine drew attention to this a few years back)
...expressing it as a percentage per million miles driven or ...
... a percentage of the total drivers on the road? Split out between the gender of passengers as well? The article previously noted that when together with members of the opposite sex men tend to drive much more often than they ride. It would be interesting to find out what the break-out on contributing factors and causes are. How many men would blame their female passengers for their wrecks?
Men do crash more. IMO the reason why is simple. Because while, on average, they have superior coordinated motor skills, they enjoy them whilst driving faster and taking more risks. Being less empathetic and prepared to take more risks, they care for high levels of safety less (or at least, keep safety in mind less) and apply the same lower safety standard to others. I would argue, though the lower safety standard doesn't necessarily translate to recklessness (e.g. deliberate disregard for safety, though there will be more reckless male drivers per head of the driving population) I think what men perceive to be the best balance point in the trade off between efficiency and acceptable risk differs between men and women.
Surely this has evolved from the different roles with primeval man tending to be out running after moving things to throw spears at (when not down at primo-pub) while primeval woman would tend to be protecting sprogs.
@Dazed and Confused.
Absolutely correct. The stats on accidents are often wholly misrepresented. The following article gives the correct message, although it isn't in the best publication ;-)
The reality is that women have far more accidents than men when you allow for distance travelled etc. However, they tend to have smaller accidents, so the total value of the insurance claims is smaller than for men. Basically, women tend towards bumper clashes in car parks, whereas men tend towards leaving the road at high speed and hitting pedestrians or trees etc. Stereotype.....certainly, but actually true.
So, the reality is that women ARE (on average) worse drivers, but men cost more due to the greater level of aggression and the size of the accidents.
I don't quite follow your logic. Women drive in such a way that their accidents are less harmful, therefore they're worse drivers? WTF?
Would you apply the same logic to engineering? Systems that fail catastrophically are better than ones that fail gracefully as long as the catastrophic failures happen less often than the graceful failures? An aircraft which only explodes once every hundred flights is better than one which has a problem with the airconditioning every three flights?
I think what he means is that, from experience and what is said in this article, men are more likely to be doing the ‘big drives’ so while a women driver in a year could have a bump on the school run, back into a wall while parking or take out a wing mirror in a car park by not paying attention to her surroundings, her husband is more likely to flip the car at 70mph after clipping someone else.
The husband might be a better driver, but as the amount of mile covered goes up, and the average speed increases, the same mistake made by the wife 3 times only needs to be made once by the husband for a major accident.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. One might say that small bumper clashes in car parks are worse accidents in that they show a much greater level of lack of care. Whereas high speed accidents can result from much smaller (both in magnitude and duration) lapses as the result happens much quicker etc. Is someone who constantly clashes bumpers when performing low speed actions really better than someone who has only one (albeit big accident) whilst on average driving much longer distances at higher speeds?
All insurance companies worry about is their payouts, so lowest payout (i.e. lots of small ones) wins.
The only accidents I have had in 44 years are bumper clashes in crowded car parks, so on your view that's worse than the people I know who have rolled BMWs, shunted a Saab into another car at 70 in a built up area, and carried straight on at a T-junction, ripping off all 4 wheels on the way into a field.
Miscalculating where your (unseeable) front bumper ends at 2mph isn't too terrible. Miscalculating the safe speed for a bend by 30mph, or doing 70 in a built up area, are hugely risky.
Something tells me you're trying to justify your own behaviour.
> One might say that small bumper clashes in car parks are worse accidents in that they show a much greater level of lack of care.
Well, I suppose one might, yes, unless one was even slightly concerned about physical harm to human beings.
The criteria you're using appear to be very popular with commenters here, and I just don't get it. We don't drive cars round obstacle courses or racetracks; we drive on public roads with other people. As members of a civilised society, our highest priority when controlling fast-moving tons of metal ought to be to avoid harming those other people, not to win the highest possible score from the imaginary judges in some technical proficiency test.
I think a lot of people here are getting confused between how to assess driving in the real world and how to award points in a driving game.
The work on shared urban spaces by the late Hans Monderman has become more and more influential in town planning. His designs increase the number of minor accidents but decrease the number of injuries. The reason his principles are catching on is that civilised people value humans more highly than cars. There's plenty of sensible debate about the efficacy and appropriateness of his designs, but I've yet to see anyone say they're simply crap because "Think of the poor fenders!"
> All insurance companies worry about is their payouts
And by far the largest payouts, worth sometimes hundreds of times as much as replacing a car, are the medical and legal costs associated with killing or crippling someone.
When a car leaves the road and smashes up a load of stuff everybody knows about it, police, insurers, the poor bloke whose house you just parked in etc.
When someone bumps a car or post in a car park, odds are no one else saw it, if it ends up on stats at all it's going to be because they made a claim for getting a scratch fixed, and men don't generally claim for small stuff, and when they do it's going to be "car damaged while parked' rather than 'i bumped it while parking'.
I really don't understand why people argue women are more dangerous drivers than men, they're crappier drivers sure, but you'd have to be deluded to say they were more dangerous.
"I thought the figures showed that women have more crashes overall, its just that men have more bigger crashes."
I think you've probably nailed it.
If you add up all the little fender benders, parking lot dings and other "crap parking" style crashes then the women probably take the prize.
Crashes that end up in police statistics (ie. involving serious damage, injury or death) probably belongs to the males.
Men have 50% more accidents than women, but drive 2.25 times the distance on average.
Before the European union feminists changed the law to get men's pensions, Insurers always used to go by women having 50% more accidents per million miles.
Men used to cost more to insure when young, because their typical accident was a 100mph motorway shunt or losing it on a bend, or taking off on a humpback bridge in the dark and landing in a house.
And while I've not had any of those for 15 years, women's accidents were misjudging corners, distances etc, and scratching paintwork.
And while 80% of them involved male drivers, being hit by a woman would still make me in that statistic even though I wasn't to blame.
To counter that, a whopping 80 per cent of crashes which involved male drivers were CAUSED by women doing dumb arse things like, ohh, putting fucking make-up on in the car. Or texting. Or numerous other things i see as a car, white van man AND cyclist commited daily by women drivers ...
NB, not saying men are the epitome of safety but when was the last time you saw a bloke putting lippy on whilst hurtling down a dual carrigeway for a mile and a half..
re "when was the last time you saw a bloke putting lippy on whilst hurtling down a dual carrigeway for a mile and a half.."
in my driving career of 26 years, and about 250 -> 300 Thousand miles, I'm yet to see a bloke put on "lippy" whilst driving along. I have however seen a fair few :-
on their mobile phone
shaving with an electric razor
reading a map propped on the steering wheel
looking for something , guessing a cassette or cd etc, instead of looking at the road, and veering wildly.
playing with the CD/Radio/Cassette player and not looking at the road (almost the same as above)
I guess there must be a few cross-dressing men who like to put on their "lippy" too, and no doubt in the next 20 odd years I guess I'll see one.
..."a whopping 80 per cent of crashes ... involved male drivers"
No. Men drive more miles, is all. This is why insurance forms ask for mileage. The average number of crashes per mile driven is almost equal between the sexes overall, but actually slightly higher for women.
All arguments about "men are better at X" or "women are better at Y" are rubbish. The sexes' abilities are exactly equal IMO, but their interests differ. Women could do engineering, they just choose not to. Men could be empathetic homemakers, but they have no interest. It makes them a good team.
The "multitasking" comment is particularly daft. It is an typical piece of manufactured opinion designed for consumption by the unintelligent, using an impressive-sounding word borrowed from computer studies to make it sound vaguely scientific.
I have to concur with this report .
If you are near my wife when she's reversing , GET OUT OF THE WAY. She might hit you at the huge speed of about 3 MPH. The amount of bumpers she has re-arranged on our cars is numerous.
If you are near me when I'm going forward , GET OUT OF THE WAY, because I have way too much confidence in my ability, and I'm likely to hit you , at somewhat more than 3 MPH.
Yup, caught my attention too: "a whopping 80 per cent of crashes that killed or seriously injured pedestrians involved male drivers"
You'd expect The Reg, being such a tech oriented place, to be better at this statistics business, instead of just parroting any old number without thinking about it first, providing context, etc. Oh, well, who am I kidding? Media is media.
Also, as the article itself says, men generally do the driving and do drive more, so of course the percentage is higher, you have to consider the total numbers of both sexes driving for it to make any sense. Without this info it could well just be stating the obvious.
I ask this for no other reason than to be an awkward sod: how does the whole transgender thing fit in this? It's all good and well to confirm a stereotype, but a theory is tested by its edge cases.
And there's nothing more fun than poking at stereotypes (evil grin).
This post has been deleted by a moderator
This is not a new conclusion, less tech was used in the past but came up with the same conclusions. One interesting point made previously was that male nurses and female engineers displayed opposite results to those of their gender. It would appear that the gender of the body is less relevant than the 'gender' of the brain.
A good point, I seem to recall some study which investigated the effect of hormone treatments on spatial reasoning which (hilariously) showed that adding testosterone increased accuracy.
I agree [upvote pending] it would be interesting to see what effect a major change in hormone regimen after puberty has. As you say edge cases are where it gets tested, for instance our understanding of what bits of the brain do what is mostly informed by victims of head trauma.
"I ask this for no other reason than to be an awkward sod: how does the whole transgender thing fit in this? It's all good and well to confirm a stereotype, but a theory is tested by its edge cases"
As someone who is transgender, I'd say that that was a perfectly valid and interesting question. In fact the research has been much discussed in support groups I frequent. A lot of us have looked for years for some form of physical evidence that we are in some way more like the gender we identify with rather than the gender we were born into. Rather than being mildy mentally ill as one commentard has suggested ( a comment which, for the record, I didnt find in the least offensive).
In reality, I'm not sure that it matters much. After all, its generally fairly blindingly obvious what the physical differences between men and women are anyway, and cognitive skills tend to be learned at least as much as they're inherent. So, while it would be jolly nice to have a laydeebrain and all that, its not likely to make much difference on a day to day basis.
Fyi - I cant park for toffee. On the other hand, I'm an accomplished engine builder and if you want a blueprinted V8 putting together, I'm your gal .....
...Rather than being mildy mentally ill as one commentard has suggested ( a comment which, for the record, I didnt find in the least offensive)...
Mental illness (beyond the grosser forms of brain damage) is at least partly a social construct. We tend to see people on a sliding scale, running from 'eccentric/a little odd' all the way down to 'a complete nutter'.
Looking at things dispassionately, I note that a major feature of humans who are claimed to be perfectly sane is their tendency to believe what they are told by society/authority figures, even if that belief is completely at odds with reality. We have a near-infinite capacity for self-delusion. Charles MacKay documented this in his "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds". Most human beings seem therefore to be quite 'mentally ill' to begin with...
Could I add that where we see people on the sliding scale also depends on how much money they have. Rich complete nutter = mildly eccentric. I'd quote a few obvious examples from public life, but the post would be deleted before an ambulance-chasing solicitor could read it.
"In reality, I'm not sure that it matters much. After all, its generally fairly blindingly obvious what the physical differences between men and women are anyway, and cognitive skills tend to be learned at least as much as they're inherent. So, while it would be jolly nice to have a laydeebrain and all that, its not likely to make much difference on a day to day basis."
It's something I often wonder about. If it turns out it is the case, I'll think "yeah, that's nice. But whatevs", whereas if it's not, I may get quite distraught, such is my way of finding negative things much more appealing, apparently.
"Fyi - I cant park for toffee. On the other hand, I'm an accomplished engine builder and if you want a blueprinted V8 putting together, I'm your gal ....."
I sometimes wonder if my formerly accrued skills and interests are perhaps a bit unladylike in some regards, because, y'know, they don't all conform to the correct stereotype; but they've become a part of who I am, and I'm the same person, whichever bunch of hormones I have washing around in me. But I'll always suck at parking.
There have also been studies that suggest that whilst a man and a woman are falling in love, hormonal changes make the man approach more stereotypically female traits, and vice versa.
The only thing that seems clear is that no simple conclusions can be reached!
Also being transsexual, but also being more of a coward than Trisha (sorry!) so anon...
When I started hormone treatment I was asked if I would take part in a medical study about the impact of hormones on the brain.
I had testosterone blocker for 8 weeks and then went for an MRI scan and cognitive tests
I then stayed on the blocker and started taking hormones
After 16 weeks I had another MRI scan and more cognitive tests
They did this for:
A male control group (with no medication)
A female control group (ditto)
A group of transexual men (before and after testosterone)
And, of course, a group of transsexual women
IIRC there were several hundred people in each group.
The results indicated that there is a high correlation of the structure of the brain matching the gender the person feels, more than the physical gender of the body.
In other words, I may not have a female body, but I do have a female brain. I'm not sure where I stand on the does it matter. It doesn't in day to day life, but it is good that I know the reason, if not the cause, for why I have felt the way I feel my whole life.
Oh, and forgot to say...
Parking: I'm brilliant, and useless :) I can reverse park with ease most of the time, but hate parallel parking.
I can be empathic, but can also miss a lot
I can multi task (as others here have said multi threading is maybe a better way of putting it) , but really prefer not to because it's easier to forget things, and is less efficient so the total time is longer for all of the tasks.
So... I don't know, I have things from both sides of the research in the article.
Yes but is it real multitasking? Or "multithreading"?
I'm pretty good at keeping up with a few things "at a time" but it's not really "at a time", I sort of stop one, focus on another and switch between them, which is more like the multi-threading on a single processor than true multitasking as with a multi-processor.
Leonardo da Vinci for example was famous for being a true multitasker, it is said he could be writing something with his left hand and doodling away at something else with his right, that is TRUE multitasking.
So I'm curious to know which type of 'multitasking' the researchers are referring to here.
For me, it's co-operative multithreading. What I see of others, tends to be pre-emptive multithreading.
I don't see true concurrency going on, just the task switching able to happen swift enough to keep on top of everything.
My weakness is recalling the context of a thread when I switch back to it A thought thread where I'm trying to do programming, generally has a big context that doesn't get stashed nearly effectively enough for me to resume it.
"greater significant differences within each sex than between them"
I've seen this point raised in many places following this kind of study, as if it somehow discredits or invalidates the findings. This seems bogus to me. So what if the within-group variation in a metric is larger than the between-group variation? The between-group variation is still a real, measured fact of the world. For example, it is perfectly true, and in some contexts useful, to say that men are taller than women. The fact that some women are taller than some men, or that the range of heights in either group is larger than the difference in the means, is irrelevant.
People seem to hate generalizations, especially about gender. Don't panic! Generalizations are fine, and essential in many areas of life. What's NOT ok is assuming that a particular generalization will be true for all members of the population. While this should be obvious, many people don't seem to realise it. So, maybe women are worse drivers on average, but one really can't assume anything about any individual woman based on that. Still, at the population level, it's worth knowing, and is essential for calculating insurance premiums fairly, etc.
It's not bogus in the least. The reason is because the in-group variation is normally HUGE and the between-group variation is normally tiny. Height is not a good example, as the differences are quite significant between men and women, and clearly sex-oriented. But the difference in driving skills between men and women is (a) probably not as much as people make it out to be and (b) potentially explainable in other ways that "she's a woman, therefore she's worse". For example, one possible explanation is that most people have been brought up to believe that men are better drivers, and so tend to let men drive more, so they get more practice, which generally makes them better drivers....
Hmm, well, that's not really relevant, at least for an insurer's purposes - they just want the best possible estimate of the 'expected cost' of each individual, they don't care about the massively complex web of social, biological, etc effects that lead to that result. In the same way, the fact that women earn less than men (on average) doesn't *necessarily* mean that all employers are sexist - there are massively complex webs of cause and effect in that case too.
In the case of this particular research, they claim to have found an underlying biological cause for the observed difference in spatial awareness abilities; this is exactly the sort of research that is needed to decide whether the observed differences are due to biology or society. This is interesting and valuable research, regardless of how it affects the 'political correctness gone mad' crowd etc. This would have been a valuable finding even if there were no observable difference in the gender's spatial awareness abilities (ie, if it was found that men and women achieve equal spatial awareness in different ways).
So, I stand by my earlier comment that research of this type is not *necessarily* discredited by in-group variance being greater than between-group variance.
So men were designed to be the hunters and women to me the mothers... I think that nature has known this for a long time already.
There is nothing intentionally derogatory about the above remark, so please abstain from the usual PC diatribe.
Of course there are exceptions, but they are after all just that, exceptions.
"Multitasking" - A yuppie illusion. Doing three things at the same time totally half-arsed if not plaing wrongly and possibly with disastrous consequences (going from wrecking one's hand to burning down the house) is not "multitasking". It is having a wrong idea of one's capabilities.
Neuropsychologist Ruben Gur, who participated in the study, conceded that "at any given moment, a woman is likely to be using her whole brain while a man is using half of his". Speaking to Philadelphia's Enquirer, he "struggled when asked if this structure makes men superior at anything".
What is this "if" that reporter is talking about? The real question is how women still manage to foobar things even if all the brain is engaged. Seeing how most of their decisions seem to be driven by mating reflexes (which is then strenuously denied) and peer group dynamics (even more strenuously denied), it could well be that all those active modules are the "social" ones.
Agree. I have a manager who "multitasks" by doing e-mail during meetings. The end result is that meetings last three to four times longer than they should due to having to go over agenda items again and again, and that the emails are so poorly absorbed (because he insists on trying to read everything on a Blackberry, has the attention span of a gnat on speed and keeps breaking off reading to find out what the f*ck the people at the meeting are talking about) he has to call meetings so the content can be explained.
I got so sick of this I offered to put in some mail filters for him (declined) then pointed out that the first thing most "effective management" books suggested was to stop reacting to email in real time. This got me disinvited to a bunch of meetings so - result, sorta.
I don't need no study for the answer to that, it's because my wife can't drive. However this doesn't prevent her from interfering with the driving of the car nor, even though she has the spatial awareness of a brick, stop her from asking every two minutes "are we going the right way?". To put this in perspective, if I ever wanted to lose her I just need to move house and take her to the end of the road, she'd never find her way back.
I am under the distinct impression that a growing number of people, of all genders and ages, are becoming sh*t at parking. That and refusing to take a shopping trolly back to the correct repository and instead choosing to leave it in the middle of the adjacent parking bay. When I park I like to consider the person(s) already parked, or who might park, next to me. They may for instance be elderly, have need of pushchairs and tons of baby-related equipment or just require that they can open a car door more than 2.5 inches for reasons of ingress/egress. I accept that in may cases car park layout with bays that are patently too narrow must take some of the blame, but generally a lot more consideration for others wouldn't go amiss.
I disagree. If you park with your drivers-side door 1 inch from the line, I'm going to assume that you get in and out via the passenger door. And if I had noticed you standing behind your vehicle BEFORE I walked out of the Walgreen's on the corner of Riverside & 120, I would have gone back inside and had a discussion with the pharmacist.
You can learn any skill. We have to back up a narrow bent alleyway to get onto our house's parking space, and ten years of that has made us both pretty damn good at reversing and parking. My wife has on occasion been asked by a neighbour to park their car for them because they were finding it too tricky, and been given a standing ovation by a bunch of builders watching her parallel-park in a spot that most people, me included, would not have attempted. I have no idea whether she or I had the greater naturally innate parking skills, and, frankly, who cares?
I've just watched a woman driver fail to park her car in a perfectly adequate space between two other cars. She then proceeded to repeat the same process on the other side of the road where she finally managed to fit her car into a space exactly the same length of the one she'd previously failed with.
During her manoeuvres she was assisted by her female friend who stood on the pavement and empathically checked out her messages on the phone.
That said, most 'parking' these days seems to entail slamming two of the cars wheels over the kerb and leaving it sprawled untidily on the pavement.
Yesterday, I watched a woman reverse her car into a space in a half-empty supermarket car park. She opened the driver's door to see out behind her, slowly reversed into the space, then switched off and went to do her shopping. The car was left at an angle of about 70° with 2/3 of it in the space, and the other 1/3 in the access lane beside it. She stopped about 3 feet away frim the car behind.
I seriously think she could have parked it just as well if she'd simply closed her eyes and waited for the crunch. I parked as far away from her as I could.
Yesterday, in traffic, I sat watching a woman attempt to park her car on the side of the road, one-handed, while having a conversation on her mobile, held to her ear with the other hand. Traffic was stopped, so I had a good opportunity to watch as she went back and forth, back and forth, never really making much progress.
It was only when she finished her conversation and directed all her attention to the task at hand, that she successfully got her vehicle parked. I felt bad for the cars in the lane she was blocking during the course of her attempt, but they also had a red light, so not much harm done, I suppose.
Sadly, the one-handed driver is a serious problem here. They don't even see you if to do so would involve turning their head. Don't even get me started on the ones checking their Facebook status in their laps. They think they're being subtle, but it's pretty obvious.
...Yesterday, in traffic, I sat watching a woman attempt to park her car on the side of the road, one-handed, while having a conversation on her mobile, held to her ear with the other hand. Traffic was stopped, so I had a good opportunity to watch as she went back and forth, back and forth, never really making much progress.
It was only when she finished her conversation and directed all her attention to the task at hand, that she successfully got her vehicle parked. I felt bad for the cars in the lane she was blocking during the course of her attempt, but they also had a red light, so not much harm done, I suppose.
So your anecdote illustrates:
1) the tendency of women to multi-task and indulge in social activity
2) the requirement for concentrated spacial awareness during parking maneuvers
3) the ability of women to intuitively balance multiple group needs and take actions which result in 'not much harm done'...
I saw a classic the other day... a long residential road in Bristol, with cars parked on both sides so that it was effectively a single lane road. As our group was walking along to the pub, we saw two cars facing each other, not moving, one red, one blue. We all looked up and down the road to see where the nearest passing spot was, and saw that it was 15 yards behind the red car. The driver of the blue car opened her window and shouted something to that effect. The drover of the red car shouted "I can't". Views were exchanged frankly between the two women, before the driver of the blue car shouted "For fuck's sake!" and hooned it down the road in reverse, placing herself in the middle of a T junction to the confusion of some other cars fresh on the scene. After all the fuss, and three vehicles had been put out by the red car's inability to reverse, the blue car choose a different route after all.
> we saw two cars facing each other, not moving, one red, one blue
Many years ago, I had a knackered old Transit van. Rear vis was dire.
One night, I was driving down a narrow road when a car came hooning round the corner and (just) stopped in front of me. There was a space a few yards behind him, but he wasn't going to reverse into it to let me pass.
So I started the long process of reversing a large van up a narrow street. I didn't hurry. This matey insisted on driving up to the front of my van at all points.
As I approached the crossroads (where I was planning to turn), I noticed another set of headlights waiting there. I backed into the side-road and glanced over my shoulder to see who it was - it was a cop van.
Said cop van then stormed across in front of me and forced the car to reverse all the way back down the street...
Some days are just lovely.
"Women crap at parking: Official
But thrash blokes at multitasking and empathy"
OFFICIAL: University Researchers WASTE 1000's of public cash on bull excretion reports like this that support old fking wives tales!
Oi!, kn*b rot, stop wasting my cash!
Sex has nothing to do with it. Have you see the state of some blokes driving "skills" (said in the loosest possible terms)?
Way to show up HE insts.!
"949 people... How can this even be taken seriously? So from a small subset of people they are going to infer world-wide assumptions."
"I can't even imagine that Pennsylvania has that great a genetic diversity."
Compared to what, England? The University of Pennsylvania is in Philadelphia, which has pretty much anybody you might be looking for. There are enclaves here and there in Pennsylvania that are not at all diverse, but Philadelphia isn't one--some of its neighborhoods are.
...the experiment measures the development of brain neuron connectivity.
Brain structure is known to be plastic, and to respond to outside stimuli. One wired-in feature of a brain is that it will learn by taking outside stimuli and modifying itself accordingly. In particular, all young primates/mammals seem to pick up social cues and 'fit in' to society at a very early age.
So, although this experiment shows the development of male and female brains along different pathways, it does not indicate whether this is because the male/female brain is pre-set to follow these, or whether the social pressures (simplistically, girls playing with dolls and make-up while boys play with guns and football) are the things responsible for the difference in connectivity...
“It tells us why, almost always, when men and women are in a car together, the man drives”
“80 per cent of crashes that killed or seriously injured pedestrians involved male drivers”
So, article tells us that more men drive compared to women, and most car crash have male drivers, any correlation here?
I wonder how many car crashes are caused by human drivers compared to fish drivers, I think you will find it proves that fish are safer drivers then people.
• Note, her indoors is actually a better driver then I am, mostly because her indoors is not actually indoors but spends a great deal of time behind the wheel of a car due to work, while I get the train.
The credibility of this "study" fell through the floor at that point.
Our brains are DESIGNED to do one thing : establish connections between neurons. In our early years, our brain is creating new neurons and they are latching on to the comm path, establishing their own connections and existing connections are modified.
Saying that a woman's brain is designed differently is blatantly false from a scientific point of view.
What should have been said is that a woman's brain is subject to a different environmental pressure system than a man, and thus creates synaptic connections in a different way.
And, as far as I'm concerned, one's skill behind the wheel is most highly correlated with the number of kilometers/miles one has driven and that's all. I have clocked over a million kms in personal vehicles, rented vehicles and company vehicles. Because of that, I am used to being called upon by friends (male ones) to drive their moving vans when they change appartment because they know they can count on me to not have them forfeit their deposit because of mishaps.
I see people drive/park terribly all the time. Not all of them are women, not by a long shot. I do however agree that men are generally WAY more obnoxious when they want. And I think that young drivers should be forbidden by law from driving a car with more than 80hp. More than that is just asking for trouble in the hands of the hormone-ridden security-oblivious youth of any day.
And get off my lawn !
>What should have been said is that a woman's brain is subject to a different environmental pressure system than a man, and thus creates synaptic connections in a different way.
Possibly. The experiments to settle the nature vs nurture debate re gender characteristics in children up to the age of five are easy to design.... but they would be unethical in the extreme and very expensive to boot.
In the meantime, there was a radio programme about transgender people, and their experiences in early school life which would suggest there is more going on than a gender-neutral baby brain being shaped by the societal norms around it. Also, there are observable structural changes in a mother-to-be's brain during pregnancy, to help her better deal with the new life tasks ahead of her. These changes are biological, not societal in cause.
Is is possible that your view is informed by a very laudable idealism?
It would be interesting to hear Cordelia Fine's opinion on the matter. In her book Delusions of Gender she makes an interesting and well researched case against the methods of many neuroscientists and their brain scanning interpretations (as well as their "spotlight-floodlight dichotomy"). She takes Ruben Gur as one example and pokes quite some fun at the rather childish presumptions in place at times.
These types of brain experiments seem pretty useless in isolation as long as they don't take into account earlier development years. Now one can still not prove what is exactly nurture and what is nature.
Also I'm in doubt if the floodlight or multi-tasking as described is actually such useful mode in practise. No doubt you can notice women being observant, conversant and working at the same time but it doesn't seem a quality in their favour really....
"The City of New York's first pedestrian safety report determined that a whopping 80 per cent of crashes that killed or seriously injured pedestrians involved male drivers."
but what's the TOTAL percentage split between ALL male and female driver?? if more men drive, then they're bound to be in more accidents. duh.
These studies always use adult brains. It is known that the process of growing up itself alters the way the brain is wired; and I suspect that "hardwired" differences would be found between the brains of manual and cerebral workers, or even between Lefties and Tories.
Since boys and girls are to all intents and purposes brought up in separate countries, it's hardly surprising that such differences are seen in adults. Differences in neonate brains would be interesting -- but I guess they don't want to look there in case they see something that they don't like.
Search online for "neurosexism".
How do you reconcile "outside of the slow-moving parking arena" with citing a City of New York report?
Anyone who has been mad enough to drive into NYC can attest to the fact that the place is one giant parking lot. Should anyone discover a quick route from somewhere to somewhere else, hidden spy cameras spot the increase in traffic flow and teams are dispatched to dig up some of the one way streets and double park ten ton trucks in the rest.
does not drive much any more, she always has some excuse, so it is down to me to chauffeur her about the place... fine I guess.
she insists on being exactly like hyacinth bucket from keeping up appearances
they are stopping
mind that car/sheep/cow/house/object that is far far away
don't drive so fast
don't drive so slow
I hate your driving..
that and the invisible brake pedal, or the clutching handles etc when she gets startled by something I saw ages ago.
when (eventually) she drives no matter how bad, I am sitting there silent, sometimes due to abject fear sometimes because I have already run through the possible combinations of conversations that would be said and the resulting lowering in quality of life on my part for saying them.
SWMBO's mothering unit also was so proud at her driving skills despite managing to knock of wing mirrors in the garage ( drivers side mirrors) then blaming someone in the local store parking lot ( there was a neat mirror height dent in the garage frame!)
got really offended when I mentioned that just because you have been driving for 30 or 40 years does NOT mean you have been driving well or even correctly for any of that time.
the only multitasking I do these days is finishing a beer, while getting a new one from the fridge... and it is about all I need to think about really.
though I must say, if men are so crap at multitasking, how do they drive exactly? especially if the consensus is that they are better drivers, last time I looked even in a regular automatic, you have to do multiple things at once, if women were so superior then they certainly would be much better at driving then men
If you are really confused about the 80% of pedestrians in New York being run over by male drivers, you have never seen New York: 90% of cars are cabs, and 98% of cab drivers are male. (O.K. I just made up those numbers, but it sure feels that way). I am shocked that 20% of pedestrians in NY are run over by women....
I browsed the paper. I had to get to it behind a paywall, so it must be hot off the press....
From mammalian biology, all mammals are female unless they respond to androgenic hormones.
Female body type != XX about 1in 100,000 times (hard to collect stats on this).
It would have been more interesting if they had taken measurements of the sex hormones and correlated those with "connection analyses" since the negative control already exists (XY, andogren insensitive, female body type...).
I wonder if the study was done blind, did the researchers just get de-identified data?
Sorry for being the cynical scientist, but studies as complicated as this will have all sorts of misinformation read into them...
The researchers, as they are normally do, made at least one unjustified claim. Namely, the reasoning behind why men drive and women are passengers.
It has nothing at all to do with the stated reasons. Rather, women ride because they are far more manipulative then men are and are much better at getting others to do things for them. A man prefers to take "control". A women prefers to retain control while letting the man believe he has any at all.
Notice how women have historically been in control of family finances while staying at home letting the man do the work.
This post has been deleted by its author
This was addressed to the Daily Mail, but if the shoe fits....
Oh, and there's video to go with.
dear daily mail,
it has come to my recent attention
that me recent appearance at glastonbury festivals kindly received a mention
i was doing a number of things on that stage up to and including singing songs (like you do…)
but you chose to ignore that and instead you published a feature review of my boob
dear daily mail,
there’s a thing called a search engine: use it!
if you’d googled my tits in advance you’d have found that your photos are hardly exclusive
in addition you state that my breast had escaped from my bra like a thief on the run
you do you know that it wasn’t attempting to just take in the RARE british sun?
dear daily mail,
it’s so sad what you tabloids are doing
your focus on debasing women’s appearances ruins our species of humans
but a rag is a rag and far be it from me to go censoring anyone OH NO
it appears that my entire body is currently trying to escape this kimono….
dear daily mail,
you misogynist pile of twats
i’m tired of these baby bumps, vadge flashes, muffintops
where are the newsworthy COCKS?
if iggy or jagger or bowie go topless the news barely causes a ripple
blah blah blah feminist blah blah blah gender shit blah blah blah
OH MY GOD NIPPLE
dear daily mail,
you will never write about this night
i know that because i’ve addressed you directly i’ve made myself no fun to fight
but thanks to the internet people all over the world can enjoy this discourse
and commune with a roomful of people in london who aren’t drinking kool-aid like yours
and though there be millions of people who’ll accept the cultural bar where you have it at
there are plenty of others who’re perfectly willing to see breasts in their natural habitat
i keenly anticipate your highly literate coverage of upcoming tours
dear daily mail,
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019