To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet) [LWN.net]

To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 29, 2007 2:41 UTC (Sat) by MisterIO (guest, #36192)
In reply to: To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet) by alankila
Parent article: To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet)

I somehow agree with you.I sure do not have any empirical proof of it,but it's certain that men's brain is generally bigger(not much but it is)than women's brain.Humans have more intelligence than animals because they have a bigger brain,why shouldn't this be true even between men and women?
That said I knew a lot of women more intelligent than a lot of men,so in general the difference shouldn't be so exactly marked.

to post comments

To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 29, 2007 3:40 UTC (Sat) by xanni (subscriber, #361) [Link] (12 responses)

Actually, it turns out that brain size isn't directly correlated with intelligence. If it were, elephants, whales and other animals would clearly be intellectually far superior to humans. So the "men have bigger brains" argument is pretty much irrelevant.

To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 29, 2007 3:47 UTC (Sat) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] (11 responses)

It was obviously in proportion to the size of the body.I thought this was obvious!

To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 29, 2007 5:24 UTC (Sat) by xanni (subscriber, #361) [Link] (6 responses)

OK then:

Brain Size and Intelligence from Neuroscience, 2nd Edition, Dale Purves et al., ed.
Brain size does not predict general cognitive ability within families, PNAS Vol. 97, Issue 9, 4932-4937, April 25, 2000

To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 29, 2007 14:28 UTC (Sat) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] (5 responses)

Look,I've found at least 4 scientific studies published from 2006 to 2007 that say exactly what I said before,just do a google search and you'll find them.Anyway I really don't see the big problem.Companies want to make money,so when they search for a new IT professional,they search for a good IT professional.Who cares if that IT professional is a man or a woman?I've had a lot of female IT collegues and nobody has ever discriminated them.But I don't like the idea to treat female IT professionals as a species that needs to b protected.

bad references

Posted Sep 29, 2007 22:05 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (3 responses)

Your google must be broken, or you would have found about the encephalization quotient pretty quickly. And the surrounding controversy, but at least you would be past "brain size to body mass", knowing that mice do better than people there.

I've had a lot of female IT collegues and nobody has ever discriminated them.

Nobody discriminates those small-brain female creatures, do they? Apart from considering them as inferior brainwise, we can trust corporate greediness to overcome those prejudices, right? Wow, that is really a recipe to fairness.

bad references

Posted Sep 30, 2007 4:43 UTC (Sun) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] (1 responses)

There's a difference between discrimination as it is generally considered wrong,and a normal discrimination as you would mean simply to discern between 2 different things.If I say that men and women are different,I'm not discriminating.I would be discriminating if I had not given a job to a woman just because she's a woman.

I have some questions

Posted Sep 30, 2007 8:57 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

If you could enlighten me about a few issues: consider the following red herring.

I sure do not have any empirical proof of it,but it's certain that men's brain is generally bigger(not much but it is)than women's brain.Humans have more intelligence than animals because they have a bigger brain,why shouldn't this be true even between men and women?

Is it discrimination of the "good" kind, or of the "bad" kind? Does it inspire you to have no prejudices when you have to interview a woman? Do you think you are an isolated case in your company?

bad references

Posted Sep 30, 2007 11:47 UTC (Sun) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link]

Interesting link, though it does not address those who suffer from osteo-encephalitis (inflammation of the brain due to a bone in the head). Which pretty much describes this thread.

Pointing out the he was a she (reminds me of the song Take a Walk on the Wild side or whatever it was) is about as useful as pointing out someones race, religion, etc. I frankly don't care.

This explains a mystery to me

Posted Oct 1, 2007 15:06 UTC (Mon) by utoddl (guest, #1232) [Link]

I've never been comfortable with Perl's use of '.' as a concatenation operator, but evidently it comes quite naturally to some people. Thanks for your post.

To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Oct 1, 2007 8:18 UTC (Mon) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] (3 responses)

This "body size proportion" is the most stupid idea I've ever heard. Let's just take this absurd theory into analogy with robots: Take robot A, which is a huge caterpillar robot (weights 80 tons) and a 5kg brain (cooling and hard disk all included). It's supposed to be idiot-level, since the brain takes such a small fraction of the body weight. Now we use the same robot brain inside a small soccer robot (10kg total), so that robot would be highly intelligent, since half of its weight is brain.

Come on, nobody would argue like that. It's exactly the same brain. There's no relationship whatsoever between how a brain works and the body size. The only thing there is is that smaller bodies have an evolutionary pressure to utilize their brain better, because they simply can't afford more brain. It's unlikely that during human evolution, no attempt to make the brain more efficient had happend.

Anyway, if efficiency is the only point, there's probably little difference between the male and the female brain. The only think we know for sure is that there's different specialization. A significant amount of the 100g more weight of the male brain is used to think about sex. That's one of the reasons why standard IQ tests don't detect a difference - sexual "intelligence" isn't tested ;-). The other reason is that the tests are carefully calibrated to average to 100 for both males and females.

To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Oct 1, 2007 9:12 UTC (Mon) by alankila (guest, #47141) [Link] (2 responses)

I think the argument is a bit more involved. For instance, consider skin surface. All those neurons firing from your skin so that you can sense from the full area of the body will require some brain volume to handle, probably proportional to the skin area, but the relationship could be different, who knows.

As to why brain size is often compared to body *volume*, I got no idea. Large parts of the body seem to work autonomously, so it would seem nonsensical to do so indeed. I completely believe, however, that a larger body uses more brain power merely to keep track of what is happening in, on and around it. It's the details, as usual, that are difficult.

The argument doesn't seem to be without merit, the specific equation of brain mass divided by body volume is bad.

To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Oct 1, 2007 11:32 UTC (Mon) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] (1 responses)

The "skin size" has nothing to do with the number of neurons there. If you draw a human and reshape it so that the sensitivity neurons have the same area density, you'll see something with large hands and testicles, and almost no back at all. The number of neurons per area depend on how important that part of the body is for sensing things, not how big you are. There are a number of things which compensate each other. E.g. a small animal can react quickly and move its legs fast. It needs short neural connections for that, and due to the low dead time of its body, it needs to operate fast to balance things out. Large animals however have high dead times and long "wires", so they can't react so fast, and also they don't have to. An elephant moves in slow motion. You don't need a better brain for that - you can run your brain slower. Elephants use their large brains to remember a lot, not to be artistic.

IMHO the point of the brain size/body volume equation was because someone figured out that we don't have the largest brain on the planet, but think we are the most intelligent life form. So there comes the brain size/body volume equation, which puts us in advantage of elephants, whales, and especially fat Americans (for which then somebody invented the fat-free encephalization quotient ;-). However, it also puts mice as equal to us, and small birds far ahead.

To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Oct 1, 2007 12:23 UTC (Mon) by alankila (guest, #47141) [Link]

Fair enough, you gave my argument a good beating. I have no real comments to reply back to you about that. We both agree that the size of the animal does matter, and that is what I wanted to tease out of you.

To Sir, with Love: How To Get More Women Involved in Open Source (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Sep 29, 2007 6:19 UTC (Sat) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] (4 responses)

I have to laugh. The sheer irony of someone suggesting a correlation between brain (processor) size and brain (processor) capability, on a site like this, is profound.

Indeed PET scans and the like of people performing mental tasks suggest that the differences are more related to architecture than size -- people more adept at certain mental tasks engage fewer neurons and use less energy doing so than less adept people for the same tasks.

In other words, like certain other anatomical features, it's not (just) a matter of how big it is but how well you use it.

Why the sudden need to create and attack strawman ?

Posted Sep 29, 2007 7:30 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (3 responses)

While it's certainly true that "it's not just a matter of how big it is but how well you use it" (some geniuses had tiny brain and some idiots had huge one) the fact still remains: sheer size of brain is a statistically reliable factor - at least among representatives of the same species. Why all these derogatory comments all of sudden ?

Because it is false

Posted Sep 29, 2007 22:24 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (2 responses)

Well, because it is not true at all. Big people have bigger brains; small people have comparatively bigger brains as related to body mass. Fat people have worse ratios. You can account for those differences as in the encephalization quotient, and it works fairly well for big differences between species. But within a species you are lost: there are so many ways to account for the differences that once you are finished your bias is more likely to show up than any meaningful statistics. Across genders things are only worse.

It is bad enough to relate engineering capability to brain size of any kind, but to compare genders is utter nonsense. It is really surprising that it should show up here. Next we will be comparing penises in the showers to decide who is the boss.

False ? Are you sure ?

Posted Sep 29, 2007 23:22 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (1 responses)

You've pointed above to this article. If you'll bother to read it to the "see also" list you'll find this link where you can read that "modern studies using MRI have shown that brain size shows substantial and consistent correlation ( r = .35 to .43 in various studies) with IQ among adults of the same sex" - with pointers to said studies. As for adults of different sexes - it's much harder to measure without bias, but it's not clear why there should not be a difference...

Of course "there's a lot inside a skull other than just the brain" and social factors are 100 times more effective segregation factor then small inborn difference in intelligence...

Pretty much

Posted Sep 30, 2007 8:49 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

True, there is a controversy, and while some studies find a weak correlation, others don't. However, as you say, across genders the correlation is not measurable. Among other things because IQ is calibrated exactly so that males and females have the same mean score, 100. Therefore, any correlation that involves gender and IQ score is biased to start with.