Guest Post by David Stephen
There is a recent story, Gender and the brain: Why neuroscience is still searching for evidence, where the conclusion is “No study has yet been published that explains once and for all whether men and women are born different or merely conditioned to fit certain gender roles—and the studies referenced here are a snapshot of some of the complicated reasons why.”
The story looked at sizes, socialization and other factors. Sizes, relative or not, make little determination when considering humans and animals, so average sizes between males and females can be brushed aside. Mice do things similar to humans, though tiny. Some large animals do as well, yet are different from humans.
Gender, Do Women and Men Have Different Brains?
The story also stated that for human brains, “there was almost no difference between the size of the female amygdala and the male amygdala.” Looking at the brain for sizes as a factor of advantage limits understanding of how the brain functions.
Even with neurodegeneration where the brain shrinks for those living with the conditions, it is not about the size but about quantities and properties dent in the brain. Both are shaped by neuroplasticity but indented by neurodegeneration. Animals also have quantities but they don’t have properties availability that give human intelligence, languages and so forth.
There are constants [or quantities and properties] in the brain that make determinations. It is the dimension of the quantity and the sequences, directions, destinations of the properties that express what the brain gives for any experience. No two brains are the same in this regard. Most of what is obtainable in the environment with people behaving the same, or following the same pattern is due to constants conditioning.
The quantities are conditioned towards directions of certain properties, so when those are acquired within the same interval or for the same situations, it seems like these people behave the same, think or feel the same, but actually they don’t.
There is no universal fear factor, mostly conditioning for what should be feared. There are myths that women are more emotional than men, or express more emotions than men, but that is not the case. Any sensory input can end up in an emotional outcome. It is the emotional end of senses that does not make men work like machines.
Machines can do as programmed because they have no emotion for pain, fear, injury and so on. Men do, and with too much work or no breaks, breakdown would be surplus, making the project [expected to succeed] suffer in different ways, so supervisors are somewhat cautious, no matter how intense it gets, across eras.
In other cases where it seems like a people [without emotions] are involved in some harmful behavior to others, it is not for lack of emotions, but that the quantity was [conditionally] redirected from acquiring or expressing that property at that time, at least. This is possible with substances or others.
Conceptually, there are property differences in every brain, by sides, degree or motion. There are groups of people who seem to have similarity across property sides, degree or motion that makes it seem like those are average or dominant, but that is not the case. There are different women and different men by brain constants: strictly speaking about brain constants, not anything else. There are men in unexpected categories, as well as women, defying what it means to be what, by brain constants.
This is similar to how empathy, fear, delight, anxiety, depression, interest, fatigue, lethargy and so on vary at each moment for everyone. The same experience can be stressing to one or light to another at one time, and the reverse is the case the next time. There is the internal administration of the brain that runs its own show for what becomes of anything for the owner—controlled or automatic, including for mental health.
It is possible that some constants in the brain are sometimes passe...
