You are enjoying Earl Grey in the cafe and accidentally hear a couple sitting next door discussing a more "alternative" gender issue.
The man said: "The brain capacity of men is about 10% larger than that of women. Research shows that the size of human brain capacity is moderately related to IQ, so men are naturally smarter than women." The woman retorted: "That doesn't mean anything. Women's brain research has also shown that women have better "mind reading" ability and better "language" ability. Women also have cognitive advantages that men do not have, and IQ does not necessarily mean intelligence."
Who do you think is right?
The view that men are better than women on intelligence has a long history, especially in ancient times when men are superior to women everywhere. This view was almost rooted in everyone's heart at that time.
But even in modern times, there are still intellectuals who uphold this view. In 2005, Harvard University President Sanmers expressed his opinion in a speech. He believed that the reason why women in the scientific community are fewer than men is that one of the factors is that the brains of the two genders are inherently structurally different.
In vernacular, it seems that he believes that the male brain allows men to work at higher intellectual barriers (such as scientists), while women do not have this advantage.
In addition, according to statistics, the income of men and women is different from the same salary. The average income of women in the United States is 81% of men (similar situations occur in Asians), and women generally receive lower salaries. You may think that this is related to physical strength differences, but the fact is that in areas of work that require higher education, the income gap between men and women is even larger.
Are men born superior to women?
is not necessarily true.
Male Brain vs Female Brain
There is no doubt that there are certain differences between men and women's brains. For example, men's brain capacity is about 10% larger than women (there are still many controversies in the relationship between brain capacity and IQ), and the Broca area of the female brain, that is, the brain area that processes language, is generally larger than the Broca area of the male. In addition, in different regions, the amount of gray and white matter in men and women is slightly different.
However, there are many inconsistencies in the research on cognitive differences between men and women. Some psychologists have compiled many studies on cognitive differences between men and women and gave the conclusion that "in fact, there is almost no difference". Some neuroscientists have said: "Extreme male brains and extreme female brains are very rare, and most people are in the gray area between the two, and you cannot summarize them with any single standard."
However, among the many studies on brain differences between men and women, one of the research results is the most prominent- The "connectome" of the brain is also divided into genders. The "front and back connections" of the male brain are richer, while the "right and left and right connections" of the female brain are richer:
In 2013, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published a paper from Ragini Verma of the University of Pennsylvania and her neuroscience team. They studied more than 900 men and women aged 8 to 22 years old.
research shows that there are obvious differences in brain connection patterns between men and women, and the "left and left-right connections" of the female brain are more frequent and rich, which means that women have better logical thinking and intuitive abilities, better attention, better text and facial memory, and better social cognitive abilities (including the so-called "mind-reading ability").
The male brain has frequent and rich "front-back connections", which means that men have better perception and limb coordination, faster limb reaction ability, and better spatial processing ability (used to reason about the movement speed, rotation, position, etc. of objects).
Excerpted from "Mary Ovenstone | TEDxCapeTown 2014"
This seems to imply that the female brain is more suitable for performing tasks of thinking and socializing, while the male brain is more suitable for performing physical exercises. This conclusion is consistent with the results of many studies on differences in cognitive abilities between men and women.
So, does this mean that women are actually more suitable to be scientists than men?
is not the case. Research has found that "spatial ability" is related to the achievements of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics), which implies that men do have better scientific research capabilities.
But it should be noted that this does not mean that women are not competent for STEM. There are still female scientists and female mathematicians who are outstanding than most men, and this at least shows that women are not destined to be unable to perform outstandingly in the field of science.
So the question is, do men's better "spatial ability" and women's better "analysis and communication ability" come from innate or acquired?
In fact, the connection mode between "male front and back" and "female left and right" is not significant for children (8-13 years old). There may be two reasons. One is that the connection mode requires a certain age to be developed, and the other is that it is due to acquired environmental influences.
In fact, the spatial ability can indeed be enhanced through acquired enhancement. For example, long-term playing of electronic games (action shooting) can improve the spatial reasoning ability. In addition, common stereotypes such as "women are more understanding and considerate" may also make women become similar to the role of "self-provement", that is, they are influenced by stereotypes. (We will talk about this later)
Another point is that the human brain is neuroplasticity, that is, the brain will change due to experience and environment -
This means that many differences between men and women's brains come from innate or acquired? This has always been a question that is constantly debated by the academic community and difficult to answer clearly.
Putting aside the controversy between innate and acquired, as seen from the current obvious evidence, there are some differences between adult men and women's brains. So according to inferences, women who are good at socializing, analyzing, mind reading, and textual memory should be able to play better in the modern workplace. Why do women still have less average income than men?
There is an explanation for this, because men and women have different hormonal mechanisms. Men are destined to be better, more proactive, more wolfish, and more passionate about competition. They are more likely to strive for better benefits and salaries. On the contrary, women are always passive and compete less actively, so they get less income accordingly. This can even explain the reason why women are the few among entrepreneurs.
is a kind of explanation that fits our daily experience and intuition, and it does partly reflect the real world. However, this inference is overly interpreted as "innate determinism", that is, people believe that women are passive and unwilling to compete are inherent and invariably unchangeable.
But people are wrong.
Are women born unwilling to compete?
The fact is that women also have the "competitive instinct". It is a wrong concept passed down from before that women are born to not compete actively and are born to be uncompetitive.
I mentioned an interesting experiment in this article, and the following is paste:
behavioral economist Uni Gneezy did a study on this, perfectly overturning the hypothesis that "for women, they are born not to actively compete."
Gernich read a large amount of literature and found that men are indeed more adventurous and competitive than women, but he suspected that it was because of the concept of being weaker towards women, must be gentler, and not more proactive than men, which made women not confident and less willing to take risks and compete. To prove this, Genic flew to the northeast of India to observe the local Khasi, a rare matriarchal society in which people take grandmothers as the core, women control all property and occupy important social status. The men all marry into the women's mother's home, which is inversely in our ordinary patriarchal society.
In addition, Genic also went to Tanzania to find the local observation Masai (Masai) - a more extreme patriarchal society that is completely opposite to the matriarchal society of the Cassi. In the Masai, the status of a wife is not even as good as a cow, and the father does not even regard his daughter as a child.
, two different societies have very different cultures, so Gernich designed an extremely smart experiment to allow the subjects to play a tennis ball into a bucket (because neither tribe is particularly good at this competition), and divided the subjects into several different competition groups. Then, he asked these different competition groups to choose these two different reward methods:
- , which was given a few more goals than the opponent's investment. (That is, willing to participate in the competition.)
- rewards according to the number of goals put. (That is, it is unwilling to compete with other groups.)
results show that among the above options, Marseille men in paternal society will be more inclined to choose the first option (willing to compete) than women, while women are more willing to choose the second option (willing to compete).
. In the Cassi tribe in the matriline society, women are more inclined to choose the first option (willing to compete), while men are more inclined to choose the second option (willing to compete). But the rejuvenating discovery is that women in the Cassi are even more willing to compete than men in the Maasai.
This means that women are not born unwilling to compete. In a society where women dominate, women can even be more willing to compete than men.
In fact, this point that women dare to compete can also be verified in our society. After the generalization of the concept of equality between men and women, more accomplished women have emerged in society. In 2016, the presidents of Taiwan and South Korea were both women. In recent Olympics, the proportion of American female athletes winning gold medals is even higher than that of American male athletes. (A century ago, the ratio of male and female athletes was 53:1)
, both the statements of "brain difference" and "competitive instinct" cannot prove the statement that "men have an innate advantage in career achievements."
This means that women's average income is lower than that of men, is not the result of innate ability, but is more likely to be the impact of acquired environment.
So, what kind of environmental impact is it?
is all the fault of society
We once discussed in "Why You Are Destined to Be Influenced by Others for the rest of your life" that human beings are very susceptible to others' influence, and the formation of our self is more from the evaluation of others, rather than the result of self-thinking.
Then, if families and society generally have some stereotype about men or women, then people will naturally be affected by this stereotype. Social psychologists call this phenomenon a "stereotype threat". A study shows that the stereotype "girls' mathematical ability is not better than boys" does affect the grades of female students in math tests, just as the stereotype "black mental retardation" also affects the test scores of black students. If this stereotype is not interfered with, its impact will last for a long time.
What's more, the impact of this stereotype can even be "reversely operated". "Social Animals" (authored by Aronson) mentioned:
In an experiment by social psychology and Claude Steele, the experimenters conducted a very difficult math test on some male white students in engineering majors (almost all of whom scored in the math standard score test).
Before starting the test, the experimenter divided the students into two groups, and then told the first group that this was a simple mathematical ability test. Then, the second group was told that this mathematical ability test was to "understand why Asians showed stronger mathematical ability."
results found that the second group of subjects had significantly worse test scores, a finding that reveals the situational characteristics of stereotype threats—when imposed on these white engineering students aberrational situation and compared them to a group that might be better than them, these smart and accomplished students would miss the test.
It is worth noting that the experimenters did not clearly say that "white people have poor mathematical ability than Asians", but just saying that "Asians are better mathematical", is enough to produce prejudice.
This makes me wonder, when we say "boys should pursue their careers", will it also have a prejudice effect on women?
In addition, the impact of "gender stereotype" may be greater than people think. "Social Animals" also mentioned that "gender stereotype" can lead to women's denial of their own achievements:
A study shows that little girls tend to underestimate their abilities.
Educational psychologist John Nicholls found that fourth-grade boys attribute their successful completion of an intellectual puzzle to their own abilities, while girls tend to belittle their success.
In addition, this experiment also shows that boys have learned to protect themselves by ascribed failures because of bad luck, while girls tend to blame themselves for failures.
In a more recent experiment, educational psychologists Deborah Stipek and Heidi Grdinski confirmed that girls have a tendency to devalue their abilities and are most common in areas where men are considered dominant, such as mathematics.
Stypek and Gralinsky found in particular that junior high school girls attribute their success in math exams to luck, while boys attribute their success to ability. Moreover, when girls succeed in math exams, they show significantly less pride than boys.
Where do these self-strike concepts come from?
Overall, they are almost certainly influenced by the attitudes generally held by our society as a whole, but the most powerful influence comes from the attitudes of the person most important in the little girl's life, her parents.
In another study, psychologists Janis Jacobs and Jacquelynne Eccles examined the effects of a mother's gender stereotypes on the mother's ability to see their sons or daughters aged 11 to 12.
Mothers who hold the strongest gender stereotypes will think that their daughter has worse mathematical skills than their sons. Mothers who do not have gender stereotypes in the usual sense do not think that their daughter is worse than their sons' math skills.
These concepts affect children's beliefs. The daughter of a "genderly prejudice mother" holds strong gender stereotypes and believes that she has no mathematical ability; the daughter of a "genderly prejudice mother" will not show self-strike beliefs.
These "gender stereotypes" come from society, and the other part comes from parents, among which stereotypes from parents have greater influence.
Considering the deeply rooted traditional values of Chinese society (such as women are most afraid of marrying the wrong man, and women don’t need to read too many books), our generation should be affected by prejudices than Americans.
In addition, media such as TV and video games have been confirmed to be related to the spread of "gender stereotypes":
Psychologist Douglas Gentile and the experimenter counted 13,520 teenagers and found that when answering the question "women are born mainly for giving birth and taking care of children", teenagers who spend more time playing video games are more inclined to answer "yes".
Experimental personnel believe that this is mainly because most of the female characters in electronic games are exposed in clothing and have a single function. But the experimenter finally stated that electronic games are not the main cause of gender discrimination, and that factors such as religion, economy, family, education, etc. are all playing a role.
"Social Animals" also mentioned that the TV media may have inadvertently instilled a certain "gender stereotype" of the public:
In a study by psychologist Florence Geis, researchers presented stereotyped commercial advertisements to some subjects, depicting women as sexual vents or capable housewives that cater to men's needs. Other subjects saw the opposite commercial advertisement: for example, they saw a husband proudly (not humbly) serving delicious meals to his wife who had worked hard for a day and had just entered the door.
When the experimenters asked the subjects to imagine their lives “ten years from now”, those advertisements watched were female subjects who portrayed women as sexual venting objects, or capable housewives, who were more likely to ignore career and other topics of achievement.
In addition, women under control conditions (participants who were not presented with any advertisements) also showed the same low level of desire for achievement, which means that normal daily stereotyped advertising has affected them.
However, women who watch ads opposite to traditional characters have the same level of desire for achievement as men. These findings show that gender-prejudiced advertising reflects the cultural image of women as second-class citizens, and long-term viewing of such advertisements will limit women's understanding of what they can achieve. Moreover, frequent viewing of non-gender biased advertising is likely to increase women’s expectations of achievement and career success.
Comprehensive and above, we can say this responsibly -
Gender stereotypes do cause certain harm to women. The harm mentioned here does not only refer to the injuries we generally think of as emotional or dignity, but also to the injuries we have in our career, potential, self-expectations and actual achievements that can be achieved.
What's scary is that the above statement is as usual without any exaggeration.
So, what should I do next?
The path of self-authorization for women
I know that the first thing you think of is naturally various "feminist movements". It is undeniable that the feminist movement has indeed brought many significant effects, but we must also be aware of the limitations of the feminist movement. The following is also excerpted from the book "Social Animals":
As you know, anti-discrimination action plans (such as the feminist movement) generally seem to be beneficial because this plan has created jobs for talented women, and before that women's applications for these positions were shelved.
But unfortunately, there can be a downside to doing so: some of these plans inadvertently bring shame to these talented women, giving them the illusion that they are chosen mainly because of gender rather than because of outstanding talent. What impact will this have on the women involved?
Social psychologists Marlene Turner and Anthony Pretkennez in a strictly controlled experiment that convinced some women that they were selected for gender reasons.
For other women, they were asked to take a very difficult test and then told them that they were selected because of their admirable results in this test. It turned out that women who were told that they were selected because of gender (rather than grades) would be devalued.
Moreover, they are likely to show self-hindering behavior. Especially, when faced with tasks that require a lot of effort, those who think they are selected for favorable treatment will put less effort than those who think they are selected based on their grades.
The feminist movement has its correctness and has played a certain practical role in making society more gender equal, and in the current situation, it is necessary to continue.
But what is curious is - besides the feminist movement, what kind of power does it play a significant role in the issue of gender equality?
The best answer I have seen is from Peking University's economics professor Xue Zhaofeng . He gave an explanation of economics in the "Peking University Economics Course" column of the app (his column is highly recommended).
He asked a question in the column, if a girl walks on the road and is bullied by a gangster, it is obviously a gangster bullying the girl. In this example, should the girl also be held responsible?
(Note: The column was discussing the economics theorem at that time. One of the key points of this theorem was that "all harms are mutual harm.")
In fact, from ancient times to the present, men will have "huge troubles" when they encounter women, so how to prevent these troubles?
In a long historical stage, in many countries, we can see this situation - people control women, prevent women from taking to the streets, prevent women from showing up casually, and do not let women laugh with men casually. This is a moral code that has been in a long time, but the question is, why does this moral code appear in many places?
Because it is easy to control women, the cost is relatively low - of course, today's situation is very different. But the reason for the change is not mainly because people's concepts have changed, but because the world has changed and technology has changed.
For example, contraceptive technology is very mature, so it is not so dangerous to let men and women have free dates and free love.
In addition, due to world peace and technological progress, more white-collar jobs have emerged in society, and women's various talents are becoming more and more useful. At this time, the cost of imprisoning women becomes increasingly high. We are increasingly unable to bear the cost of keeping women at home, because the cost is the biggest price of giving up. If women are not allowed to work, the family will only suffer greater losses.
So at this time the woman came out, showed up in public, came out to work, and the chances of promotion in the workplace were even greater than those of men. At this time, check and abide by the rules, and these responsibilities will fall more and more on men.
From an economic perspective, women gain more social status mainly not because people's concepts have changed (but I personally think it still has an impact), but because people cannot bear the cost of controlling and imprisoning women.
In other words, as long as women continue to improve their value and make their own value unnecessarily ignored, they can weaken the shackles of society.
As for those gender stereotypes - for individuals, as long as you realize their existence and mistakes, and firmly disagree with these stereotypes, you will basically not be affected too much.
Of course, women still have many practical problems to face, among which fertility is an untransferable life event. Reproduction still has a great impact on women's career, but based on the current evidence and historical trajectory, we have reason to believe that
's future path will get easier and easier.
–
While having supper, I asked my sister curiously, do you think men are born smarter, or women are smarter?
She pondered for a moment and replied, "I only know that I am smarter than you."
