Hats off to her for putting out facts with evidence. I hope that the imbalance created in society just on the basis of physical strength and social norms would get over one day.
I hope this theory is just theory because if the brain is so moldable and plastic, what prevents companies from shaping the perfect workers or governments the perfect soldier?
This such a brief talk. I encourage people to listen to the podcast of her in conversation with the researcher who did some of these infant studies hosted by the How to Academy.
The "Scandinavian gender paradox" is showing that in the most egalitarian countries the differences between the sexes maximize (differences between the sexes are greater in egalitarian countries than in conservative or oppressive ones). This strongly indicates that innate gender differences form culture, not the other way around.
@@haruzanfuucha That's a complete lie. The results were so surprising that many studies have been done and it's now regarded as one of the best studied findings out there.
@@fiveleavesleft6521 "In their blog, Richardson and graduate student Joe Bruch identify five specific problems within Stoet and Geary’s study, including spurious correlation; lack of longitudinal design; inadequate robustness of the finding to changes in data, measures and assumptions; and ecological fallacy. However, it is the number one problem that has gained the most mainstream attention-issues with replicating the findings. Stoet and Geary used country-level tertiary degree statistics to compare women’s achievement in STEM around the world using UNESCO statistics. The database is common and used often for this type of analysis, but when the GenderSci Lab tried to match the numbers to the UNESCO data, they could not. Not mentioned in the original article but revealed in the correction, Stoet and Geary actually produced their own novel metric, termed a “propensity measure.” This metric adds together the percentage distribution of all female graduates who received a degree in STEM to the percentage of all male graduates who received a degree in STEM, making this number the denominator, and then takes the female percentage from this. Take Algeria, for example. According to UNESCO, in 2015, Algeria had 287,914 tertiary graduates, 63% of whom were female. Of 180,554 female graduates, 27% obtained a degree in STEM. Of the male graduates, 39% earned STEM degrees. Thus, the percentage of women among STEM graduates was 54%. The propensity measure, however, calculates a female STEM degree rate of 41%. Even using the propensity measure the second time around, the GenderSci Lab was still not able to replicate the data, alleging the numbers used in the original paper were lower than the percentage of women among STEM graduates across all nations by an average of nearly 9%. In fact, 19 countries showed significant variation, with 15 of them moving ten spots or more in the gender equality rankings, according to the GenderSci Lab team’s own analysis using the propensity measure metric. “These changes in country rankings are important because they invite alternative hypotheses regarding the correlation between [gender equality score] and women’s achievement in STEM to that proposed by Stoet and Geary,” Richardson and Bruch write. “What we observe is that there is huge variation in the gender gap in women’s and men’s tertiary degrees, no matter how it is measured, across countries. These variations do not conform to simple patterns, suggesting that the question of women’s and men’s inequalities in STEM fields represents a distinct and rich domain of gender inequality that is not easily represented along a single dimension and with a single measure.” Seeking to address Richardson’s commentary on their correction, Stoet and Geary authored a reply that defends the propensity metric as well as their original paper. “It is important to control for differences in the overall number of women and men who attend college, which varies from nation to nation. Accordingly, in our original article, we chose a calculation method that adjusts for this potential confound,” wrote Stoet and Geary. “That said, our specific approach has no bearing on the conclusions.”
@@haruzanfuucha That is basically nit-picking certain certain statistics and methodological approaches. It doesn't in any way invalidate the research and that is made clear in the correction to the original study. The fact that it is being spun that way just shows that the objections are ideological rather than having any real bearing on the fact that far more women are in STEM in non-egalitarian countries than the Scandinavian countries (which is a verified fact).
This woman would made for a great politician, but she's a scientists for God's sake. "The differences are very tiny"... They aren't. Even if they were, tiny average differences make for large differences at the high end of normal distributions with equal dispersion. Scientists celebrate discoveries, in particular when they explain things. It's just unbelievable that a scientists is crying around about discoveries, and putting down other scientists for their work. This is astonishing to me, and a clear manifestation of our sick culture.
Macho mentality alert. Joking aside, how do you know the differences are not very tiny. Gina Rippon is a neuroscientist, are you a scientist too?? How can you be so sure the other scientists shes putting down, maybe made huge mistakes during their studies?
@@Nic-xr8sd Because there is something called 'effect sizes'. I have seen the data. In colloquial, you can use these quantifier terms ambiguously. But in science there are scales. The differences aren't tiny by any means.
@@Alejandro-Te Ok, but you just have to keep in mind that science is determined by cultural prejudices, and that data is susceptible to misinterpretation..
@@Nic-xr8sd This is a clearcut case of ideological intrusion into science. There is an agenda that's often call "equality" or "empowerment", which basically means women are masculinized for the sake of the capitalist system. This phenomenon is generally called 'second wave feminism'. And all this pseudo-science is a side effect of that political agenda.
The notion of gendered brains works in favor of transgenderism! These people believe they were born with the notion of being a girl in their brain. If no such thing exists, then all these people are wrong and simply depend on gender stereotypes. This works in society's favor.
@@lonelyrebel3865 Simon Baren-Cohen proved that infants show significant gender differences at 24 hours old. Boys look at objects more, and girls look at faces more. This was confirmed and replicated two decades ago. Our brains are wired differently in utero. Why do we keep pushing back against reality?
@@lonelyrebel3865 I think this people denying Rippon's works, just cos it is hard for a machismo mentality to accept female and male brains are way more similar than different.
A year ago people asked you for proof on your claims, even now a year later I have been unable to find anything about this on google. Will you finally post a source?
@JengoFate Nah she pretty much lied she debated multiple times on UA-cam against actual professors and immediately went from using "data" to appeal to emotions by saying if people believe in differences than discrimination will happened. She's on the fringes in this topic. Most neurologist agree that it's biology not environmental influences.
WOW! this has blown my mind indeed. Definitely checking on the longer more detailed Gina Rippon's talks.
shes lying she got caught
@@jayman6151 Give us a source, a proof that she is lying.
great talk!
Hats off to her for putting out facts with evidence. I hope that the imbalance created in society just on the basis of physical strength and social norms would get over one day.
I hope this theory is just theory because if the brain is so moldable and plastic, what prevents companies from shaping the perfect workers or governments the perfect soldier?
The answer is nothing, it’s called brainwashing. It’s already happening.
she got caught lying
what do you want?a terminator?neuroplasticity is different from programming a person to be exactly what you want him/her to be.
@@jayman6151Give a source or a proof shes got caught lying.
@@Rahulsircar94 I read a research claiming male brain is less plastic than female brain thou..
This such a brief talk. I encourage people to listen to the podcast of her in conversation with the researcher who did some of these infant studies hosted by the How to Academy.
Her book is also really good and quite accessible :)
The "Scandinavian gender paradox" is showing that in the most egalitarian countries the differences between the sexes maximize (differences between the sexes are greater in egalitarian countries than in conservative or oppressive ones). This strongly indicates that innate gender differences form culture, not the other way around.
The initial “gender-equality paradox” study was riddled with errors and recreations have failed to demonstrate the same results.
@@haruzanfuucha That's a complete lie. The results were so surprising that many studies have been done and it's now regarded as one of the best studied findings out there.
@@fiveleavesleft6521 "In their blog, Richardson and graduate student Joe Bruch identify five specific problems within Stoet and Geary’s study, including spurious correlation; lack of longitudinal design; inadequate robustness of the finding to changes in data, measures and assumptions; and ecological fallacy. However, it is the number one problem that has gained the most mainstream attention-issues with replicating the findings.
Stoet and Geary used country-level tertiary degree statistics to compare women’s achievement in STEM around the world using UNESCO statistics. The database is common and used often for this type of analysis, but when the GenderSci Lab tried to match the numbers to the UNESCO data, they could not.
Not mentioned in the original article but revealed in the correction, Stoet and Geary actually produced their own novel metric, termed a “propensity measure.” This metric adds together the percentage distribution of all female graduates who received a degree in STEM to the percentage of all male graduates who received a degree in STEM, making this number the denominator, and then takes the female percentage from this.
Take Algeria, for example. According to UNESCO, in 2015, Algeria had 287,914 tertiary graduates, 63% of whom were female. Of 180,554 female graduates, 27% obtained a degree in STEM. Of the male graduates, 39% earned STEM degrees. Thus, the percentage of women among STEM graduates was 54%. The propensity measure, however, calculates a female STEM degree rate of 41%.
Even using the propensity measure the second time around, the GenderSci Lab was still not able to replicate the data, alleging the numbers used in the original paper were lower than the percentage of women among STEM graduates across all nations by an average of nearly 9%. In fact, 19 countries showed significant variation, with 15 of them moving ten spots or more in the gender equality rankings, according to the GenderSci Lab team’s own analysis using the propensity measure metric.
“These changes in country rankings are important because they invite alternative hypotheses regarding the correlation between [gender equality score] and women’s achievement in STEM to that proposed by Stoet and Geary,” Richardson and Bruch write. “What we observe is that there is huge variation in the gender gap in women’s and men’s tertiary degrees, no matter how it is measured, across countries. These variations do not conform to simple patterns, suggesting that the question of women’s and men’s inequalities in STEM fields represents a distinct and rich domain of gender inequality that is not easily represented along a single dimension and with a single measure.”
Seeking to address Richardson’s commentary on their correction, Stoet and Geary authored a reply that defends the propensity metric as well as their original paper.
“It is important to control for differences in the overall number of women and men who attend college, which varies from nation to nation. Accordingly, in our original article, we chose a calculation method that adjusts for this potential confound,” wrote Stoet and Geary. “That said, our specific approach has no bearing on the conclusions.”
@@haruzanfuucha That is basically nit-picking certain certain statistics and methodological approaches. It doesn't in any way invalidate the research and that is made clear in the correction to the original study. The fact that it is being spun that way just shows that the objections are ideological rather than having any real bearing on the fact that far more women are in STEM in non-egalitarian countries than the Scandinavian countries (which is a verified fact).
Fiveleaves Left >”it’s now regarded as one of the best studied findings out there”
>evolutionary psychology paper
What compels you to lie so much?
I am not understanding what's with the comment that she is a pseudoscientist 🤷🤷
She is not a scientist and what she is talking is based on her beliefs and has no scientific basis.
They are a bunch of trans identified males who believe gendered brains justify their delusions and obsession with gender stereotypes
Appreciate the insightful video. I wonder how much more evolution, natural selection, and adaptation plays into a heteronormative society?
20 minutes of a time waste.
This woman would made for a great politician, but she's a scientists for God's sake. "The differences are very tiny"... They aren't. Even if they were, tiny average differences make for large differences at the high end of normal distributions with equal dispersion.
Scientists celebrate discoveries, in particular when they explain things. It's just unbelievable that a scientists is crying around about discoveries, and putting down other scientists for their work. This is astonishing to me, and a clear manifestation of our sick culture.
Macho mentality alert. Joking aside, how do you know the differences are not very tiny. Gina Rippon is a neuroscientist, are you a scientist too?? How can you be so sure the other scientists shes putting down, maybe made huge mistakes during their studies?
@@Nic-xr8sd Because there is something called 'effect sizes'. I have seen the data. In colloquial, you can use these quantifier terms ambiguously. But in science there are scales. The differences aren't tiny by any means.
@@Alejandro-Te Ok, but you just have to keep in mind that science is determined by cultural prejudices, and that data is susceptible to misinterpretation..
@@Nic-xr8sd This is a clearcut case of ideological intrusion into science. There is an agenda that's often call "equality" or "empowerment", which basically means women are masculinized for the sake of the capitalist system. This phenomenon is generally called 'second wave feminism'. And all this pseudo-science is a side effect of that political agenda.
The notion of gendered brains works in favor of transgenderism! These people believe they were born with the notion of being a girl in their brain. If no such thing exists, then all these people are wrong and simply depend on gender stereotypes. This works in society's favor.
Science Denial.
you are denying science not her
@@lonelyrebel3865 Simon Baren-Cohen proved that infants show significant gender differences at 24 hours old. Boys look at objects more, and girls look at faces more. This was confirmed and replicated two decades ago. Our brains are wired differently in utero. Why do we keep pushing back against reality?
@@lonelyrebel3865 I think this people denying Rippon's works, just cos it is hard for a machismo mentality to accept female and male brains are way more similar than different.
she lied everyone look it up
Couldn't find this on a cursory Google- could you link this or give me some more keywords to search?
Give us some source, links or some proves she lied everyone.
A year ago people asked you for proof on your claims, even now a year later I have been unable to find anything about this on google. Will you finally post a source?
@JengoFate Nah she pretty much lied she debated multiple times on UA-cam against actual professors and immediately went from using "data" to appeal to emotions by saying if people believe in differences than discrimination will happened. She's on the fringes in this topic. Most neurologist agree that it's biology not environmental influences.