Gender Differences in the Brain by Helen Fisher, Ph.D.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 кві 2013
- Why can't a man be more like a woman? Why can't a woman be more like a man? Helen E. Fisher, Ph.D., a biological anthropologist and human behavior researcher, spoke at the University of South Florida to answer these questions.
Fisher is a professor at Rutgers University and has studied romantic interpersonal attraction for more than thirty years.
This event was part of the Frontier Forum lecture series, presented by the USF Phi Beta Kappa Alumni Faculty and sponsored by the USF Office of the Provost, USF College of Arts and Sciences and Mayor Bob Buckhorn. - Комедії
“If I can help you kiss fewer frogs on your way to paradise, I’ll have done my job”
SO INCREDIBLY BASED- why don’t more people know this woman???
Who is here after zahoor sir's lecture? 😂😂
Mee.. Zahoor sir is lit😁😁
Yeah here we go 😂
Lpu gather here 😂
😂😂
Hahaha 😂
I am delighted to listen and reading about Dr. Fisher. She is quite insightful on how she explains her material. I am just finishing reading "why we Love"
+Luz M Phipps "insightful" wouldn't be the word /watch?v=GKb_jti8JTc
Thank you! I love learning.
This woman is awesome. One of the smartest people I have seen on UA-cam.
Alexander Rivera I love ❤️ her
You need a broader view of UA-cam.
@@yonettesydney5424 Because she spins leftist myths
Excellent.
I found it interesting that when presenting the platinum rule the slide read treat others as they want to be treated and the spoken rule was treat others as they need to be treated. That is quite a difference.
I wonder what her take on why and how sexism on a societal level came to be is. I always think it's so important to take a look at the evolutionary psychology when it comes to thinking about or discussing gender issues, I think that's the only way to make sense of it, as psychological sexual dymorphism is a product of evolution. I think that's one of the biggest failures on the part feminism (speaking of modern day internet feminism (also average people. not radical feminists. simply "feminist means someone who believes men and women are and should be treated equally" feminists). That's all I'm familiar with). I definitely agree that sexism is a thing that women are unjustly subjected to, and I think that most of the people who self identify as feminists are coming from the right place, and that most of what they accomplish and are working to accomplish will be a good thing. But I think there are flaws in the ways that those who self identify as feminists come to their conclusions about why people act in sexist ways, what things actually are sexist, and what the real world solutions are to solving these problems beyond pointing them out. I think to actually look deeply into the issues and understand why sexism exists we have accept the fact that psychological sexual dymorphism exists (which many deny being the case, failing to think about how helpful it would be to our survival, to evolve that way, and not acknowledging the body of research that shows actual brain structure differences caused by the fetal brain being exposed to different hormones), and what about the way we evolved made things end up like they did, why things are the way they are, why people act and feel certain ways. It's only when looking through that lens that it's made sense for me.
+BowlMasterAsh Well, humankind ways more than biologism.
Sexism exists because every society (except our post-modern one) recognizes that men and women are different.
Which leads to common sense, which leads to stereotypes and different modes of interacting with each gender.
I’m sure Fisher would agree that, while sexism for the most part is bad, different sexes ought to be approached differently
Brilliant!
I am surprised by the ignorance of anthropology as science (we can assume that this lack of knowledge extends into sociology and psychology as well}. Dr. Fisher is a respected scientist, intellectual, researcher, author and educator. I hope more people learn to discern genuine intelligence from the vast emptiness that tries to legitimize itself on UA-cam capitalising on your stupidity. God help us all!
She is mostly just superficially descriptive and then infers the causality. She gives no information about the mechanisms of either the "testosterone system" and "estrogen system" or if the people she describes ever had tests of their actual hormones?!
Absolutely, but even these descriptions (to the degree that they are accurate) are mostly ignored/denied by the ideological "science": "Neurosexism: the myth that men and women have different brains" (www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x)
Okay but actually I have a statistics question. Can't you make any grouping of anything and as long there's a differntial factor it's differnet? Why do they always point out and it's really different? Shouldn't they specificate more like how the differneces has messurable effect
Can anyone give me sources
Why am I watching this again? Oh yes it's constantly in dash
Here I'm thinking i know what Love is.
😂
I kinda see myself in every high hormone bodysystem
Cbrilliant - just feels so right ! The website has a few bad reviews though
+penny brewer LOL 'just FEEEEEELZ so right'.....
machida58 its such a woman thing to say lol
L Mc Its almost as if she is a plant.
It's all roses.
What is her mbti?
Cue the ideologue
She seems to think it is great that 80% of MARRIED people say they would marry the SAME person again today --- and she says nothing about the other 20% or more, since we must assume some of theatres lied. The implications are ignored about what that 20% means!!
80% of people happy in their marries, but she doesn't examine or correlates the importance of the fact there are FAR FEWER marries now. So as a society in general, marriage is still in decline!
🙏🙏🙏
My God. Advocacy research and apologetics are back. The HORROR!
This is what happens when non-thinkers take over our universities. I'm a stupid girl. But you, my lady, you are something else.
Yeah BUT CRUCIALY those all increse proclivity to a behavior of that you have the same free willed sentient who's chacter itself is inherent to human existance, something of a brain, not a genderd body
They make certain feelings more, or increse the ability or function of the apperatus that let's you BE human it dosn't DEFINE existance have you noticed the fundermental differnce just yet
The point is, human behavior shows that culture, socialisation is more imposrtant seeing how human behavior has changed. That means whatever natural porclivities there would be in a true (!) egalitarian culture of nothing akin to gender only character to persue virtues no such thing as gender as we know it. Only a possible, if that, higher proclivity of people in some bodys to some things at the absulut maximum
There would be no such thing as gender and that would be the uttermost beutifull thing that is impossible for us to expirnece because the way expirnecing inherenty shapes the brain but maybe to exprience in inclincs and one day for generations of humans to truly live in
13 minutes into this and she is wrong in many aspects. I'll just say this: Male vs female brain studies have shown that even though the corpus callosum is somewhat thicker in women (connecting the two hemispheres with a broader "pathway" - let's put it that way) men have better anterior to posterior connections (connecting visual information with decision centers). This fact would indeed suggest that women would be more prone to hollistic thinking since their right hemisphere (which is the hollistic processor) is better wired to the left. Yet, people with no corpus callosum (the Rainman movie depicts a real life individual with this peculiarity) tend to be idiot savants. They perform extraordinary hollistic tasks like reproducing a sketch of an entire city exactly as they saw it (usually with just one glance) from an aeroplane. They are so accurate at this that they will include even the types of cars they see parked on the streets.
So, what she should be saying is that women have a different TYPE of hollistic perception. Instead she reduces it to "they think more holistically" which is wrong.
C_R_O_M__________
You do realize that she was giving this talk a) to laypeople so she had to keep it a little bit more “simplistic” perhaps, and b) she had around 35 minutes to explain the basic findings and conclusions so she probably also kept certain things brief rather than delve into the complexities and nuances too much.
Men are hunters - we want to get to the goal, get there quickly with the least amount of hassle or quibbling; woman are socialising - they want to regulate the social group and everyone's place in it especially their own.
These are biological survival strategies.
Men don't stare at each other face to face because it could be perceived as aggressive and lead to a costly fight, could also be perceived as needy and weak and vulnerable; women need to read facial expression to ward off potential violence and to nurture those in need.
Men: "Let's not talk about it and just f*cking get it done." Women: "Let's talk about it and explore all the ramifications and who gets what and what all could go wrong."
Men leave the cave, trudge through the ice and snow, kill a mastodon, drag the body back to the cave, want to eat, f*ck and sleep; women want to quibble over who gets what, who has sex with whom, whose children are more precious than whose...
Imagine a male scientist standing infront of an audience and explaining how superior men are.
Cool Beans Jordan Peterson he is not a scientist though 😂
@@sam_k8868 No evidence of either of these two advancing "superiority" or either gender. Both advocate complementarity. It's just one reminds not to forget the "female angle" and the other - the male. Not clear what meaning you (or anyone for that matter) could assign to the presumed scientist/not scientist divide. What should matter is the quality of data / assumptions and the coherency of arguments (and conclusions where possible). Both, Fisher and Peterson, seem quite solid on these parameters.
She is describing the hormone systems mostly, estrogen, Testosterone, dopamine, serotine. Biological sex can play a role in that but so does diet and its interaction with our own individual genes. Never does she say women are superior, certain hormones affect how the brain is constructed and compartmentalized. She gives examples of how each sex are like with this hormone dependent reaction with brain Contruction. They get very similar results to personality characteristics. Think of her describing characters, one is analytical and goal oriented and another is intuitive and process oriented
@@agdam00 У меня немного плохой английский, но к чему был этот комментарий? В видео восхваляют мужчин гораздо сильнее по сравнению с женщинами или наоборот?
I have a little bad English, but what was this comment about? Do the videos praise men much more than women, or vice versa?
Wading thru the clichés as usual.
As a female I'd say she's around 50% right about me and my friends. Half of what she says has no validity at all in the people I know.
There's so much confirmation bias in her presentation that it's barely scientific.
You putting up anecdotal evidence as a counter argument? And she's the one not being scientific?
shes a woman stop expecting rational arguments
Bill Clinton...lol.
And I'm transgender. I related so much with the female gender it's insane
I wonder why some people like Bill Clinton appear to have an 'Oestrogen-type brain' yet do not consider themselves Transgender?
One of the hazards and the way women think is when intuition and Imagination run astray. Many times women think they know things that they do not know. They imagine that they know what another person is thinking or they imagine they know when another person has done or is planning to do when it is all absolutely simply imagination. They made it up in their head. I have run into this repeatedly. Especially in the form of hostility attribution bias. Or as a woman imagines you are hostile toward them when absolutely that is not true. Also known as projection. They feel hostile or feel as though someone is being hostile toward them and they project that on to a man.
Males are hostile
That was clusterfuck to read. U don’t see the irony in what you said ?
triggered...anybody ? LOL
I want to see this study done with people of trans experience.
"College of arts" that's all you needed to hear to know that this was gonna be a shit show.
Correction: college of arts and sciences. Psychology, anthropology, and other humanitarian studies fall under the category given both of these labels (on the campus I attend as well as numerous others). The material presented is still legitimate scientific research.
She talks too fast and lacks charisma.... Interesting subject but I had to turn it off, after just 10 mins, or so...She cannot keep my attention