From the article:

That is a pretty creative reframing of scientific findings -- it's neuroscience meets Nora Roberts!

No, it's neuroscience meets Clive Cussler [or other purveyors of blow-em-up, screw-em-silly prick lit]. The witless female character is most commonly found as a decorative accessory to a male protagonist in the action-blockbuster genre. Nora Roberts, in contrast, is not known for alpha heroes and dim heroines. Her Eve Dallas books feature a female protagonist with brain cells to spare, married to an equally sharp guy who frequently takes a backseat role.

I agree that the mouse study is getting a ridiculous, and premature, spin. But if you want to reframe the issue, choose your targets more carefully.

Finally, your second comment confused me a bit. I admit I can become rather cold and calculating when discussing scientific findings. I sometimes forget that others can become emotional when arguing these sorts of issues. The scientific community fosters a rigorous discussion of ideas that often doesn’t pause for the types of considerations people expect in normal conversation. In essence, I’ve been trained to attack what people say if I find any problem with it. Scientists are also trained to expect others to reciprocate. This does not in any way influence whether you’d like to go out to dinner with them. In fact, heated discussions often take place over a beer. I apologize if my style of argument comes across in a manner you aren’t used to. When discussing science, I’ve been known to forget when I’m not talking to someone who shares these characteristics. It seems I’ve done this here, if you think I need to “take a deep breath.” I assure you, I haven’t gotten upset by this conversation in the slightest. Well, I don’t like it that you keep insulting my intelligence. As I’ve said, scientists generally stick with the facts and ideas involved. I DO enjoy a good argument, though.

I must admit, your comments are pretty harsh. “F on reading comprehension for you”? The comment DID generate some genuine amusement around the lab, though. (My professor,while he hasn’t read this, wonders if you still believe in the “one neuron, one neurotransmitter” assumption also. ) I should probably point out the difference between a PhD student and a candidate. A candidate has finished her two-year training, passed all exams, and no longer takes classes. My committee apparently disagrees with you on the grading. I’m not sure where your area of specialization is, since all you’ve told me is that you’ve read Nature; still, considering the fact that you haven’t quoted a single article, and you prefer to remain Anonymous, I’ll assume it doesn’t lie in the same areas as the people who truly assess my relative merits as a scientist. Oh, and my last name is Sage (as in herb).

To address the substantive areas of your comment: I included the link to the article so that I wouldn’t have to explain all of it. Most people don’t have access to Neuroimage, but you can read the abstract online for free:

“We examined the relationship between structural brain variation and general intelligence using voxel-based morphometric analysis of MRI data in men and women with equivalent IQ scores. Compared to men, women show more white matter and fewer gray matter areas related to intelligence. In men IQ/gray matter correlations are strongest in frontal and parietal lobes (BA 8, 9, 39, 40), whereas the strongest correlations in women are in the frontal lobe (BA10) along with Broca's area. Men and women apparently achieve similar IQ results with different brain regions, suggesting that there is no singular underlying neuroanatomical structure to general intelligence and that different types of brain designs may manifest equivalent intellectual performance.”

i.e. they imaged the brains of men and women while they completed an IQ test. All respondents had equal IQ's; they used different mechanisms to achieve that IQ. Males rely more on Gray Matter (the computing centers); women used fewer cells, but more White Matter (connections between the major neurons) to arrive at the same result. Hence the comment: “These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior.” Perhaps you should take it up with the scientists in the study. I’m sure he’s looking for funding opportunities, but I bet he’d lose more from faking experimental evidence in order to sound PC.

I quoted this to argue against your assertion that “smaller brains with greater connectivity” is “foolishly simplistic.” Since you don’t address that in your reply, we’ll assume I’ve proved the point. It has the added benefit of correlating equal performance with one group using fewer neurons than the other.

You then, however, go into an issue I never addressed. No one disputes that men and women’s brains differ. No one disputes that men seem to be better at some complex processes than women and vice versa. That isn’t very controversial in the scientific community. There are questions about average IQ (and the worth of such tests). The general consensus seems to be that men show greater variance in IQ’s than women do, but the averages are equivalent. This means that men would occupy more outlying positions than women (at both extremes, you’ll find more men than women). This would be why there are more men than women as members of Mensa. The average IQ is much harder to determine. These are largely statistical questions. Not my area of expertise, so I won’t comment on the relative worth of the consensus. This was similar to the statement that got Dr. Summers (Harvard) in hot water. He implied that a similar trend may apply to women’s ability to conduct research in the hard sciences. There’s a big difference there. I think his more inflammatory comments involved the unwillingness of women to work 80-hour work weeks. But this wasn’t an issue I even addressed here. I disagreed with your assumption that more neurons=smarter. I cited the previous examples in order to prove my point. I did not hysterically call you a sexist or in any other way imply that my opinion is based on the fact that women MUST be equally intelligent to men.

Finally, to your major argument: First off, I addressed this (female mouse vs. female mouse) issue from an evolutionary and animal behavior (ultimate rather than proximate) standpoint in my first post. No one disputes that female mice change their behavior (due to neuronal growth) from exposure to male pheromones. I dispute the automatic assumption that this is somehow a beneficial adaptation to the female. You make a classical adaptationist mistake of starting at the results and working back to an evolutionary causation. Natural selection works on the level of the individual, not the species. The individual in question here is not the female, but rather the male. He is increasing his OWN fitness by this mechanism, but it doesn’t immediately follow that the neurological changes in behavior of the female increase her fitness. In short, it could be making her less capable of choosing what she would consider to be an appropriate mate. There are numerous examples of other mechanisms by which males and females “cheat” to increase their own fitness to the detriment of their chosen mate. A common example includes hormones released in sperm that alter the workings of a female brain in order to make her less receptive to subsequent advances. This is a change in the structure of her brain. It is NOT learning, even though the mechanisms are similar. It prevents her from subsequent matings with males who could be better in any number of ways.