Are male and female brains born with different psychology (on average)? On some level it seems obvious given things like sex hormones, but on the other hand I do think gendered socialization is a real thing which means I can't say what difference is innate and what's arbitrary. Male and female brains are also at large almost identical, so I wouldn't be able to say what part of the brain makes the sexes act inherently different. But at the same time, it wouldn't make sense for evolution not to make the sexes have different brains if sexual dimorphism exists physically. What do you think?

>>81941871 (OP)
I'm a (definitely not) passing trans man who likes to flick my bean to demon slayer characters

>>81941871 (OP)
Far as I remember male and female brains legitimately create pathways differently and this does affect the physical constitution of the brain

However I am not a neuroscientist and I could be misremembering

>>81941871 (OP)
Although there is some unknowns, yes our brains are different (although more similar than many think, it's just that we tend to fixate on the differences as a self-obsessed species) and yes, trannie's brains are a bit intersex (not really a woman's brain in a male body or vice versa) but anomalous for their given birth sex.
Also, not all differences comes to the brain, so if it were possible, and your brain was put in an another sex body, it's hormones would slowly change it and influence it, as attested by MTF and FTM trannies on HRT.

There are twice as many males than females above 130 IQ, do with that information what you will

Prenatal hormones prime the brain to be more sensitive to cultural input. Ultimately, gender or gender roles are learned.

>>81941871 (OP)
of course men and women's brains are different. i can see how different men's brains work than me whenever i am around them. it is the same organ so they are not completely different, but our brains are under the influence of estrogen, their are under the influence of testosterone which causes us to act very differently but this shouldn't get the trannies too excited because the thing that matters the most is that male brains exist to operate a penis and testicles, female brains exist to operate a vagina and ovaries. the male brain does not have motherly instincts because it did not evolve to give birth. nothing will override our instincts.

>>81941871 (OP)
How is this even a question? There is a biological difference between men and women, which will manifest in their psychology.

>>81941942
Over twice as many for scores 140 and above, women are the midwits of the species

>>81941942
Don't forget the opposite end of that spectrum. There's also considerably more men than women with a sub-85 IQ.

>>81941871 (OP)
Nope. Not even a little bit.

>>81941992
What does the data say?

Uhhhh girls go to jupiter to get more stupider lmao

Not even remotely close, completely different brain chemistry and synaptic density.

>>81941973
It's even more extreme than that, the ratio is three to one above 130 in favor of men, four to one above 140, five to one above 145, eight to one above 155, the difference between male and female brains becomes strikingly apparent once you get up into genius range intelligence, of course the predictable counterargument will be "well what about muh retard population where males are also overrepresented", who cares about them, in terms of overall intellectual ceiling males far outclass females and it's not even close

>>81941988
See what I mean, you'll always get this retarded rebuttal, keep coping

>>81941992
I almost said this out loud in my psychology class one day, then I realized I would be on the news later that day if I did.

Women should not teach psychology

>>81942056
It's not a rebuttal, dumbass. I did not refute your point at all. You're just painting an incomplete picture.
Men have a higher population of both extremes of the IQ, the highs and the lows. There's more retards and more geniuses within the male population than the female population.

>>81942092
Duh, this isn't painting a "complete picture" it's derailing from the point with trite information that isn't relevant at all and only superficially refutes the point, you're like those idiots that try to backpedal by saying "what do you mean argument I'm not even arguing though, maybe YOU think this is an argument but I just be sayin doe" I see exactly what you're doing moron

>>81942113
Why are both of you arguing that ends of a normal distribution matter all that much when comparing things on average

>>81942159
Comparing things on average is useless, males have a higher potential for godhood and supreme intelligence than women, disregard the duds, if you're below 130 IQ you should kill yourself anyway

>>81942302
Don't do it, we'll miss you

>>81942302
>>godhood
>>look inside
>>can write signs so the computer recreates snake

>>81942349
Yawn, predictable meme

>>81941871 (OP)
They are different even from early on. AI can detect it accurately enough, even with a low-resolution MRI scan.

>>81942349
*looks at IQ score, does not kill self by own criteria* not sure where you're getting your information but good luck with that beachside guessing grift Mr. Zoltar you're only a coinflip away from a correct response

>>81942406
Too intelligent for a simple joke I see

>>81941871 (OP)
It's controversial to say it out loud but we all know men and women rationalize differently.
There was a study made in sweden(?) Were they studied male and female patterns and concluded females are way better at social clues. While men performed better at mechanical reasoning. (Meaning you can figure out what will happen if I throw a ball at the wall, were the ball will land. Or if I push this lever, which direction it will spin, etc)
Say a man and a woman both are studying medicine. The woman takes pride in the nursering nature of medicine, taking care of the weak, the old and kids. While men, seek harder things like "micro threading" and in turn, more difficult jobs pay more.
So, people say "men makes more because patriarchy" but nobody will say "women make less because they don't want challenges"
The study also shows that in more developed countries, were women have more freedom, they still choose less demanding degrees, (stem) while in more oppressive societies, they choose harder degrees, (such as engineer) because it pays more. It's called the "paradox of empowerment"
Like, nobody is keeping women from picking up a fucking book. My penis is not preventing them to turn on vsauce or whatever. I remember being a kid and geeking out about stupid crumpled paper. I could see some cool monsters in it. When I showed the boys, they all tried to see it, while the girls were all uninterested. It isn't "le society" it isn't "teaching boys to like this and teaching girls to be proper ladies" we simply are different

>>81942446
A simple joke for a simple man, always has been

>>81942496
Or the more poetic variant: A simple joke for a simple man, simple as

>>81942496
Yup, not sophisticated enough for the above average pattern seeking brain

>>81942113
It doesn't refute anything. You're just leaving out information that doesn't align with the perspective you're trying to put forward. Which, you've illuminated right here: >>81942302
>males have a higher potential for godhood and supreme intelligence than women
Which conveniently ignores the fact that they also have a higher potential for complete retardation than women.

Just another LARPing luke warm IQ midwit pseud trying to pretend he's better than people.

>>81942532
You're too dumb to understand how useless this point is, oh well

>>81941942
>>81942041
iq is a flawed numeric and anyone who takes it seriously is a midwit

As other folks in the thread pointed out, men are better with mechanical reasoning. Which is where much of an IQ comes from. Men will probably make better engineers and mathmaticians, but thats only a small part of society.
This is why you see men overfilling stem, and playing factorio. While women are being social workers and nurses.

>>81942488
this anon is quite spot on imo

>>81942532
>It doesn't refute anything
You keep saying that yet you're framing this entire point as if it's a form of refutation, again too dumb to even comprehend the point you're (not) making

>>81942532
Get a load of this series of buzzwords, "Larping lukewarm IQ midwit pseud" God you're pissed lol

>>81942596
How is it a refutation? Do you not know what the word refute or rebuke, or rebuttal mean? It means to disprove. I'm not claiming your point is wrong, in fact I said that men do have a higher population at the highest end of the IQ spectrum. But, you are ignoring the fact that they also have a higher population at the lowest end of the IQ spectrum.

Loling at the pedantic tards who think they're high iq in here

>>81942675
If it's not a refutation why say anything at all, again you're desperate to try and reframe this as anything but a refutation because you're painfully aware that you aren't refuting anything and have no cogent point, it's glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain

>>81942854
NTA but you claimed pointing out men also overrepresent the lowest ranges was a rebuttal which it isn't, it's just a fact. Saying men overrepresent the highest ranges without including that fact paints an incomplete picture.

>>81942302
Higher iqs reproduce less