Another half-finished, pre-review thing:
1) I haven't read her follow-up on the male brain but I can already tell you they should have been one book.
2) I recognize that books like this basically require generalizations, but it becomes glaring on the occasional instances she acknowledges a spectrum of behavior, or uses “likely“ or “probably“ in asserting causality.
3) Shrinks need to realize when they use patient anecdotes in their books…(cont'd)
alexa_d …there's a hell of a selection bias going on. They're dealing with (especially in the chapter on puberty) the more disruptive extremes of behavior. When it comes to people who don't need therapy, you can't actually say how many of them don't because they can manage their impulses vs. because they don't actually have those impulses, and thus the existence of said impulses can not be universalized. (edited) 4y
alexa_d If this book had more straight neuroscience and without the (limited, see 1) comparisons between “male“ and “female“ brains, this could be a really interesting book. Yes, we know that AFAB and AMAB people have differing amounts of hormones. How X hormones in Y proportion “mechanically“ affect the brain, and how that *may* be linked to Z human behavior, would be very interesting and without the distractions of “Mars/Venus“ generalizations. 4y
4 likes2 comments