>>35540313
huh i had a speech impediment growing up cause of brain damage when my mom gave birth. i also have bpd which is usually issues with the front of the brain. kinda neat but also indicates im male brained

>>35540313
In other words, women actually think about what they say while men don’t

>>35540313
lmao what a pseud interpretation of that chart. id comment more but the article 404s.

>>35540313
Ok so, what do kids use? What's the natural area? What age does the split happen? Did they not check? Why is all research in society done by retarded people?

>>35540402
...kids are also male or female

>>35540406
It's sorted as "men" and "women".

>>35540402
you overestimate the scope of an average study, and are also taking some twitter retard at face value.

look at the chart, this is some kind of analysis being done of people who have had certain types of brain damage associated with aphasia. the location of the brain damage is more likely to be anterior in women, posterior in men. they comment on this, saying "we propose these sections may be more important for speech in women, while these sections may be more important in men." they then publish the results so that other people can learn from this.

this is how science works.

>>35540502
What is your point? There are children too with aphasia from brain damage. Men and women are both derivatives of children. I am saying it seems like a pretty critical group of people to include, not including them is suspicious and suggests that someone doesn't want us to see the full picture. Why wouldn't they want to learn which one of the sexes are thinking in a different way from when they were born?

>>35541440
holy conspiracy, it's very normal for a study like this to focus on adult brains, bringing children into the picture is a whole new dimension of complexity that is better left for it's own follow up study. it's not a "critical group of people",

the question of "does this also apply to kids" is a whole new question with a fucking mound of follow up questions like "okay but at what ages" "how does rearing play into this" "does this part of the brain even have the same job in childhood". it is sooooo far beyond the original scope, and is going to require far more data and research and money.

put simply, that's all a separate piece of the puzzle. they're aren't avoiding it, they're leaving it for someone else (either a different party or themselves in the future) to approach. this does not make them retarded. this is how we do science, it's done this way for a reason. any study of this nature would leave out kids, you can reject the twitter faggot extrapolating the results into absurdity while still accepting that.

>>35540313
This is wrong. The area most commonly used for speech is in the front left across all sexes.

>>35540502
>science: so the speech centers for men and women may be in different spots
>tttt: so ur saying women r stupid dumb dumbs?
well the women here sure are ig

>>35541504
What are you talking about? What new dimension of complexity? This is literally just meaningless data. There is no science.

>>35541701
stick to pop sci

>>35540361
yeah ikr this is some talmud-tier sophistry.

>>35541719
That's literally what this is. 90% of the "science" being done in the world today is intentionally unfinished garbage that accomplishes nothing except mislead people and make them dumber. This shit is exactly why the human race is regressing.

>>35541803
and data is just numbers on a screen

>>35541701
dimension as in variable. it would be a massive pain to find usable data tracking the same individuals across generations, but if you just took some children and some adults, it would still be easier to establish significance by lumping them together as averages, and if that didn't reveal significance, you might be able to do it by separating them and using a more complex statistical test. in general, data that would show significance using the first method would also show it with the second method.

>>35540313
reason is language

>>35540502
Maybe it's some analysis or maybe it's some baseless speculation or at best a to be tested hypothesis.

This correlation could equally be explained by a bunch of different physiological differences. It's interesting but it doesn't really tell us much.

>>35540313
incel pseudoscience posted on twitter by people who know absolutely nothing about neural science. Wernicke's and Broca's areas of the brain are one of the earliest identified functional regions of the brain
>The data presented above derive from one set of patients
LOL

>>35543376
what more do you need? you know 1 patient you basically know them all´!

>>35540313
this is retarded pseudoscience OP