73
Women perform better at visiospatial and anticipatory processess when menstruating
(www.sciencedirect.com)
That's interesting but what was the point of the study?
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
73 points (100.0% liked)
science
18373 readers
127 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The implications for female sports seem quite apparent.
As well as vampire slaying. Cramps plus heightened senses may save Donald Sutherland next time.
Ok, fair point, I certainly wasn't thinking of that angle.
Interesting. Other factors should be considered as well, such as the fact that many women feel "icky" and bothered when on their period. So that might be still a net negative.
Information
Interesting. For memory tasks it seems to be the opposite. Worse during the luteal phase.
After seeing the most recent münecat video I don’t believe research like this anymore.
I am not familiar with that individual, I assume you don't mean the musician on YouTube that Google found for me?
https://youtu.be/31e0RcImReY?si=18IbWnHxRGAfticv
From the title it might not sound super related, but she goes super in depth on how these intelligence researches usually are extremely problematic. As in literally telling women that women did better in these tests made them perform as well or better than men in typically “male intelligence areas”. We don’t really understand intelligence, and how it develops, and how to measure it.
So ascribing higher or lower intelligence in certain fields to certain groups just doesn’t work. Irregardless for how statistically sound it might be. We just don’t understand the parameters around it well enough to control for it.
Well this paper isn't about intelligence or psychology, it's about physiology. Reaction times and rhythmic anticipation tests are all quite well-grounded and established tests.
Secondly, I've had a brief scan of that 3.5hr long video and dipped in and out of a few places are familiar to me. Straight away I notice she's reading out the conclusions from the Anderson paper on Hunter-Gatherers that came out last year (to huge media attention) but which was not well received by anthropologists who went through the stats and found the whole thing to be a biased mess (see: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000497?dgcid=author). It would be unfair to blame the original authors since they were all (and I believe still are) undergraduates and so the PI should've been more rigorous. Then I briefly dipped into her 'debunking' of the selfish gene where she opens with the astonishing take that bipedism isn't a heritable trait...this is not the voice of an expert and there are better critiques of the shortcomings in evopsych out there.