I agree that the tone of the article is an over-generalization and there's a 'press release' aspect of attempting to shill her book. On the other hand, there's probably significant basis to her conclusions. As a personal exception to many of the generalizations in the article including sizing up any potential mate's portfolio, or not being able to successfully combine career and parenthood, I can point to myself and say it's all a bunch of bunk. On the other hand, as a statistician who spends my life analyzing clinical research data, her conclusions are probably valid.
Generalizations and study conclusions are synonyms. There are no absolutes in presenting data and no description of any human trait is one size fits all. Those individuals who fall to one side or the other of the conclusions will take exception and dismiss the study, but when viewed through the eyes of the goal of any study which is to define the generalizations that exist, one can gain insight into typical human nature. Keep in mind, 'typical' is only intended to describe approximately 87% of the outcomes, 'normal' covers approximately 95%, and 'outlier' describes anything beyond 99% in most studies. Generalizations are the name of the game.
Having said all that, I think she's trying to sell a book!
Quote:Head cases:
A few neurological differences between women and men from Louann Brizendine's "The Female Brain":
Thoughts about sex enter women's brains once every couple of days; for men, thoughts about sex occur every minute.
Women use 20,000 words per day; men use 7,000 per day.
Women excel at knowing what people are feeling; men have difficulty spotting an emotion unless someone cries or threatens bodily harm.
Women remember fights that a man insists never happened.
Women over 50 are more likely to initiate divorce.
In general, I have no problems with any of these assessments.
