2.61 score from hupso.pl for:
mindhacks.com



HTML Content


Titlemind hacks – neuroscience and psychology news and views.

Length: 62, Words: 8
Description neuroscience and psychology news and views.

Length: 43, Words: 6
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 2932
Text/HTML 26.08 %
Headings H1 1
H2 12
H3 0
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
mind hacks
H2
neurotransmitter fashion
hormones, brain and behaviour, a not-so-simple story
a neuroscientist podcaster explains…
why women don’t report sexual harassment
the social priming studies in “thinking fast and slow” are not very replicable
sex differences in cognition are small
the gender similarities hypothesis
posts navigation
pages
contact
free ebooks
links & ads policy
H3
H4
H5
H6
strong
update
doesn’t
b
i
update
doesn’t
em update
doesn’t
Bolds strong 2
b 0
i 2
em 2
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 28
Pliki CSS 7
Pliki javascript 21
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 116
Linki wewnętrzne 2
Linki zewnętrzne 114
Linki bez atrybutu Title 116
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

skip to content #content
cancel #

Linki zewnętrzne

mind hacks https://mindhacks.com/
neurotransmitter fashion https://mindhacks.com/2017/03/15/neurotransmitter-fashion/
- https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/neurotransmitter_fashion.png
great misrepresentation. https://medium.com/the-spike/the-crimes-against-dopamine-b82b082d5f3d#.d89odt8zs
recent hype about oxytocin https://www.newscientist.com/article/2088200-everything-youve-heard-about-sniffing-oxytocin-might-be-wrong/?utm_source=nsns&utm_medium=soc&utm_campaign=hoot&cmpid=soc%7cnsns%7c2016-global-hoot
scholar.py https://github.com/ckreibich/scholar.py
raw data https://osf.io/pju82/
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2017/03/15/neurotransmitter-fashion/
inside the brain https://mindhacks.com/category/inside-the-brain/
1 comment on neurotransmitter fashion https://mindhacks.com/2017/03/15/neurotransmitter-fashion/#comments
hormones, brain and behaviour, a not-so-simple story https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/28/hormones-brain-and-behaviour-a-not-so-simple-story/
- https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/simple.png
seems to claim http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7736196.stm
fields medal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fields_medal
experiments with rats by celia moore https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1611538
separate work http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n10/abs/nn1325.html
- https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/snb.png
one review http://www.karger.com/article/abstract/6607
gender brain blogging https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/06/gender-brain-blogging/
maternal stimulation affects the number of motor neurons in a sexually dimorphic nucleus of the lumbar spinal cord https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1611538
autism test ‘could hit maths skills’ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7736196.stm
maryam mirzakhabi won the fields medal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/maryam_mirzakhani
draw.io https://www.draw.io/
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/28/hormones-brain-and-behaviour-a-not-so-simple-story/
gender https://mindhacks.com/category/gender/
8 comments on hormones, brain and behaviour, a not-so-simple story https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/28/hormones-brain-and-behaviour-a-not-so-simple-story/#comments
a neuroscientist podcaster explains… https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/26/a-neuroscientist-podcaster-explains/
podcast series https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/series/neuroscientist-explains
empathy https://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2017/feb/05/a-neuroscientist-explains-the-need-for-empathetic-citizens-podcast
music https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jan/22/how-music-affects-the-brain
link https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/series/neuroscientist-explains
vaughanbell https://mindhacks.com/author/vaughanbell/
https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/26/a-neuroscientist-podcaster-explains/
inside the brain https://mindhacks.com/category/inside-the-brain/
linkage https://mindhacks.com/category/linkage/
leave a comment on a neuroscientist podcaster explains… https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/26/a-neuroscientist-podcaster-explains/#respond
why women don’t report sexual harassment https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/20/why-women-dont-report-sexual-harassment/
-julie a. woodzicka https://www.wlu.edu/womens-gender-and-sexuality-studies-program/faculty-and-staff/profile?id=x4007
marianne lafrance http://psychology.yale.edu/people/marianne-lafrance
non-duchenne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/smile
indicative of some level of consent http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/48908338/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01312.x20160917-30781-n61wok.pdf?awsaccesskeyid=akiaiwowyygz2y53ul3a&expires=1487612165&signature=gjbkzmktshftoqlydutul5mwzt0%3d&response-content-disposition=inline%3b%20filename%3dwhy_didnt_she_just_report_him_the_psycho.pdf
real versus imagined gender harassment https://www.researchgate.net/profile/marianne_lafrance/publication/229630665_real_versus_imagined_gender_harassment/links/57c4af0d08ae9b0c824c2828.pdf
gender brain blogging https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/06/gender-brain-blogging/
the narrative escape https://www.amazon.co.uk/narrative-escape-brains-naturally-stories-ebook/dp/b0047t7ox6
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/20/why-women-dont-report-sexual-harassment/
gender https://mindhacks.com/category/gender/
other people https://mindhacks.com/category/other-people/
11 comments on why women don’t report sexual harassment https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/20/why-women-dont-report-sexual-harassment/#comments
the social priming studies in “thinking fast and slow” are not very replicable https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/16/how-replicable-are-the-social-priming-studies-in-thinking-fast-and-slow/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/file:train_wreck_at_montparnasse_1895.jpg
reconstruction of a train wreck: how priming research went off the rails https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-1454
kahneman responds https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-1454
reconstruction of a train wreck: how priming research went off the rails https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-1454
kahneman’s response https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-1454
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/16/how-replicable-are-the-social-priming-studies-in-thinking-fast-and-slow/
other people https://mindhacks.com/category/other-people/
reasoning https://mindhacks.com/category/reasoning/
1 comment on the social priming studies in “thinking fast and slow” are not very replicable https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/16/how-replicable-are-the-social-priming-studies-in-thinking-fast-and-slow/#comments
sex differences in cognition are small https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/14/sex-differences-in-cognition-are-small/
undeniable differences in the physical size of the brain https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/07/sex-differences-in-brain-size/
no ‘female’ and ‘male’ brains categorically https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/11/no-male-and-female-brain-types/
gender similarities hypothesis’ https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/12/the-gender-similarities-hypothesis/
- https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/gender_effects.png
here https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/07/sex-differences-in-brain-size/
structural differences between male and female brains may actually serve to support functional similarity, not difference. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.23953/full
an issue whose time has come: sex/gender influences on nervous system function. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.v95.1-2/issuetoc
sex on the brain: are gender‐dependent structural and functional differences associated with behavior? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.23953/full
gender brain blogging https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/06/gender-brain-blogging/
continue reading “sex differences in cognition are small” https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/14/sex-differences-in-cognition-are-small/#more-33861
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/14/sex-differences-in-cognition-are-small/
gender https://mindhacks.com/category/gender/
14 comments on sex differences in cognition are small https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/14/sex-differences-in-cognition-are-small/#comments
the gender similarities hypothesis https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/12/the-gender-similarities-hypothesis/
- https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/cube.png
gender similarities hypothesis http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.374.1723&rep=rep1&type=pdf
2016 review http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0959438816300083
the changing face of cognitive gender differences in europe http://www.pnas.org/content/111/32/11673.abstract
are women and men forever destined to think differently? https://theconversation.com/are-women-and-men-forever-destined-to-think-differently-29921
the gender similarities hypothesis http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.374.1723&rep=rep1&type=pdf
sex and cognition: gender and cognitive functions http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0959438816300083
gender brain blogging https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/06/gender-brain-blogging/
sex differences in brain size https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/07/sex-differences-in-brain-size/
no male and female brain types https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/11/no-male-and-female-brain-types/
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/12/the-gender-similarities-hypothesis/
gender https://mindhacks.com/category/gender/
5 comments on the gender similarities hypothesis https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/12/the-gender-similarities-hypothesis/#comments
page 2 https://mindhacks.com/page/2/
page 739 https://mindhacks.com/page/739/
next page https://mindhacks.com/page/2/
book https://mindhacks.com/book/
links https://mindhacks.com/links/
mindhacks.com wiki http://mind-hacks.wikia.com/wiki/mind_hacks_wiki
- https://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/book/
find out more https://mindhacksblog.wordpress.com/book/
at amazon http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/0596007795/mattwebbsinter02
at amazon uk http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/asin/0596007795/mattwebbsinterco
@mindhacksblog https://twitter.com/mindhacksblog
@vaughanbell https://twitter.com/vaughanbell
@tomstafford https://twitter.com/tomstafford
- http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/118271
- http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/110777
- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
https://mindhacks.com/ https://mindhacks.com/
creative commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike 3.0 unported license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
mind hacks https://mindhacks.com/
blog at wordpress.com. https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_blog
mind hacks https://mindhacks.com/
blog at wordpress.com. https://wordpress.com/?ref=footer_blog

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 21
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 13
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 21
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/neurotransmitter_fashion.png?w=840
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/simple.png?w=840
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/simple_maths.png?w=840
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/snb.png?w=840
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b09d235d89a28b64f084cd52d6aec9b4?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/189px-milgram_experiment.png?w=840
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/train_wreck_at_montparnasse_1895.jpg?w=840
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/gender_effects.png?w=840
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/cube.png?w=141&h=150
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://i2.wp.com/mindhacks-legacy.s3.amazonaws.com/theme/bookcover.png
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/lucid_cover2_thumb.jpg?w=140
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/cover2.jpg?w=140
https://i2.wp.com/i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/3.0/88x31.png
https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7518284&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1
https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/neurotransmitter_fashion.png?w=840
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b09d235d89a28b64f084cd52d6aec9b4?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://i2.wp.com/mindhacks-legacy.s3.amazonaws.com/theme/bookcover.png
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/lucid_cover2_thumb.jpg?w=140
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/cover2.jpg?w=140
https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7518284&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1
https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

skip to content mind hacks neuroscience and psychology news and views. neurotransmitter fashion a graph of scientific articles published per year which mention four major neurotransmitters in their title: what i take from this is dopamine is king! and with great popularity, comes great misrepresentation. what happened to glutamate research in the mid 1990s? the recent hype about oxytocin doesn’t seem to be driven by a spike in the primary literature. nor does the hype about serotonin. yes, publications increase on this neurotransmitter, but not compared to glutamate. and most people haven’t heard about glutamate, despite it being more abundant. technical note: i scraped the data from google scholar using scholar.py by christian kriebich update: here’s the raw data, should you want it author tomstaffordposted on march 15, 2017march 16, 2017categories inside the brain1 comment on neurotransmitter fashion hormones, brain and behaviour, a not-so-simple story there’s a simple story about sex differences in cognition, which traces these back to sex differences in early brain development, which are in turn due to hormone differences. diagrammatically, it looks something like this: cordelia fine’s “delusions of gender” (2010) accuses both scientists and popularisers of science with being too ready to believe overly simple, and biologically fixed, accounts of sex differences in cognition. there is an undeniable sex difference in foetal testosterone in humans at around 6-8 weeks after conception. in chapter 9 of her book, fine introduces simon baron-cohen, who seems to claim that this surge in male hormones is the reason why men are more likely to be autistic, and why no woman had ever won the fields medal. so, diagrammatically: this account may appear, at first, compelling, perhaps because of its simplicity. but fine presents us with an antidote for this initial intuition, in the form of the neurodevelopmental story of a the spinal nucleus of the bulbocavernosus (snb), a subcortical brain area which controls muscles at the base of the penis. even here, the route between hormone, brain difference and behaviour is not so simple, as shown by neat experiments with rats by celia moore, described by fine (p.105 in my edition). moore showed that male rat pups are licked more by their mothers, and that this licking is due to excess testosterone in their urine. mothers which couldn’t smell, licked male and female pups equally, and female pups injected with testosterone were licked as much as male pups. this licking had an extra developmental effect on the snb, which could be mimicked by manual brushing of a pup’s perineum. separate work showed that testosterone doesn’t act directly on the neurons of the snb, but instead prevents cell death in the snb by preserving the muscles which it connects to (in males). so, diagrammatically: one review, summarising what is known about the development of the snb, writes ‘[there is] a life-long plasticity in even this simple system [and] evidence that adult androgens interact with social experience in order to affect the snb system’. not so simple! what i love about this story is the complexity of developmental causes. even in the rat, not the human! even in the subcortex, not the cortex! even in a brain area which direct controls a penis reflex. fine’s implicit question for baron-cohen seems to be: if evolution creates this level of complexity for something as important for reproductive function, what is likely for the brain areas responsible for something as selectively-irrelevant as winning prizes at mathematics? notice also the variety of interactions, not just the number : hormones -> body, body -> sensation in mother’s brain, brain -> behaviour, mother’s behaviour -> pup’s sensation, sensation -> cell growth. this is a developmental story which happens across hormones, brain, body, behaviour and individuals. against this example, sex differences in cognition due to early hormone differences look far from inevitable, and the simple hormone-brain-behaviour looks like a crude summary at best. whether you take it to mean that sex differences in hormones have multiple routes to generate sex differences in cognition (a ‘small differences add up’ model) or that sex differences in hormones will cancel each other out, may depend on your other assumptions about development. at a minimum, the story of the snb shows that those assumptions are worth checking. previously: gender brain blogging paper: moore, c. l., dou, h., & juraska, j. m. (1992). maternal stimulation affects the number of motor neurons in a sexually dimorphic nucleus of the lumbar spinal cord. brain research, 572(1), 52-56. source for the 2009 claim by baron-cohen claim that foetal hormones explain why no woman has won the fields medal: autism test ‘could hit maths skills’. in 2014 maryam mirzakhabi won the fields medal. diagrams made with draw.io author tomstaffordposted on february 28, 2017february 28, 2017categories gender8 comments on hormones, brain and behaviour, a not-so-simple story a neuroscientist podcaster explains… there’s a great ongoing podcast series called a neuroscientist explains that looks at some of the most important points of contact between neuroscience and the wider world. it’s a project of the guardian science weekly podcast and is hosted by brain scientist daniel glaser who has an interesting profile – having been a cognitive neuroscientist for many years before moving into the world of art and public engagement. glaser takes inspiration from culture and current affairs – which often throws up discussion about the mind or brain – and then looks at these ideas in depth, typically with one of the leading researchers in the field. recent episodes on empathy and music have been particularly good (although skip the first episode in the series – unusually, there’s a few clangers in it) and they manage to strike a great balance between outlining the fundamentals while debating the latest ideas and findings. it seems you can’t link solely to the podcast but you can pick them on the page linked below. link to ‘a neuroscientist explains’ author vaughanbellposted on february 26, 2017categories inside the brain, linkageleave a comment on a neuroscientist podcaster explains… why women don’t report sexual harassment julie a. woodzicka (washington and lee university) and marianne lafrance (yale) report an experiment reminiscent of milgram’s famous studies of obedience to authority. reminiscent both because it highlights the gap between how we imagine we’ll respond under pressure and how we actually do respond, and because it’s hard to imagine an ethics review board allowing it. the study, reported in the journal of social issues in 2001, involved the following (in their own words): we devised a job interview in which a male interviewer asked female job applicants sexually harassing questions interspersed with more typical questions asked in such contexts. the three sexually harassing questions were (1) do you have a boyfriend? (2) do people find you desirable? and (3) do you think it is important for women to wear bras to work? participants, all women, average age 22, did not know they were in an experiment and were recruited through posters and newspaper adverts for a research assistant position. the results illuminated what targets of harassment do not do. first, no one refused to answer: interviewees answered every question irrespective of whether it was harassing or nonharassing. second, among those asked the harassing questions, few responded with any form of confrontation or repudiation. nonetheless, the responses revealed a variety of ways that respondents attempted to circumvent the situation posed by harassing questions. just as with the milgram experiment, these results contrast with how participants from a companion study imagined they would respond when the scenario was described to them: the majority (62%) anticipated that they would either ask the interviewer why he had asked the question or tell him that it was inappropriate. further, over one quarter of the participants (28%) indicated that they would take more drastic measures by either leaving the interview or rudely confronting the interviewer. notably, a large number of respondents (68%) indicated that they would refuse to answer at least one of the three harassing questions. part of the difference, the researchers argue, is that women imagining the harassing situation over-estimate the anger they will feel. when confronted with actual harassment, fear replaces anger, they claim. women asked the harassing questions reported significantly higher rates of fear than women asked the merely surprising questions. coding of facial expressions during the (secretly videoed) interviews revealed that the harassed women also smiled more – fake (non-duchenne) smiles, presumably aimed at appeasing a harasser that they felt afraid of. the research report doesn’t indicate what, if any, ethical review process the experiment was subject to. obviously it is an important topic, with disturbing and plausible findings. the researchers note that courts have previously interpreted inaction following harassment as indicative of some level of consent. but, despite the real-world relevance, is it a topic that is it important enough to justify employing a man to sexually harass unsuspecting women? reference: woodzicka, j. a., & lafrance, m. (2001). real versus imagined gender harassment. journal of social issues, 57(1), 15-30. previously: a series of gender brain blogging much more previously: an essay i wrote arguing that moral failures are often defined by failures of imagination, not of reason: the narrative escape author tomstaffordposted on february 20, 2017february 20, 2017categories gender, other people11 comments on why women don’t report sexual harassment the social priming studies in “thinking fast and slow” are not very replicable in daniel kahneman’s “thinking fast and slow” he introduces research on social priming – the idea that subtle cues in the environment may have significant, reliable effects on behaviour. in that book, published in 2011, kahneman writes “disbelief is not an option” about these results. since then, the evidence against the reliability of social priming research has been mounting. in a new analysis, ‘reconstruction of a train wreck: how priming research went off the rails‘, ulrich schimmack, moritz heene, and kamini kesavan review chapter 4 of thinking fast and slow, picking out the references which provide evidence for social priming and calculating how statistically reliable they: their conclusion: the results are eye-opening and jaw-dropping.  the chapter cites 12 articles and 11 of the 12 articles have an r-index below 50.  the combined analysis of 31 studies reported in the 12 articles shows 100% significant results with average (median) observed power of 57% and an inflation rate of 43%.  …readers of… “thinking fast and slow” should not consider the presented studies as scientific evidence that subtle cues in their environment can have strong effects on their behavior outside their awareness. the argument is that the pattern of 100% significant results is near to impossible, even if the effects known were true, given the weak statistical power of the studies to detect true effects. remarkably, kahneman responds in the comments: what the blog gets absolutely right is that i placed too much faith in underpowered studies. …i have changed my views about the size of behavioral priming effects – they cannot be as large and as robust as my chapter suggested. the original analysis, and kahneman’s response are worth reading in full. together they give a potted history of the replication crisis, and a summary of some of the prime causes (e.g. file draw effects), as well as showing off how mature psychological scientists can make, and respond to critique. original analysis: ‘reconstruction of a train wreck: how priming research went off the rails‘, ulrich schimmack, moritz heene, and kamini kesavan. (is it a paper? is it a blogpost? who knows?!) kahneman’s response author tomstaffordposted on february 16, 2017february 16, 2017categories other people, reasoning1 comment on the social priming studies in “thinking fast and slow” are not very replicable sex differences in cognition are small lately i’ve been thinking about sex differences in brain and cognition. there are undeniable differences in the physical size of the brain, and different brain areas, even if there are no ‘female’ and ‘male’ brains categorically. these physical differences do not translate directly into commensurate differences in cognition. indeed, there is support for a ‘gender similarities hypothesis’ which asserts that on most measures there is no difference between men and women. most, but maybe not all. there are a few areas of fundamental cognitive ability where gender differences seem to persist – mental rotation, vocabulary and maybe maths. but these differences are small. to see how small, i put them on the same chart with the physical differences and a few other behavioural differences for perspective. standardised mean differences (cohen’s d effect size) for various gender differences in brain, behaviour and cognition: references and calculations at the end of this post, below the fold. and if you need a primer on what is meant by standardised difference then go here. even with these, small, observed differences in cognition, we don’t know what proportion is due to contingent facts, such as the different experience and expectations men and women encounter in their lifetimes, and what proportion is immutable consequence of genetic difference in sex. one possibility for why there is a mismatch between physical differences in the brain and cognitive differences is the possibility that structural differences between male and female brains may actually serve to support functional similarity, not difference. for more, so much more, on this, see the special issue of journal of neuroscience research (january/february 2017) on an issue whose time has come: sex/gender influences on nervous system function. includes: grabowska, a. (2017). sex on the brain: are gender‐dependent structural and functional differences associated with behavior?. journal of neuroscience research, 95(1-2), 200-212. previously: gender brain blogging continue reading “sex differences in cognition are small” author tomstaffordposted on february 14, 2017february 14, 2017categories gender14 comments on sex differences in cognition are small the gender similarities hypothesis there is a popular notion that men and women are very different in their cognitive abilities. the evidence for this may be weaker than you expect. janet hyde advances what she calls the ‘gender similarities hypothesis‘, ‘which holds that males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological variables’. in a 2016 review she states: according to meta-analyses, however, among both children and adults, females perform equally to males on mathematics assessments. the gender difference in verbal skills is small and varies depending on the type of skill assessed (e.g., vocabulary, essay writing). the gender difference in 3d mental rotation shows a moderate advantage for males. so from three celebrated examples of differences in ability only two actually show a moderate gender difference. other abilities show no or negligible gender differences, hyde concludes. gender differences in ability may be overinflated in the popular imagination. worth noting is that the name of the game here isn’t to find gender differences in behaviour. that’s too easy. women wear more make-up for example, men are more likely to wear trousers. the game is to find a measure which reflects some more fundamental aspect of mental capacity. hence the focus on vocabulary size, mental rotation ability, maths ability and the like. these may be less subject to the vagaries of exactly what is expected of each gender, but that’s a shaky assumption. indeed, it would be weird if different roles and expectations for men vs women didn’t produce different motivations and opportunities for practice of cognitive abilities such as these. the real challenge is to find immutable gender differences, or to track differences in how abilities develop under different conditions. without this evidence, we’re not going to be sure which gender differences are immutable, and which are contingent on the specific psychological history of particular men and particular women living in our particular societies. one way of addressing this challenge is to look at how gender differences change across different socities, or across time as society changes. a 2014 study, ‘the changing face of cognitive gender differences in europe‘ did just that, showing that less gender-restricted educational opportunities tended to decrease some gender differences but not others. in other words, increasing equality in educational attainment magnified some differences between the sexes. you can read my take on this in this piece for the conversation : are women and men forever destined to think differently? the gender similarities hypothesis: hyde, j. s. (2005). the gender similarities hypothesis. american psychologist, 60(6), 581-592 2016 update: hyde, j. s. (2016). sex and cognition: gender and cognitive functions. current opinion in neurobiology, 38, 53-56. previously: gender brain blogging: sex differences in brain size, no male and female brain types. author tomstaffordposted on february 12, 2017categories gender5 comments on the gender similarities hypothesis posts navigation page 1 page 2 … page 739 next page pages book links search for: search neuroscience and psychology tricks to find out what's going on inside your brain. mindhacks.com wiki - explore our back pages! mind hacks is a book by tom stafford and matt webb. find out more, or buy it: → at amazon (34% off) → at amazon uk (30% off) contact automatic blog feed on twitter @mindhacksblog. follow us individually as @vaughanbell and @tomstafford emails to tom@[thedomainnameofthissite] have been retired. tweet us instead! please do not contact us about promoting anything free ebooks links & ads policy mindhacks.com does not take sponsorship for links or reviews. everything linked here is done so because we find it interesting. as soon as i read the words "advertising", "sponsored links" or "business partnership" in an email i delete it. we will not place adverts for you, so please don't ask. all blog posts by https://mindhacks.com/ are licensed under a creative commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike 3.0 unported license. mind hacks blog at wordpress.com. mind hacks blog at wordpress.com. post to cancel


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 2917

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 7.58% (221)
and - 2.78% (81)
men - 2.23% (65)
difference - 1.71% (50)
her - 1.41% (41)
differences - 1.37% (40)
end - 1.37% (40)
for - 1.3% (38)
that - 1.2% (35)
all - 1.2% (35)
gender - 1.17% (34)
are - 1.1% (32)
brain - 1.06% (31)
not - 1.06% (31)
one - 0.86% (25)
sex - 0.82% (24)
our - 0.75% (22)
this - 0.72% (21)
out - 0.72% (21)
how - 0.72% (21)
male - 0.69% (20)
with - 0.65% (19)
here - 0.62% (18)
harass - 0.62% (18)
per - 0.58% (17)
which - 0.58% (17)
art - 0.55% (16)
women - 0.55% (16)
search - 0.51% (15)
age - 0.48% (14)
what - 0.48% (14)
rat - 0.48% (14)
act - 0.48% (14)
can - 0.48% (14)
research - 0.45% (13)
man - 0.45% (13)
more - 0.45% (13)
you - 0.45% (13)
post - 0.45% (13)
there - 0.41% (12)
hormone - 0.41% (12)
cognition - 0.41% (12)
other - 0.41% (12)
they - 0.41% (12)
about - 0.41% (12)
question - 0.38% (11)
but - 0.38% (11)
february - 0.38% (11)
blog - 0.38% (11)
behaviour - 0.38% (11)
mental - 0.38% (11)
tom - 0.34% (10)
their - 0.34% (10)
have - 0.34% (10)
show - 0.34% (10)
may - 0.31% (9)
find - 0.31% (9)
ask - 0.31% (9)
part - 0.31% (9)
these - 0.31% (9)
even - 0.31% (9)
harassing - 0.31% (9)
some - 0.31% (9)
story - 0.31% (9)
link - 0.31% (9)
mind - 0.31% (9)
different - 0.27% (8)
comment - 0.27% (8)
scientist - 0.27% (8)
social - 0.27% (8)
rate - 0.27% (8)
author - 0.27% (8)
priming - 0.27% (8)
effect - 0.27% (8)
think - 0.27% (8)
questions - 0.27% (8)
- 0.27% (8)
stafford - 0.27% (8)
simple - 0.27% (8)
respond - 0.27% (8)
develop - 0.27% (8)
between - 0.27% (8)
hormones - 0.27% (8)
small - 0.27% (8)
hacks - 0.27% (8)
similar - 0.27% (8)
female - 0.27% (8)
studies - 0.24% (7)
why - 0.24% (7)
science - 0.24% (7)
were - 0.24% (7)
snb - 0.24% (7)
2017categories - 0.24% (7)
interview - 0.24% (7)
report - 0.24% (7)
development - 0.24% (7)
see - 0.24% (7)
cognitive - 0.24% (7)
like - 0.24% (7)
page - 0.24% (7)
effects - 0.21% (6)
test - 0.21% (6)
area - 0.21% (6)
similarities - 0.21% (6)
ability - 0.21% (6)
evidence - 0.21% (6)
thinking - 0.21% (6)
asked - 0.21% (6)
sexual - 0.21% (6)
review - 0.21% (6)
results - 0.21% (6)
from - 0.21% (6)
tomstaffordposted - 0.21% (6)
- 0.21% (6)
read - 0.21% (6)
fine - 0.21% (6)
males - 0.21% (6)
take - 0.21% (6)
look - 0.21% (6)
previously - 0.21% (6)
harassment - 0.21% (6)
hypothesis - 0.21% (6)
very - 0.17% (5)
off - 0.17% (5)
been - 0.17% (5)
kahneman - 0.17% (5)
sure - 0.17% (5)
neuroscience - 0.17% (5)
brain, - 0.17% (5)
them - 0.17% (5)
know - 0.17% (5)
podcast - 0.17% (5)
fast - 0.17% (5)
was - 0.17% (5)
book - 0.17% (5)
previously: - 0.17% (5)
experiment - 0.17% (5)
important - 0.17% (5)
size - 0.17% (5)
explain - 0.17% (5)
seem - 0.17% (5)
ever - 0.17% (5)
comments - 0.17% (5)
does - 0.17% (5)
most - 0.17% (5)
neuroscientist - 0.17% (5)
would - 0.17% (5)
blogging - 0.14% (4)
actual - 0.14% (4)
sexually - 0.14% (4)
great - 0.14% (4)
just - 0.14% (4)
own - 0.14% (4)
journal - 0.14% (4)
any - 0.14% (4)
articles - 0.14% (4)
has - 0.14% (4)
over - 0.14% (4)
physical - 0.14% (4)
neurotransmitter - 0.14% (4)
real - 0.14% (4)
here’s - 0.14% (4)
few - 0.14% (4)
links - 0.14% (4)
particular - 0.14% (4)
due - 0.14% (4)
looks - 0.14% (4)
abilities - 0.14% (4)
people - 0.14% (4)
testosterone - 0.14% (4)
chapter - 0.14% (4)
who - 0.14% (4)
claim - 0.14% (4)
she - 0.14% (4)
hyde - 0.14% (4)
popular - 0.14% (4)
issue - 0.14% (4)
developmental - 0.14% (4)
“thinking - 0.14% (4)
slow” - 0.14% (4)
under - 0.14% (4)
2017february - 0.14% (4)
analysis - 0.14% (4)
significant - 0.14% (4)
much - 0.14% (4)
explains - 0.14% (4)
pups - 0.14% (4)
views - 0.14% (4)
imagine - 0.14% (4)
because - 0.14% (4)
don’t - 0.1% (3)
reported - 0.1% (3)
raw - 0.1% (3)
below - 0.1% (3)
interviewer - 0.1% (3)
rotation - 0.1% (3)
immutable - 0.1% (3)
serve - 0.1% (3)
more, - 0.1% (3)
time - 0.1% (3)
all, - 0.1% (3)
2016 - 0.1% (3)
skill - 0.1% (3)
measure - 0.1% (3)
fundamental - 0.1% (3)
less - 0.1% (3)
going - 0.1% (3)
change - 0.1% (3)
mindhacks.com - 0.1% (3)
follow - 0.1% (3)
words - 0.1% (3)
place - 0.1% (3)
vocabulary - 0.1% (3)
psychological - 0.1% (3)
such - 0.1% (3)
him - 0.1% (3)
three - 0.1% (3)
(1) - 0.1% (3)
wear - 0.1% (3)
did - 0.1% (3)
questions. - 0.1% (3)
participants - 0.1% (3)
study - 0.1% (3)
answer - 0.1% (3)
response - 0.1% (3)
anger - 0.1% (3)
indicate - 0.1% (3)
kahneman’s - 0.1% (3)
idea - 0.1% (3)
new - 0.1% (3)
researchers - 0.1% (3)
power - 0.1% (3)
behavior - 0.1% (3)
first - 0.1% (3)
actually - 0.1% (3)
number - 0.1% (3)
form - 0.1% (3)
shows - 0.1% (3)
both - 0.1% (3)
depend - 0.1% (3)
will - 0.1% (3)
up’ - 0.1% (3)
mean - 0.1% (3)
too - 0.1% (3)
glutamate - 0.1% (3)
cognition. - 0.1% (3)
across - 0.1% (3)
system - 0.1% (3)
sensation - 0.1% (3)
worth - 0.1% (3)
body - 0.1% (3)
licked - 0.1% (3)
seems - 0.1% (3)
reason - 0.1% (3)
doesn’t - 0.1% (3)
likely - 0.1% (3)
areas - 0.1% (3)
had - 0.1% (3)
won - 0.1% (3)
fields - 0.1% (3)
baron-cohen - 0.1% (3)
something - 0.1% (3)
direct - 0.1% (3)
maths - 0.1% (3)
series - 0.1% (3)
snb, - 0.1% (3)
could - 0.1% (3)
16, - 0.1% (3)
world - 0.1% (3)
inside - 0.1% (3)
hormones, - 0.1% (3)
moore - 0.1% (3)
behaviour, - 0.1% (3)
then - 0.1% (3)
contact - 0.1% (3)
there’s - 0.1% (3)
possibility - 0.07% (2)
news - 0.07% (2)
standardised - 0.07% (2)
cognition: - 0.07% (2)
showed - 0.07% (2)
gets - 0.07% (2)
hype - 0.07% (2)
route - 0.07% (2)
(e.g. - 0.07% (2)
true - 0.07% (2)
small, - 0.07% (2)
proportion - 0.07% (2)
file - 0.07% (2)
contingent - 0.07% (2)
moore, - 0.07% (2)
statistical - 0.07% (2)
showing - 0.07% (2)
expectations - 0.07% (2)
so, - 0.07% (2)
muscles - 0.07% (2)
diagrammatically: - 0.07% (2)
support - 0.07% (2)
described - 0.07% (2)
‘gender - 0.07% (2)
give - 0.07% (2)
reading - 0.07% (2)
nucleus - 0.07% (2)
history - 0.07% (2)
most, - 0.07% (2)
maybe - 0.07% (2)
original - 0.07% (2)
account - 0.07% (2)
all. - 0.07% (2)
brains - 0.07% (2)
spinal - 0.07% (2)
draw - 0.07% (2)
prime - 0.07% (2)
causes - 0.07% (2)
first, - 0.07% (2)
controls - 0.07% (2)
indeed, - 0.07% (2)
ideas - 0.07% (2)
structural - 0.07% (2)
data - 0.07% (2)
despite - 0.07% (2)
being - 0.07% (2)
early - 0.07% (2)
way - 0.07% (2)
back - 0.07% (2)
educational - 0.07% (2)
cognition, - 0.07% (2)
hyde, - 0.07% (2)
posts - 0.07% (2)
pages - 0.07% (2)
challenge - 0.07% (2)
scholar - 0.07% (2)
not-so-simple - 0.07% (2)
update: - 0.07% (2)
- 0.07% (2)
amazon - 0.07% (2)
off) - 0.07% (2)
please - 0.07% (2)
email - 0.07% (2)
march - 0.07% (2)
wordpress.com. - 0.07% (2)
fine’s - 0.07% (2)
opportunities - 0.07% (2)
medal. - 0.07% (2)
mathematics - 0.07% (2)
functional - 0.07% (2)
difference. - 0.07% (2)
2017) - 0.07% (2)
14, - 0.07% (2)
woman - 0.07% (2)
females - 0.07% (2)
introduces - 0.07% (2)
book, - 0.07% (2)
foetal - 0.07% (2)
equally - 0.07% (2)
skills - 0.07% (2)
size, - 0.07% (2)
type - 0.07% (2)
undeniable - 0.07% (2)
moderate - 0.07% (2)
simple, - 0.07% (2)
differences, - 0.07% (2)
name - 0.07% (2)
game - 0.07% (2)
psychology - 0.07% (2)
that’s - 0.07% (2)
scientists - 0.07% (2)
weak - 0.07% (2)
kamini - 0.07% (2)
licking - 0.07% (2)
scientific - 0.07% (2)
those - 0.07% (2)
job - 0.07% (2)
assumptions - 0.07% (2)
your - 0.07% (2)
each - 0.07% (2)
typical - 0.07% (2)
cancel - 0.07% (2)
add - 0.07% (2)
whether - 0.07% (2)
summary - 0.07% (2)
average - 0.07% (2)
example, - 0.07% (2)
issues - 0.07% (2)
against - 0.07% (2)
adverts - 0.07% (2)
every - 0.07% (2)
mother’s - 0.07% (2)
among - 0.07% (2)
revealed - 0.07% (2)
respondents - 0.07% (2)
situation - 0.07% (2)
milgram - 0.07% (2)
body, - 0.07% (2)
imagined - 0.07% (2)
following - 0.07% (2)
research, - 0.07% (2)
when - 0.07% (2)
glaser - 0.07% (2)
often - 0.07% (2)
episode - 0.07% (2)
current - 0.07% (2)
public - 0.07% (2)
findings. - 0.07% (2)
major - 0.07% (2)
pick - 0.07% (2)
into - 0.07% (2)
interesting - 0.07% (2)
linked - 0.07% (2)
year - 0.07% (2)
daniel - 0.07% (2)
study, - 0.07% (2)
it’s - 0.07% (2)
woodzicka - 0.07% (2)
lafrance - 0.07% (2)
reminiscent - 0.07% (2)
explains… - 0.07% (2)
published - 0.07% (2)
podcaster - 0.07% (2)
28, - 0.07% (2)
2014 - 0.07% (2)
should - 0.07% (2)
it. - 0.07% (2)
variety - 0.07% (2)
either - 0.07% (2)
mothers - 0.07% (2)
recent - 0.07% (2)
environment - 0.07% (2)
reliable - 0.07% (2)
instead - 0.07% (2)
behaviour. - 0.07% (2)
neurons - 0.07% (2)
directly - 0.07% (2)
analysis, - 0.07% (2)
‘reconstruction - 0.07% (2)
train - 0.07% (2)
wreck: - 0.07% (2)
went - 0.07% (2)
rails‘, - 0.07% (2)
subtle - 0.07% (2)
ulrich - 0.07% (2)
schimmack, - 0.07% (2)
moritz - 0.07% (2)
heene, - 0.07% (2)
kesavan - 0.07% (2)
work - 0.07% (2)
views. - 0.07% (2)
references - 0.07% (2)
pup’s - 0.07% (2)
100% - 0.07% (2)
observed - 0.07% (2)
cues - 0.07% (2)
cell - 0.07% (2)
also - 0.07% (2)
note - 0.07% (2)
level - 0.07% (2)
indicated - 0.07% (2)
measures - 0.07% (2)
large - 0.07% (2)
refuse - 0.07% (2)
implicit - 0.07% (2)
penis - 0.07% (2)
fear - 0.07% (2)
than - 0.07% (2)
complexity - 0.07% (2)
subject - 0.07% (2)
affect - 0.07% (2)
(in - 0.07% (2)
topic - 0.07% (2)
fashion - 0.07% (2)
experience - 0.07% (2)
interact - 0.07% (2)
essay - 0.07% (2)
failures - 0.07% (2)
20, - 0.07% (2)
gender, - 0.07% (2)
adult - 0.07% (2)
writes - 0.07% (2)
known - 0.07% (2)
replicable - 0.07% (2)
skip - 0.07% (2)
differences in - 0.75% (22)
in the - 0.72% (21)
of the - 0.65% (19)
gender difference - 0.45% (13)
on the - 0.45% (13)
sex difference - 0.45% (13)
sex differences - 0.41% (12)
at the - 0.38% (11)
gender differences - 0.34% (10)
in cognition - 0.31% (9)
here is - 0.27% (8)
that the - 0.24% (7)
on february - 0.21% (6)
there is - 0.21% (6)
gender similarities - 0.21% (6)
the brain - 0.21% (6)
the gender - 0.21% (6)
in their - 0.21% (6)
similarities hypothesis - 0.21% (6)
author tomstaffordposted - 0.21% (6)
tomstaffordposted on - 0.21% (6)
harassing questions - 0.21% (6)
and female - 0.17% (5)
men and - 0.17% (5)
fast and - 0.17% (5)
social priming - 0.17% (5)
and the - 0.17% (5)
thinking fast - 0.17% (5)
what is - 0.14% (4)
are small - 0.14% (4)
difference in - 0.14% (4)
asked the - 0.14% (4)
a neuroscientist - 0.14% (4)
that they - 0.14% (4)
and slow” - 0.14% (4)
gender brain - 0.14% (4)
“thinking fast - 0.14% (4)
brain blogging - 0.14% (4)
to find - 0.14% (4)
to the - 0.14% (4)
brain area - 0.14% (4)
due to - 0.14% (4)
mind hacks - 0.14% (4)
they would - 0.14% (4)
journal of - 0.14% (4)
brain and - 0.14% (4)
is that - 0.14% (4)
comments on - 0.14% (4)
hormones, brain - 0.1% (3)
the fields - 0.1% (3)
for the - 0.1% (3)
the interview - 0.1% (3)
physical differences - 0.1% (3)
are no - 0.1% (3)
there are - 0.1% (3)
you can - 0.1% (3)
in brain - 0.1% (3)
cognition are - 0.1% (3)
with the - 0.1% (3)
comment on - 0.1% (3)
do not - 0.1% (3)
the harassing - 0.1% (3)
even in - 0.1% (3)
previously: gender - 0.1% (3)
but not - 0.1% (3)
on this - 0.1% (3)
priming research - 0.1% (3)
there’s a - 0.1% (3)
simple story - 0.1% (3)
neuroscience and - 0.1% (3)
men are - 0.1% (3)
mental rotation - 0.1% (3)
and behaviour - 0.1% (3)
won the - 0.1% (3)
male and - 0.1% (3)
may be - 0.1% (3)
the snb, - 0.1% (3)
sexually harass - 0.1% (3)
of social - 0.1% (3)
evidence for - 0.07% (2)
moritz heene, - 0.07% (2)
the results - 0.07% (2)
the 12 - 0.07% (2)
ulrich schimmack, - 0.07% (2)
a train - 0.07% (2)
went off - 0.07% (2)
the rails‘, - 0.07% (2)
‘reconstruction of - 0.07% (2)
reported in - 0.07% (2)
100% significant - 0.07% (2)
evidence that - 0.07% (2)
subtle cues - 0.07% (2)
wreck: how - 0.07% (2)
power of - 0.07% (2)
if the - 0.07% (2)
and kamini - 0.07% (2)
and psychology - 0.07% (2)
february 16, - 0.07% (2)
the evidence - 0.07% (2)
hacks blog - 0.07% (2)
blog at - 0.07% (2)
adverts for - 0.07% (2)
→ at - 0.07% (2)
at amazon - 0.07% (2)
hyde, j. - 0.07% (2)
history of - 0.07% (2)
sure which - 0.07% (2)
challenge is - 0.07% (2)
the real - 0.07% (2)
of cognitive - 0.07% (2)
to wear - 0.07% (2)
more likely - 0.07% (2)
for this - 0.07% (2)
february 14, - 0.07% (2)
the social - 0.07% (2)
the physical - 0.07% (2)
priming studies - 0.07% (2)
in “thinking - 0.07% (2)
slow” are - 0.07% (2)
not very - 0.07% (2)
most, but - 0.07% (2)
them on - 0.07% (2)
what proportion - 0.07% (2)
of neuroscience - 0.07% (2)
heene, and - 0.07% (2)
is due - 0.07% (2)
as the - 0.07% (2)
and expectations - 0.07% (2)
and cognitive - 0.07% (2)
differences between - 0.07% (2)
kamini kesavan - 0.07% (2)
number of - 0.07% (2)
schimmack, moritz - 0.07% (2)
which could - 0.07% (2)
area which - 0.07% (2)
is not - 0.07% (2)
showed that - 0.07% (2)
that this - 0.07% (2)
female pups - 0.07% (2)
this licking - 0.07% (2)
not so - 0.07% (2)
with an - 0.07% (2)
not the - 0.07% (2)
level of - 0.07% (2)
something as - 0.07% (2)
important for - 0.07% (2)
for something - 0.07% (2)
variety of - 0.07% (2)
developmental story - 0.07% (2)
nucleus of - 0.07% (2)
so, diagrammatically: - 0.07% (2)
that sex - 0.07% (2)
which are - 0.07% (2)
hype about - 0.07% (2)
seem to - 0.07% (2)
16, 2017categories - 0.07% (2)
inside the - 0.07% (2)
behaviour, a - 0.07% (2)
not-so-simple story - 0.07% (2)
about sex - 0.07% (2)
in cognition. - 0.07% (2)
fields medal. - 0.07% (2)
testosterone in - 0.07% (2)
seems to - 0.07% (2)
claim that - 0.07% (2)
in male - 0.07% (2)
are more - 0.07% (2)
likely to - 0.07% (2)
no woman - 0.07% (2)
behaviour and - 0.07% (2)
in hormones - 0.07% (2)
rails‘, ulrich - 0.07% (2)
are not - 0.07% (2)
the interviewer - 0.07% (2)
indicated that - 0.07% (2)
the researchers - 0.07% (2)
of gender - 0.07% (2)
much more - 0.07% (2)
on why - 0.07% (2)
studies in - 0.07% (2)
very replicable - 0.07% (2)
harassing questions. - 0.07% (2)
that subtle - 0.07% (2)
cues in - 0.07% (2)
effects on - 0.07% (2)
train wreck: - 0.07% (2)
how priming - 0.07% (2)
research went - 0.07% (2)
off the - 0.07% (2)
these results - 0.07% (2)
form of - 0.07% (2)
the number - 0.07% (2)
some of - 0.07% (2)
february 28, - 0.07% (2)
and behaviour, - 0.07% (2)
a not-so-simple - 0.07% (2)
story a - 0.07% (2)
neuroscientist podcaster - 0.07% (2)
a great - 0.07% (2)
looks at - 0.07% (2)
women don’t - 0.07% (2)
it was - 0.07% (2)
report sexual - 0.07% (2)
because it - 0.07% (2)
how we - 0.07% (2)
social issues - 0.07% (2)
do you - 0.07% (2)
have a - 0.07% (2)
an experiment - 0.07% (2)
at wordpress.com. - 0.07% (2)
sex differences in - 0.41% (12)
differences in cognition - 0.31% (9)
author tomstaffordposted on - 0.21% (6)
thinking fast and - 0.17% (5)
tomstaffordposted on february - 0.17% (5)
gender brain blogging - 0.14% (4)
the gender similarities - 0.14% (4)
fast and slow” - 0.14% (4)
gender differences in - 0.14% (4)
differences in brain - 0.1% (3)
male and female - 0.1% (3)
in cognition are - 0.1% (3)
won the fields - 0.1% (3)
men and women - 0.1% (3)
previously: gender brain - 0.1% (3)
cognition are small - 0.1% (3)
and slow” are - 0.07% (2)
heene, and kamini - 0.07% (2)
ulrich schimmack, moritz - 0.07% (2)
off the rails‘, - 0.07% (2)
social priming studies - 0.07% (2)
in “thinking fast - 0.07% (2)
priming research went - 0.07% (2)
train wreck: how - 0.07% (2)
2017categories inside the - 0.07% (2)
not very replicable - 0.07% (2)
differences in cognition. - 0.07% (2)
is due to - 0.07% (2)
even if the - 0.07% (2)
the gender difference - 0.07% (2)
are more likely - 0.07% (2)
challenge is to - 0.07% (2)
neuroscience and psychology - 0.07% (2)
→ at amazon - 0.07% (2)
mind hacks blog - 0.07% (2)
‘reconstruction of a - 0.07% (2)
moritz heene, and - 0.07% (2)
is that the - 0.07% (2)
why women don’t - 0.07% (2)
a not-so-simple story - 0.07% (2)
differences in cognition, - 0.07% (2)
men are more - 0.07% (2)
brain area which - 0.07% (2)
and female pups - 0.07% (2)
of the snb, - 0.07% (2)
even in the - 0.07% (2)
story of the - 0.07% (2)
why no woman - 0.07% (2)
on hormones, brain - 0.07% (2)
and behaviour, a - 0.07% (2)
neuroscientist podcaster explains… - 0.07% (2)
report sexual harassment - 0.07% (2)
that subtle cues - 0.07% (2)
sexually harassing questions - 0.07% (2)
indicated that they - 0.07% (2)
the harassing questions - 0.07% (2)
the social priming - 0.07% (2)
studies in “thinking - 0.07% (2)
are not very - 0.07% (2)
subtle cues in - 0.07% (2)
a train wreck: - 0.07% (2)
how priming research - 0.07% (2)
went off the - 0.07% (2)
rails‘, ulrich schimmack, - 0.07% (2)
brain and behaviour, - 0.07% (2)
the 12 articles - 0.07% (2)
hacks blog at - 0.07% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.