3.08 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 3739
Text/HTML 30.77 %
Headings H1 1
H2 12
H3 0
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
mind hacks
H2
the social priming studies in “thinking fast and slow” are not very replicable
sex differences in cognition are small
the gender similarities hypothesis
no male and female brain types
sex differences in brain size
how to overcome bias
can boy monkeys throw?
posts navigation
pages
contact
free ebooks
links & ads policy
H3
H4
H5
H6
strong
how do you persuade somebody of the facts? asking them to be fair, impartial and unbiased is not enough. to explain why, psychologist tom stafford analyses a classic scientific study.
b
i
how do you persuade somebody of the facts? asking them to be fair, impartial and unbiased is not enough. to explain why, psychologist tom stafford analyses a classic scientific study.
em how do you persuade somebody of the facts? asking them to be fair, impartial and unbiased is not enough. to explain why, psychologist tom stafford analyses a classic scientific study.
Bolds strong 1
b 0
i 1
em 1
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 125
Linki wewnętrzne 2
Linki zewnętrzne 123
Linki bez atrybutu Title 125
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/
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/
11 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/
3 comments on the gender similarities hypothesis https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/12/the-gender-similarities-hypothesis/#comments
no male and female brain types https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/11/no-male-and-female-brain-types/
sex beyond the genitalia: the human brain mosaic http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468.short
for overall size, at least, these differences are large https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/07/sex-differences-in-brain-size/
69%-77% accuracy http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/e1965.full.pdf
93% classification accuracy http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/e1968.full.pdf
joel et al.’s method systematically fails to detect large, consistent sex differences http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/e1965.full.pdf
patterns in the human brain mosaic discriminate males from females. http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/e1968.full.pdf
are gender feminists and transgender activists undermining science? http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-soh-trans-feminism-anti-science-20170210-story.html
betteridge’s law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
gender brain blogging https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/06/gender-brain-blogging/
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/11/no-male-and-female-brain-types/
gender https://mindhacks.com/category/gender/
12 comments on no male and female brain types https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/11/no-male-and-female-brain-types/#comments
sex differences in brain size https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/07/sex-differences-in-brain-size/
130 cubic centimeters http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0149763413003011
take into account body size https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1777850
the sex difference in brain volume development seems to begin around age two http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1989.tb03987.x/full
no difference in brain volume between male and female cats https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8132416
effect size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/effect_size
cohen’s d http://rpsychologist.com/d3/cohend/
~1.72 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/effect_size
- https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/mf_heights1.png
~1.3 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s092549279900044x
- https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/mf_brains1.png
~0.4 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716
- https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/mf_0p41.png
meta-analysis of male-female differences in brain structure http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0149763413003011
interactive effect size visualisation http://rpsychologist.com/d3/cohend/
gendered brain blogging https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/06/gender-brain-blogging/
andy fugard https://twitter.com/inductivestep
claims sex differences in brain size are already apparent in neonates https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23689636
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/07/sex-differences-in-brain-size/
gender https://mindhacks.com/category/gender/
10 comments on sex differences in brain size https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/07/sex-differences-in-brain-size/#comments
how to overcome bias https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/07/how-to-overcome-bias/
confirmation bias https://theconversation.com/confirmation-bias-a-psychological-phenomenon-that-helps-explain-why-pundits-got-it-wrong-68781
their study http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.595.8173&rep=rep1&type=pdf
previously http://nuovoeutile.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/biased-assimilation-and-attitude-polarization.pdf
the original here http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170131-why-wont-some-people-listen-to-reason
for argument’s sake: evidence that reason can change minds https://mindhacks.com/2015/07/01/for-arguments-sake/
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/07/how-to-overcome-bias/
reasoning https://mindhacks.com/category/reasoning/
leave a comment on how to overcome bias https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/07/how-to-overcome-bias/#respond
can boy monkeys throw? https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/06/can-boy-monkeys-throw/
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file:cebus_albifrons_edit.jpghttp://
some studies claim http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s1364661300015953
not so http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s1364661300015953
no difference in throwing accuracy between male and female capuchin monkeys http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0028393200000567
part of capuchin female sexual displays http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079535
most of the hypotheses [that male mammals have better spatial ability than females] are either logically flawed or, as yet, have no substantial support. few of the data exclusively support or exclude any current hypotheses http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2003-05069-002
a comparative study of aimed throwing by monkeys and humans. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0028393200000567
gendered brain blogging https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/06/gender-brain-blogging/
tomstafford https://mindhacks.com/author/tomstafford/
https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/06/can-boy-monkeys-throw/
gender https://mindhacks.com/category/gender/
3 comments on can boy monkeys throw? https://mindhacks.com/2017/02/06/can-boy-monkeys-throw/#comments
page 2 https://mindhacks.com/page/2/
page 738 https://mindhacks.com/page/738/
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 20
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 12
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 20
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

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://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7dd9602f405f761546c26fb04799e3da?s=49&d=identicon&r=g
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/mf_heights1.png?w=840
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/mf_brains1.png?w=840
https://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/mf_0p41.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://mindhacksblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/180px-cebus_albifrons_edit.jpg?w=840
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://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://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. 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 gender11 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 gender3 comments on the gender similarities hypothesis no male and female brain types what would it mean for there to be a “male brain” or a “female brain”? human genitals are mostly easy to categorise just by sight as either male or female. it makes sense to talk about there being different male and female types of genitals. what would it mean for the same to be true of brains? daphna joel and colleagues, in a 2015 paper sex beyond the genitalia: the human brain mosaic have a proposal on what needs to hold for us to be able to say there are distinct male and female varieties of brains: 1. particular brain features must be highly dimorphic (i.e., little overlap between the forms of these features in males and females). and 2. those features which are dimorphic must be consistent for each brain (i.e. a brain has only “male” or only “female” features). they analyse mri scans of 1400 human brains and find that these conditions don’t hold. there is extensive overlap, so that categorical brains, defined like this, just don’t exist. they write: …analyses of internal consistency reveal that brains with features that are consistently at one end of the “maleness-femaleness” continuum are rare. rather, most brains are comprised of unique “mosaics” of features, some more common in females compared with males, some more common in males compared with females, and some common in both females and males…our study demonstrates that, although there are sex/gender differences in the brain, human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain. so the easy gender categorisation we can do on the genitals doesn’t translate to the (usually-unseen) anatomy of the brain. the ‘male/female brain’ doesn’t exist in the same way as the male/female sex organs. context for this is that there are differences between the average male and average female brain (for overall size, at least, these differences are large). although there may not be categorical types, a follow up analysis showed that it is possible to classify the brains used in the joel paper as belonging to a man or a women at somewhere between 69%-77% accuracy. a related study, on a different data set, claimed 93% classification accuracy. paper: joel, d., berman, z., tavor, i., wexler, n., gaber, o., stein, y., … & liem, f. (2015). sex beyond the genitalia: the human brain mosaic. proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 112(50), 15468-15473. responses: del giudice, m., lippa, r. a., puts, d. a., bailey, d. h., bailey, j. m., & schmitt, d. p. (2016). joel et al.’s method systematically fails to detect large, consistent sex differences. proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 113(14), e1965-e1965. chekroud, a. m., ward, e. j., rosenberg, m. d., & holmes, a. j. (2016). patterns in the human brain mosaic discriminate males from females. proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 113(14), e1968-e1968. the responses are linked to in debra soh’s la times article are gender feminists and transgender activists undermining science? betteridge’s law previously: gender brain blogging author tomstaffordposted on february 11, 2017categories gender12 comments on no male and female brain types sex differences in brain size next time someone asks you “are men and women’s brains different?”, you can answer, without hesitation, “yes”. not only do they tend to be found in different types of bodies, but they are different sizes. men’s are typically larger by something like 130 cubic centimeters. not only are they actually larger, but they are larger even once you take into account body size (i.e. men’s brains are bigger even when accounting for the fact that heavier and/or taller people will tend to have bigger heads and brains, and than men tend to be heavier and taller than women). and this is despite the fact that there is no difference in size of brain at birth – the sex difference in brain volume development seems to begin around age two. (side note: no difference in brain volume between male and female cats). but is this difference in brain volume a lot? there’s substantial variation between individuals, as well as across the individuals of each sex. what does ~130cc mean in the context of this variation? one way of thinking about it is in terms of standardised effect size, which measures the size of a difference between the two population averages in standard units based on the variation within those populations. here’s a good example – we all know that men are taller than women. not all men are taller than all women, but men tend to be taller. with the effect size, we can precisely express this vague idea of ‘tend to be’. the (cohen’s d) effect size statistic of the height difference between men and women is ~1.72. what this means is that the distribution of heights in the two populations can be visualised like this: with this spread of heights, the average man is taller than 95.7% of women. estimates of the effect size of total brain volume vary, but a reasonable value is about ~1.3, which looks like this: this means that the average man has a larger brain, by volume, than 90% of the female population. for reference, psychology experiments typically look at phenomena with effet sizes of the order ~0.4 , which looks like this: and which means that the average of group a exceeds 65.5% of group b. in this context, human sexual dimorphism in brain volume is an extremely large effect. so when they ask “are men and women’s brains different?”, you can unhesitatingly say, “yes”. and when they ask “and what does that mean for differences in how they think” you can say “ah, now that’s a different issue”. link: meta-analysis of male-female differences in brain structure: kristoffer magnusson’s awesome interactive effect size visualisation previously: gendered brain blogging edit 8/2/17: andy fugard pointed out that there are many different measures of effect size, and i only discuss/use one: the cohen’s d effect size. i’ve edited the text to make this clearer. edit 2 (8/2/17): kevin mitchell points out this paper that claims sex differences in brain size are already apparent in neonates author tomstaffordposted on february 7, 2017february 8, 2017categories gender10 comments on sex differences in brain size how to overcome bias how do you persuade somebody of the facts? asking them to be fair, impartial and unbiased is not enough. to explain why, psychologist tom stafford analyses a classic scientific study. one of the tricks our mind plays is to highlight evidence which confirms what we already believe. if we hear gossip about a rival we tend to think “i knew he was a nasty piece of work”; if we hear the same about our best friend we’re more likely to say “that’s just a rumour”. if you don’t trust the government then a change of policy is evidence of their weakness; if you do trust them the same change of policy can be evidence of their inherent reasonableness. once you learn about this mental habit – called confirmation bias – you start seeing it everywhere. this matters when we want to make better decisions. confirmation bias is ok as long as we’re right, but all too often we’re wrong, and we only pay attention to the deciding evidence when it’s too late. how we should to protect our decisions from confirmation bias depends on why, psychologically, confirmation bias happens. there are, broadly, two possible accounts and a classic experiment from researchers at princeton university pits the two against each other, revealing in the process a method for overcoming bias. the first theory of confirmation bias is the most common. it’s the one you can detect in expressions like “you just believe what you want to believe”, or “he would say that, wouldn’t he?” or when the someone is accused of seeing things a particular way because of who they are, what their job is or which friends they have. let’s call this the motivational theory of confirmation bias. it has a clear prescription for correcting the bias: change people’s motivations and they’ll stop being biased. the alternative theory of confirmation bias is more subtle. the bias doesn’t exist because we only believe what we want to believe, but instead because we fail to ask the correct questions about new information and our own beliefs. this is a less neat theory, because there could be one hundred reasons why we reason incorrectly – everything from limitations of memory to inherent faults of logic. one possibility is that we simply have a blindspot in our imagination for the ways the world could be different from how we first assume it is. under this account the way to correct confirmation bias is to give people a strategy to adjust their thinking. we assume people are already motivated to find out the truth, they just need a better method. let’s call this the cognition theory of confirmation bias. thirty years ago, charles lord and colleagues published a classic experiment which pitted these two methods against each other. their study used a persuasion experiment which previously had shown a kind of confirmation bias they called ‘biased assimilation’. here, participants were recruited who had strong pro- or anti-death penalty views and were presented with evidence that seemed to support the continuation or abolition of the death penalty. obviously, depending on what you already believe, this evidence is either confirmatory or disconfirmatory. their original finding showed that the nature of the evidence didn’t matter as much as what people started out believing. confirmatory evidence strengthened people’s views, as you’d expect, but so did disconfirmatory evidence. that’s right, anti-death penalty people became more anti-death penalty when shown pro-death penalty evidence (and vice versa). a clear example of biased reasoning. for their follow-up study, lord and colleagues re-ran the biased assimilation experiment, but testing two types of instructions for assimilating evidence about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent for murder. the motivational instructions told participants to be “as objective and unbiased as possible”, to consider themselves “as a judge or juror asked to weigh all of the evidence in a fair and impartial manner”. the alternative, cognition-focused, instructions were silent on the desired outcome of the participants’ consideration, instead focusing only on the strategy to employ: “ask yourself at each step whether you would have made the same high or low evaluations had exactly the same study produced results on the other side of the issue.” so, for example, if presented with a piece of research that suggested the death penalty lowered murder rates, the participants were asked to analyse the study’s methodology and imagine the results pointed the opposite way. they called this the “consider the opposite” strategy, and the results were striking. instructed to be fair and impartial, participants showed the exact same biases when weighing the evidence as in the original experiment. pro-death penalty participants thought the evidence supported the death penalty. anti-death penalty participants thought it supported abolition. wanting to make unbiased decisions wasn’t enough. the “consider the opposite” participants, on the other hand, completely overcame the biased assimilation effect – they weren’t driven to rate the studies which agreed with their preconceptions as better than the ones that disagreed, and didn’t become more extreme in their views regardless of which evidence they read. the finding is good news for our faith in human nature. it isn’t that we don’t want to discover the truth, at least in the microcosm of reasoning tested in the experiment. all people needed was a strategy which helped them overcome the natural human short-sightedness to alternatives. the moral for making better decisions is clear: wanting to be fair and objective alone isn’t enough. what’s needed are practical methods for correcting our limited reasoning – and a major limitation is our imagination for how else things might be. if we’re lucky, someone else will point out these alternatives, but if we’re on our own we can still take advantage of crutches for the mind like the “consider the opposite” strategy. this is my bbc future column from last week. you can read the original here. my ebook for argument’s sake: evidence that reason can change minds is out now. author tomstaffordposted on february 7, 2017february 6, 2017categories reasoningleave a comment on how to overcome bias can boy monkeys throw? aimed throwing is a gendered activity – men are typically better at it than women (by about 1 standard deviation, some studies claim). obviously this could be due to differential practice, which is in turn due to cultural bias in what men vs women are expected to be a good at and enjoy (some say “not so” to this practice-effect explanation). monkeys are interesting because they are close evolutionary relatives, but don’t have human gender expectations. so we note with interest this 2000 study which claims no difference in throwing accuracy between male and female capuchin monkeys. in fact, the female monkeys were (non-significantly) more accurate than the males (perhaps due to throwing as part of capuchin female sexual displays?). elsewhere, a review of cross-species gender differences in spatial ability finds “most of the hypotheses [that male mammals have better spatial ability than females] are either logically flawed or, as yet, have no substantial support. few of the data exclusively support or exclude any current hypotheses“. chimps are closer relatives to humans than monkeys, but although there is a literature on gendered differences in object use/preference among chimps, i couldn’t immediately find anything on gendered differences in throwing among chimps. possibly because few scientists want to get near a chimp when it is flinging sh*t around. cite: westergaard, g. c., liv, c., haynie, m. k., & suomi, s. j. (2000). a comparative study of aimed throwing by monkeys and humans. neuropsychologia, 38(11), 1511-1517. previously: gendered brain blogging author tomstaffordposted on february 6, 2017february 6, 2017categories gender3 comments on can boy monkeys throw? posts navigation page 1 page 2 … page 738 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: 3703

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 7.59% (281)
and - 2.7% (100)
men - 1.81% (67)
are - 1.62% (60)
end - 1.57% (58)
male - 1.54% (57)
difference - 1.51% (56)
brain - 1.49% (55)
for - 1.38% (51)
all - 1.22% (45)
gender - 1.16% (43)
that - 1.13% (42)
differences - 1.13% (42)
this - 0.95% (35)
here - 0.86% (32)
female - 0.78% (29)
how - 0.7% (26)
out - 0.7% (26)
not - 0.68% (25)
bias - 0.68% (25)
can - 0.65% (24)
you - 0.62% (23)
man - 0.62% (23)
sex - 0.59% (22)
evidence - 0.57% (21)
our - 0.57% (21)
they - 0.57% (21)
size - 0.57% (21)
what - 0.57% (21)
there - 0.54% (20)
which - 0.54% (20)
but - 0.51% (19)
different - 0.49% (18)
part - 0.49% (18)
effect - 0.49% (18)
women - 0.46% (17)
males - 0.46% (17)
with - 0.46% (17)
age - 0.43% (16)
one - 0.43% (16)
some - 0.43% (16)
their - 0.41% (15)
brains - 0.38% (14)
rate - 0.38% (14)
call - 0.38% (14)
about - 0.35% (13)
have - 0.35% (13)
tom - 0.35% (13)
february - 0.35% (13)
more - 0.35% (13)
these - 0.35% (13)
between - 0.32% (12)
human - 0.32% (12)
low - 0.32% (12)
able - 0.32% (12)
read - 0.32% (12)
blog - 0.32% (12)
find - 0.32% (12)
than - 0.32% (12)
post - 0.32% (12)
think - 0.3% (11)
like - 0.3% (11)
show - 0.3% (11)
mind - 0.3% (11)
- 0.3% (11)
search - 0.27% (10)
confirmation - 0.27% (10)
death - 0.27% (10)
study - 0.27% (10)
penalty - 0.27% (10)
side - 0.27% (10)
stafford - 0.27% (10)
cognition - 0.27% (10)
reason - 0.27% (10)
were - 0.27% (10)
two - 0.24% (9)
people - 0.24% (9)
ask - 0.24% (9)
when - 0.24% (9)
only - 0.24% (9)
mean - 0.24% (9)
other - 0.24% (9)
same - 0.22% (8)
participants - 0.22% (8)
biased - 0.22% (8)
type - 0.22% (8)
see - 0.22% (8)
similar - 0.22% (8)
females - 0.22% (8)
hacks - 0.22% (8)
may - 0.22% (8)
thinking - 0.22% (8)
large - 0.22% (8)
research - 0.22% (8)
studies - 0.22% (8)
comment - 0.22% (8)
priming - 0.22% (8)
ability - 0.22% (8)
monkeys - 0.19% (7)
2017categories - 0.19% (7)
mental - 0.19% (7)
small - 0.19% (7)
tomstaffordposted - 0.19% (7)
author - 0.19% (7)
support - 0.19% (7)
from - 0.19% (7)
want - 0.19% (7)
- 0.19% (7)
because - 0.19% (7)
experiment - 0.19% (7)
average - 0.19% (7)
results - 0.19% (7)
say - 0.19% (7)
most - 0.19% (7)
types - 0.19% (7)
better - 0.19% (7)
just - 0.19% (7)
change - 0.19% (7)
way - 0.19% (7)
tend - 0.19% (7)
we’re - 0.16% (6)
method - 0.16% (6)
size, - 0.16% (6)
cognitive - 0.16% (6)
each - 0.16% (6)
would - 0.16% (6)
them - 0.16% (6)
analysis - 0.16% (6)
does - 0.16% (6)
don’t - 0.16% (6)
time - 0.16% (6)
features - 0.16% (6)
hypothesis - 0.16% (6)
very - 0.16% (6)
effects - 0.16% (6)
comments - 0.16% (6)
volume - 0.16% (6)
previously - 0.16% (6)
believe - 0.16% (6)
taller - 0.16% (6)
similarities - 0.16% (6)
views - 0.16% (6)
consider - 0.16% (6)
off - 0.16% (6)
make - 0.16% (6)
now - 0.16% (6)
page - 0.16% (6)
gendered - 0.14% (5)
previously: - 0.14% (5)
reasoning - 0.14% (5)
common - 0.14% (5)
fast - 0.14% (5)
2017february - 0.14% (5)
analyse - 0.14% (5)
correct - 0.14% (5)
own - 0.14% (5)
sure - 0.14% (5)
theory - 0.14% (5)
even - 0.14% (5)
that’s - 0.14% (5)
blogging - 0.14% (5)
paper - 0.14% (5)
2016 - 0.14% (5)
kahneman - 0.14% (5)
fact - 0.14% (5)
book - 0.14% (5)
under - 0.14% (5)
strategy - 0.14% (5)
original - 0.14% (5)
did - 0.14% (5)
need - 0.14% (5)
particular - 0.14% (5)
has - 0.14% (5)
example - 0.14% (5)
throwing - 0.14% (5)
new - 0.14% (5)
standard - 0.14% (5)
social - 0.14% (5)
chimp - 0.11% (4)
hyde - 0.11% (4)
she - 0.11% (4)
mosaic - 0.11% (4)
significant - 0.11% (4)
where - 0.11% (4)
fair - 0.11% (4)
“thinking - 0.11% (4)
neuroscience - 0.11% (4)
links - 0.11% (4)
psychological - 0.11% (4)
response - 0.11% (4)
few - 0.11% (4)
abilities - 0.11% (4)
slow” - 0.11% (4)
text - 0.11% (4)
account - 0.11% (4)
review - 0.11% (4)
measure - 0.11% (4)
confirmatory - 0.11% (4)
less - 0.11% (4)
larger - 0.11% (4)
take - 0.11% (4)
too - 0.11% (4)
anti-death - 0.11% (4)
men’s - 0.11% (4)
look - 0.11% (4)
who - 0.11% (4)
joel - 0.11% (4)
used - 0.11% (4)
why - 0.11% (4)
behaviour - 0.11% (4)
then - 0.11% (4)
clear - 0.11% (4)
know - 0.11% (4)
any - 0.11% (4)
due - 0.11% (4)
already - 0.11% (4)
article - 0.11% (4)
point - 0.11% (4)
possible - 0.11% (4)
decisions - 0.11% (4)
alternative - 0.11% (4)
opposite - 0.11% (4)
population - 0.11% (4)
brain, - 0.11% (4)
physical - 0.11% (4)
issue - 0.11% (4)
could - 0.11% (4)
articles - 0.08% (3)
although - 0.08% (3)
enough. - 0.08% (3)
piece - 0.08% (3)
weak - 0.08% (3)
kahneman’s - 0.08% (3)
that, - 0.08% (3)
edit - 0.08% (3)
brain. - 0.08% (3)
national - 0.08% (3)
academy - 0.08% (3)
study, - 0.08% (3)
hold - 0.08% (3)
sciences, - 0.08% (3)
across - 0.08% (3)
exist - 0.08% (3)
m., - 0.08% (3)
(2016). - 0.08% (3)
someone - 0.08% (3)
consistent - 0.08% (3)
power - 0.08% (3)
(i.e. - 0.08% (3)
showed - 0.08% (3)
either - 0.08% (3)
bias. - 0.08% (3)
long - 0.08% (3)
easy - 0.08% (3)
genitals - 0.08% (3)
follow - 0.08% (3)
categorical - 0.08% (3)
behavior - 0.08% (3)
doesn’t - 0.08% (3)
instead - 0.08% (3)
overcome - 0.08% (3)
context - 0.08% (3)
imagination - 0.08% (3)
“male - 0.08% (3)
cohen’s - 0.08% (3)
proceedings - 0.08% (3)
presented - 0.08% (3)
colleagues - 0.08% (3)
once - 0.08% (3)
matt - 0.08% (3)
this: - 0.08% (3)
opposite” - 0.08% (3)
had - 0.08% (3)
more, - 0.08% (3)
analyses - 0.08% (3)
will - 0.08% (3)
serve - 0.08% (3)
actually - 0.08% (3)
classic - 0.08% (3)
policy - 0.08% (3)
possibility - 0.08% (3)
chimps - 0.08% (3)
immutable - 0.08% (3)
variation - 0.08% (3)
expectations - 0.08% (3)
here. - 0.08% (3)
object - 0.08% (3)
was - 0.08% (3)
measures - 0.08% (3)
interest - 0.08% (3)
accuracy - 0.08% (3)
women. - 0.08% (3)
good - 0.08% (3)
aimed - 0.08% (3)
height - 0.08% (3)
against - 0.08% (3)
means - 0.08% (3)
seem - 0.08% (3)
vocabulary - 0.08% (3)
standardised - 0.08% (3)
been - 0.08% (3)
else - 0.08% (3)
“consider - 0.08% (3)
exact - 0.08% (3)
impartial - 0.08% (3)
subtle - 0.08% (3)
detect - 0.08% (3)
true - 0.08% (3)
chapter - 0.08% (3)
pro- - 0.08% (3)
practice - 0.08% (3)
right - 0.08% (3)
typically - 0.08% (3)
didn’t - 0.08% (3)
much - 0.08% (3)
mindhacks.com - 0.08% (3)
focus - 0.08% (3)
statistic - 0.08% (3)
get - 0.08% (3)
isn’t - 0.08% (3)
unbiased - 0.08% (3)
called - 0.08% (3)
among - 0.08% (3)
psychology - 0.08% (3)
instructions - 0.08% (3)
give - 0.08% (3)
“as - 0.08% (3)
all, - 0.08% (3)
assimilation - 0.08% (3)
rotation - 0.08% (3)
high - 0.08% (3)
views. - 0.05% (2)
hear - 0.05% (2)
right, - 0.05% (2)
it’s - 0.05% (2)
psychologist - 0.05% (2)
are, - 0.05% (2)
first - 0.05% (2)
seeing - 0.05% (2)
plays - 0.05% (2)
why, - 0.05% (2)
tricks - 0.05% (2)
start - 0.05% (2)
trust - 0.05% (2)
friend - 0.05% (2)
inherent - 0.05% (2)
below - 0.05% (2)
things - 0.05% (2)
humans - 0.05% (2)
ebook - 0.05% (2)
boy - 0.05% (2)
throw? - 0.05% (2)
obviously - 0.05% (2)
interesting - 0.05% (2)
close - 0.05% (2)
note - 0.05% (2)
2000 - 0.05% (2)
capuchin - 0.05% (2)
spatial - 0.05% (2)
hypotheses - 0.05% (2)
logically - 0.05% (2)
or, - 0.05% (2)
relatives - 0.05% (2)
anything - 0.05% (2)
needed - 0.05% (2)
c., - 0.05% (2)
posts - 0.05% (2)
pages - 0.05% (2)
your - 0.05% (2)
- 0.05% (2)
amazon - 0.05% (2)
off) - 0.05% (2)
contact - 0.05% (2)
please - 0.05% (2)
ads - 0.05% (2)
words - 0.05% (2)
email - 0.05% (2)
place - 0.05% (2)
wordpress.com. - 0.05% (2)
limitation - 0.05% (2)
least - 0.05% (2)
let’s - 0.05% (2)
abolition - 0.05% (2)
news - 0.05% (2)
motivational - 0.05% (2)
correcting - 0.05% (2)
people’s - 0.05% (2)
believe, - 0.05% (2)
fail - 0.05% (2)
everything - 0.05% (2)
assume - 0.05% (2)
is. - 0.05% (2)
truth, - 0.05% (2)
lord - 0.05% (2)
methods - 0.05% (2)
shown - 0.05% (2)
here, - 0.05% (2)
penalty. - 0.05% (2)
extreme - 0.05% (2)
finding - 0.05% (2)
nature - 0.05% (2)
matter - 0.05% (2)
pro-death - 0.05% (2)
objective - 0.05% (2)
asked - 0.05% (2)
weigh - 0.05% (2)
suggested - 0.05% (2)
murder - 0.05% (2)
experiment. - 0.05% (2)
thought - 0.05% (2)
supported - 0.05% (2)
wanting - 0.05% (2)
agreed - 0.05% (2)
disconfirmatory - 0.05% (2)
conditions - 0.05% (2)
claims - 0.05% (2)
small, - 0.05% (2)
such - 0.05% (2)
contingent - 0.05% (2)
proportion - 0.05% (2)
cognition: - 0.05% (2)
(cohen’s - 0.05% (2)
put - 0.05% (2)
fundamental - 0.05% (2)
sex. - 0.05% (2)
areas - 0.05% (2)
all. - 0.05% (2)
maybe - 0.05% (2)
analysis, - 0.05% (2)
most, - 0.05% (2)
‘reconstruction - 0.05% (2)
published - 0.05% (2)
behaviour. - 0.05% (2)
wreck: - 0.05% (2)
14, - 0.05% (2)
moderate - 0.05% (2)
skill - 0.05% (2)
depending - 0.05% (2)
both - 0.05% (2)
environment - 0.05% (2)
popular - 0.05% (2)
system - 0.05% (2)
structural - 0.05% (2)
sex/gender - 0.05% (2)
2017) - 0.05% (2)
journal - 0.05% (2)
this, - 0.05% (2)
difference. - 0.05% (2)
functional - 0.05% (2)
reliable - 0.05% (2)
train - 0.05% (2)
‘gender - 0.05% (2)
males. - 0.05% (2)
pattern - 0.05% (2)
reading - 0.05% (2)
worth - 0.05% (2)
kesavan - 0.05% (2)
faith - 0.05% (2)
statistical - 0.05% (2)
near - 0.05% (2)
argument - 0.05% (2)
kamini - 0.05% (2)
strong - 0.05% (2)
references - 0.05% (2)
scientific - 0.05% (2)
should - 0.05% (2)
observed - 0.05% (2)
100% - 0.05% (2)
shows - 0.05% (2)
history - 0.05% (2)
prime - 0.05% (2)
indeed, - 0.05% (2)
i’ve - 0.05% (2)
into - 0.05% (2)
translate - 0.05% (2)
went - 0.05% (2)
rails‘, - 0.05% (2)
cognition. - 0.05% (2)
ulrich - 0.05% (2)
schimmack, - 0.05% (2)
(e.g. - 0.05% (2)
moritz - 0.05% (2)
16, - 0.05% (2)
heene, - 0.05% (2)
respond - 0.05% (2)
scientists - 0.05% (2)
showing - 0.05% (2)
well - 0.05% (2)
advantage - 0.05% (2)
cues - 0.05% (2)
pointed - 0.05% (2)
responses - 0.05% (2)
“are - 0.05% (2)
next - 0.05% (2)
11, - 0.05% (2)
law - 0.05% (2)
times - 0.05% (2)
linked - 0.05% (2)
113(14), - 0.05% (2)
different?”, - 0.05% (2)
bailey, - 0.05% (2)
a., - 0.05% (2)
del - 0.05% (2)
d., - 0.05% (2)
data - 0.05% (2)
accuracy. - 0.05% (2)
male/female - 0.05% (2)
women’s - 0.05% (2)
“yes”. - 0.05% (2)
males, - 0.05% (2)
heights - 0.05% (2)
sexual - 0.05% (2)
group - 0.05% (2)
sizes - 0.05% (2)
looks - 0.05% (2)
reasonable - 0.05% (2)
populations - 0.05% (2)
express - 0.05% (2)
130 - 0.05% (2)
here’s - 0.05% (2)
individuals - 0.05% (2)
substantial - 0.05% (2)
around - 0.05% (2)
heavier - 0.05% (2)
bigger - 0.05% (2)
body - 0.05% (2)
belong - 0.05% (2)
compared - 0.05% (2)
differences, - 0.05% (2)
expected - 0.05% (2)
develop - 0.05% (2)
challenge - 0.05% (2)
real - 0.05% (2)
opportunities - 0.05% (2)
motivations - 0.05% (2)
produce - 0.05% (2)
exactly - 0.05% (2)
going - 0.05% (2)
maths - 0.05% (2)
likely - 0.05% (2)
example, - 0.05% (2)
wear - 0.05% (2)
idea - 0.05% (2)
game - 0.05% (2)
name - 0.05% (2)
without - 0.05% (2)
educational - 0.05% (2)
reveal - 0.05% (2)
genitalia: - 0.05% (2)
brains, - 0.05% (2)
those - 0.05% (2)
overlap - 0.05% (2)
dimorphic - 0.05% (2)
must - 0.05% (2)
distinct - 0.05% (2)
beyond - 0.05% (2)
replicable - 0.05% (2)
2015 - 0.05% (2)
being - 0.05% (2)
sight - 0.05% (2)
“female - 0.05% (2)
brain” - 0.05% (2)
gender3 - 0.05% (2)
current - 0.05% (2)
hyde, - 0.05% (2)
of the - 0.76% (28)
differences in - 0.65% (24)
in the - 0.54% (20)
gender difference - 0.41% (15)
at the - 0.38% (14)
on the - 0.38% (14)
gender differences - 0.32% (12)
in brain - 0.3% (11)
that the - 0.27% (10)
and female - 0.27% (10)
sex difference - 0.27% (10)
death penalty - 0.27% (10)
confirmation bias - 0.27% (10)
male and - 0.24% (9)
sex differences - 0.24% (9)
here is - 0.24% (9)
difference in - 0.22% (8)
men and - 0.22% (8)
there are - 0.22% (8)
female brain - 0.22% (8)
effect size - 0.22% (8)
for the - 0.19% (7)
on february - 0.19% (7)
author tomstaffordposted - 0.19% (7)
there is - 0.19% (7)
the same - 0.19% (7)
tomstaffordposted on - 0.19% (7)
the gender - 0.16% (6)
is that - 0.16% (6)
men are - 0.16% (6)
is the - 0.16% (6)
the evidence - 0.16% (6)
the brain - 0.16% (6)
tend to - 0.16% (6)
similarities hypothesis - 0.16% (6)
you can - 0.16% (6)
gender similarities - 0.16% (6)
in size - 0.14% (5)
comments on - 0.14% (5)
in cognition - 0.14% (5)
fast and - 0.14% (5)
brain volume - 0.14% (5)
social priming - 0.14% (5)
thinking fast - 0.14% (5)
to find - 0.14% (5)
of confirmation - 0.14% (5)
brain blogging - 0.14% (5)
want to - 0.14% (5)
human brain - 0.14% (5)
consider the - 0.14% (5)
this is - 0.11% (4)
bias is - 0.11% (4)
with the - 0.11% (4)
no difference - 0.11% (4)
between the - 0.11% (4)
anti-death penalty - 0.11% (4)
– the - 0.11% (4)
theory of - 0.11% (4)
as the - 0.11% (4)
they are - 0.11% (4)
taller than - 0.11% (4)
are small - 0.11% (4)
brain size - 0.11% (4)
the average - 0.11% (4)
“thinking fast - 0.11% (4)
due to - 0.11% (4)
in their - 0.11% (4)
and slow” - 0.11% (4)
mind hacks - 0.11% (4)
no male - 0.08% (3)
priming research - 0.08% (3)
mental rotation - 0.08% (3)
males and - 0.08% (3)
that there - 0.08% (3)
d effect - 0.08% (3)
proceedings of - 0.08% (3)
because we - 0.08% (3)
may be - 0.08% (3)
like this: - 0.08% (3)
biased assimilation - 0.08% (3)
types of - 0.08% (3)
and the - 0.08% (3)
the results - 0.08% (3)
some more - 0.08% (3)
the opposite” - 0.08% (3)
to the - 0.08% (3)
6, 2017categories - 0.08% (3)
the original - 0.08% (3)
this the - 0.08% (3)
cognition are - 0.08% (3)
the national - 0.08% (3)
brain types - 0.08% (3)
than women - 0.08% (3)
of sciences, - 0.08% (3)
national academy - 0.08% (3)
academy of - 0.08% (3)
between male - 0.08% (3)
the “consider - 0.08% (3)
a classic - 0.08% (3)
to make - 0.08% (3)
are no - 0.08% (3)
physical differences - 0.08% (3)
do not - 0.08% (3)
have a - 0.08% (3)
brain mosaic - 0.08% (3)
on what - 0.08% (3)
the human - 0.08% (3)
common in - 0.08% (3)
not all - 0.08% (3)
is evidence - 0.08% (3)
the two - 0.08% (3)
and colleagues - 0.08% (3)
if you - 0.08% (3)
difference between - 0.08% (3)
find out - 0.08% (3)
effect size, - 0.08% (3)
we can - 0.08% (3)
mean for - 0.08% (3)
“consider the - 0.08% (3)
differences between - 0.08% (3)
fair and - 0.08% (3)
could be - 0.08% (3)
gender brain - 0.08% (3)
of brain - 0.08% (3)
although there - 0.08% (3)
evidence that - 0.08% (3)
we hear - 0.05% (2)
to think - 0.05% (2)
on gendered - 0.05% (2)
one of - 0.05% (2)
7, 2017february - 0.05% (2)
6, 2017february - 0.05% (2)
previously: gendered - 0.05% (2)
average man - 0.05% (2)
means that - 0.05% (2)
of group - 0.05% (2)
hacks blog - 0.05% (2)
they ask - 0.05% (2)
when they - 0.05% (2)
what does - 0.05% (2)
in how - 0.05% (2)
blog at - 0.05% (2)
and unbiased - 0.05% (2)
→ at - 0.05% (2)
at amazon - 0.05% (2)
tom stafford - 0.05% (2)
neuroscience and - 0.05% (2)
on sex - 0.05% (2)
on can - 0.05% (2)
how to - 0.05% (2)
overcome bias - 0.05% (2)
piece of - 0.05% (2)
confirmatory evidence - 0.05% (2)
likely to - 0.05% (2)
with a - 0.05% (2)
than the - 0.05% (2)
we want - 0.05% (2)
that we - 0.05% (2)
the other - 0.05% (2)
participants thought - 0.05% (2)
imagination for - 0.05% (2)
how we - 0.05% (2)
people a - 0.05% (2)
they called - 0.05% (2)
strategy to - 0.05% (2)
are already - 0.05% (2)
at least - 0.05% (2)
the truth, - 0.05% (2)
and impartial - 0.05% (2)
asked to - 0.05% (2)
participants were - 0.05% (2)
the biased - 0.05% (2)
lord and - 0.05% (2)
to support - 0.05% (2)
death penalty. - 0.05% (2)
a clear - 0.05% (2)
pro-death penalty - 0.05% (2)
believe what - 0.05% (2)
we only - 0.05% (2)
trust the - 0.05% (2)
and we - 0.05% (2)
of policy - 0.05% (2)
gendered differences - 0.05% (2)
of their - 0.05% (2)
you do - 0.05% (2)
change of - 0.05% (2)
the female - 0.05% (2)
once you - 0.05% (2)
men vs - 0.05% (2)
when we - 0.05% (2)
boy monkeys - 0.05% (2)
classic experiment - 0.05% (2)
our imagination - 0.05% (2)
against each - 0.05% (2)
to overcome - 0.05% (2)
2017february 6, - 0.05% (2)
february 7, - 0.05% (2)
what you - 0.05% (2)
let’s call - 0.05% (2)
for correcting - 0.05% (2)
motivations and - 0.05% (2)
if we’re - 0.05% (2)
the alternative - 0.05% (2)
our own - 0.05% (2)
and psychology - 0.05% (2)
which looks - 0.05% (2)
priming studies - 0.05% (2)
‘reconstruction of - 0.05% (2)
a train - 0.05% (2)
wreck: how - 0.05% (2)
went off - 0.05% (2)
the rails‘, - 0.05% (2)
ulrich schimmack, - 0.05% (2)
moritz heene, - 0.05% (2)
and kamini - 0.05% (2)
february 16, - 0.05% (2)
comment on - 0.05% (2)
the social - 0.05% (2)
in “thinking - 0.05% (2)
– they - 0.05% (2)
slow” are - 0.05% (2)
not very - 0.05% (2)
thinking about - 0.05% (2)
between men - 0.05% (2)
most, but - 0.05% (2)
these differences - 0.05% (2)
the physical - 0.05% (2)
(cohen’s d - 0.05% (2)
end of - 0.05% (2)
need a - 0.05% (2)
what is - 0.05% (2)
well as - 0.05% (2)
the size - 0.05% (2)
and expectations - 0.05% (2)
rails‘, ulrich - 0.05% (2)
studies in - 0.05% (2)
are not - 0.05% (2)
very replicable - 0.05% (2)
that subtle - 0.05% (2)
cues in - 0.05% (2)
effects on - 0.05% (2)
is not - 0.05% (2)
train wreck: - 0.05% (2)
how priming - 0.05% (2)
research went - 0.05% (2)
off the - 0.05% (2)
schimmack, moritz - 0.05% (2)
faith in - 0.05% (2)
heene, and - 0.05% (2)
kamini kesavan - 0.05% (2)
evidence for - 0.05% (2)
the 12 - 0.05% (2)
analysis of - 0.05% (2)
100% significant - 0.05% (2)
subtle cues - 0.05% (2)
if the - 0.05% (2)
power of - 0.05% (2)
the studies - 0.05% (2)
to detect - 0.05% (2)
what the - 0.05% (2)
what proportion - 0.05% (2)
one possibility - 0.05% (2)
can be - 0.05% (2)
brains different?”, - 0.05% (2)
the genitalia: - 0.05% (2)
must be - 0.05% (2)
human brains - 0.05% (2)
brains are - 0.05% (2)
males compared - 0.05% (2)
doesn’t exist - 0.05% (2)
a different - 0.05% (2)
sciences, 113(14), - 0.05% (2)
blogging author - 0.05% (2)
“are men - 0.05% (2)
and women’s - 0.05% (2)
not only - 0.05% (2)
it mean - 0.05% (2)
but they - 0.05% (2)
fact that - 0.05% (2)
men tend - 0.05% (2)
heavier and - 0.05% (2)
as well - 0.05% (2)
of this - 0.05% (2)
way of - 0.05% (2)
that men - 0.05% (2)
are taller - 0.05% (2)
this means - 0.05% (2)
of heights - 0.05% (2)
sex beyond - 0.05% (2)
what would - 0.05% (2)
and cognitive - 0.05% (2)
vs women - 0.05% (2)
of neuroscience - 0.05% (2)
february 14, - 0.05% (2)
women are - 0.05% (2)
for this - 0.05% (2)
and females - 0.05% (2)
but not - 0.05% (2)
depending on - 0.05% (2)
for example, - 0.05% (2)
more likely - 0.05% (2)
of each - 0.05% (2)
that’s a - 0.05% (2)
of cognitive - 0.05% (2)
would it - 0.05% (2)
challenge is - 0.05% (2)
sure which - 0.05% (2)
and which - 0.05% (2)
history of - 0.05% (2)
in our - 0.05% (2)
one way - 0.05% (2)
look at - 0.05% (2)
can read - 0.05% (2)
on this - 0.05% (2)
in this - 0.05% (2)
hyde, j. - 0.05% (2)
gender3 comments - 0.05% (2)
at wordpress.com. - 0.05% (2)
male and female - 0.22% (8)
sex differences in - 0.22% (8)
tomstaffordposted on february - 0.19% (7)
author tomstaffordposted on - 0.19% (7)
gender similarities hypothesis - 0.16% (6)
gender differences in - 0.16% (6)
men and women - 0.16% (6)
differences in cognition - 0.14% (5)
of confirmation bias - 0.14% (5)
the gender similarities - 0.11% (4)
tend to be - 0.11% (4)
“thinking fast and - 0.11% (4)
and female brain - 0.11% (4)
the death penalty - 0.11% (4)
confirmation bias is - 0.11% (4)
in brain size - 0.11% (4)
theory of confirmation - 0.11% (4)
previously: gender brain - 0.08% (3)
there is a - 0.08% (3)
differences in the - 0.08% (3)
no male and - 0.08% (3)
proceedings of the - 0.08% (3)
“consider the opposite” - 0.08% (3)
the “consider the - 0.08% (3)
the human brain - 0.08% (3)
female brain types - 0.08% (3)
difference in brain - 0.08% (3)
national academy of - 0.08% (3)
looks like this: - 0.05% (2)
the average man - 0.05% (2)
difference between men - 0.05% (2)
the fact that - 0.05% (2)
men are taller - 0.05% (2)
there is no - 0.05% (2)
the size of - 0.05% (2)
the two population - 0.05% (2)
are taller than - 0.05% (2)
social priming studies - 0.05% (2)
to overcome bias - 0.05% (2)
, which looks - 0.05% (2)
of the evidence - 0.05% (2)
mind hacks blog - 0.05% (2)
→ at amazon - 0.05% (2)
neuroscience and psychology - 0.05% (2)
can boy monkeys - 0.05% (2)
gender3 comments on - 0.05% (2)
on gendered differences - 0.05% (2)
boy monkeys throw? - 0.05% (2)
2017february 6, 2017categories - 0.05% (2)
the biased assimilation - 0.05% (2)
the death penalty. - 0.05% (2)
and women’s brains - 0.05% (2)
lord and colleagues - 0.05% (2)
to find out - 0.05% (2)
our imagination for - 0.05% (2)
call this the - 0.05% (2)
a classic experiment - 0.05% (2)
change of policy - 0.05% (2)
on february 7, - 0.05% (2)
previously: gendered brain - 0.05% (2)
different?”, you can - 0.05% (2)
but they are - 0.05% (2)
beyond the genitalia: - 0.05% (2)
brains different?”, you - 0.05% (2)
the 12 articles - 0.05% (2)
schimmack, moritz heene, - 0.05% (2)
the rails‘, ulrich - 0.05% (2)
research went off - 0.05% (2)
wreck: how priming - 0.05% (2)
of a train - 0.05% (2)
as well as - 0.05% (2)
subtle cues in - 0.05% (2)
heene, and kamini - 0.05% (2)
slow” are not - 0.05% (2)
ulrich schimmack, moritz - 0.05% (2)
off the rails‘, - 0.05% (2)
priming research went - 0.05% (2)
train wreck: how - 0.05% (2)
‘reconstruction of a - 0.05% (2)
cues in the - 0.05% (2)
not very replicable - 0.05% (2)
and slow” are - 0.05% (2)
priming studies in - 0.05% (2)
is no difference - 0.05% (2)
men and women’s - 0.05% (2)
one way of - 0.05% (2)
blogging author tomstaffordposted - 0.05% (2)
the genitalia: the - 0.05% (2)
more common in - 0.05% (2)
in “thinking fast - 0.05% (2)
mean for the - 0.05% (2)
what would it - 0.05% (2)
hyde, j. s. - 0.05% (2)
differences between the - 0.05% (2)
differences in how - 0.05% (2)
between men and - 0.05% (2)
is to find - 0.05% (2)
more likely to - 0.05% (2)
differences in ability - 0.05% (2)
gender difference in - 0.05% (2)
males and females - 0.05% (2)
comments on sex - 0.05% (2)
journal of neuroscience - 0.05% (2)
what proportion is - 0.05% (2)
hacks blog at - 0.05% (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.