Un-Scientific American lends credibility to Gender Junk Science about the Hubble Telescope

A few months ago I bought a copy of National Geographic for a small sum at my local library, because it contained a lengthy article purporting to explain the current state of knowledge about the human brain. On a page just before the article there was a short piece about how women are typically markedly better at facial recognition than men, and speculation as to the evolutionary basis for this difference. In plain English, a gender-typical brain difference was being mooted, although the piece didn’t say so explicitly.

With every month that passes, neuroscientists are discovering and describing more differences between the brains of gender-typical men and women. In our list of recommended books we include one written by a Dutch scientist, Dick Swaab – We Are Our Brains: From the Womb to Alzheimer’s (2014).

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen at Cambridge University has demonstrated gender-typical preferences in babies of just a few days of age – males being drawn to mechanical objects, females to human faces. Social conditioning – the social engineers’ explanation for all gender-typical differences – cannot have been a factor at this early stage in these babies’ development.  The article in National Geographic was fascinating, and beautifully illustrated, but what did it report on the current state of knowledge about gender-typical brain differences?


This brings us to an interesting piece on the website ‘Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception’, on the impact of political correctness (cultural Marxism) on Scientific Americanhere.

One thought on “Un-Scientific American lends credibility to Gender Junk Science about the Hubble Telescope

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.