A Review of the Recent Literature on the Psychology of Sex.

Abstract

Although the past few years have witnessed the appearance of a number of comprehensive and even encyclopedic works on various aspects of the problem of sex, there has been comparatively little advance in knowledge of the mental characteristics of sex.The few positive contributions in the literature of anatomy and experimental psychology I will review first, and will then deal briefly with the more pretentious treatises which are summaries and theoretical discussions.The most important single contribution to our knowledge of the facts of the case is to be found in Dr. Franklin P. Mall's paper ' On Several Anatomical Characters of the Human Brain Said to Vary According to Race and Sex, with Especial Reference to the Weight of the Frontal Lobe' (Am.J. of Ana(.,lX., p. i, 1909).Dr. Mall's general conclusion is that there is as yet no reliable evidence for the variation of anatomical characters with either race or sex.The belief that the brains of females differ from those of males has been widely accepted, and has been thought to be conclusive evidence of the permanent inferiority of the female mind.The points in which the female brain has been said to be inferior to the male are: (1) total weight; (2) proportionate weight of the frontal lobe indicated by (a) actual weighings, and (b) determinations of the position of the central sulcus;(3) the area of the corpus callosum; (4) the complexity of gyri and sulci; (5) the conformation of gyri and sulci; and (6) the rate of development of the cortex in the foetus.Dr. Mall's paper gives a critical review of the literature of the subject to date, and adds important new data.It is now a generally accepted belief that the smaller gross weight of the female brain has no significance other than that of the smaller average size of the female.With regard to the other anatomical characters enumerated, Dr. Mall shows that those observers who have found differences characteristic of sex have been guilty of serious errors in scientific procedure.They have based conclusions on too small a series of observations, have used methods too crude to make anything but large and constant differences (which they did not obtain) significant, have made their determinations with a knowledge of the sex of

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 89 citations exist upstream.