Educational neuro-nonsense, or: The Return of the Crockus

By Neuroskeptic | November 19, 2008 11:31 pm

Vicky Tuck, President of the British Girls’ Schools Association, has some odd ideas about the brain.

Tuck has appeared on British radio and in print over the past few days arguing that there should be more single-sex schools (which are still quite common in Britain) because girls and boys learn in different ways and benefit from different teaching styles. Given her job, I suppose she ought to be doing that, and there are, I’m sure, some good arguments for single-sex schools.

So why has she resorted to talking nonsense about neuroscience? Listen if you will to an interview she gave on the BBC’s morning Today Program (Her part runs from 51:50s to 55:10s). Or, here’s a transcript of the neuroscience bit, with my emphasis:

Interviewer: Do we know that girls and boys brains are wired differently?
Tuck: We do, and I think we’re learning more and more every day about the brain, and particularly in adolescents this wiring is very interesting, and it’s quite clear that you need to teach girls and boys in a very different way for them to be successful.
Interviewer: Well give us some examples, how should the way in which you teach them differ?
Tuck: Well, take maths. If you look at the girls they sort of approach maths through the cerebral cortex, which means that to get them going you really need to sort of paint a picture, put it in context, relate it to the real world, while boys sort of approach maths through the hippocampus, therefore they’re very happy and interested in the core properties of numbers and can sort of dive straight in. So if a girl’s being taught in a male-focused way she will struggle, whereas in an all-girl’s school their confidence in maths is very, very high.
Interviewer: So you have no doubt that all girls should be taught separately from boys?
Tuck: I think that ideally, girls fare better if they’re in a single sex environment, and I think that boys also fare better in an all boy environment, I think for example in the study of literature, in English, again a different kind of approach is needed. Girls are very good at empathizing, attuning to things via the emotions, the cerebral cortex again, whereas the boys come at things… it’s the amygdala is very strong in the boy, and he will you know find it hard to tune in in that way and needs a different approach.
Interviewer: And yet we’ve had this trend towards co-education and we’ve also had more boys schools opening their doors to girls… [etc.]

This is, to put it kindly, confused. Speaking as a neuroscientist, I know of no evidence that girls and boys approach maths or literature using different areas of the brain, I’m not sure what evidence you could look for which would suggest that, and I’m not even sure what that statement means.

Girls and boys all have brains, and they all have the same parts in roughly the same places. When they’re reading about maths, or reading a novel, or indeed when they’re doing anything, all of these areas are working together at once. The cerebral cortex, in particular, comprises most of the bulk of the brain, and almost literally does everything; it has dozens of sub-regions responsible for everything from seeing moving objects to feeling disgusted to moving your eyes. I don’t know which area is responsible for the the boyish “core properties of numbers” but for what it’s worth, the area most often linked to counting and calculation is the angular gyrus, part of… the supposedly girly cerebral cortex!

The gruff and manly hippocampus, on the other hand, is best known for its role in memory. Damage here leaves people unable to form new memories, although they can still remember things that happened before the injury. It’s not known whether these people also have problems with number theory.

When it comes to literature, things get even worse. She says – “Girls are very good at empathizing, attuning to things via the emotions” – which I guess is a pop-psych version of psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen’s famous theory of gender differences: that girls are, on average, better at girly social and emotional stuff while boys are better at systematic, logical stuff. This is, er, controversial, but it’s a theory that has at least some merit to it.

However, given that the amygdala is generally seen as a fluffy “emotion area” while the cerebral cortex, or at least parts of it, are associated with more “cold” analytic cognition, “The amygdala is very strong in boys” suggests that they should be more emotionally empathic. If Tuck’s going to deal in simplistic pop-neuroanatomy, she should at least get it the right way round.

The likely source of Tuck’s confusion, given what’s said here about Harvard research, is this study led by Dr. Jill Goldstein, who found differences in the size of brain areas between men and women. For example she found that men have, on average, larger amygdalas than women. Although they also have smaller hippocampi. Whatever, this study is fine science, although bear in mind that there could be a million reasons why men’s and women’s brains are different – it might have nothing to do with inborn differences. Stress, for example, makes your hippocampus shrink.

More importantly, there’s no reason to think that “bigger is better”, when it comes to parts of the brain. (I make no comment about other parts of the body.) That’s phrenology, not science. Is a bigger mobile phone better than a smaller one? Bigger could be worse, if it means that the brain cells are less well organized. Likewise, if an area “lights up” more on an fMRI scan in boys than in girls, that sounds good, but in fact it might mean that the boys are having to think harder than the girls, because their brain is less efficient.

I’m a believer in the reality of biological sex differences myself – I just don’t should try to find them with MRI scans. And Vicky Tuck seems like a clever person who’s ended up talking nonsense unnecessarily. She could be making a good argument for single-sex schools based on some actual evidence about how kids learn and mature. Instead, she’s shooting herself in the foot (or maybe in the brain’s “foot center”) with dodgy brain theories. Save yourself, Vicky – put the brain down and walk away.

Link Cognition and Culture who originally picked up on this.
Link The hilarious story of “The Crockus”, a made-up brain area which has also been invoked to justify teaching girls and boys differently. It’s weird how bad neuroscience repeats itself.


CATEGORIZED UNDER: bad neuroscience, media, politics
  • jdc325

    Brilliant post. I’d forgotten about the crockus – how kind of Vicky Tuck to remind us.Re the amygdala being seen as a fluffy “emotion area” – I was a bit suprised to see the word “fluffy” being used, as I’d previously seen reference to the amygdala being larger in teens who were considered to be more aggressive (mind you, I’ve also seen reports that kids with ASBOs have “cortisol deficiency”).

  • Neuroskeptic

    Meh – well as I said, the size of an area of the brain doesn’t really tell you anything. At least until you know *why* there’s a size difference. E.g. We know why stress shrinks the hippocampus (corticosteroid hormones inhibit neurogenesis and cause dentritic atrophy), which makes it quite interesting. But just having a bigger amygdala could mean anything…

  • Anonymous

    I’m sure you’re right, but the only reason I read this article was because I heard this woman on the radio and wanted to know more. Maybe she really does know what she’s doing.

  • Generic Viagra

    What do mean with crockus, this post is very complicated for me, seriously.

  • xanax

    Hi, This is really nice information here…. very interesting too… Thanks for the share….

  • Levitra kaufen

    Thanks for sharing, very interesting article.

  • Gender selection

    Nice ,inreresting post .. I am always looking for such post..Thanks for shareing with us.

    Want a girl? Want a boy? Now it's possible! A newborn sex determination. Desire to determine the sex of the newborn. For more information about Gender selection, Natural gender selection, Determine baby gender, Holy Land gender selection, Predetermine baby's sex, please visit: .

  • OsFish

    Apologies for a late comment on this entry:

    In my personal experience, there is a serious problem in the dissemination and use of neuroscience in education: the messianic uptake of the general idea by certain educationalists.

    The proposition these people tend to put forward is that by using neuroscience to understand how to improve education, one is (a) working on clearer, more objective, more whitecoaty-evidence-based grounds than things like experiments with and observations of whole persons in an inevitably messy, difficult to control educational context and (b) employing astonishing, transformative (liberating?) new information, into which one needs to be inducted (brain science is hard, after all).

    Whatever the problems are with (a) – and some of them are highlighted here – the big problem is the tension between (a) and (b). It’s a kind of TEDx syndrome: What happens if the evidence is not there to support the transformative project?

    In my experience, it tends to get ignored. Here’s the problem. Because these people have established themselves as “science-based”, they develop the conceit that they are bunk-proof. (One leading practioner I know actually gives lectures on “neuromyths” to lay audiences, even as she herself bases her work on bad neuroscience.) In effect, once a piece of “science” (often of dubious provenance), is adopted, it all too often becomes a kind of scriptural authority. Bunk is what someone else falls for.

    Let me explain: In scriptural analysis (in whatever religion), contradictions can occur, and individual interpretation of different parts of scripture as factual, allegorical, or mistaken are part of the process of finding one’s own meaning. There is validity in this and in the sense of “truth” being a subjective yet shareable human experience. A new scripture that contradicts previous understandings is like a breeze mildly altering the direction of a free-floating raft. It’s all part of the ebb and flow.

    This is not supposed to be how it happens in science. Yet, when I have confronted some of the non-scientist people in my profession who promote this kind of stuff, with mulitple empirical studies, or consensus reviews, that clearly demonstrate severe problems with the “science” they are basing their dramatic ideas on, it is described as just another person’s point of view, which they can happily ignore as not their personal choice. I have, once or twice, genuinely had the same feeling that I have had when michievously talking to creationists in the street: the shutters come down.

    This talk of cult-like behaviour might all sound far-fetched, but it is a movement of personalities and heroes, not results and methods. At one conference a friend was due to give a presentation at, the last-minute request came out that the presentations should all be made to “align” with a list of specific research conclusions pre-decided by the organisers, so that the organisers’ message could be more easily remembered and transmitted. Weird, but true.

    So this is the real struggle: Education has a terrible walled-garden tendency. By drawing attention to how much less neuroscience can directly inform education than this movement wishes were true, the challenge is not to persuade them with evidence, it’s to stop them ignoring you.



No brain. No gain.

About Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic is a British neuroscientist who takes a skeptical look at his own field, and beyond. His blog offers a look at the latest developments in neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology through a critical lens.


See More

@Neuro_Skeptic on Twitter


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar