Just up at MercatorNet: Are men's and women's brains really different?

My review of Cordelia Fine's new book, Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference:

The gender wars take no prisoners. In 2005, suggesting that there might indeed be innate differences between men and women derailed the career of Harvard president Larry Summers. He reemerged, years later, as President Obama’s sometime finance guru). Meanwhile, a host of neuroscientists report differences between the brains of men and women that, they say, account for different abilities and career choices.

Psychologist and author Cordelia Fine disagrees with the neuroscientists. In Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference, she has no time for the “special powers” that pop brain science currently imputes to the female brain, reminding us that such claims were made long before the magnetic resonance imaging machine was invented.

She takes aim at books such as What Could He Be Thinking? where we hear that images of male and female brains were “marriage saving” for author Michael Gurian and his wife, to say nothing of Gurian’s Leadership and the Sexes which “links the actual science of male/female brain differences to every aspect of business.”

And if that doesn’t make you feel like Employee Double X or XY clocking in, what will?

For more, go here.

See also:

Evolutionary psychology: Pink for a girl, blue for a ... girl?

Neuroscience: Philosopher rips "drivel" - pop science media 's bread and butter

Evolutionary psychology: Pink for a girl, blue for a ... girl?

Philosopher Cordelia Fine, who wrote a book on the neuroscience and other studies of the differences between men's and women's brains - and found most of them flawed - pauses to target a classic in evolutionary psychology: Why girls prefer pink.

... psychologists and journalists now speculate on the genetic and evolutionary origins of gendered color preferences that are little more than fifty years old.

Little more than how many years old? Read on:

For example, a few years ago an article in an Australian newspaper discussed the origins of the pink princess phenomenon. After trotting out the ubiquitous anecdote about the mother who tried and failed to steer her young daughter away from the pink universe, the journalist writes that the mother's failure "suggests her daughter was perhaps genetically wired that way" and asks, "is there a pink princess gene that suddenly blossoms when little girls turn two?"

Just in case we mistake for a joke the idea that evolution might have weeded out toddlers uninterested in tiaras and pink tulle , te journalist then turns to prominent child psychologist Dr. Michael Carr-Gregg for further insight into the biological basis of princess mania: "The reason why girls like pink is that their brains are structured completely differently to boys," he sagely informs us. "Part of the brain that processes emotion and part of the brain that processes language is one and the same in girls but is completely different in boys ... "

- Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference, p. 208.

Okay, but Dr. Carr-Gregg and other authorities are correct, the pace of evolution has been nothing short of catastrophic in recent decades. Formerly, blue was the colour for girls - and for boys?:

The preferred color to dress young boys in was pink! Blue was reserved for girls as it was considered the paler, more dainty of the two colors, and pink was thought to be the stronger (akin to red). It was not until WWII that the colors were reversed and pink was used for girls and blue for boys... -Dress Maker Magazine

Certainly, in Kate Greenaway's late 19th century illustrations, fashionable girls strut in blue.

Fine also informs us that the early 20th century saw a concerted move to use infant and toddler clothes to reinforce gender differences. But that requires consumer choice. Most children's clothing of long ago was pretty functional - swaddling clothes, smocks, et cetera, and cut down adult clothes. Few people could afford dyes of their choice.

So yes, it's evolution - a very recent evolution of ideas about gender, which might depart with no offspring.

See also: Neuroscience: Philosopher rips "drivel" - pop science media 's bread and butter

More fun from voodoo neuroscience:

Neuroscience and popular culture: Who do voodoo? They do! Social neuroscientists, that is:

Neuroscience shows why women love shopping, why gay guys read maps like women, why jealous guys ... come to think of it, why does social neuroscience only tell us what we already heard from that high school drop-out cousin, shooting pool down in the rec room between his split shifts at the loading dock?

Is this really science? Probably not, say a team of statisticians, who took a look at some of these studies. Basically, many of the claimed correlations were simply too high to be possible. That was because the "social neuroscience" people were cherry picking the data."

Gender Genie: Fritz your wits about which sex you belong to?

Using an algorithm developed by Moshe Koppel, Bar-Ilan University in Israel, and Shlomo Argamon, Illinois Institute of Technology, you can find out whether the genie thinks you are a man or a woman by submitting a sample of your writing.

Given that the genie works best on texts of more than 500 words, I have decided to submit my five most recent columns for ChristianWeek.

Neuroscience: Vive la difference between boys and girls?

What I find really interesting is the way people are always looking for confirmation of weird theories from neuroscience, but they won't accept actual evidence that disconfirms a weird theory. For exmaple, there is way more evidence that boys and girls are different than that weird materialist theories of religion are true.

Incidentally, none of these findings shows that girls can't excel in math and science. They help us understand why many girls do not TRY to excel in math and science. That's useful information, however we choose to use it.

Neuroscience: Philosopher rips "drivel" - pop science media 's bread and butter

Once upon a time there was this bright philosopher and Fine writer who immersed herself in the pop culture sludge of the breathless (this just in!) latest findings of neuroscience on human nature, in this case the supposed differences between the way men and women think. Differences that, Fine argues, are poorly supported.

What I learned from Cordelia Fine's latest book: Add time on an fMRI scanner to a mediocre mind carrying out a conventional research program and you end up with fodder for Cowsmoopolitan. Fine found that the men vs. women studies were too badly done to be conclusive. Her survey removes all doubt as to how many magazine and newspaper editors, stuck for a Sunday featurette, ever even wonder about such matters.

She goes on to challenge neuroscientists on the ethics of passively allowing these shenanigans:

... neuroscientists who work in this area have some responsibility for how their findings of sex differences in the brain are interpreted and communicated. When this is done carelessly, it may have a real and significant impact on people's lives. Many neuroscientists do appear to be aware of this. They are appropriately cautious about interpreting sex differences to the brain, and may also take the time to remind journalists of just how far we are from mapping sex differences in the brain onto the mind. (And of course they may find their work being misrepresented, regardless, others, however, as we have seen, are more cavalier.) " - from Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference (p. 173)

On a less heartening note, she adds,

Finally, there's an urgent need for editors, journalists, and schools to develop far more skeptical attitudes toward claims about sex differences in the brain. It is appalling to me that one can, apparently, say whatever drivel one likes about the male and the female brain, and enjoy the pleasure of seeing it published in reputable newspaper,changing a school's educational policy, or becoming a best seller. - from Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference (p. 173)

Trouble is, Cordelia, drivel sells. The woman whose boyfriend is running around wants to believe that a brain scan shows that he is merely a less-evolved ape. And she may not have to wait long for "He's a Gorilla, You're a Bonobo, and You Two Make a Great Scream" (Whattafastbuck Press, 2011) to hit her local bookstore's Women's Empowerment Evening ...

It is really a moral question for the journalist, editor, and bookseller, whether - in hard times - to front this neurobullshipping or demand accountability.
Anyway, hats off to Fine for saying something.

Now, do I agree with Fine that there are no significant brain differences between men and women? Well, let's just say I have a different take on those differences, explained here.

Thicker foreheads: Meet thickets of Darwinism

In "Men developed thicker foreheads and jaws due to fighting, over women" Richard Alleyne, science correspondent for Britain's Telegraph, who presumably knows better, advises us (14 May 2010):

Winning a mate used to depend only on physical prowess and men with the strongest jawline and thickest skulls were better able to survive onslaughts from love rivals.

That meant that over time all men developed thicker bones in the jaws, around the eyes and on the forehead than women.

You can read the further Darwiniana for yourself.

—

Men evolved manly jawlines and thick brows because they used to fight for women in the past, claim anthropologists

—

To dispose of the evidence-based issues first, it is more likely that characteristic male appearance is part of a kit of traits governed by the need for rapid building of muscle mass. Maybe a fuzzy navel was part of that too? Whether governed by design or chance, the kit is the kit, and if you have outdoor plumbing to begin with, you probably got whatever else came with the kit. (If you didn't, you can always complain to the Manufacturer, though how much good that does is under debate. You might get the usual "I am the Potter, you are the clay" boilerplate.)

The part I want to focus on is the observation of biological anthropologist David Puts of Pennsylvania State University and author of these theories, that "On average men are not all that much bigger than women, only about 15 percent larger. But the average guy is stronger than 99.9 percent of women." From this he derives his theories.

As I wrote to a friend recently,

But what if Jawline is stupider than 99.9 per cent of women? Isn't he winning the club bash, just to go to his doom?

This classic Darwinian thesis entirely discounts the effect of intelligence in confrontations.

And that somehow images Darwinism perfectly, doesn't it?.

Suppose Jawline is bashing it out with Muscle and Gravel?

Go-getter, watching nearby, has always avoided the race to the bottom, possibly because - although he has normal male characteristics - he is not physically intimidating.

He has had his eye on the nice girl standing there, haplessly awaiting her fate, for some time. So, seizing an opportunity, he whispers,

"Hey, babes, with any luck, all these losers will just kill each other. I've got a nice little secluded cave up in the hills. Always plenty to eat. Lots of skins. Lots of firewood. Wanna come and see it? Fine. Just don't make any noise while we go..."

This is the "true evolutionary reason" why women put on more fat, a fact that Dr. Puts correctly notes ... (See? I can make up stories too.)

Incidentally, I am told that something like this can happen with a number of animal species where males compete for mates. The female may mate with the male who is just standing around, because he is Mr. Available. Of course, he isn't smart, just less aggressive, and the species doesn't get any smarter as a result of his success. But this situation helps the ecology by controlling the value of sheer aggression. That's behavioural ecology, which I consider a much better explanation of many facets of animal life than Darwinism.

Gender Genie: Fritz your wits about which sex you belong to?

There is an interesting exchange in the combox at "Neuroscience: Vive la (hardwired) difference between boys and girls." Recently, another commenter was annoyed by the fact that I reported on skepticism about whether this difference really shows up in communication patterns.

Science, I was informed, has settled the issue.

Well, I am not sure that the matter is simple enough to be "settled" by science. And, as it happens, the Gender Genie has just popped out of its lamp or castaway bottle or whatever today's genies use, to provide me with a handy tool.

Using an algorithm developed by Moshe Koppel, Bar-Ilan University in Israel, and Shlomo Argamon, Illinois Institute of Technology, you can find out whether the genie thinks you are a man or a woman by submitting a sample of your writing.

Given that the genie works best on texts of more than 500 words, I have decided to submit my five most recent columns for ChristianWeek.

It should be a fair test. The columns are always about 750 words in length. Editing is minimal, but in any event, I am submitting what I sent, not what was published. Let us see what the genie does. I am beginning right now at 9:09 am EST. The only changes I will make are to take out my byline and bioline. (I don't know whether these stereotyped elements prejudice the sample, but they are useless for our purposes.)

1. "Why science without God destroys itself":

Female Score: 560
Male Score: 1030
The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

Well, look up at the (authentic) photo in the box at the top right and see if you agree.

2. "Atheist philosopher follows the evidence wherever it leads ... to God!"
Female Score: 632
Male Score: 1011
The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

You know, even genies have bad days. Let's try again.

3. "Key lessons from the stem cell controversy"

Female Score: 598
Male Score: 944
The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

Well, the male score is falling. Could the genie be having his (its) moments of intuition? On to No. 4.

4. "Transplant ethics: Dr. Murray, meet Dr. Market!"

Female Score: 814
Male Score: 921
The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

Well, the genie is clearly beginning to suspect something. Now for our last test:

5. "When our theories are wrong but don't feel wrong"

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!
Female Score: 716
Male Score: 873
The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

Of course, I am not alone. Pamela O'Connell of the New York Times submitted her arts column to the Genie, who also announced that she was male.

Genie-ologist Moshe Koppel told O'Connell that this happens because "people were entering texts that were too short and ignoring the fact that the algorithm was designed to assess fiction, not blog entries, e-mail or the other sundry nonfiction samples that dominate submissions."

Okay, I don't write fiction, so I can't offer a sample to test. But I know people who do write fiction for a living - and fiction is governed by conventions just like non-fiction.

Which is what set me thinking ... I wasn't born knowing how to write non-fiction. I was taught. Denyse O'Leary thinks that the editors of her work have mostly been: male!

The basic proposition was, write the stuff he wants or go get a job at WalMart.

So, down to one option, I wrote the way he wanted. And that's how I learned.

I will probably never know how I would write if no one had ever taught me any formal writing skills. I do not really want to know either. Those guys were good editors.

Thanks to their coaching, my work won a number of independently judged awards. In a country where most writers reportedly make about $5000 a year from the sales of their work, I am privileged to write for a living, thanks in large part to them.

So, given the complexity of human communications in the real world, I would say, Gender Genie, don't throw away that lamp and then float around waiting for Harvard to call ....

Oh, and by the way, the Gender Genie thinks that the author of this blog entry is ...

Do I really have to tell you? Okay, I will.

Female Score: 977
Male Score: 1091
The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

Note: Please do NOT panic if you try the Genie and it misassigns you as consistently as it has misassigned me. I don't take the Genie seriously and would not advise you to either. I assume that, like a roller coaster, it was meant to be fun. So if it's fun, fine. If you think it won't be, don't get involved, m'kay?

Neuroscience: Vive la difference between boys and girls?

Regular readers of my blogs will know that I have long had a soft spot for Larry Summers, lately president of Harvard University, who was forced to resign in a ridiculous flap during which he merely pointed out what everyone knows, that women are not as attracted to careers in the hard sciences as men are for reasons that may have to do with nature rather than prejudice.

Beats me why that should be a surprise.

Summers is no friend to design theory, to be sure. But he was, after all, railroaded out of his job by hysterics who seemed to me to prove by their behaviour the opposite of what they contended.

Anyway, a recent column by Ashley Herzog reports:

Predictably, scholars who aren’t intimidated by feminists are ridiculed and ostracized. Last year, Louann Brizendine, a neuropsychiatriast at the University of California San Francisco, published her book The Female Brain, which is based on more than a thousand studies from the fields of genetics, neuroscience, and endocrinology. After decades of research, Brizendine concluded that male and female brains are both structurally and hormonally different. As she wrote, "there is no unisex brain…girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys."

Feminist book reviewers and columnists—who don’t have degrees in neuroscience, just a faith-based belief that socialization accounts for all gender differences—savagely attacked Brizendine and the book, calling it "garbage" and "scary." Displaying feminists’ typical open-mindedness to scientific facts, one reviewer claimed that "I found my self slamming the book down and walking out of the room in an aggressive and angry mood."

Right. And when the book hits the carpet really HARD, you know its author must be wrong.

There. That beats a lot of hard math, right?

What I find really interesting is the way people are always looking for confirmation of weird theories from neuroscience, but they won't accept actual evidence that disconfirms a weird theory. For exmaple, there is way more evidence that boys and girls are different than that weird materialist theories of religion are true.

Incidentally, none of these findings shows that girls can't excel in math and science. They help us understand why many girls do not TRY to excel in math and science. That's useful information, however we choose to use it.