I feel like it might be a cause of being a bit older but my (single) mother always said that women and men were equal in worth not aptitude.
Her exact words were “men and women are equal but different, in many ways they’re complimentary” she then explained that some men look down on women because they didn’t value how women think about things. She also said the same is true of some women viewing men.
Later she would say that men and women are equally shitty to each other (when I was being abused at school by girls who knew I could not physically retaliate).
I currently hold these views and neither feminism nor men’s-rights-activists seem to ascribe to those values, at best they pay lip service to the notion that we’re (on average, and grossly generalising) complimentary.
I remember a small blurb about “judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree” in reference to our education system-
Maybe it’s a old way of thinking. Maybe my mum wasn’t right at all, but I don’t understand why we can’t celebrate our differences instead of expecting women to fit in to men sized roles. Or alternatively making a “middle-ground” box which has to fit both sexes.
If anyone wants to alter my way of thinking; I’m completely open to it- I am perfectly willing to accept that I’m old fashioned or incorrect here.
> and neither feminism nor men’s-rights-activists seem to ascribe to those
I’m not that old yet but feminism to me growing up was always that men and women should have the same opportunities and treatment, but never that they were the same. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s more of a recent phenomenon which claimed for itself the title of feminism - I doubt the original feminists would agree with it, but I don’t know. (I find it sad because to me it’s turned a serious movement for which very brave women had to fight hard into a joke.)
>I currently hold these views and neither feminism nor men’s-rights-activists seem to ascribe to those values, at best they pay lip service to the notion that we’re (on average, and grossly generalising) complimentary.
Interesting. I've never really got the impression that Men's Rights Activists ascribe to any specific notion like that. To me the movement seems to be about shedding light on the injustices of our legal systems where men get screwed over: divorce court, custody of a child, alimony, punishments seemingly not being equal between the sexes. I guess they also have an element of fighting against social injustices such as false claims.
I might be wrong though. I might simply be seeing only the things I care about in their movement, since I see it so rarely.
> I feel like it might be a cause of being a bit older but my (single) mother always said that women and men were equal in worth not aptitude.
I actually like this line a lot, because it points to several of the problems in modern society. It makes you ask the question: "on what grounds is worth judged?"
And then you realize that, without a clear way of thinking about "worth" (which is something organized religions provided), we, at least in the US, fall back on "economic value", which is determined by "aptitude". So we can pretty quickly see the philosophical pit we've fallen into: if "worth" and "aptitude" are intertwined, then the statement admits women are indeed "worth less".
I want to agree with that statement. But, there's a problem: how can we come up with a method of judging worth that doesn't rely on some sort of "over-human validator" (e.g. God)? Or alternatively, how can we come up with a broadly acceptable method of judging human worth, without falling into the pitfalls of Abrahamic religious practices?
The idea of being equal in worth is interesting. How do you define it? Is it a kind of humanitarian worth? That all people are deserving of basic rights, decency and respect? Such would be the case even for handicapped or mentally challenged individuals? Or are you saying that their set of aptitudes, while not identical, sum up to an equal worth in utilitarian terms? Say, for example, taking one of the very strong stereotype, that child bearing is so useful to our societies, that it makes women as worthy as even the strongest of men and their aptitude for heavy lifting?
Now, the idea of equal aptitude is relevant as well. There's two main reasons for that. The first is that, some aptitudes, like intelligence, such as talents in mathematics, or decision making in general, has historically been thought of as inferior for women. Yet, there's never been evidence of this as far as I know. In fact, now that we admitted women in higher education, they are out outclassing men in most fields when it comes to grades. So this is a very relevant debate, because bias still exist, that a pretty young woman can't be as smart as a young man.
The other reason is the wash of the average. Lots of women are physically stronger then lots of men. Similarly, lots of men are emotionally more adept then lots of women. Thus aptitude shouldn't be characterised by gender, but it should be more individualized. This applies in some scenarios, like not giving women applicants a chance at very physical jobs. Even though some women have the necessary aptitudes.
I don't really have a horse in this race, but the reason women might want to fit in to man-sized roles is because all the high-paying roles are man-sized.
>> I feel like it might be a cause of being a bit older but my (single) mother always said that women and men were equal in worth not aptitude.
My (also single) dad says that men are smarter and more ambitious than women, that womens' place is at home, taking care of the children and that society is broken because women are trying to do the things that men are naturally better at doing and don't want to do what they're good at.
>> No one seems to have a problem accepting that, on average, male and female
bodies differ in many, many ways. Why is it surprising or unacceptable that
this is true for the part of our body that we call “brain”?
Because the differences between male and female "bodies", meaning anatomical
differences like sex characteristics, are obvious and self-evident, while
differences in brain structure are not and therefore require careful study.
Further, because there are well-known and deeply entrenched cultural biases
that risk derailing this careful study and therefore any initial assumptions
that coincide with these cultural biases must be eliminated before serious
work can begin.
Finally, because any result that just so happens, completely by chance, and
despite the scientists' best effort, to agree with preconceived notions about
"how things are" should be considered extremely suspicious and scrutinised
again, and again, and again, and again, and noone who really wants to
understand the relevant subjects should feel comfortable accepting such
results as settled, much less defend them as "scientific orthodoxy".
In other words, because "bias" is as much a problem in science as it is in
society, and because in the science of sex differences it is doubly so.
I think the real problem is that people keep throwing around the word "average" which is insufficient to explain the data. To properly understand what's going on, you need to know both the mean and the standard deviation (the central limit theorem helps with the distribution).
Men and women can have an identical mean across a large number of traits but if the standard deviation is not the same then we can expect large differences at the extremes. This is in fact what we see. Boys' and girls' mathematics scores are pretty much identical at the mean but boys have a slightly higher standard deviation. Boys are thus overrepresented in the 1st and 99th percentiles of mathematical ability.
I think the other problem is that we as society only want to look up, never down. Many feminists demand that we equalize the representation of the sexes in all of the high-paying, intellectual fields (engineering, management, finance) but never in the dirtiest, most dangerous, outdoor fields (mining, logging, fishing, trash collecting) where men are similarly overrepresented.
The irony of your closing statement ("any result that just so happens....to agree with preconceived notions about "how things are" should be considered extremely suspicious and scrutinised....and noone who really wants to understand the relevant subjects should feel comfortable accepting such results as settled") is that such "settled" facts in the scientific community are exactly the things that Cahill has been challenging in the neuroscience field.
Specifically to his point that:
> the rationale was there aren’t any differences between males and females, so you avoid the unnecessarily complicated feature of the female hormonal cycle and study the male.
In other words...the "settled" science actually excludes the explicit study of, and furtherance of our understanding of, the female brain. Which in turn leads to a lessened ability to treat and address all sorts of conditions.
So by all means decry bias...but be aware that bias can be introduced by scientists wanting to cut corners and make research faster and easier so they can publish more just as much as they can be introduced by gender superiority zealots.
And just to show how complicated science in general is, your thinking is another example of bias. Requiring a higher burden of proof for findings that someone might be uncomfortable with is bad science. The burden of proof must be equally high for everyone.
The real problem here isn't the science, is the pseudo-science and the journalism. It's pretty common for people to take single studies out of context and act as if their cherry picked study is the final word. Science journalists are supposed to bridge the gap between experts and laymen, but there seems to be very few good science journalists, and there seems to be lots of hacks and conmen.
> Further, because there are well-known and deeply entrenched cultural biases that risk derailing this careful study and therefore any initial assumptions that coincide with these cultural biases must be eliminated before serious work can begin.
I somewhat agree with this statement. But judging by the ink spilled over sex differences in places like the New York Times, and by the views on the subject that one is allowed to hold in the polite company of higher education and industry, and by the intensity of the backlash when one publicly deviates from those views: I suspect the "deeply entrenched biases" most significant for present-day researchers lean quite opposite from what you assume.
what burden of proof was required to come to this conclusion and why is that burden so much lower than the one required to conclude there are gender differences in human brains? Liberal universities are some of the most politically-correct, left-leaning bastions in the world. Members are imediately called to resign if they dare state anything against the progressive groupthink [1]. Yet you state as if it were well-established fact that "bias is a problem". this is not even counting the programs, scholarships, and active recruiting for more women in science.
I see 2 problems with accusations of "bias". For one, they're never levelled at an individual so the problem can be addressd at the source. It's always something nebulous, like "bias exists in science". So it's kind of like accusing all scientists of being sexist (or implicitly, male scientists, unless you want to clarify that women, too, are part of the problem), while at the same time accusing none of them. It's a tool that conditions its accused members to atone for something they didn't necessarily do, or if they did at one time, they're never forgiven. It makes everyone in the group feel guilty, regardless of whether they actually did something they should feel bad for.
The second problem with bias is that there's no bar for it "being a problem" ? In otherwords, if "it" exists in even one person somewhere in academia, one time, is it a problem ? If so, how long of a period does there have to be without bias for it to no longer be a problem ? If, say, a CMU professor makes a sexist tweet, how long is there a "sexism problem" at CMU? Forever? Until he is fired? Until he apologizes? None of these terms is defined, because I suspect it's not a problem intended to be solved. It's a social manipulation tool.
>Because the differences between male and female "bodies", meaning anatomical differences like sex characteristics, are obvious and self-evident, while differences in brain structure are not and therefore require careful study.
That seems like a very odd, unscientific position to take. We know that men and women have different physical characteristics and hormonal affects (as an obvious example, women have a menstrual cycle while men do not). Ergo, the hypothalamus and pituitary gland (two areas of the brain which play pivotal roles in the human endocrine system) are structurally different between the sexes; this is obvious and self-evident.
> Because the differences between male and female "bodies", meaning anatomical differences like sex characteristics, are obvious and self-evident, while differences in brain structure are not and therefore require careful study.
The categorical denial of neurological sex differences of the sort that was published by Nature does not encourage careful study. In fact, it does rather the opposite by turning the subject into a political football. This distracts from the more important issue that arguably women have been under-served by the medical community precisely due to the denial of such differences.
> Because the differences between male and female "bodies", meaning anatomical differences like sex characteristics, are obvious and self-evident, while differences in brain structure are not and therefore require careful study.
That careful study has been done. The science is settled, and there to learn for anyone with an open mind.
I think the point of the article is that the science supports the fact that there are sex differences in the brain.
Ideas that the article does not propose include:
- Men are better than Women or vice versa.
- Men are better suited to X activity or job.
The point was that the science should be evidence lead and defended from ideologues regardless of your view on the broader political issues. Ideologues attempt to bend all evidence to support a pre-existing conclusion, and the politicisation of science is bad in all cases because it undermines the entire process. It's depressing that a publication such as Nature should be affected in this way.
"One of the things that blows students’ minds is to realize that women disproportionately, about twice as much, suffer from all anxiety and depression disorders relative to men, and almost all our models for studying anxiety disorders are based on male animals."
This right here is one of the concrete reasons for why we NEED to recognize neurological sex differences, and have studies that focus specifically on genders. We could discover loads about treatment differences by gender, and really help a lot of people who are suffering from depression (something that is becoming more prevalent by the day).
The NIH has moved the requirements in rodent research recently. Previously, using only male rodents (bucks) was considered just fine. After some really alarming studies out of McGill [0], much of the field has changed. Now, you must garner a waiver to only use one sex vs. the other in rodent studies. The effects of this change remain to be seen, but are generally thought of as positive.
Some context is needed though. The estrous cycle of dams is fairly complicated[1]. Controlling variables in hormones, hydration, etc. is much easier in bucks. Since the experiments are easier to control for, you need less rodents and therefore you need less funding for rodent care and housing, and you need to sacrifice less rodents to do the experiment (generally). Hence why they have been the 'preferred' rodent sex historically, among many other reasons.
Additionally, rodents are some of the 'first' level in vivo models, but are far from the last in the long line of research that is human applicable. It is very common that research done in rodents will not translate to other mainstay research vertebrates like dogs and monkeys, let alone into humans. The differences in the sexes are vastly outweighed by the differences in species.
Generally, yes, it is good that we are now defaulting to having to use both sexes of rodents. However, costs and sacrifices per experiment have risen as a result. All things have trade-offs in our world.
This was the takeaway for me from this interesting interview:
"Q: Is there a battle between actual scientists and science journalists who may be in thrall to a progressive or woke ideology?
A: No, because most scientists are blissfully unaware..."
As long as scientists stay away from these discussions, the field will be left to "ideologues" as Cahill calls them, i.e. people who either have little knowledge of the subject they're discussing or else have such a strong agenda that it strongly biases their views and prior probabilities.
Calling those who disagree with you "ideologues" is not a great way of debating. The op-ed he was railing against was written by two professors, one in neuroscience and the other in history and the philosophy of science. The book review he also criticized was written by a professor of neuroscience. There is little evidence for that these people deserve to be called "ideologues".
If there is a sex-defined bi-modal distribution of neurological characteristics, meaning for instance in IQ, then there are two separate but overlapping curves for the sexes, then it's true that there is both overlap and difference between the sexes. This difference is clearly evident in physical traits like height, which is an objective measurement, whereas the utility of IQ will be debated for decades, most likely. We can't argue that IQ is non-overlapping though, there are low and high outliers in each sex or in every subgroup that will overlap with every other subgroup (same goes for race, economic status, education, any socio-dem slice you can think of). Given large populations, this is practically a certainty.
IMO, the problem arises in the subjectivity of psycho-metrics, which can be very lackluster tools. IQ, cognitive function, working memory, long term memory, and on and on -much harder to establish a clear difference between these across the two sexes, given with such imprecise and arbitrary measures.
If differing hormones lead to different brains why can’t different roles in society lead to different brains? How is it possible to differentiate the two effects?
You could compare different societies, for example Saudi Arabia and Sweden. If some gender differences remain, it is still not certainty, but it is quite likely that they are caused by some brain chemistry.
(Unless you believe that Sweden is just as patriarchal as Saudi Arabia, in which case I guess there is no argument that could possibly convince you.)
Another possible approach is to examine what happens to transgender people after they start taking hormones.
"there are people on this campus in the Gender Studies Department who use books by one of these ideologues and literally have classes basically saying that what I’m saying is wrong."
Q1. What purpose does a Gender Studies Department serve.
Q2. Why are its teachings based not on science, but apparently on the opposite?
When I was visiting Pre-schools for my son to enter at 18 months I asked them how they handle discipline and behavior. They said that sometimes they have a class which is mostly boys and it’s quite chaotic. If the class is mostly girls it’s much more calm. That’s at 18-30 months.
One thing of note. The cited review by Cahill says this:
"Rippon does not mention Udry’s work, or its essential replication by Udry’s harshest critic, a leading sociologist who has described herself as a “feminist” who now “wrestles” with testosterone."
But the person in question had this to say:
"This totally misrepresents my re-analysis of Udry data. (I’m the feminist who wrestles with testosterone). Might misrepresent much else as well?"
A serious problem is that in 99.9% of things that you study in the brain, there will be no sex difference. However, every researcher records sex information in the data they collect. So even if there isn't a scientific reason to think there might be a sex difference in whatever you are studying, you might as well test it because it is zero extra effort. That means that about 1/20 studies will show an effect with $p<.05$.
From the article: “To see that headline, honestly, knowing what I know about the dramatic change in neuroscience in the past 15 to 20 years, it’s not a lot different than seeing a headline like “The Myth That Evolution Applies to Humans.” That would be comparable.”
> Cahill, a professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Behavior at the University of California at Irvine, is considered one of the world’s leading researchers on the influence of biological sex.
I mean, he doesn't sound like a crank, and he's also written for Scientific American. Does that mean he's acceptable after all?
I think the article misrepresents the feminist position a bit. When they protest the study of "sex differences", it's not (usually) in a flat-earth or creationist sense of literally denying the science and claiming a-priori that all brains are identical.
Rather, they are observing that the notion of one sex being biologically "superior" (or at least more suitable for high-prestige roles) has a long and oppressive history in our society, and that incautious "research" can be used to bolster types of sexism that we had hoped were behind us. Indeed, we see this happening on this very site all the time, whenever the topic comes up.
It's not that sex differences might not exist. It's that the instant you publish anything on the the topic, conservatives will inevitably and immediately latch onto it as proof that the traditional gender roles have been correct all along. Even if that's not what the studies show (and there's actually no reason to think they would, as the article points out.)
Basically, the point of feminists is that society is so fraught on this issue, and there's so much latent bias, that it is extremely difficult to perform research objectively, let alone have it be received objectively and proportionately by an audience outside the field.
You are correct about the feminist motivation, but did you read the review in Nature that really prompted Cahill's response? It is very much a feminist flat earth moment, and is as anti-science and politically motivated as much of the anti-climate science.
modern neuroscientists have identified no decisive, category-defining differences between the brains of men and women.
That some people will use scientific knowledge for bad ends is not a reason to avoid knowledge.
> Basically, the point of feminists is that society is so fraught on this issue, and there's so much latent bias, that it is extremely difficult to perform research objectively
What does this even mean? Do you think the subject of this article is just unavoidably biased and thus should stop researching? Should people in very obviously left- or right-leaning fields just pack up and quit doing anything? Bye-bye gender studies, I guess?
> let alone have it be received objectively and proportionately by an audience outside the field.
So because some people will twist research for their own ends, we're just what, better off not knowing?
And as a consequence, gender scientist refuse to address or even comment on conclusions of studies in other fields. Instead they prescribe implementing their methods and observing the outcome as the only way of performing experiments. So in a very practical sense, they are experimenting with society at large rather than with their research subjects. It's very nonscientific and dangerous practice.
I agree with this. In addition, Larry Cahill puts up some ridiculous strawmen: "But also stay away from the ideologues on the other side, who unfortunately are given a voice by editors at places like the New York Times, who know nothing about the issue except that they’re afraid of appearing to be on the wrong side of it.", "It’s just that I’ve been drawn into this now by having to deal with this small but ridiculous vocal group of ideologues, and I feel an obligation to not let them get away with utterly misrepresenting or even vilifying my science."
He is misrepresenting the Feminist's position just as much as he is claiming that they are misrepresenting science. Feminism has become the right's new Bogeyman.
Kind of like the not so latent bias you have against conservatives? Where is the conservative movement to keep women out of industry? What conservative of any importance says women aren't qualified to be scientists, doctors, lawyers or presidents?
Saying conservatives support sexist gender roles is like saying liberals support anti-vaxxers - wrong.
[+] [-] dijit|7 years ago|reply
Her exact words were “men and women are equal but different, in many ways they’re complimentary” she then explained that some men look down on women because they didn’t value how women think about things. She also said the same is true of some women viewing men.
Later she would say that men and women are equally shitty to each other (when I was being abused at school by girls who knew I could not physically retaliate).
I currently hold these views and neither feminism nor men’s-rights-activists seem to ascribe to those values, at best they pay lip service to the notion that we’re (on average, and grossly generalising) complimentary.
I remember a small blurb about “judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree” in reference to our education system-
Maybe it’s a old way of thinking. Maybe my mum wasn’t right at all, but I don’t understand why we can’t celebrate our differences instead of expecting women to fit in to men sized roles. Or alternatively making a “middle-ground” box which has to fit both sexes.
If anyone wants to alter my way of thinking; I’m completely open to it- I am perfectly willing to accept that I’m old fashioned or incorrect here.
[+] [-] erentz|7 years ago|reply
I’m not that old yet but feminism to me growing up was always that men and women should have the same opportunities and treatment, but never that they were the same. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s more of a recent phenomenon which claimed for itself the title of feminism - I doubt the original feminists would agree with it, but I don’t know. (I find it sad because to me it’s turned a serious movement for which very brave women had to fight hard into a joke.)
[+] [-] Mirioron|7 years ago|reply
Interesting. I've never really got the impression that Men's Rights Activists ascribe to any specific notion like that. To me the movement seems to be about shedding light on the injustices of our legal systems where men get screwed over: divorce court, custody of a child, alimony, punishments seemingly not being equal between the sexes. I guess they also have an element of fighting against social injustices such as false claims.
I might be wrong though. I might simply be seeing only the things I care about in their movement, since I see it so rarely.
[+] [-] Nav_Panel|7 years ago|reply
I actually like this line a lot, because it points to several of the problems in modern society. It makes you ask the question: "on what grounds is worth judged?"
And then you realize that, without a clear way of thinking about "worth" (which is something organized religions provided), we, at least in the US, fall back on "economic value", which is determined by "aptitude". So we can pretty quickly see the philosophical pit we've fallen into: if "worth" and "aptitude" are intertwined, then the statement admits women are indeed "worth less".
I want to agree with that statement. But, there's a problem: how can we come up with a method of judging worth that doesn't rely on some sort of "over-human validator" (e.g. God)? Or alternatively, how can we come up with a broadly acceptable method of judging human worth, without falling into the pitfalls of Abrahamic religious practices?
[+] [-] brlewis|7 years ago|reply
Who's asking you to "expect" anything? I think if you assess people's abilities individually everybody's happy.
[+] [-] didibus|7 years ago|reply
The idea of being equal in worth is interesting. How do you define it? Is it a kind of humanitarian worth? That all people are deserving of basic rights, decency and respect? Such would be the case even for handicapped or mentally challenged individuals? Or are you saying that their set of aptitudes, while not identical, sum up to an equal worth in utilitarian terms? Say, for example, taking one of the very strong stereotype, that child bearing is so useful to our societies, that it makes women as worthy as even the strongest of men and their aptitude for heavy lifting?
Now, the idea of equal aptitude is relevant as well. There's two main reasons for that. The first is that, some aptitudes, like intelligence, such as talents in mathematics, or decision making in general, has historically been thought of as inferior for women. Yet, there's never been evidence of this as far as I know. In fact, now that we admitted women in higher education, they are out outclassing men in most fields when it comes to grades. So this is a very relevant debate, because bias still exist, that a pretty young woman can't be as smart as a young man.
The other reason is the wash of the average. Lots of women are physically stronger then lots of men. Similarly, lots of men are emotionally more adept then lots of women. Thus aptitude shouldn't be characterised by gender, but it should be more individualized. This applies in some scenarios, like not giving women applicants a chance at very physical jobs. Even though some women have the necessary aptitudes.
[+] [-] jstanley|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drb91|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] threeseed|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] YeGoblynQueenne|7 years ago|reply
My (also single) dad says that men are smarter and more ambitious than women, that womens' place is at home, taking care of the children and that society is broken because women are trying to do the things that men are naturally better at doing and don't want to do what they're good at.
Your mom against my dad. Who wins?
[+] [-] YeGoblynQueenne|7 years ago|reply
Because the differences between male and female "bodies", meaning anatomical differences like sex characteristics, are obvious and self-evident, while differences in brain structure are not and therefore require careful study.
Further, because there are well-known and deeply entrenched cultural biases that risk derailing this careful study and therefore any initial assumptions that coincide with these cultural biases must be eliminated before serious work can begin.
Finally, because any result that just so happens, completely by chance, and despite the scientists' best effort, to agree with preconceived notions about "how things are" should be considered extremely suspicious and scrutinised again, and again, and again, and again, and noone who really wants to understand the relevant subjects should feel comfortable accepting such results as settled, much less defend them as "scientific orthodoxy".
In other words, because "bias" is as much a problem in science as it is in society, and because in the science of sex differences it is doubly so.
[+] [-] chongli|7 years ago|reply
Men and women can have an identical mean across a large number of traits but if the standard deviation is not the same then we can expect large differences at the extremes. This is in fact what we see. Boys' and girls' mathematics scores are pretty much identical at the mean but boys have a slightly higher standard deviation. Boys are thus overrepresented in the 1st and 99th percentiles of mathematical ability.
I think the other problem is that we as society only want to look up, never down. Many feminists demand that we equalize the representation of the sexes in all of the high-paying, intellectual fields (engineering, management, finance) but never in the dirtiest, most dangerous, outdoor fields (mining, logging, fishing, trash collecting) where men are similarly overrepresented.
[+] [-] frotak|7 years ago|reply
Specifically to his point that:
> the rationale was there aren’t any differences between males and females, so you avoid the unnecessarily complicated feature of the female hormonal cycle and study the male.
In other words...the "settled" science actually excludes the explicit study of, and furtherance of our understanding of, the female brain. Which in turn leads to a lessened ability to treat and address all sorts of conditions.
So by all means decry bias...but be aware that bias can be introduced by scientists wanting to cut corners and make research faster and easier so they can publish more just as much as they can be introduced by gender superiority zealots.
[+] [-] tynpeddler|7 years ago|reply
The real problem here isn't the science, is the pseudo-science and the journalism. It's pretty common for people to take single studies out of context and act as if their cherry picked study is the final word. Science journalists are supposed to bridge the gap between experts and laymen, but there seems to be very few good science journalists, and there seems to be lots of hacks and conmen.
[+] [-] Niten|7 years ago|reply
I somewhat agree with this statement. But judging by the ink spilled over sex differences in places like the New York Times, and by the views on the subject that one is allowed to hold in the polite company of higher education and industry, and by the intensity of the backlash when one publicly deviates from those views: I suspect the "deeply entrenched biases" most significant for present-day researchers lean quite opposite from what you assume.
[+] [-] JudgeWapner|7 years ago|reply
what burden of proof was required to come to this conclusion and why is that burden so much lower than the one required to conclude there are gender differences in human brains? Liberal universities are some of the most politically-correct, left-leaning bastions in the world. Members are imediately called to resign if they dare state anything against the progressive groupthink [1]. Yet you state as if it were well-established fact that "bias is a problem". this is not even counting the programs, scholarships, and active recruiting for more women in science.
I see 2 problems with accusations of "bias". For one, they're never levelled at an individual so the problem can be addressd at the source. It's always something nebulous, like "bias exists in science". So it's kind of like accusing all scientists of being sexist (or implicitly, male scientists, unless you want to clarify that women, too, are part of the problem), while at the same time accusing none of them. It's a tool that conditions its accused members to atone for something they didn't necessarily do, or if they did at one time, they're never forgiven. It makes everyone in the group feel guilty, regardless of whether they actually did something they should feel bad for.
The second problem with bias is that there's no bar for it "being a problem" ? In otherwords, if "it" exists in even one person somewhere in academia, one time, is it a problem ? If so, how long of a period does there have to be without bias for it to no longer be a problem ? If, say, a CMU professor makes a sexist tweet, how long is there a "sexism problem" at CMU? Forever? Until he is fired? Until he apologizes? None of these terms is defined, because I suspect it's not a problem intended to be solved. It's a social manipulation tool.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/yale-lecturer-resigns-...
[+] [-] oarabbus_|7 years ago|reply
That seems like a very odd, unscientific position to take. We know that men and women have different physical characteristics and hormonal affects (as an obvious example, women have a menstrual cycle while men do not). Ergo, the hypothalamus and pituitary gland (two areas of the brain which play pivotal roles in the human endocrine system) are structurally different between the sexes; this is obvious and self-evident.
[+] [-] lliamander|7 years ago|reply
The categorical denial of neurological sex differences of the sort that was published by Nature does not encourage careful study. In fact, it does rather the opposite by turning the subject into a political football. This distracts from the more important issue that arguably women have been under-served by the medical community precisely due to the denial of such differences.
[+] [-] reallydude|7 years ago|reply
They are different enough that investigators can distinguish the differences in skeletal remains, so I'm not sure that holds.
[+] [-] BurningFrog|7 years ago|reply
That careful study has been done. The science is settled, and there to learn for anyone with an open mind.
[+] [-] AlexTWithBeard|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wtdata|7 years ago|reply
Stopping people from doing science just because of political ideology, is a very dangerous proposition.
[+] [-] MrScruff|7 years ago|reply
Ideas that the article does not propose include:
- Men are better than Women or vice versa.
- Men are better suited to X activity or job.
The point was that the science should be evidence lead and defended from ideologues regardless of your view on the broader political issues. Ideologues attempt to bend all evidence to support a pre-existing conclusion, and the politicisation of science is bad in all cases because it undermines the entire process. It's depressing that a publication such as Nature should be affected in this way.
[+] [-] high_derivative|7 years ago|reply
https://quillette.com/2019/03/29/denying-the-neuroscience-of...
[+] [-] jpmoyn|7 years ago|reply
This right here is one of the concrete reasons for why we NEED to recognize neurological sex differences, and have studies that focus specifically on genders. We could discover loads about treatment differences by gender, and really help a lot of people who are suffering from depression (something that is becoming more prevalent by the day).
[+] [-] Balgair|7 years ago|reply
Some context is needed though. The estrous cycle of dams is fairly complicated[1]. Controlling variables in hormones, hydration, etc. is much easier in bucks. Since the experiments are easier to control for, you need less rodents and therefore you need less funding for rodent care and housing, and you need to sacrifice less rodents to do the experiment (generally). Hence why they have been the 'preferred' rodent sex historically, among many other reasons.
Additionally, rodents are some of the 'first' level in vivo models, but are far from the last in the long line of research that is human applicable. It is very common that research done in rodents will not translate to other mainstay research vertebrates like dogs and monkeys, let alone into humans. The differences in the sexes are vastly outweighed by the differences in species.
Generally, yes, it is good that we are now defaulting to having to use both sexes of rodents. However, costs and sacrifices per experiment have risen as a result. All things have trade-offs in our world.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=mcgill+pain+mice+research+ma...
[1] https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Estr...
[+] [-] Jun8|7 years ago|reply
"Q: Is there a battle between actual scientists and science journalists who may be in thrall to a progressive or woke ideology?
A: No, because most scientists are blissfully unaware..."
As long as scientists stay away from these discussions, the field will be left to "ideologues" as Cahill calls them, i.e. people who either have little knowledge of the subject they're discussing or else have such a strong agenda that it strongly biases their views and prior probabilities.
[+] [-] bjourne|7 years ago|reply
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/opinion/male-female-brain... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x
[+] [-] skybrian|7 years ago|reply
So it's probably for the best if most scientists ignore Twitter. The occasional article like this one should help, though, if widely reshared.
[+] [-] WhompingWindows|7 years ago|reply
IMO, the problem arises in the subjectivity of psycho-metrics, which can be very lackluster tools. IQ, cognitive function, working memory, long term memory, and on and on -much harder to establish a clear difference between these across the two sexes, given with such imprecise and arbitrary measures.
[+] [-] legulere|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Viliam1234|7 years ago|reply
(Unless you believe that Sweden is just as patriarchal as Saudi Arabia, in which case I guess there is no argument that could possibly convince you.)
Another possible approach is to examine what happens to transgender people after they start taking hormones.
[+] [-] etatoby|7 years ago|reply
Q1. What purpose does a Gender Studies Department serve.
Q2. Why are its teachings based not on science, but apparently on the opposite?
[+] [-] rdlecler1|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] int_19h|7 years ago|reply
"Rippon does not mention Udry’s work, or its essential replication by Udry’s harshest critic, a leading sociologist who has described herself as a “feminist” who now “wrestles” with testosterone."
But the person in question had this to say:
"This totally misrepresents my re-analysis of Udry data. (I’m the feminist who wrestles with testosterone). Might misrepresent much else as well?"
(https://twitter.com/bjrisman/status/1112534702362165251)
[+] [-] trombonechamp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] User23|7 years ago|reply
That made me chuckle.
[+] [-] bparsons|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] TulliusCicero|7 years ago|reply
> Cahill, a professor in the Department of Neurobiology and Behavior at the University of California at Irvine, is considered one of the world’s leading researchers on the influence of biological sex.
I mean, he doesn't sound like a crank, and he's also written for Scientific American. Does that mean he's acceptable after all?
[+] [-] tlear|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dijit|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lukev|7 years ago|reply
Rather, they are observing that the notion of one sex being biologically "superior" (or at least more suitable for high-prestige roles) has a long and oppressive history in our society, and that incautious "research" can be used to bolster types of sexism that we had hoped were behind us. Indeed, we see this happening on this very site all the time, whenever the topic comes up.
It's not that sex differences might not exist. It's that the instant you publish anything on the the topic, conservatives will inevitably and immediately latch onto it as proof that the traditional gender roles have been correct all along. Even if that's not what the studies show (and there's actually no reason to think they would, as the article points out.)
Basically, the point of feminists is that society is so fraught on this issue, and there's so much latent bias, that it is extremely difficult to perform research objectively, let alone have it be received objectively and proportionately by an audience outside the field.
[+] [-] WillPostForFood|7 years ago|reply
modern neuroscientists have identified no decisive, category-defining differences between the brains of men and women.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x
[+] [-] TulliusCicero|7 years ago|reply
> Basically, the point of feminists is that society is so fraught on this issue, and there's so much latent bias, that it is extremely difficult to perform research objectively
What does this even mean? Do you think the subject of this article is just unavoidably biased and thus should stop researching? Should people in very obviously left- or right-leaning fields just pack up and quit doing anything? Bye-bye gender studies, I guess?
> let alone have it be received objectively and proportionately by an audience outside the field.
So because some people will twist research for their own ends, we're just what, better off not knowing?
[+] [-] strictfp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bjourne|7 years ago|reply
He is misrepresenting the Feminist's position just as much as he is claiming that they are misrepresenting science. Feminism has become the right's new Bogeyman.
[+] [-] basetop|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] whatshisface|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] merpnderp|7 years ago|reply
Saying conservatives support sexist gender roles is like saying liberals support anti-vaxxers - wrong.