See, this kind of shit makes me crazy.
There's a press release floating around about another study that demonstrates that women and men are, well, you know. The way they are.
It should be noted that this report will appear in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (appropriately, PNAS), and is made of SCIENCE, so it's definitely true.
The study reports differentials in the importance of a potential date's physical attractiveness among male and female speed daters--I mean, among the general population. In their sampling--according to the press release--men went for the most attractive women, while women went for men who were in their league. At this writing, the study hasn't been published yet, which makes it hard to critique from a scientific standpoint. But the method (although of dubious rigor, from what I can tell) is probably not the worst part of it.
There's a boatload of studies describing behavioral differences between men and women. What causes so many of them to be so crazy-making is their authors' tendency to discuss their findings as if they are causes, not effects. This is not a very scientific approach, nor does it seem a very intelligent one: it's like taking note that in certain kinds of weather, people use umbrellas--and then studying the impact of umbrellas on the weather instead of studying the impact of weather on the use of umbrellas. A scientist would consider both of these options before settling down to study one, but there's not even a hint of such breadth of mind in these studies, and they often altogether lack a true spirit of inquiry.
One of my favorites in this genre of study is a paper by some folks in Canada. It describes men's preference for women who laugh at their jokes, and women's preference for men who make jokes. The study group: Some undergrads at a Canadian university. The group to whom the findings are generalized: Men and women--all of them. Meaningful discussion points made by the authors about the implications of these preferences: None.
Publishing "science" like this without any actual analysis encourages those who read it (and report on it) to ignore its context. For example, people may not naturally wonder if, perhaps, a social structure wherein men are the dominant and entitled class might have something to do with the findings in both papers. People might need a little hint. If the authors are uncomfortable giving people hints--by which I mean, discussing the context of their findings--they shouldn't publish results. Doing otherwise constitutes a publicity stunt.
When I was younger and more lovelorn, someone once told me that I'd score more dates if I quit being funny. My humor was threatening to men, this person said. If they'd been holding this dumb paper, they could have shaken it in my face, and added, "See? Studies show!"
To that person, and to the authors of both the Canadian paper and the one forthcoming in PNAS, and to that douchebag Christopher Hitchens, who doesn't even think women are capable of being funny:
You bring nothing to this conversation. I can't believe you don't shut up.
Many thanks to Sheril of The Intersection for the tip.
- Log in to post comments
This being the only piece of yours that I've read on the subject, I won't presume to guess at exactly where you stand with regards to innate masculinity/femininity. It sounds to me like you're exceedingly skeptical of studies that seem to indicate that there are serious general differences in the innate feelings and behaviors of the genders and it further sounds like some of this may inform, or be informed by, your personal feelings on the matter.
It would appear to me that radicals on either side are wrong, but I've said nothing until you know whom I've crowned as the radicals. They would be: On the one hand a great number of pre-modern people's who believed that the innate abilities and proclivities of the sexes were almost set in stone and that no amount of opposing cultural conditioning could effect it; on the other hand a great number of 20th Century intellectuals, feminists and socialists who believed that there absolutely no inherent differences between the genders save for appearance and that the very concepts of masculinity and femininity are culturally imposed concepts.
What would I like to be true? I would say what people expect that I should say: That my personal preferences on the matter are irrelevant and that they, in no way, impinge upon my critical analysis of the subject - but I won't say that. The truth is that I believe that we who study (in an academic capacity or otherwise) humanistic matters through a scientific lens need to know very very well what it is that our prejudices would prefer to see as the outcome of our studies. Only through knowing ourselves and all of the unsavory (or savory) all-too-human societal and personal "wishes" that we hold in our inner hearts for what we would like the data to prove - can we hope to mitigate that dishonest influence within ourselves and come, after honest study, to accurate knowledge of what is actually true.
Only through knowing ourselves and all of the unsavory (or savory) all-too-human societal and personal "wishes" that we hold in our inner hearts for what we would like the data to prove - can we hope to mitigate that dishonest influence within ourselves and come, after honest study, to accurate knowledge of what is actually true.
Cheers ~
mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com
P.S. I know that it isn't customary to embolden a segment of one's own comment. I realized however that (at least in my very biased opinion :-) it's a worthy, but somewhat lengthy, sentence and perhaps meritorious of an embolden repeat for emphasis. ~ m
I always hate how these sort of study go from the data that shows that most people are ------ to everyone is -------. When nearyly everyone is stange somehow. The most commen is somehow seen as the only, or your a freak. I mean guys are more aggresive then girls on average, but some of the most agresive people i know are girls, and some of the least agressive are guys.
Yes most boys like playing with cars more then dolls, and girls vice versa, but some little boys would perfer a math textbook to a doll, and a doll to a car.
I agree with mnuez.
If anything, you are guilty of the umbrella/weather analogy you draw, in regards to your call for contextualizing the results by societies. While important to keep in mind, sociological constraints remain proximal causes, rooted in deeper biological fact. (Though the paper on laughter is a good point and is a pet peeve of mine as well: saying you look for someone with a "good sense of humor" is a tautology).
The kerfluffle over evolutionary psych/behavior reminds me of the blowback Jared Diamond dealt with after he published Guns, Germs, and Steel. Again, as mnuez pointed out, feminists, cultural relativists, et al. seem to think that any suggestion for human behavior other than the most literal interpretation of Locke's tabula rasa is inherently racist or misogynistic.
mneu, jtdub - You are both absolutely in the wrong here. There is nothing in either of these studies that indicates the root cause of measured differences between men and women. There is no evidence for it being social versus genetic because there is no way to separate the two - any study done in our current society will necessarily be done in people raised in this society. In your attempt to bolster support for inborn differences between men and women you are attempting to play the part of the unsentimental scientists, unswayed by aspirations for equality, boldly looking at a possibly unfair, but undeniable, truth. You both sound very much like the early proponents of intelligence differences between the races - they too thought they were basing their ideas on absolute fact and were full of derogatory comments for sentimental scientists that proposed racial equality. In both cases the evidence for these claims of innate inequality are based in faulty science that is incapable of separating the effects of society from the effects of genetics. The studies Signout discusses in this post can say nothing about the reason that men differ from women in these ways, and that was her point. If you two think they can, I recommend you read the Mismeasure of Man (Stephen Jay Gould) and think about your own biases before attacking others.
Whoa whoa whoa. Whoa.
While I don't appreciate the comparison to the (undeniably) racist authors of The Bell Curve and the like, my point was that attempts to explain behavior in biological terms are NOT inherently racist/misogynistic.
And who's attacking here? Besides you, of course (see Bell Curve comment).
And besides, what are societal constructs if not an extension of biology? It's not as though this boogeyman "society" was thrust onto primitive man who otherwise wouldn't have gathered in such a way. As much bootstrapping as humanity is capable of, there are still the inescapable evolutionary underpinnings.
Of course neither I nor Signout have indicated any belief that human behavior is not in part a result of genetics. The only point that she and I made was that it is impossible to unravel the contribution of genetics from that of society, making the studies she listed incapable of providing any information about innate qualities of men versus women. And of course social constructs are extensions of biology, everything humans do and create is an extension of biology. Not all of it is an extension of a heritable trait (as an innate difference between the genders would be). Assuming that the results of these types of studies say anything about evolution is just as wrong as denying that evolution can play a role.
jtdub Im sorry, the attack comment was directed more at the longer post, though I thought you were both overly pedantic, dismissive, and confrontational. There is no denying a similarity between searching for innate differences of intelligence between the races or to any similar search between the sexes: both can have no grounding in scientific fact and both result in limiting the potential of people for no reason.
I think the previous commenters both have good points that aren't necessarily contradictory.
First, is it possible that there are innate differences in men and women's mental functioning and behavior?
I think the answer is clearly yes. Men and women have different sets of hormones, many of which affect brain development, not to mention considerable non-overlapping genetic material. This doesn't necessarily mean there will exist between-sex differences, but I think it is hard to argue that it is not at least possible.
Second, has any one actually shown any of these differences?
Not to my knowledge. Studies along this line are infamous for conflating cause and correlation (e.g., the recent study showing that girls "innately" prefer pink while boys "innately" prefer blue). It's not my field so maybe I'm missing something, but I certainly have not seen any convincing evidence of innate differences.
Third, is it acceptable to search for differences?
If some researcher can figure out a clever way of dissociating genetic influences from cultural influences, I personally think it would be enlightening to know about innate differences between sexes. Not in order to justify social stratification, but because it could inform educational strategies, neuropharmacology, etc.
I think the previous commenters all have good points that aren't necessarily contradictory.
First, is it possible that there are innate differences in men and women's mental functioning and behavior?
I think the answer is clearly yes. Men and women have different sets of hormones, many of which affect brain development, not to mention considerable non-overlapping genetic material. This doesn't necessarily mean there will exist between-sex differences, but I think it is hard to argue that it is not at least possible.
Second, has any one actually shown any of these differences?
Not to my knowledge. Studies along this line are infamous for conflating cause and correlation (e.g., the recent study showing that girls "innately" prefer pink while boys "innately" prefer blue). It's not my field so maybe I'm missing something, but I certainly have not seen any convincing evidence of innate differences.
Third, is it acceptable to search for differences?
If some researcher can figure out a clever way of dissociating genetic influences from cultural influences, I personally think it would be enlightening to know about innate differences between sexes. Not in order to justify social stratification, but because it could inform educational strategies, neuropharmacology, etc. That said, I think we're all a little tired of researchers touting their latest correlation as evidence of innate differences.
Mike - I absolutely agree with you, very well put. I would only add that researchers have an obligation, especially when working on a subject with a potential societal impact, to address all of the models that can reasonably explain their results (seems to be the main problem with most of this type of study).
Thanks for helping elucidate my point, spandrelist. Indeed, I think there probably are innate differences between sexes. All I ask is that if you're going to publish a theory about what those differences are, do it well, and scientifically. I also do believe that to do otherwise is posturing.
Is there a point in exploring these differences? Perhaps. There are probably some neuropharm implications, as well as implications for early diagnosis and therapy for trans-identifying folks. I'll bet you a hundred bucks that any studies truly directed toward improving diagnosis and therapy won't be getting published in the Journal of Evolution and Human Behavior, however--and probably won't get nearly as much press.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Excellent post.
I am funny as well, I guess that's why I'm single. Men find my humour threatening. Why? Because then THEY can't be the funny ones and I can't be the one stroking their ... egoes.
What a load of BS!!! They feel threatened??? Well, TOUGH!
I think people differ greatly on this issue. For example, if it were completely unidentifiable as my own, I would have no problem with a picture of my naked ass being posted on the Internet. Others would be absolutely horrified by the prospect.
As much bootstrapping as humanity is capable of, there are still the inescapable evolutionary underpinnings.