Recent reading
Dec. 4th, 2018 11:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luzulaBrain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences by Rebecca Jordan-Young (2010)
This book deserves a post of its own. I've been planning to read up on this subject, and I knew this was probably the book I wanted when some people on Goodreads complained that it was boring. It's not boring. But it is not easily digested popular science, either. This is a very thorough, thoughtful and careful book that takes the scientific method seriously, and it really impressed me.
The book examines the theory that prenatal hormone exposure organizes the brain to take on either masculine or feminine characteristics in later life. Jordan-Young goes through the research literature and also interviews many of the scientists involved. She stresses that since we can't do actual experiments on this, we can only do quasi-experiments where we follow people with unusual hormone exposures and see what characteristics they have, or take people with particular characteristics and try to investigate their hormone exposures (which often can't be done, and then attempts are made to correlate with other qualities which are assumed or shown to be correlated with hormone exposures). All this needs to line up in a consistent network of studies.
So the problems she finds are:
1) The scientists most often don't define what they mean by key concepts, such as "female sexuality" or "homosexuality". The measures they apply are inconsistent and sometimes change over time (such as when female masturbation was defined as a sign of masculine sexuality before about 1980, and as a sign of feminine sexuality after 1980). And apparently nobody in the field noticed! *headdesk*
2) Many studies have small samples, and also do multiple comparisons, that is, they test for correlations with many different characteristics, which leads to a high probability for false positives.
3) They don't pay enough attention to context and to other factors which can also influence the characteristics they're looking at. For example, looking at women with an intersex condition called CAH, scientists draw the conclusion that increased prenatal testosterone is the cause of these women not wanting children as much as other women. Apparently they don't consider that it could be because they've had multiple genital surgeries and have been told throughout their upbringing that they'll probably be infertile.
4) Many results are contradictory, and reviews often don't cite negative studies, and old studies from the 60's and 70's continue to be cited despite changing definitions.
There's more, but I can't possibly do it justice in one short post. Jordan-Young is not against the idea that there are genetic differences between men and women that show up in the brain, but if anything, she thinks the biology here is not being taken seriously. She says that you can't say that there's a fixed hereditary component and then the social components are added on top of that. Rather, a genotype can express itself differently in different environments, and the social conditions are part of the environment. Also the brain is plastic and changes throughout life.
...yes, I did read this book so I could discuss the subject with my mom. *sigh*
This book deserves a post of its own. I've been planning to read up on this subject, and I knew this was probably the book I wanted when some people on Goodreads complained that it was boring. It's not boring. But it is not easily digested popular science, either. This is a very thorough, thoughtful and careful book that takes the scientific method seriously, and it really impressed me.
The book examines the theory that prenatal hormone exposure organizes the brain to take on either masculine or feminine characteristics in later life. Jordan-Young goes through the research literature and also interviews many of the scientists involved. She stresses that since we can't do actual experiments on this, we can only do quasi-experiments where we follow people with unusual hormone exposures and see what characteristics they have, or take people with particular characteristics and try to investigate their hormone exposures (which often can't be done, and then attempts are made to correlate with other qualities which are assumed or shown to be correlated with hormone exposures). All this needs to line up in a consistent network of studies.
So the problems she finds are:
1) The scientists most often don't define what they mean by key concepts, such as "female sexuality" or "homosexuality". The measures they apply are inconsistent and sometimes change over time (such as when female masturbation was defined as a sign of masculine sexuality before about 1980, and as a sign of feminine sexuality after 1980). And apparently nobody in the field noticed! *headdesk*
2) Many studies have small samples, and also do multiple comparisons, that is, they test for correlations with many different characteristics, which leads to a high probability for false positives.
3) They don't pay enough attention to context and to other factors which can also influence the characteristics they're looking at. For example, looking at women with an intersex condition called CAH, scientists draw the conclusion that increased prenatal testosterone is the cause of these women not wanting children as much as other women. Apparently they don't consider that it could be because they've had multiple genital surgeries and have been told throughout their upbringing that they'll probably be infertile.
4) Many results are contradictory, and reviews often don't cite negative studies, and old studies from the 60's and 70's continue to be cited despite changing definitions.
There's more, but I can't possibly do it justice in one short post. Jordan-Young is not against the idea that there are genetic differences between men and women that show up in the brain, but if anything, she thinks the biology here is not being taken seriously. She says that you can't say that there's a fixed hereditary component and then the social components are added on top of that. Rather, a genotype can express itself differently in different environments, and the social conditions are part of the environment. Also the brain is plastic and changes throughout life.
...yes, I did read this book so I could discuss the subject with my mom. *sigh*
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-04 11:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-05 10:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-05 11:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-06 11:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-05 06:43 am (UTC)...Also depressing, in the way of bad science (or decent science misinterpreted) informing bad policy, but still fascinating.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-12-05 10:05 am (UTC)Fascinating
Date: 2018-12-22 12:42 am (UTC)https://theconversation.com/the-equivalence-test-a-new-way-for-scientists-to-tackle-so-called-negative-results-106041
Re: Fascinating
Date: 2018-12-22 06:38 am (UTC)