6 ms·

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 creationi

by lukev 8y ago

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.

merpnderp 8y ago
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.
whatshisface 8y ago
>society is so fraught on this issue, and there's so much latent bias, that it is extremely difficult to perform research objectively That's exactly what global warming skeptics say, along with every conservative that doesn't support one of the non-conservative positions that is associated with science. This is not to say who is right in their accusations, just that it's the same accusation. If you want to disagree with "The Scientific Consensus (TM)" but can't do it on scientific grounds, that claim is automatically the option you have to go with. Of course, it may also be true in some cases.
- lukev 8y ago
  It might be an accusation of the same form, but both the nature of the claimed bias and the potential ramifications of getting it wrong couldn't be more different.
TulliusCicero 8y ago
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?
- lukev 8y ago
  I don't have a good answer here. I was mostly trying to clarify the positions involved. I would say at a minimum we need to proceed carefully, fully understanding the implications and the way results are going to be co-opted.
  - alexandercrohde 8y ago
    Yeah, but meh. I think it's outright laughable that a "sex difference in the hippocampal synapse" is going to lead to undermine the basic civil rights we've established. And if you're so afraid of silly talking-heads alleging something that you hold your science back by decades then I think you're actually giving more power to those talking heads. Finally, denying the objectively true as opposed to saying "Sex differences exist but we don't like to talk about them" makes you the dishonest side and pushes people like me to the other side.
basetop 8y ago
If that's the point of feminists then feminists are a danger to research, science and society. You are essentially arguing empirical biological research is impossible. How about scientists do the research and feminists and conservatives can argue about the conclusions? Some conservatives twist science for their ends, but so do feminists. Not sure why you are just blaming one side. I can't believe someone is actually justifying banning research. It just seems like feminists ( a small vocal minority of feminists ) don't want research because the facts will probably go against their political ideology. If they thought the research would support their bias, I suspect feminists would be supporting it. Your argument reminds me of christian conservatives demanding end to archeological research because facts that researchers dig up might conflict with their worldview.
- Faark 8y ago
  He isn't just doing research and let the conservatives vs feminists argue by themselves. The article makes this quite obvious by him choosing a specific platform and ranting against feminists over and over again. It's ridiculous how people will argue they "just present facts" while doing so. But there is another options over the apparently impossible goal of researchers being 100% neutral: Everyone acting responsible. Like Nature not screwing up with this apparently shitty article. Or him Cahill not going to a heavily slanted platform to push his message. And yes, for a lot of researchers that means publishing their findings in a way that makes it harder for motivated actors to abuse it. I understand this is additional work, and likely not fun kind. But especially on currently "hot" topics, this will help us all. Just like we in software should actively try to avoid building the tools necessary for a dystopian future.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    The problem is that many of these motivated actors are in academia. Think about the cases we've heard about somebody in academia being accused of sexism because they didn't kowtow to the values the types of feminists hold that Cahill mentions. A mathematics paper caused an uproar because somebody tried to show that it's mathematically possible for sex differences to appear On that note, your software development comparison is apt: there are people in software development who explicitly want to build tools that lead towards a dystopia. They just believe it won't be a dystopia.
WillPostForFood 8y ago
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. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x
- notafraudster 8y ago
  I have not read the book being reviewed, but I don't see any radical or ideological claims in the review. The main claims of the review appear to be: 1. Articles have been published which claim to identify male-female brain differences. 2. Citing a few specific examples and claiming that the book delves into more, these articles are typically wrong due to innumeracy, bad designs, lack of power, etc. I assume good faith that the criticisms she identifies of the studies in particular are reasonable, mainly because the kind of innumeracy and power issues she identifies plagues all the research I read in other fields and I have no reason to believe quant training or publishing incentives differ materially in neuroscience. 3. Without saying the articles are sexist, the conclusions drawn from the articles have demonstrably been sexist in the past (i.e. moving from claimed differences in grey matter to generalizations about women's aptitude in mathematics) 4. Because we're fairly good at no longer saying women are worse than men biologically, we now say women are different than men biologically. The studies that report this have, according to the reviewer's summary of the book, similar problems. 5. If we assume that the research on biology is incorrect, how do we square that with apparent differences between men and women? Cultural arguments, for which studies are cited. Again, it is quite possible I am missing the anti-science backdrop of this debate that you seem to be familiar with, but the article you linked does not exhibit those kinds of qualities. It is of typical quality for a review article. The claims made that are heterodox to "mainstream" thinking appear to be grounded in criticisms of science from within science. When I say "much of social psychology is wrong", it's not because I'm an anti-science Freudian or whatever, it's because I'm a scientist and I'm numerate and I know much of social psychology is wrong due to analysis errors, researcher degrees of freedom, fraud, file drawer problems, publication bias, etc. I mean, probably the most direct claim examined in the review article is the reviewer claiming a relevant study found one thing and a subsequent, better-powered meta-analysis found the opposite thing. This is not an anti-science howl, it's literally what we want scientists to do. Do you think you could do a better job of highlighting the ways in which you feel the article reflects a "flat earth movement"? Again, I'm at a disadvantage here because I haven't read the book being reviewed, but since you have, evidence from the book would be useful too. I mention this because the Medium article we're all replying to seems to provide... uh... exactly zero references to studies, numeracy, good scientific practice, etc. It seems mostly founded on incredulity that anyone would make the claim you pull-quoted -- actually, even worse, it seems mostly incredulous about the TITLE of the Nature piece. It talks about Gender Studies, and culture war; it repeatedly mentions Quilette but I don't see the mention of any scientific journal after the Nature review piece. He does cite his own experience from all the studying he did. One of the claims about Gender Studies is that methodologically it, like many cultural studies programs, elevates lived experiences over empiricism. If you're an empiricism, this is scary. But the Medium article has the professor claiming that he knows differences are obvious because he's seen them himself, and so the article which actually discusses empirical results must be wrong...
bjourne 8y ago
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.
- Dirlewanger 8y ago
  If you read the article, you'd see a linked NYT article whose authors clearly have no interest in further discussing potential physiological differences between the sex's brains.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Cahill does not mention feminism or feminists at any point, either in the Medium article, or in his review that it links to. You can certainly choose to interpret "ideologues" in this broad way, but that is a very uncharitable (for feminism) reading.
  - bjourne 8y ago
    "You might think _they’d_ be protesting outside my door. They are not. I teach a class here called Sex Differences in the Brain. It has a max of 60 people, and it’s enrolled about to the max. My students come out of the class going, “Wow, I had no idea about this stuff!” I point out to them that 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." It is blatantly obvious what he means by "ideologues".
    - 0815test 8y ago
      Well, it seems clear that what he has a problem with is not "feminists" but people who actually promote junk science, either in parts of academia or on the media. It's the difference between saying "conservatives are anti-science" and stating the same thing about creationists or climate-change denialists.
strictfp 8y ago
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.

by lukev 8y ago

merpnderp 8y ago

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.

whatshisface 8y ago

>society is so fraught on this issue, and there's so much latent bias, that it is extremely difficult to perform research objectively That's exactly what global warming skeptics say, along with every conservative that doesn't support one of the non-conservative positions that is associated with science. This is not to say who is right in their accusations, just that it's the same accusation. If you want to disagree with "The Scientific Consensus (TM)" but can't do it on scientific grounds, that claim is automatically the option you have to go with. Of course, it may also be true in some cases.

lukev 8y ago
It might be an accusation of the same form, but both the nature of the claimed bias and the potential ramifications of getting it wrong couldn't be more different.

TulliusCicero 8y ago

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?

lukev 8y ago
I don't have a good answer here. I was mostly trying to clarify the positions involved. I would say at a minimum we need to proceed carefully, fully understanding the implications and the way results are going to be co-opted.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  Yeah, but meh. I think it's outright laughable that a "sex difference in the hippocampal synapse" is going to lead to undermine the basic civil rights we've established. And if you're so afraid of silly talking-heads alleging something that you hold your science back by decades then I think you're actually giving more power to those talking heads. Finally, denying the objectively true as opposed to saying "Sex differences exist but we don't like to talk about them" makes you the dishonest side and pushes people like me to the other side.

basetop 8y ago

If that's the point of feminists then feminists are a danger to research, science and society. You are essentially arguing empirical biological research is impossible. How about scientists do the research and feminists and conservatives can argue about the conclusions? Some conservatives twist science for their ends, but so do feminists. Not sure why you are just blaming one side. I can't believe someone is actually justifying banning research. It just seems like feminists ( a small vocal minority of feminists ) don't want research because the facts will probably go against their political ideology. If they thought the research would support their bias, I suspect feminists would be supporting it. Your argument reminds me of christian conservatives demanding end to archeological research because facts that researchers dig up might conflict with their worldview.

Faark 8y ago
He isn't just doing research and let the conservatives vs feminists argue by themselves. The article makes this quite obvious by him choosing a specific platform and ranting against feminists over and over again. It's ridiculous how people will argue they "just present facts" while doing so. But there is another options over the apparently impossible goal of researchers being 100% neutral: Everyone acting responsible. Like Nature not screwing up with this apparently shitty article. Or him Cahill not going to a heavily slanted platform to push his message. And yes, for a lot of researchers that means publishing their findings in a way that makes it harder for motivated actors to abuse it. I understand this is additional work, and likely not fun kind. But especially on currently "hot" topics, this will help us all. Just like we in software should actively try to avoid building the tools necessary for a dystopian future.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  The problem is that many of these motivated actors are in academia. Think about the cases we've heard about somebody in academia being accused of sexism because they didn't kowtow to the values the types of feminists hold that Cahill mentions. A mathematics paper caused an uproar because somebody tried to show that it's mathematically possible for sex differences to appear On that note, your software development comparison is apt: there are people in software development who explicitly want to build tools that lead towards a dystopia. They just believe it won't be a dystopia.

WillPostForFood 8y ago

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. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x

notafraudster 8y ago
I have not read the book being reviewed, but I don't see any radical or ideological claims in the review. The main claims of the review appear to be: 1. Articles have been published which claim to identify male-female brain differences. 2. Citing a few specific examples and claiming that the book delves into more, these articles are typically wrong due to innumeracy, bad designs, lack of power, etc. I assume good faith that the criticisms she identifies of the studies in particular are reasonable, mainly because the kind of innumeracy and power issues she identifies plagues all the research I read in other fields and I have no reason to believe quant training or publishing incentives differ materially in neuroscience. 3. Without saying the articles are sexist, the conclusions drawn from the articles have demonstrably been sexist in the past (i.e. moving from claimed differences in grey matter to generalizations about women's aptitude in mathematics) 4. Because we're fairly good at no longer saying women are worse than men biologically, we now say women are different than men biologically. The studies that report this have, according to the reviewer's summary of the book, similar problems. 5. If we assume that the research on biology is incorrect, how do we square that with apparent differences between men and women? Cultural arguments, for which studies are cited. Again, it is quite possible I am missing the anti-science backdrop of this debate that you seem to be familiar with, but the article you linked does not exhibit those kinds of qualities. It is of typical quality for a review article. The claims made that are heterodox to "mainstream" thinking appear to be grounded in criticisms of science from within science. When I say "much of social psychology is wrong", it's not because I'm an anti-science Freudian or whatever, it's because I'm a scientist and I'm numerate and I know much of social psychology is wrong due to analysis errors, researcher degrees of freedom, fraud, file drawer problems, publication bias, etc. I mean, probably the most direct claim examined in the review article is the reviewer claiming a relevant study found one thing and a subsequent, better-powered meta-analysis found the opposite thing. This is not an anti-science howl, it's literally what we want scientists to do. Do you think you could do a better job of highlighting the ways in which you feel the article reflects a "flat earth movement"? Again, I'm at a disadvantage here because I haven't read the book being reviewed, but since you have, evidence from the book would be useful too. I mention this because the Medium article we're all replying to seems to provide... uh... exactly zero references to studies, numeracy, good scientific practice, etc. It seems mostly founded on incredulity that anyone would make the claim you pull-quoted -- actually, even worse, it seems mostly incredulous about the TITLE of the Nature piece. It talks about Gender Studies, and culture war; it repeatedly mentions Quilette but I don't see the mention of any scientific journal after the Nature review piece. He does cite his own experience from all the studying he did. One of the claims about Gender Studies is that methodologically it, like many cultural studies programs, elevates lived experiences over empiricism. If you're an empiricism, this is scary. But the Medium article has the professor claiming that he knows differences are obvious because he's seen them himself, and so the article which actually discusses empirical results must be wrong...

bjourne 8y ago

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.

Dirlewanger 8y ago
If you read the article, you'd see a linked NYT article whose authors clearly have no interest in further discussing potential physiological differences between the sex's brains.
int_19h 8y ago
Cahill does not mention feminism or feminists at any point, either in the Medium article, or in his review that it links to. You can certainly choose to interpret "ideologues" in this broad way, but that is a very uncharitable (for feminism) reading.
- bjourne 8y ago
  "You might think _they’d_ be protesting outside my door. They are not. I teach a class here called Sex Differences in the Brain. It has a max of 60 people, and it’s enrolled about to the max. My students come out of the class going, “Wow, I had no idea about this stuff!” I point out to them that 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." It is blatantly obvious what he means by "ideologues".
  - 0815test 8y ago
    Well, it seems clear that what he has a problem with is not "feminists" but people who actually promote junk science, either in parts of academia or on the media. It's the difference between saying "conservatives are anti-science" and stating the same thing about creationists or climate-change denialists.

strictfp 8y ago

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.