The New Neurosexism: What It Is, And Why We Should Care Cordelia Fine A/Prof, Centre for Ethical Leadership, Melbourne Business School & Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne www.cordeliafine.com “Seeing that the average brain-weight of women is about five ounces less than that of men, on merely anatomical grounds we should be prepared to expect a marked inferiority of intellect in the former.” Romanes (1887/1987), Mental differences between men and women “Moreover, as the general physique of women is less robust than that of men – and therefore less able to sustain the fatigue of serious or prolonged brain action – we should also on physiological grounds be prepared to entertain a similar anticipation.” “It can only tend the better to equip a wife as the helpmeet of her husband … and can only tend the better to prepare a mother for the greatest of her duties forming the tastes and guiding the minds of her children”. “The female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy. The male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems.” FETAL TESTOSTERONE FETAL TESTOSTERONE fMRI • Indirect measurement of blood flow • Compare blood flow during experimental and control task • Perform statistical tests for differences in blood flow in different regions The New Neurosexism? • Exaggerate the extent of differences • Exaggerate the functional importance of differences • Exaggerate the fixedness of differences EXTENT: Spurious results and publication bias • Sex is easy and ‘obvious’ to investigate • It’s also interesting to report • But the nature of statistical testing means that, even if the two populations are really the same, 1 in 20 researchers will report a ‘statistically significant’ difference. Greater Male Lateralization (Or, Spotlights and Floodlights) Nature (1995) Sommer et al. (2008). Sex differences in handedness, asymmetry of the Planum Temporale and functional language lateralization. Brain Research, 1206: 76-88. With permission of Elsevier (Brain Research). • All relevant (N = 75) 2009/10 citations of Shaywitz et al. (1995). • Clear evidence of citation bias: 57% cited no contradictory data. • All (N=39) 2009/10 fMRI studies of sex differences. • About three quarters of studies had fewer than 15 participants in each group of interest. Fine (conditional acceptance), Neuroethics Common research practices support the production and persistence of false- positive findings of sex differences. Functional significance: What would it mean, anyway? A skew towards local connectivity [spotlight] is “compatible with strong systemizing, because systemizing involves a narrow attentional focus to local information, in order to understand each part of a system.” Baron-Cohen et al. (2005), Science. Male spotlight brain better suited to research disciplines that require “detailed scrutiny of narrowly characterized processes”, like physics and math, while the female brain may be better for “disciplines that require integration”. Gur & Gur (2007) In Why aren’t there more women in science? “May as well say hairier body so fuzzier thinker. Or that human beings are capable of fixing fuses because the brain uses electricity.” (Ian Gold, pers. com.) Rogers et al. (2004), Proc RS London, B Fine (2010), Delusions of Gender • All (n = 39) fMRI studies of sex differences. • How many studies drew on a neurocognitive model to make a precise prediction of the brain region in which they expected sex differences to be observed, corresponding to specific mental processes thought to differ between the sexes? • None. • Post hoc speculation common (69%). • Almost all speculations made either in the absence of relevant behavioural data, or despite inconsistent behavioural data. Willingness to make male/female comparisons in absence of well-developed neurocognitive accounts allows proliferation of post hoc, stereotype-consistent, empirically untested speculations. FIXEDNESS: Why might any difference exist? • Gender, as a powerful and pervasive social phenomenon, ensures that biological sex will influence the experiences (material, social, mental, physical) a person encounters (e.g., Fausto-Sterling, 2000, Sexing the body). • Neural circuitry develops through, and is altered by, experience. FIXEDNESS: Why might any difference exist? • Sex differences in behavior can vary across historical period, culture, socioeconomic group, ethnicity and social contexts. • This plasticity of behavior must be reflected in plasticity at the neuronal level. What does simply finding a male/female brain difference tell us? • That it’s ‘hardwired’? • No. (Hoffman 2012, In Neurofeminism) • The processes whereby the male/female difference in brain (and behavior) arose? • No. (Jordan-Young & Rumiati 2011, NeuroEthics). • The factors influencing when the difference is decreased, increased, eliminated or even reversed? • No. (See Shields 2000, in relation to emotion research) • A catalogue of ‘snapshots’ of brain differences doesn’t explicitly assume that there are fixed, universal, and timeless male versus female neural signatures …. • But, it is guaranteed that such an approach cannot produce data to challenge this assumption. • How many studies took only a ‘snapshot’ approach? • All 39. Predominant ‘snapshot’ approach leaves unexplored experiential contributions to differences, sociobiological processes, and conditions under which they exist, and implicitly supports notion of ‘hardwired’ differences (see Schmitz, 2010). The New Neurosexism: What It Is Neuroimaging literature is biased towards the presentation of sex differences in the brain as extensive, functionally important and fixed. Different brains “enormous ramifications” for maths and talking about feelings The female brain doesn’t even have “a specific location for spatial ability” The “signal” of an emotional feeling, having made it to the right hemisphere, “may well get stopped, disappearing into neural oblivion because the signal found no access to a receptor in a language center in the left side of the brain.” His more compartmentalised brain explains why he’s less likely to remember to buy milk … The New Neurosexism: Why It Matters “A theory about the stars never becomes part of the being of the stars. A theory of man enters his consciousness, determines his self- understanding, and modifies his very existence.” AJ Herschel (1965), Who is man? • Endorsement of gender stereotypes • Stereotype threat • Tolerance for the status quo For overview of relevant data, see Fine (2011), Neuroethics Endorsement of Gender Stereotypes • Both endorsement of ‘biological’ explanations of gender differences, and exposure to biological accounts, associated with: – Greater endorsement of gender stereotypes (Brescoll & LaFrance, 2004, Psych Sci; Martin & Parker, 1995, PSPB) – More stereotypical self-perception (Coleman & Hong, 2008, Self & Identity) • Consistent with a general tendency for biological essentialist beliefs to be associated with endorsement of a wide range of social stereotypes (Bastian & Haslam, 2006, JESP). Stereotype Threat “As the gruesome operation proceeded I gritted my teeth, clenched my hands, and held on. Next to me stood a senior woman student. I watched her turn a greenish white and sway a little. Contrary to the ethics of an operating room, where silence is the rule, I hissed in her ear, “Don’t you dare faint.” … The two women students did not faint and thus disgrace the sex. That three men did faint was merely due to a passing circulatory disturbance of no significance; but had the two women medical students fainted, it would have been incontrovertible evidence of the unfitness of the entire sex for the medical profession.” Mary Ritter, early 20th Century medical student. Quoted in Morantz-Sanchez, Sympathy & Science (1985) Stereotype Threat in Action – Mathematics From Dar-Nimrod & Heine (2006), Science Tolerance for the Status Quo • Endorsement of genetic determinism associated with greater “modern sexism” (Keller, 2005, JPSP). – That is, denial that sexism continues to exist, an antagonistic attitude towards feminist demands and resentment towards policies such as affirmative action • Endorsement of legitimacy of social hierarchy decreased by decreased belief in genetic determinism (Danbrun et al., 2009, European J Social Psych) • When you present ‘hardwired’ sex differences as ‘fact’ (versus hypotheses): – Greater confidence that society treats women fairly; – Less certainty that gender status quo will change; – Men less bothered by idea of sex discrimination. Morton et al. (2009), JPSP “If I would work in a company where my manager preferred hiring men to women, I would privately support him.” “If I were a manager in a company myself, I would believe that, more often than not, promoting men is a better investment in the future of the company than promoting women.” “There are only three possible explanations for the lower numbers of women at the top level of these organizations. 1. Women are not capable of doing the work that is required at the top. 2. Women do not have the desire to be at the top. 3. There are structural impediments preventing women from reaching the top.” Rice (2011) http://curt-rice.com/2011/11/13/there-are-only-3-reasons-women-dont-make-it-to-the-top/ Cordelia Fine A/Prof, Centre for Ethical Leadership, Melbourne Business School & Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne www.cordeliafine.com .