Gendered brains & the accountant gene

Now that feminism and critical theory are gone, biological determinism with its gender bias makes its return. What is fascinating is that, notwithstanding the lack of systematic hard data, notwithstanding the significance of all the other aspects of life that have an impact on human behaviour (culture, upbringing, society, and also one’s own experiences), there’s always a bunch of eejits who make the illogical jump between one’s biological make-up and professions. Interestingly, they do not touch on genetics, I was hoping for the discovery of the ‘accountant gene’. But let’s start from the research. A rather comprehensive article appeared on the Economist last August.

1. The article starts by noticing that

which of the differences between the sexes are “biological”, in the sense that they have been honed by evolution, and which are “cultural” or “environmental” and might more easily be altered by changed circumstances, is still fiercely debated.

Please note the link between biology and evolution. Without going into Lamarckian theory, it is important to consider that biology has also adapted throughout history. This means that we are not the same we once were and that present and future challenges will determine biological differences.

2. The article then surveys relevant studies.

Simon Baron-Cohen and Svetlana Lutchmaya, two researchers at Cambridge University, found that boys exposed to relatively high levels of testosterone in the womb looked less often at their mothers' faces, made eye contact less frequently and had smaller vocabularies than those exposed to lower levels—though this study has yet to be replicated successfully by other researchers.

Please note the lack of further evidence and also the following:
a) “the results of hundreds of tests of vocabulary and reading comprehension show there is almost no gap between the sexes.”
b) Simon Baron-Cohen focussed on autism, which is an extreme example and is by no means relevant to the rest of the population.
c) “the problem with trying to argue that the male tendency to systemise suggested by Dr Baron-Cohen might lead to greater mathematical ability is that, in fact, girls and boys are equally good at maths prior to puberty.”

3. Differences between male and female brains (such as percentage of grey matter, white matter, synapses and so on) have been explored, however, “these examples show how tricky it is to find correlations between behaviour and differences in brain structure and brain activity. And even if a connection to brain structure is found, that does not mean it is innate. Most of these studies are done on adults, so it is not clear when differences start to arise. The brain is by no means immutable, even in adulthood. In the hippocampus, an area thought to be involved in spatial learning, new nerve cells can be born in an adult and hormones influence their birth and survival. Dr Shors says that her work has shown that the female brain, at least, is very plastic, changing dramatically during life in response to pregnancy and menopause as well as puberty.”

Please note that
a) no correlation between the brain structure and behaviour has been found;
b) the studies were done on adults therefore ‘environmental’ factors and their life experiences will have had an influence behaviour (and I would say the most significant influence);
c) the brain is not immutable. Shame that neuro-endocrinological research is still in its infancy, hormones clearly have an impact on us. But how much? And what kind of impact?
d) how much do environmental and personal experience change the brain?

4. However,

there are a number of problems with these studies. One, according to Dr Hines, is science's bias towards reporting positive results, so that research which shows no differences is likely to get lost. Another is that because differences between the sexes are so often popularised and played up in the popular media, people tend to pay them disproportionate attention.

Please note scientists are not free from cultural influence. I would also add that science has rarely been free from ideology, and that today there are numerous problems with the lack of transparency of the conduct and results of experiments (remember the BMJ protest?).

5. Going back to the ‘evidence’,

researchers use a statistical measure called d. … For behavioural and psychological phenomena, a value of d greater than 0.8 is considered large, of 0.5, moderate, and of 0.2, small. Any d less than 0.2 is a negligible difference. … Janet Hyde of the University of Wisconsin-Madison decided to investigate just how different men and women are. She collected all the important meta-analyses that have been conducted on differences between the sexes. … Of the 124 effect-sizes she calculated, 30% had a value of d close to zero and in a further 48% of cases, d was small. In other words, only 22% of reported behavioural differences between the sexes are worth raising an eyebrow over. … The largest gaps were, not surprisingly, in physical attributes such as throwing velocity (d=2.14) and throwing distance (d=1.98). These closely reflect the difference in height between men and women.

Please note the finding of negligible difference in attitudes. Another consideration to be made is about statistics. Statistics is not an exact science (not all disciplines that use numbers are exact science), it’s based on the law of average. It follows that there cannot be any biological determinism: not all men and women have respectively ‘male’ and ‘female’ characteristics. Which explains why most of the women I know who took Simon Baron-Cohen’s test found they had a male brain.

6. There is little evidence to substantiate (statistical) difference in spatial ability, however "in this case the limited evidence available suggests the difference is related to the post-birth testosterone surge in boys.” Also, men do not excel in all spatial tasks”. Furthermore, abilities can be trained and this has been shown to work. “Spatial ability is amenable to training in both sexes.”

Conclusion

I do think this research is a waste of time and I was very reluctant to even mention this topic. The main difference between male and female are hormones. There are variances between hormonal levels between individuals, individuals are also affected differently. We are different. People might have different innate (inherited or not) abilities, but where do these abilities come from? Clearly not from gender. What impact socio-environmental factors have on abilities? Finally, abilities can be trained (genius included and it has been shown).

However the most stupid and surreal aspect of the ‘diatribe’ (or monologue), is the correlation between a biological ability, for which we have very little evidence, for which nobody has taken into account society and personal experience (which includes training), with someone’s ability to do a particular job. This pathetic non-evidence is supposed to account, at least in part, for fewer women in science or engineering and so on. How about plumbers then? Alleged biological differences have always been used to justify the social construction of femininity and women’s roles in society. Sadly, it appears that this is still the case. For both biological determinists and sociological determinists (where everything is determined by society), individual liberty is a delusion. If you’re such a miserable git, why should you make everybody miserable as well?
Fortunately, there have always been people who have gone against this dogmatic determinism and have fought to own their lives. The world is not divided between men and women, but sheep and dogs. Dogs might be loud and rebellious but they lead. The sheep only follow.

The veil - whose business is it anyway?

It is very interesting to see how the media have jumped at Jack Straw’s comment on the wearing of the veil. There has been relative little speculation about Jack Straw making a pitch for deputy leadership and why he chose this topic. Some journalists condemned the veil as being oppressive, some defended it and some found it sexy!
The problem is that they all seem to believe that it is something to do with religion. The choice of dress expresses how one interacts with the outside world. It has always been about status and power. It is highly symbolical and identifies societal codes with regards to relations with others. As such, strictly speaking, it is not a custom, but a symbol and convention. Even today an Armani suit sends out a different message from jeans and T-shirt. Dress codes belong to all societies; they identify what is required at a specific occasion. We are not free to wear what we want and in some cases there are consequences. If an event has a ‘black tie’ code, you will not be allowed in with trainers. Women’s status has been inferior in pretty much all societies throughout history. As dress symbolises power and status, it follows that women’s dress encapsulates their position in society. In the 1920’s and 1930’s when women gained more freedom, the corset went, so did the long skirts, the impossible hair styles and so on. It’s depressing to notice that the corset is back, that women starve themselves and 1950’s style clothes are fashionable. The idealised image of womanhood from the 1950’s was extremely oppressive. Women were mothers and wives, beautiful and powerless. Strangely enough I haven’t come across any comment on the corset. It’s obviously easier to condemn what neighbours do. Of course, multiculturalism poses challenges. Not so long ago, all religious signifiers were banned in French schools. In Italy, the veil in schools is allowed provided that the pupils are recognisable. However, the religious or political significance of dress is not the whole story. Some are uneasy at reports of a terror suspect wearing the burka to evade arrest, á la John Simpson! However, only good intelligence can tackle terrorism. Dress is really none of the law’s business. So, who cares? Given that Muslims didn’t respond much to Jack Straw’s comments, one wonders why it is a particular section of journalists and commentators who are so interested in it. I suppose this controversy sells more papers than the crisis in Somalia.

Business first

A recent judgement by the European Court of Justice has put the clock back a decade or two. The Court rightly ruled that employers cannot lawfully pay some workers much higher salaries than others solely on the ground of long service. However, as reported in the Guardian, the decision will not have an effect on women taking maternity leave, despite some reports last night that the ruling would leave women who took time off after having a baby with no right to claim the same pay as male colleagues. In particular, the Court’s decision did not agree with the Advocate General’s opinion. Bernadette Cadman, a principal Health and Safety Executive inspector, took her case to an employment tribunal five years ago after discovering that male colleagues in the same grade were earning between £5,000 and £9,000 more. She won the case, but the decision leaves open the possibility of higher salaries based on length of service rather than competence. After all, how many people will be willing to challenge in the courts the relevance or otherwise of length of service? Of course, experience is important, however it does not necessarily mean one is more qualified in doing the job. Simple pay audits and transparency over salaries would be much more beneficial than this part-victory. not to put their careers in jeopardy. The real problem, however, is that whilst people’s view of life is changing dramatically, work structures are not. Men and women want more flexibility; they want to spend time with their children without sacrificing their career. This is why men do not make full use of paternity leave. Flexible working arrangements allow people to have other responsibilities, such as bringing up children, part-time studying or indeed being a local government councillor! This, in turn, develops skills that work alone cannot develop. We should recognise the experience, competence and understanding gained in other contexts. Employers should look at their employees more roundly. What is striking is the fact that this decision goes against the times. Work-life balance issues are now firmly on the agenda and at least some businesses have realised that flexibility pays. It saves money, it attracts talent, it motivates employees and increases productivity.
This should be replicated for very senior jobs. Apparently, the number of women in Britain's boardrooms has fallen sharply, wiping out the small but steady gains made over the past few years. As rigidity has been shown to shut off talent and competence, flexibility should be the rule rather than the exception. If I were head of a company I would be rather alarmed at the thought of my work force being composed of employees who might be dedicated to their jobs, but have no wider perspective, are increasingly stressed and have been there for donkeys years.