Wednesday, April 18, 2012

So.

I've been reading some stuff (research articles) on gender differences in cognition.

It's all pretty interesting and I've become convinced that there are differences in how men's and women's brains work.

But why is it that I can read gender stuff in scholarly papers and it (mostly) doesn't get me mad, whereas when I read American mega church pastors or popular theologians saying kinda the same(ish) things I blant (blog-rant) for days?




11 comments:

  1. I guess because academic papers are usually balanced, well researched and written, while most mega-church pastors seem to argue using bad rhetoric, dodgy research and don't care who they offend as long as it's their version of "biblical"...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it's just because women's brains can't handle a guy saying there's a difference ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of the academic papers are written by men.

      Delete
  3. Nah, it's women writing under pseudonyms :D

    ReplyDelete
  4. Because its a two-sided account with a whole humanity as the focus. (Mega)Pastors should be giving exactly as adequate and open an account, but they are time and talent constrained, and they tend to speak and think in sphere of -isms rather than reality. So in the rush to 'counter' 'feminism', the account of a whole humanity in the bible and realities of research is footnoted sketchily. I think the rush is probably the main problem. Waiting perplexed but not crushed should be OK.
    Maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Perhaps also a dogmatic statement of belief as opposed to an open evidence based enquiry?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps Jon, but isn't some dogmatic statement of belief indispensable? Being a dogmatic statement of belief can't be disqualifying, or the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the dead might go with it. I can't see how to set aside all the verses as merely cultural and retain the ones I like. I guess it could be the difference between prescription (bible) and description, but I have a sense Simone resents the descriptions used to back the prescription more than the prescription itself. I assume only my mum reads my blog, but I had a go at this topic last time round: http://somefoolblog.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/like-opposite.html. I probably should have used 'counter-part' instead of 'like-opposite'

      Delete
    2. Andrew you're so lucky to have a mum who reads your blog!

      Of course you're right, we do need dogmatic statements, but when someone makes a dogmatic statement we disagree with even partially, especially if they make it strongly from a position of authority, it can make us feel threatened and powerless and we respond by "oppositeness" (to quote something very clever I just read). Reporting on scientific research tends to disarm this by starting from concrete evidence and then reaching (usually very tentative) conclusions.

      Delete
  6. DIfferent writing style. Academic writing style is non-biased, deliberately so.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Simone, could you point us to some of your reading on this? I'd be really interested in finding out a bit more. Cordelia Fine, at the University of Melbourne, has written a book called Delusions of Gender which critiques this field of neuroscience. You might find it interesting if you haven't come across it already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jo. Yes. I'm (somewhat) familiar with Cordelia Fine's book. I know she has big problems with Simon Baron-Cohen's work (which I've read quite a lot of - here - http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/) His is the male brain (systemising), Female brain (empathising) stuff. I'm okay with his work (sort of) if you remove the 'male' and 'female' tags from it - as a lot of people working in his lab have done - and just think about S-brain and E-brain preferences - since 45% of women don't have a 'female' brain, and 40(ish)% of men don't have a 'male' brain - as his own research concludes!

      I prefer this - http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/annececile.boulay/UE%20biblio/pdf/7.5.Schulte-Ruther.NeuroImage08.pdf - which seems a bit more solid.

      Delete