Letters to the Editor

• Sociobio is not a tool of the right...

  [Read the article: This just in! Males like cars, females like dolls]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  ...it's a neutral tool. However, the media *is* the tool, if not of the right, then of the status quo, whatever that is. And the media *consistently* misreports these kinds of studies to exaggerate the stereotypical sex differences and ignore anything that doesn't fit people's knee-jerk assumptions.

  Again, I bring up that we have been told, over and over, that studies show that men do better in math and science in testing than women do, and that this is cross-cultural, which is the best indication that it is a human universal. Coincidentally, we have a strong cultural belief that math and science are for boys. However, the *same* studies show that women do better in verbal abilities and in writing than men do... yet this is invoked to talk about why women like to "talk about relationships", not to explain why women dominate all writing-related professions... BECAUSE THEY DON'T. Women's "natural" superiority at verbal skills has not prevented men from dominating the field of creative writing until about forty years ago (nowadays I think it's about 50-50), and does not prevent men from being the majority of speechwriters and advertising executives (and federal-level judges, who have to write a lot too.) Yet, somehow, the media reports studies on male math ability as if it explains why men dominate engineering, but reports studies on female verbal ability without explaining why women *don't* dominate the communicative professions.

  Studies that show that bad day care is bad for kids are consistently reported as if day care, period, is bad for kids. Studies that show that some rich white women are choosing to quit their jobs and stay home with their kids are reported as if all women are choosing this. Modern sociobiology is *not* about reinforcing the status quo; there are just as many researchers with an axe to grind about how men and women *aren't* really different as that they are, and it's well known *within* the profession that the differences between the average man and the average woman are much, much smaller than the differences between the ends of the bell curve within a single sex. Scientists know that an effect of 2-3% difference between men and women is statistically significant, but says nothing about any *individual* man or woman. Media, however, report such differences as if they apply to all men and all women.

  So no. Sociobiology is no longer a tool of the right (although, when it first came into existence, it absolutely was.) In my opinion, sociobio is actually the best hope humanity has for figuring out who we *really* are under it all, and tailoring our laws and societies so as to work with our biology to create the best possible outcomes and the most possible freedom for everyone. And very often, sociobiology tells us that things we believe to be true about the sexes just ain't so (in some cultures, the men dress up to look pretty for the women; in some cultures, men are talkative and emote all the time, and women are thought to be hard-headed and practical and insensitive and tough). But the media does not report the results of sociobiological experiments that go in opposition to what we're already inclined to believe, and it puts the most stereotypical possible spin on most research. Therefore, naturally women who are not reading the primary literature are *very* suspicious of media reports of sociobiological research... hell, those of us who *are* reading the primary literature are suspicious of the media reports because we know they're biased, but those who haven't read the primary literature don't know where the bias is, so they are suspicious of the studies themselves.

  Permalink Saturday, December 17, 2005 08:50 PM