In my previous post, I discussed some issues surrounding a recent study by Dr. David Schmitt, in which he concluded that in more egalitarian societies, psychological differences inherent to men and women are more dramatic. John Tierney, writing in the New York Times, cites the researcher’s position that in poor countries, the stressful environmental conditions lessen gender differences, since they disproportionately affect the stronger gender.

There is one other major issue with this conclusion, and with using the evidence at hand to corroborate evolutionary theories: the premises that are central to evolutionary psychology are rarely falsifiable.

Let’s say that Schmitt had found that gender differences were lessened in modern, egalitarian societies. Evolutionary psychologists could argue that societal constructs are interfering with the natural gender differences that are evinced in less developed areas. Advertising and media could be said to distort traditional gender roles, enforcing the will of the ruling class. In other words, findings in either direction could be seen as evidence for theories of evolutionary psychology. Karl Popper has put forth a philosophy of science that insists that any scientific theory be falsifiable– that there could be evidence that would refute it. The actual finding of lesser gender differences doesn’t demonstrate the theory to be false– but neither would the opposite set of findings. Either this study doesn’t speak to the issue that it seems to… or this isn’t a true scientific question. While some have argued that evolutionary biology is a science and Popper is incoherent, I’ll just say that these studies are interesting, but that we’re still a long way from understanding what they say about brain development, the impact of social roles, and evolution.

Tierney ends by saying that if Schmitt is right, then “men and women shouldn’t expect to understand each other much better any time soon.” That may make for dramatic copy, but by continuing to investigate these issues, researchers such as Dr. Schmitt– and the Signal Patterns team– are helping everyone understand each other. To say that we don’t understand other genders is to diminish our intellectual capacity; we can comprehend something without being similar. Or, at least the men and women that I know can…

New York Times science columnist John Tierney just posted a piece about psychological differences in men and women, and new research that speaks to whether those differences are innate, or born of societal constructs. Tierney speaks of two camps: the evolutionary psychologists, who believe that gender-based trait differences come from what our ancestors needed to survive. “Social-role psychologists”, on the other hand, believe that societal roles have forged this divergence that finds men to be “more competitive, assertive, reckless, and emotionally flat”, while women tend to be “cooperative, assertive, cautious, and emotionally responsive.”

Research on this subject is tough to come by: while some researchers have come up with creative ways of exploring evolutionary psychology, no one can simulate thousands upon thousands of years of evolution. Tierney summarizes recent findings demonstrating that the size of gender differences in personality varies by culture, but that the variation is not in the direction that we would expect. Tierney calls the former finding bad news for evolutionary psychologists, and the latter– the fact that differences are smaller in traditional cultures– bad news for social-role adherents.

This seems strange to me for two reasons. First, if gender differences are the product of societal expectations, should we really expect traditional societies to show less of a gender gap in personalities? Tierney cites Dr. David Schmitt: “Removing the stresses of traditional agricultural societies could allow men’s, and to a lesser extent women’s, more ‘natural’ personality traits to emerge”; Schmitt proffers that “modern progressive cultures are returning us psychologically to our… roots.” Maybe. Or maybe “modern progressive societies” differ from traditional societies in another way: that they bombard their members with images portraying how men and women should behave.

Estimates of the number of advertisements seen per person per day vary from about 400 to about 3,000, and research shows that these images can elicit stereotype-consistent behavior. So I’m not convinced that our “progressive” societies expose, rather than create, gender differences in personality.

My second concern is about both the role and portrayal of science in the media. When your profession involves searching for the truth– as every good scientist’s should– nothing that brings you closer to your goal should be considered “bad news.” A true scientist believes what the evidence indicates, and doesn’t mold research findings to his or her agenda. This ethos is the reason that all of Signal Patterns’ surveys are tested rigorously– because of our grounding in science, we can’t put out a product that’s scientifically invalid, even if less rigorous testing would allow for a different product or less time to production.

More on Tierney and the gender gap tomorrow…