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…