Estrogen does affect politics too, and when an experiment proved this and was reported in popular science magazines (scientific american, I think) the feminists lost their minds and demanded that the reporter be fired, despite the fact that both the reporter and the scientists were female.
The problem is that the experiment likely didn’t prove it. A single experiment doesn’t prove anything. Then the reporter overstate the results with is quite typical for science reporters and people complained.
The problem is that the experiment likely didn’t prove it.
Yes, it is true that there are massive problems in failure to replicate in psychology, not to mention bad statistics etc. However, a single experiment is still evidence in favour.
Then the reporter overstate the results
Actually, the reporter understated the results, for instance by including this quote from an academic who disgrees:
“There is absolutely no reason to expect that women’s hormones affect how they vote any more than there is a reason to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in the debate performances of Obama and Romney,” said Susan Carroll, professor of political science and women’s and gender studies at Rutgers University, in an e-mail.
Carroll sees the research as following in the tradition of the “long and troubling history of using women’s hormones as an excuse to exclude them from politics and other societal opportunities.”
Thing is, Prof. Carroll is not a neuroscientist. So what gives her the right to tell neuroscientists that they are wrong about neuroscience?
Yes, it is true that there are massive problems in failure to replicate in psychology, not to mention bad statistics etc. However, a single experiment is still evidence in favour.
Whether the reporter should be fired is not only about the quality of the experiment.
Thing is, Prof. Carroll is not a neuroscientist. So what gives her the right to tell neuroscientists that they are wrong about neuroscience?
Whether the article clearly communicates the scientific knowledge that exists. Most mainstream media article about science don’t.
Yes, obviously she has the legal right to argue about things she has no understanding of, and equally obviously I was not talking about legal rights.
If the journalist quotes her, that likely means he called her on the phone and ask her for her opinion.
If you think he should have asked somebody different then the journalist is at fault.
Thing is, Prof. Carroll is not a neuroscientist. So what gives her the right to tell neuroscientists that they are wrong about neuroscience?
Is that what she’s saying? My charitable reading suggests that Prof. Carroll is saying that either hormones don’t affect politics, or else they have an effect for both sexes. Her problem appears to be with the experiment singling out women and their hormones.
As a political scientist, I’m sure she’s familiar with the shameful historical record of science being used to justify some rather odious public policies (racism, eugenics, forced sterilization, etc.). I don’t think she’s as concerned with the actual science as with what people might do with the result, especially if it gets sensationalized.
I think what she’s saying is “You wouldn’t say that men’s hormones affect politics, so why would you say that women’s hormones do?”
But what she doesn’t realise, because she failed to actually talk to actual neuroscientists, is that most neuroscientists would say that hormones affect both men and women.
The reason why the experiment singled out women probably isn’t sexism, its probably because its better career wise to do one paper on women and one on men rather than combining it into one paper, as this gets you twice the number of publications.
Again, I’m trying to see this from a different perspective:
To us, it’s an issue of science. We respect science because we understand it. We can read that study and get the gist of what it’s saying and what it’s not saying. To practitioners of the Dark Arts, however, truth is not an end in itself but merely one more aspect of a debate, to be exploited or circumvented as the situation requires.
In the realm of public debate, science can either be infallible truth or else a complete fabrication (depending on whether it supports your position). Think about it: one study, long since repudiated, fueled the anti-vaccination movement which has been chipping away at decades of progress and may lead to the new outbreaks of diseases we long ago stopped caring about. The proponents may point to that study and say “Aha! Science says vaccines cause autism” while dismissing the mountain of opposing evidence as a conspiracy by Big Pharma.
So what does this have to do with Dr. Carroll’s concerns?
The reason why the experiment singled out women probably isn’t sexism, its probably because its better career wise to do one paper on women and one on men rather than combining it into one paper, as this gets you twice the number of publications.
This. She fears the study about the effects of men’s hormones gets ignored, while the study on women’s hormones gets spun, exaggerated, and sensationalized into another iteration of “women are irrational and hysterical.” It’s a lot harder to do this with one study about people in general than two different studies.
EDIT: The point here is that once a scientific paper gets published, neither the author nor the scientific community get to decide how the research is used or presented.
To practitioners of the Dark Arts, however, truth is not an end in itself but merely one more aspect of a debate, to be exploited or circumvented as the situation requires.
I broadly agree with what you say, however the dark arts are called dark for a reason.
Ironically, while the counter-argument generally used against this is “Its sexist psudoscience!” there is a perfectly valid explanation which is neither demeaning to women nor dissagreeing with experimental results—simply that hormones affect both men and women’s opinions.
Why be so quick to resort to the dark side when there is a perfectly good light-side explanation?
Ironically, while the counter-argument generally used against this is “Its sexist psudoscience!” there is a perfectly valid explanation which is neither demeaning to women nor dissagreeing with experimental results—simply that hormones affect both men and women’s opinions.
I agree with this completely. I was merely trying to see what kind of mindset would produce Dr. Carroll’s reaction and some politics/Dark Arts was the best I could come up with.
The problem is that the experiment likely didn’t prove it. A single experiment doesn’t prove anything. Then the reporter overstate the results with is quite typical for science reporters and people complained.
Yes, it is true that there are massive problems in failure to replicate in psychology, not to mention bad statistics etc. However, a single experiment is still evidence in favour.
Actually, the reporter understated the results, for instance by including this quote from an academic who disgrees:
Thing is, Prof. Carroll is not a neuroscientist. So what gives her the right to tell neuroscientists that they are wrong about neuroscience?
Whether the reporter should be fired is not only about the quality of the experiment.
The journalist in this case.
What criteria would you advocate then?
Yes, obviously she has the legal right to argue about things she has no understanding of, and equally obviously I was not talking about legal rights.
Whether the article clearly communicates the scientific knowledge that exists. Most mainstream media article about science don’t.
If the journalist quotes her, that likely means he called her on the phone and ask her for her opinion. If you think he should have asked somebody different then the journalist is at fault.
Is that what she’s saying? My charitable reading suggests that Prof. Carroll is saying that either hormones don’t affect politics, or else they have an effect for both sexes. Her problem appears to be with the experiment singling out women and their hormones.
As a political scientist, I’m sure she’s familiar with the shameful historical record of science being used to justify some rather odious public policies (racism, eugenics, forced sterilization, etc.). I don’t think she’s as concerned with the actual science as with what people might do with the result, especially if it gets sensationalized.
I think what she’s saying is “You wouldn’t say that men’s hormones affect politics, so why would you say that women’s hormones do?”
But what she doesn’t realise, because she failed to actually talk to actual neuroscientists, is that most neuroscientists would say that hormones affect both men and women.
The reason why the experiment singled out women probably isn’t sexism, its probably because its better career wise to do one paper on women and one on men rather than combining it into one paper, as this gets you twice the number of publications.
Again, I’m trying to see this from a different perspective:
To us, it’s an issue of science. We respect science because we understand it. We can read that study and get the gist of what it’s saying and what it’s not saying. To practitioners of the Dark Arts, however, truth is not an end in itself but merely one more aspect of a debate, to be exploited or circumvented as the situation requires.
In the realm of public debate, science can either be infallible truth or else a complete fabrication (depending on whether it supports your position). Think about it: one study, long since repudiated, fueled the anti-vaccination movement which has been chipping away at decades of progress and may lead to the new outbreaks of diseases we long ago stopped caring about. The proponents may point to that study and say “Aha! Science says vaccines cause autism” while dismissing the mountain of opposing evidence as a conspiracy by Big Pharma.
So what does this have to do with Dr. Carroll’s concerns?
This. She fears the study about the effects of men’s hormones gets ignored, while the study on women’s hormones gets spun, exaggerated, and sensationalized into another iteration of “women are irrational and hysterical.” It’s a lot harder to do this with one study about people in general than two different studies.
EDIT: The point here is that once a scientific paper gets published, neither the author nor the scientific community get to decide how the research is used or presented.
This describes Dr. Carroll very well.
I broadly agree with what you say, however the dark arts are called dark for a reason.
Ironically, while the counter-argument generally used against this is “Its sexist psudoscience!” there is a perfectly valid explanation which is neither demeaning to women nor dissagreeing with experimental results—simply that hormones affect both men and women’s opinions.
Why be so quick to resort to the dark side when there is a perfectly good light-side explanation?
I agree with this completely. I was merely trying to see what kind of mindset would produce Dr. Carroll’s reaction and some politics/Dark Arts was the best I could come up with.
Reporters do this all the time. And yet they only get punished for it if the result is politically incorect.
Yes, reporters get away with a lot. That doesn’t make it better.