Explaining, or Sustaining, the Status Quo? The Potentially Self-Fulfilling Effects of 'Hardwired' Accounts of Sex Differences
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Neuroethics 5 (3):285-294 (2012)
In this article I flesh out support for observations that scientific accounts of social groups can influence the very groups and mental phenomena under investigation. The controversial hypothesis that there are hardwired differences between the brains of males and females that contribute to sex differences in gender-typed behaviour is common in both the scientific and popular media. Here I present evidence that such claims, quite independently of their scientific validity, have scope to sustain the very sex differences they seek to explain. I argue that, while further research is required, such claims can have self-fulfilling effects via their influence on social perception, behaviour and attitudes. The real effects of the products of scientists’ research on our minds and society, together with the fact that all scientific hypotheses are subject to dispute and disconfirmation, point to a need for scientists to consider the ethical implications of their work
|Keywords||Essentialism Neuroethics Gender Stereotypes|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
David P. McCabe & Alan D. Castel (2008). Seeing is Believing: The Effect of Brain Images on Judgments of Scientific Reasoning. Cognition 107 (1):343-352.
Melissa Hines (2010). Sex-Related Variation in Human Behavior and the Brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14 (10):448-456.
Cordelia Fine (2010). Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference. W.W. Norton & Co..
Citations of this work BETA
Cordelia Fine (2013). Is There Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging Investigations of Sex Differences? Neuroethics 6 (2):369-409.
Similar books and articles
Robyn Bluhm (2013). New Research, Old Problems: Methodological and Ethical Issues in fMRI Research Examining Sex/Gender Differences in Emotion Processing. Neuroethics 6 (2):319-330.
Robyn Bluhm (2013). Self‐Fulfilling Prophecies: The Influence of Gender Stereotypes on Functional Neuroimaging Research on Emotion. Hypatia 28 (4):870-886.
Rebecca Jordan-Young & Raffaella I. Rumiati (2012). Hardwired for Sexism? Approaches to Sex/Gender in Neuroscience. Neuroethics 5 (3):305-315.
Myra J. Hird (2004). Sex, Gender, and Science. Palgrave Macmillan.
Peggy DesAutels (2010). Sex Differences and Neuroethics. Philosophical Psychology 23 (1):95-111.
Deboleena Roy (2012). Neuroethics, Gender and the Response to Difference. Neuroethics 5 (3):217-230.
Anne Campbell (1999). The Last Days of Discord? Evolution and Culture as Accounts of Female–Female Aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):237-246.
Stephen C. Maxson (1999). Some Reflections on Sex Differences in Aggression and Violence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):232-233.
Katrin Nikoleyczik (2012). Towards Diffractive Transdisciplinarity: Integrating Gender Knowledge Into the Practice of Neuroscientific Research. Neuroethics 5 (3):231-245.
Todd K. Shackelford, Gregory J. LeBlanc, Richard L. Michalski & Viviana A. Weekes (2000). Analyses of Mating Differences Within-Sex and Between-Sex Are Complementary, Not Competing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):621-621.
Cordelia Fine (2008). Will Working Mothers' Brains Explode? The Popular New Genre of Neurosexism. Neuroethics 1 (1):69-72.
Catherine Vidal (2012). The Sexed Brain: Between Science and Ideology. Neuroethics 5 (3):295-303.
Emily Ngubia Kuria & Volker Hess (2011). Rethinking Gender Politics in Laboratories and Neuroscience Research: The Case of Spatial Abilities in Math Performance. Medicine Studies 3 (2):117-123.
Derek Dalton & Marc Ortegren (2011). Gender Differences in Ethics Research: The Importance of Controlling for the Social Desirability Response Bias. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 103 (1):73-93.
Added to index2011-06-26
Total downloads81 ( #41,603 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #231,316 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?