As I noted in my earlier remarks on Sax, I think he’s onto something about the differences between men and women. Yet I remain skeptical about Sax’s detailed claims on brain biology. I’ve never been particularly sympathetic to biological explanations. My own view is that many differences between men and women are “cultural,” but not in a way that can be changed. It is a mistake to believe that culture can simply be swept aside. As for biology, there’s pregnancy and childhood to content with. I’ll say more about all that down the road. But first, I have some questions about the idea of brain-based differences between the sexes.
Based on Ripley’s cover story at least, I’m not convinced that the “architectures” of male and female brains is really different. It’s not clear that concentrated brain activity in divergent areas means that these differences have been genetically programmed. Take this quote from Ripley: “…women seem to have stronger connections between the amygdala and regions of the brain that handle language and other higher-level functions.” This appears to be a distinction of degree. But if that’s true–if the brains of men and women differ only on average, and only in their general tendencies–then the differences could as easily be due to socialization as to “hard-wiring.”
Just because we can now “see” brain activity doesn’t mean that genetically programmed brain “architecture” is the cause of that localized activity. It could also be that socialized tendencies themselves lead to styles of thinking that are localized in particular areas of the brain. It’s not clear to me how much of the new brain biology is susceptible to that sort of alternative interpretation. Ripley herself implies that in some cases, brain differences may be as much effect as cause. I’m curious to know what knowledgeable readers have to say about this. Even then, I won’t be satisfied until we’ve got detailed critiques of the findings of brain biology from knowledgeable skeptics. But of course, for that to happen, we’d need an open debate. Time, to its credit, seems ready for such a debate. The academy, unfortunately, is not.