brainwash e01: the gender equality paradox

if you haven’t already, you HAVE to go watch the brainwash series! really. trust me. it’s terrific! and i’m not the only one who thinks so (see some of the comments in this post). (^_^)

the show — from norway, but now with english subtitles (thank you, internet!), available here and here — was conceived and is hosted by a norwegian comedian (yeah, i didn’t know they had any either (~_^) ), a guy named harald eia. i guess maybe it takes a comedian to point out the most absurd aspects of our modern, western society, eh?

wikipedia says:

“‘Hjernevask’ (‘Brainwash’) … contrasted cultural determinist models of human behavior (also referred to as the Standard social science model) with nature-nurture interactionist perspectives.”

but it’s funnier than that. waaaaaaay funnier than that!

the basic layout of the show is that eia picks a topic — gender equality, for instance — and then goes and interviews some norwegian social scientists — you know, “specialists” in the subject — about it (in this episode it was — heh — gender researchers). and then he goes and interviews researchers in touch with the real world, like biologists or whatever, both norwegian and others (american, english). and THEN he goes BACK to the social scientists with recorded interviews of the non-social scientists in hand and gets the reaction of the lost-in-space social scientists to what the real scientists had to say.

needless to say, much hilarity ensues! (^_^)

the first episode is about differences between the genders and whether any of it is innate or not (i know — pretty basic — how could anyone get this one wrong?). more specifically, it’s about a BIG problem they, apparently, have in norway — the “gender equality paradox.” that is, despite the fact that norway has equal — prolly more than equal — opportunities, education, etc., etc., for everyone, they still have this awful, awful problem that something like 90% of engineers are men and something like 90% of nurses are women. the horror! the horror.

the norwegian gender researchers, of course, blame the differences that men and women have in capabilities and interests on the fact that, from day one, boys and girls are treated differently — boys are dressed in blue and called “little tough guy” while girls are dressed in pink and referred to as sweet little things. you know. that sort of thing. according to one (of the more clueless) gender researchers, some guy named lorentzen, men and women are exactly the same in all ways — mentally, emotionally, etc., etc. — there are just a few minor differences like different genitals, women have boobs, men have beards, and so on. *facepalm*

eia records all of them explaining these concepts and then heads off to talk to some people who have at least half a brain.

first, he talks to one norwegian researcher, trond diseth, who studies behavior in babies born with an unclear sex to see if they behave more like boys or girls (i guess this one of the tools they use when considering what sort of gender-reassignment surgery or whatever you call it to maybe perform on a baby). throughout his research, this guy has found that most boy babies born with all of your standard “boy parts” prefer playing with masculine toys, while most girl babies born with all of your standard “girl parts” prefer playing with girlie toys. there are exceptions, of course, but we’re just that — exceptions.

eia then heads to the u.s. where he interviews richard lippa, who has found that, curiously, gender differences in things like job preference (do you want to be an engineer or a nurse?) seem to be consistent on a global basis. strange if these differences have only a cultural cause that the same differences should show up in different cultures. he also visits simon baron-cohen at cambridge who has found that gender differences are present on day one of life [opens pdf], so again it’s hard to see how culture can be 100% of the explanation for the differences between the sexes.

finally, he also speaks with anne campbell, evolutionary psychologist, who explains natural selection beautifully and points out how unlikely it is that men and women should be exactly the same mentally or emotionally:

Campbell: ‘The key to all this is how many descendants you leave behind you and any traits that increase the number of descendants you leave behind you will tend to stay in the gene pool. And that’s what’s selecting in particular traits both in males and in females…. If women are generally the ones that give birth, that lactate, that raise children, it would surprising if there wasn’t some kind of psychological orchestration that helped women achieve those tasks and made those kinds of tasks particularly pleasurable to women. So, things like empathy in women, things like avoiding dangerous confrontations where you may be hurt or injured, things like avoiding social exclusion, being pushed out of the group, all of those are good things. All of those mean that you are more likely to survive and to reproduce, and to leave children who they themselves also reproduce.’

“According to Campbell, that’s why today’s women are more oriented towards other people than men.”

the best zinger comes right at the end, tho, from simon baron-cohen:

Baron-Cohen: ‘It’s a very moderate proposal to say it’s a mixture of biology and culture. I’m not saying it’s all biology. I’m simply saying don’t forget about biology.'”

heh! ’nuff said, really. go watch the show to see the reactions of the different types of researchers to each other’s theories — it’s all very amusing — and very informative!
_____

btw, the gender-researcher, lorentzen, is a real winner. not only did he insist that his “culture only” theories were correct, he actually laughed at other sorts of research. and he thought that american researchers were particularly bad. from the show:

“Lorentzen was skeptical of this kind of research [specifically richard lippa’s research].

Eia: ‘It’s a funny study… You’re laughing as I say the word “study.”‘

Lorentzen: ‘I get telephones from every media when they get these American studies. They’re often American.’

Eia: ‘Are Americans especially good?’

Lorentzen: ‘No, especially poor, I would say. Or especially speculative.'”

you gotta remember that this lorentzen guy was laughing the whole time he was saying this.

now, don’t take this the wrong way, mr. lorentzen, but i have to point out that it’s not like norwegian gender-researchers are, by any stretch of the imagination, on the cutting edge of human behavior studies. you know, you guys gave us ibsen and the paper clip. feel free to rest on those laurels for as long as you like. really. please don’t think that you have to compete with anybody to prove that you’re the best in show science (only to wind up feeling second-rate like you obviously do).

previously: brainwash and the hard sciences are soooo sexist!

(note: comments do not require an email. the paper clip.)

Advertisements

16 Comments

  1. I’ve watched this episode and the episode on race so far. Very entertaining to say the least! It’s also kinda relief to see a country where PC suppresses science more than it does in this country (the U.S.). I find it interesting that the NW Euros and Anglos seem most ready to accept culture-only explanations for things—a belief that essentially amounts to believing that everyone in the world is like them (or would be if they just had the freedom/enlightenment/wealth).

    Contrast that with the Japanese who seem to have no problem believing in their own inherent superiority or be overtly ethnocentric, as the plight of Japanese Koreans demonstrates. But then, considering Europeans experienced Nazism first hand, I guess some of this is be expected.

    Reply

  2. @jayman – “It’s also kinda relief to see a country where PC suppresses science more than it does in this country (the U.S.).”

    yeah. hard to believe it was possible, huh? =/

    Reply

  3. excellent – it’s interesting he’s a comedian, and i’d guess a liberal one

    one type of liberal are people who are naturally contrary. whatever the mainstream is they are compelled to push against it so i was expecting things like this to pop up now PC is the mainstream

    personally i think the cultural aspect of this was developed to push the overlappers into the two boxes

    Reply

  4. Motivated by ideology, some of the early Israeli kibbutzim experimented with this. They assumed perfect equality, right down to unisex clothing, one size fits all. Gradually things sorted themselves out.

    Reply

  5. A very well written review! I hope to see more like this in the near future! :o)

    Sometimes I am a little amazed by what you actually know about my country. I mean – the Norwegian claim about the paper clip – how could you possibly have heard about that?!

    This comment by Jayman was also interesting: “It’s also kinda relief to see a country where PC suppresses science more than it does in this country”. It seems like every westerner believes his country to be the most “PC” in the world. Now, they can’t all be right, so my guess would be…Sweden is the most political correct country in the world. Those poor bastards!

    Reply

  6. @crassus – “Sometimes I am a little amazed by what you actually know about my country. I mean – the Norwegian claim about the paper clip – how could you possibly have heard about that?!”

    my family are big Jeopardy! freaks. (~_^)

    i was aghast to learn that it wasn’t a norwegian who invented the paper clip after all when i went to get a wikipedia link for the post. and all these years i’ve been telling everybody an untruth! (^_^)

    Reply

  7. @HBD Chick
    “i was aghast to learn that it wasn’t a norwegian who invented the paper clip ”
    Just like most Norwegians react when they learn about this!

    @JayMan
    Haha! I hadn’t heard about that before. But it doesn’t surprise me. I’m no huge fan of Julian Assange, but he has made som hilarious remarks about feminism in Sweden. He has called Sweden “a hornet’s nest of radical feminism” as well as the “Saudi Arabia of feminism”! I think he’s got a point.

    Reply

  8. One of the interesting things about the series is how dumb the social scientists seem – i mean literally. Maybe it’s just me but they seem like they must be the bottom 10% or so of the people who get to college. They don’t seem bright at all compared to the other ones.

    Reply

  9. @Greying Wanderer

    Indeed. Maybe in Norway studying sociology is like taking up “gender studies” here in the U.S., in more ways than one. If all you have to do is recite the established dogmatheory and not do any actual research—which if done would quickly prove these doctrines wrong—then maybe you don’t need to be too bright to be in that field.

    Reply

  10. Sorry I’m a bit late to this conversation, but it occurred to me that social scientists can actually do useful research on how culture affects behavior, independently of biology. The trouble is that the social sciences have become so ideologically hidebound about their non-biological approach. It’s similar to the way some generative linguists approach the idea of innatism in language: it’s a useful hypothesis for generating research into linguistic universals, but if evidence turns up that maybe there is a variable aspect to linguistic structures, that not everybody may have the same linguistic endowment, that shouldn’t cause the kind of uproar that has greeted, say, Daniel Everett’s research into the anomalous Piraha language.

    Reply

  11. The problem is that most studies about the biological differences between men and women are as biases as the ideological views of those norwegian guys. There is no such thing as hard science, as much as you guys would like that.

    But the whole argument about how much difference there actually is between woman and men is ridiculous, because it stands in the way of men and women bei g percieved as equal in terms of rights and chances. Most hard science guys treat women like the socially retarded teenagers they are. Small wonder they cOnduct research to assist that claim, besides that’s where the money is, from corporations, neocon government and religion.

    Reply

  12. “The problem is that most studies about the biological differences between men and women are as biases as the ideological views of those norwegian guys.”

    You need to rewatch the program. Specifically, look for studies mentioned by Simon Baron-Cohen in the documentary…

    “But the whole argument about how much difference there actually is between woman and men is ridiculous, because it stands in the way of men and women bei g percieved as equal in terms of rights and chances.”

    Right, because if we’re not all the same, no reason to treat everyone as deserving dignity and respect… :\

    This seems to be a belief common among the anti-HBD crowd: that rights depend on us all being exactly the same….

    Reply

  13. You left out the Norwegians giving the world Alfred Nobel and the Nobel prize. While he wasn’t the only one working with Nitro Glycerin, he was one of the first successful mass producers of it. Given the instability of raw high explosive material, most producers were small or dead.
    I shall have to look for this series.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s