I oughta know better...

I'm about 30 pages into Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens's The minds of boys: Saving our sons from falling behind in school and life (San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2005), and I have no earthly idea how much more I'll be able to read. It's tendentious, fatuous, and overwritten, relying primarily on anecdotal evidence to prove its points, and when more critical evidence is given it's given second-hand, safely filtered through reference to other texts and not to the studies those texts rely upon.

Bluntly, it's pap.

Why read it? I thought I'd try to get a grip on views contrasting with that of Cordelia Fine (see this post), who holds that the biological bases for gender differences are blown entirely out of proportion, and that acculturation more than anything else is responsible for differentiation of gender, including differentiation in intelligence and academic performance. Gurian's name shows up an awful lot as one of the giants of biological determinism, and he's written stacks of books on gender difference, so I thought I'd check him out.

His website's not particularly promising, listing scant credentials relevant to the books he writes and boasting membership in three professional organizations, one which doesn't exist, one whose website hasn't been updated in seven years, and another which appears somewhat reputable. I'm not sure I'm one to lobby the former objection, having just finished a book in an area I'm not "credentialed" to write, but I would think that one of the foremost "authorities" in gender difference, its ramifications, and its ameliorations, should have some sort of post-graduate degree in psychology, neuroscience, or at least counseling or social work. Gurian's most advanced degree is an M.F.A., and before that he holds a B.A. in philosophy. In fact, his most promising claim to authority is his unwavering insistence that he has authority: his website is a fantasia of self-promotion, and he mentions his own institute on just about every other page of the book I've begun.

About that book...its primary thesis is that our schools are in crisis (his words, not mine): boys are falling behind and failing in disproportionate numbers...and it's because our educational system does not take into account crucial differences between the ways boys and girls learn. Truly this is a crisis, Gurian insists: "Yes, we're sorry to say, there really is a crisis" (p. 20...did I mention the text is nothing if not inflammatory?). The extremist language he uses to introduce numerous "statistics" (none properly cited and all treated uncritically) "proving" boys' educational crisis is particularly chauvinistic: for all his righteous indignation you'd think that it's men and not women who for the last several centuries have been underserved by Westernized educational systems. Once or twice he throws us a bone and insists that he has equity in mind: "Calling attention to the college problem for males is not to decry an individual's particular qualities, nor to lament women's successes in increasing their college attendance, wages, and financial independence from males" (pp. 27-28). Such mots ring hollow, however, and I can't help but come away feeling that a hundred years ago Gurian would have been a phrenologist, palpating female skulls in order to point out their "obvious" mental deficiencies.

Ugh.

I'll read on, but I can't see this getting any better...

UPDATE: I'm on page 39 now, and can't help sharing this bit of nonsense: "Research in the 1990s clarified ways in which our schools fail our girls, especially in areas of math and science, the dynamics of self-esteem in the classrooms, and computer design instruction. Because our culture recognized a girls' crisis, it has addressed those problems and to a great extent has changed things for the better as far as teaching girls is concerned."

Yay, according to Michael Gurian sexism in educational practice is now over! It's a thing of the past, a problem we're no longer wrestling with. I'm so happy to live in a post-sexist, post-racial America, where we're all colorblind, a black man can be president, and the mathematical sciences are roundly dominated by women.

Breadcrumbs

I feel like Hansel and Gretel (being both at once would be an apt ontology for this post), following a trail of breadcrumbs as I wind my way through a forest.

In each of the three meetings we've had so far, the students in my MLA course have raised some interesting (and as yet unanswerable) questions. Many of these concern the classic "nature vs. nurture" matter that infects every conversation involving human abilities and achievements. For instance, is it nature or nurture that leads to mathematical (and otherwise) savantism? That is, do "human calculators" owe their skills to some advantageous neural network structure in their brains...or do they develop those skills through hard work and constant application of ordinary neurological machinery?

Opinions were definitely divided on this matter during our last meeting: some accepted Dehaene's explanation that practice makes perfect, and that those who have plenty of time to practice are liable to more closely approach perfection; others weren't convinced. "Maybe none of us are born geniuses," one student said, "but some of us are born with better propensity to achieve genius than others are. Just like most of us will never be professional basketball players, as we lack the physique it would require."

This analogy might remind us that after all the brain is as much a piece of our anatomy as are our arms and legs, and our interpersonal differences in overall anatomy carry over to interpersonal differences in our brains as well. No doubt some of those differences predispose us well to certain kinds of genius inaccessible to others? It's up to each individual to nurture latent talent in the most efficacious way from that point on.

The risk we run in arguing like this is making dangerous generalizations along the following lines: "brain difference X translates into ability difference Y" and so forth. As I quipped mysteriously on Facebook the other day, brain does not equal mind anymore than map equals territory, and if we pretend that we can extrapolate everything we need to know about a person from the structure of their braincase, we anachronize and become phrenologists, feeling for bumps, risking claims about racial or sexual superiority. Remember that it was held for a long, long time that women were less bright than men because their brains were less massive...and that when this point of view was assailed from all sides, its adherents did all they could to rescue it, falling back on more and more convoluted sophistry to save their theory: "well, it's not brain volume per se, but volume of gray matter...or at least the ratio of gray to white matter...well, maybe the degree to which it's all convoluted..." (See Stephen Jay Gould's marvelous The mismeasure of man for a blow-by-blow debunking of such arguments.)

About sexual superiority (and getting back to our trail of breadcrumbs): one of my students turned me onto Cordelia Fine's Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2010), a thorough discussion of modern attempts to pin gender differences in intellect on neurochemistry. Phrenology's not dead, it just looks a lot different than it did 150 years ago: now we don't look for protrusions in the skull, just higher-than-normal levels of fetal testosterone, and we don't come right out and suggest that women aren't as smart as men, we just say they have a greater propensity to empathize than they do to systematize. Fine spends much of her time pointing out flaws in modern phrenologists' methodologies, though not as many she might; I've noted a few flaws she could have mentioned but didn't.

It's a stimulating read, and I plan on sharing a few chapters with the MLA students. It's also leading me to other sources. Some of these are general in scope, like Jan Morris's Conundrum (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1974), a first-person account of the author's transition from male to female and the worlds she lost and gained in the process. Others are more specific, like Nash and Grossi's analysis ("Picking Barbie's brain: Inherent sex differences in scientific ability?" Journal of Interdisciplinary Feminist Thought 2(1), Article 5) of Simon Baron-Cohen's methodologies...which analysis might doom some of the infant studies which Dehaene cites, as well (O, circularity!).

I also plan on offering up a few excerpts from Richard E. Cytowic's The man who tasted shapes (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003), an odd novel/memoir/neuropsychology text dealing with the phenomenon of synesthesia. Though not directly related to our course, I think certain passages bear tangentially on our discussions of brain function and will lead to interesting discussions.

More fun to come! Exciting. I hope the students are getting as much out of the class as I am. I may have to offer this course again soon in the Honors Program. Something to think about for next year...