The hidden joy of giving — anonymous donations may be good for group stability

Why give to charity? Rarely a day goes by without fresh fundraising appeals flooding our inboxes, from co-workers running marathons dressed as cartoon characters to distant cousins climbing even more distant mountains. You might contribute for any number of reasons: familial duty, perhaps, or to boost your reputation as a generous person.

Evolutionary explanations of altruism suggest that generosity brings gains in social status or influence. If this were the case, when donating on the open plain of the internet, people would be expected to publicly contribute above the average. But Nichola Raihani of University College London found quite the opposite: the princely as well as the stingy were more likely to donate anonymously.
Continue reading

A sigh of relief after the moan

Yesterday, I got annoyed by the reporting of a study supposedly showing evidence for ‘female brains’ and ‘male brains’.  A lot of the rest of the internet got annoyed, too.

Dorothy Bishop kicked it all off early yesterday morning and storified the entire proceedings (embedded at the bottom of this post).

Tom Stafford wrote a great critique on The Conversation.

University College London’s Sophie Scott blogged about some technical queries.

@RidgwayGR even calculated the (tiny) effect sizes that were missing/unreported in the original study.

Finally, the wonderful Cordelia Fine (author of Delusions of Gender) raised questions about the study’s interpretations, stereotyping, neurosexism and everything else iffy with it.

In her critique, Dr Fine cites a piece that she co-authored, published last month in Trends in Cognitive Sciences (annoyingly stuck behind a paywall). I’d love to paste the whole thing here, but I’ll rein myself in and leave you with two choice quotes:

“Assumptions that brain circuitry is largely fixed by a genetic blueprint, that there is a unidirectional, causal pathway from genes to behavior via hormones and brains, and that evolution has left us with brains and mental processes strongly reminiscent of our Paleolithic ancestors, have been widely rejected following conceptual and empirical upheavals in the relevant scientific fields.”

“The relations between science and society are two-way. Scientists who work in politically sensitive and important areas have a responsibility to recognize how social assumptions influence their research and, indeed, public understanding of it. Moreover, they should also recognize that there are important and exciting opportunities to change these social assumptions through rigorous, reflective scientific inquiry and debate.”

A quick moan about ‘male’ and ‘female’ brains

This morning, all the newspapers are talking about ‘male brains’ and ‘female brains’. A study, published in the top-tier journal PNAS, analyses structural differences between the brains of young males and females aged eight to 22 years.

Their findings apparently support age-old stereotypes of female brains ‘designed for’ social skills, memory, intuitive thinking, and male brains ‘designed for’ co-ordinated tasks, perception. Indeed the senior author, Ragini Verma, is quoted in The Guardian as saying: “I was surprised that it matched a lot of the stereotypes that we think we have in our heads. If I wanted to go to a chef or a hairstylist, they are mainly men.”

The Independent’s front page looks like this:

and they headline an article: “The hardwired difference between male and female brains could explain why men are ‘better at map reading’

The Huffington Post quite wildly claims: “A new study has confirmed that men and women’s brains are wired in completely different ways, as if they were species from different planets.”

The Guardian takes a more sober, though still uncritical line and the less said about the Mail’s stereotype-ridden take, the better.

The researchers used a technique called diffusion tensor imaging, which I’m far from qualified to comment on. Using this, they mapped the connections between neurons in the brains of 949 ‘youths’ (428 male).

My problems are two-fold and both relate to the sample analysed in this study.

First, the reporting of the analyses: they don’t mention the magnitude of any differences they found – that is, they do not report effect sizes. Several times, they refer to their sample of 949 as ‘large’ or ‘very large’. Certainly, the sample is over twice that of a previous study (439 people). One thing larger samples let you do is look for smaller effect sizes that are still statistically significant. But we just don’t know what the effects were.

Second, who formed their sample. They studied people aged 8 to 22 years, all recruited from either the University of Pennsylvania or the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. They have a fair spread of ethnic diversity within their sample – 44 percent are “Caucasian, not Hispanic” and 40.5 percent are “African American, not Hispanic”, for example. However, the people in their sample may well have grown up in not-dissimilar ways, received similar amounts or quality of education and so on. (We don’t know this, since they only account for individual age and [their words] ‘race’.)

Without looking at variation in upbringing (and the ilk), we can’t discount social or cultural effects – perhaps children growing up in an American culture that says “men should be like this” and “women should be like that” will push them down particular paths, affecting how their brain structures develop. I don’t know, but neither do the researchers.

We cannot talk about ‘hardwired’ differences between female and male brains without understanding the genetic factors, the environmental factors and the interactions and feedbacks between them.

Also, their sample is what has been referred to as WEIRD. That is, Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic. You cannot generalise to all humans from this sample, as the newspapers and as the researchers themselves have been doing.

I’m not saying the researchers ‘should’ have studied a wider, cross-cultural sample who have grown up in and been exposed to different environments – but it’s something to consider before we start saying “women are X” and “men are Y” or, worse, “women should be X” and “men should be Y”.


Reference:
Madhura Ingalhalikar, Alex Smith, Drew Parker, Theodore D. Satterthwaite, Mark A. Elliott, Kosha Ruparel, Hakon Hakonarson, Raquel E. Gur, Ruben C. Gur, & Ragini Verma (2013). Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain PNAS DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1316909110

Revealing the Menopause?

The egg that eventually became you once lay in your grandmother. This giddy fact(oid) happens because, in the womb, women develop all the eggs they will ever use. The supply gradually declines through the years to the point where no more eggs remain, no more children can be sired: menopause.

But why should fertility grind to a halt several decades before the body gives out? Why lose the ability to reproduce? If life is all about making babies and turning them into baby-making machines themselves (speaking biologically, not philosophically), why run out of eggs but carry on living?
Continue reading

Sunday Papers: No Prisoners

Darkside, like so much, begins with a scream.

A runaway train barrels down the tracks, bound for the bottom of a lake. In swoops Ethics Man. He pulls a lever, switches the train onto another track, saving a carriage full of people. The train runs over a boy standing on the other track, killing him. Did Ethics Man make the moral choice?
Continue reading