Take a photo of a barcode or cover
julesreadsallsorts 's review for:
This is the first book that really impressed upon me the importance of looking under the bonnet of quoted scientific studies to understand how they were setup and how researchers’ biases and wish to get the ‘right’ answer might compromise the validity of outcomes – in the past I often trusted well respected media outlets and papers to do that for me. Shockingly, however, the book highlights how even respected scientific journalists do not necessarily look close enough and the damage that it can leave in its wake can be long-lasting. Which is why learning about so-called Neurotrash and the value of neuro-scepticism has been so fascinating and encouraged me to be more cautious – for the first time in my life I’m now investigating the references in the book (including this one!).
Understanding neuroscience and how it is presented to the public, especially in relation to gender, was the first part of the book and whilst I found it well-informing and educational, it was a bit of a slow burn with a couple of poorly laid out theories (e.g. allusion to PMS being a thing only in the western world)– they were just dropped there without further follow-up or nuanced explanation.
The book really comes into its own in the second half when it explores the brains of babies and children and really delves into how neuroplasticity shapes how we think and perceive ourselves and that the behaviours and attitudes we exhibit individually are more likely influenced by social conditioning as opposed to any pre-determined biological factors. The book took great care to debunk a lot of damaging ‘wack-a-mole’ theories that keep resurfacing in the press even if the studies that they quoted had been widely disproved.
Overall, the book highlights how looking for gender differences in neuroscience is just the wrong tree to bark at – we are products of our environment and experiences and, therefore, we should ask more nuanced and multi-layered questions about how we behave and think in the context of social, economic, political and cultural influences instead of keep flogging that dead horse of biological determinism when it comes to gender differences.
Understanding neuroscience and how it is presented to the public, especially in relation to gender, was the first part of the book and whilst I found it well-informing and educational, it was a bit of a slow burn with a couple of poorly laid out theories (e.g. allusion to PMS being a thing only in the western world)– they were just dropped there without further follow-up or nuanced explanation.
The book really comes into its own in the second half when it explores the brains of babies and children and really delves into how neuroplasticity shapes how we think and perceive ourselves and that the behaviours and attitudes we exhibit individually are more likely influenced by social conditioning as opposed to any pre-determined biological factors. The book took great care to debunk a lot of damaging ‘wack-a-mole’ theories that keep resurfacing in the press even if the studies that they quoted had been widely disproved.
Overall, the book highlights how looking for gender differences in neuroscience is just the wrong tree to bark at – we are products of our environment and experiences and, therefore, we should ask more nuanced and multi-layered questions about how we behave and think in the context of social, economic, political and cultural influences instead of keep flogging that dead horse of biological determinism when it comes to gender differences.