I continue my thoughts from reading Critical Studies of the Sexed Brain. Because I had more and then forgot to put them up here. Go me. Here's the citation again if you want it:
Kraus, C. (2012). Critical studies of the sexed brain: A critique of what and for whom?. Neuroethics,5(3), pp. 247-259.doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9107-7
And now the quote that got me thinking:
Kraus, C. (2012). Critical studies of the sexed brain: A critique of what and for whom?. Neuroethics,5(3), pp. 247-259.doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9107-7
And now the quote that got me thinking:
“Critical
neuroscientists frame the question of a science gap between neuro-
and social scientists, experts and the public, just as couple's
guides conceive of the gender gap in terms of unawareness,
misunderstanding, or ignorance, promoting the idea that all matters
can be settled through enhanced communication and better knowledge of
each other's distinctive language, culture, needs or concerns.”
This
needs more attention paid to it. Here is a big issue: there
is a power imbalance. Patriarchy
is a word for the imbalance in the couple's guide, and it would
relate to the sciences one too since hard sciences tend to be thought
of as men's fields while social sciences are thought of more as
women's fields. (Accuracy of this thinking is another issue, but STEM
in general runs man-heavy.)
That
contributes to the rhetorical positioning of the fields, where
neuroscientific “facts” can't be questioned by social sciences,
even if questioning the facts isn't exactly what's going on.
Sometimes it's questioning the causes and interpretation of the
reported result rather than questioning whether or not the result was
correct, or reproducible. Though the fMRI study of a dead fish is
relevant, and so is the fMRI of the same person daily for about a
year – fMRI is not infallible,
no more than any scientific procedure is, and pretending it is will
get us into trouble.
The
author then asks about “lay expertise” from patients, relatives,
and activists. Since I'm studying neuroscience but came from the
Neurodiversity Movement before I got into neuroscience, I wonder
where that puts me. As a neuroscience student, I'm one of the science
people. As an Autistic person, I'm somewhat a patient. (Not much of
one, haven't been in therapy related to autistic traits for a while,
but when I write as an Autistic person, I go in that category.) And
there is definitely a power difference between the roles. There has
to be, for Theory of Mind to have been interpreted to mean autistic
people can't understand our own experiences.
Not everyone making use of the word thinks that, but it's an
interpretation I've seen way too much of.
The author then points to this
framework as “preventative politics,” where it keeps the peace by
avoiding/assuaging conflict in the name of interdisciplinarity. She
argues this could prevent good science that would come from
controversy. I'd agree, but also say that it can involve silencing of
ideas that aren't status quo as part of the peacekeeping.
Another issue with the focus on
communication is that it only works if everyone is acting in good
faith. It's the same problem
with Nonviolent Communication and similar: if everyone is acting in
good faith, it works fine. If anyone involved is actually seeking to
maintain control or to do harm, consciously or not, it's not going to
work. If one person's goals actively exclude the other person's
goals, better communication can lead to figuring this out, but not to
solving the problem. Seeking to expand the domain of one's own field
without worrying too much about the domain of anyone else's field
could lead to a similar failure in interdisciplinary communication
ideas.
