'The Male Brain', or How to Write a Pop Science Book without Evidence

A few years ago I read Louann Brizendine’s book, “The Female Brain”, and marveled at her ability to take weak correlations and turn them into impressively scientific-sounding “facts.” 

This really is a talent, I think, though not one that has earned her many fans in the science community.  That Brizendine is a trained psychiatrist, and a member of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, has not helped her credibility in science circles—in fact, many feel it only makes her more culpable, since she really ought to know better.  

What I think she knows, however, is that popular science books don’t have to be evidence-based to become best sellers, and she’s no doubt correct. Her just-released book, “The Male Brain”, will demonstrate that marketplace truism once again, and once again she is raising the ire of scientists. 

A few examples will better illustrate why this tension exists.  Brizendine likes to say that men and women are very much alike, but different in a few crucial ways. Fair enough. How are we different?

For one, she claims the “I feel what you feel part of the brain–mirror-neuron system–is larger and more active in the female brain. So women can naturally get in sync with others’ emotions by reading facial expressions, interpreting tone of voice and other nonverbal emotional cues.”

What’s interesting is that the “mirror-neuron system” at the core of her claim may or may not be a “system” at all; in fact, whether mirror neurons even exist is still a point of neuroscientific contention. At the very least, how these neurons work is debatable and there’s anything but widespread agreement about what they do. But Brizendine makes it sound as if the matter is settled and we can confidently draw sweeping conclusions.

But take another look at her statement. Is the conclusion she’s reaching a paradigm-breaking discovery? Not at all. It’s just a regurgitation of the same stereotype we’ve heard for years, that women are more empathetic, more in sync with emotions and better communicators. Only now, according to Brizendine, we have a grandiose scientific underpinning for believing it. 

Here’s another claim: “Perhaps the biggest difference between the male and female brain is that men have a sexual pursuit area that is 2.5 times larger than the one in the female brain.”  This statement begs the question, where exactly is this “pursuit area”?  The reader shouldn’t expect an answer—at least not one with scientific validity—because in all likelihood no such “area” exists. At minimum we should be asking how this skirt-chasing control center was identified.

This is an example of a trend that has taken over popular psychology and neuroscience publishing: using correlational fMRI data (which areas of the brain show activity under various conditions) to create the appearance of solid, rigorously researched conclusions (e.g. identification of a “pursuit area”). The problem, as recent studies have shown, is that fMRI often produces different results under the same testing conditions, and no one is exactly sure why. This fracture in the reproducibility chain doesn’t necessarily invalidate fMRI results, but it should (and generally does) stop researchers from claiming that the results are conclusive. At best, they are suggestive, at least for now. As the technology improves that may change. In addition, how to interpret fMRI results is an ongoing debate.

None of those issues are a problem for Brizendine, who, like so many popular science writers, is more than willing to stake a series of claims on shaky evidence that sounds ironclad. So we shouldn’t be surprised when she says something like this:

All that testosterone drives the “Man Trance”– that glazed-eye look a man gets when he sees breasts. As a woman who was among the ranks of the early feminists, I wish I could say that men can stop themselves from entering this trance. But the truth is, they can’t. Their visual brain circuits are always on the lookout for fertile mates. Whether or not they intend to pursue a visual enticement, they have to check out the goods.  CNN, 3/24/2010

Brizendine arrives at this conclusion by way of a connect-the-dots methodology:  Testosterone plus “visual brain circuits” equals “man trance.”  It sounds as though she’s referencing a well-researched phenomenon, and yet I can’t find even a mention of the “man trance” anywhere in PubMed or Google Scholar.  Why I can’t isn’t a mystery—she made up the term. That’s fine. An author should be allowed to coin new terms, as long as the underlying facts are solid. But here’s where we have the bigger problem—they’re not. The two studies in PubMed that address the testosterone-visual circuitry connection are about the sexual behavior of birds and goldfish.

Have we developed a sophisticated method of detecting a male bird or goldfish’s entrancement with female bird and goldfish breasts? I’m pretty sure not. This does, however, illustrate another disappointing trend in pop science publishing: extrapolating what sound like compelling conclusions from preliminary (and sometimes quirky) studies–many of which won’t ever be reproduced.

The trick here, once again, is how the “conclusion” is packaged, not how well it’s supported.  Every time Brizendine goes on a talk show and discusses the “man trance,” what will stick is the clever, sound-bite ready term. Whether or not the term is evidence-based won’t matter, and usually no one will ask.

Many more examples could be addressed, but I’m sure by now the point is clear: in books like Brizendine’s, we’re not getting the results of science, we’re getting a dose of scientainment. Having it delivered to us by a well-credentialed professional makes it all the more appealing, and—in the time-honored tradition of relying on the authority of “experts”—all the more unassailable.    

Unfortunately, the takeaways from these books aren’t enriching the knowledge pool. Instead, they reinforce our natural tendencies to simplify, categorize and stereotype—tendencies that for most of us aren’t in need of reinforcement.


16 thoughts on “'The Male Brain', or How to Write a Pop Science Book without Evidence

  1. Thanks for writing this David! Very well said. I have to admit I almost choked on my Diet Coke when I was reading your source article and came across the “Man Trance”. I didn’t realize such a phenomenon existed, much less merited capitalization.

  2. Another great example of “scientainment” but …. uhm … oh darn, where was I …. forgot what I was going to say, those pictures of Caitlin and Turi just threw me into another one of those Man Trances!

  3. Techniques for writing about science this way are not new. I can recall similar arrogance and stupidity perpetrated by Paul Brodeur in the early 1980s when he wrote “The Zapping of America.”

    In effect, he criticized scientific research using innuendo and whatever published funding sources he could learn of to determine the veracity of the claims.

    If science writers want to be taken seriously, they owe it to their readers to take the science seriously. Oh well. Yet another “science” book for the recycling bin.

  4. Great article, great points – we should all be more skeptical of the interpretation of fMRI data.

    The reliability issue isn’t really as big of a problem, as this can best be explained by individual anatomical and methodological differences. The interpretation of fMRI studies is the real problem.

    Toward that point, the cite that you have re: fMRI reliability is not trustworthy:

    “The problem, as a recent study has shown, is that fMRI often produces different results under the same testing conditions, and no one is exactly sure why. ”

    The link leads to:

    I’ve corresponded with the author for the point of discerning his understanding of systems level cog/brain research upon stumbling onto his cite, and have come away thinking he’s a bit of a crank advancing a pet theory. He has a section at that site where he brags about being rejected for publication for the very work you cite, and almost no cognitive neuroscientist (I’m a 5th year cog neuro grad student) would agree with anything he has to say. He’s even called the work of giants like Hubel & Wiesel and Eric Kandel “stupid”.

    At the least, if you do cite him you should point out that he does not reflect the state of cognitive neuroscience , and that particular work was rejected for publication.

  5. Popular psychology is primarily about providing one’s social politics with a veneer of scientific integrity, and this genre caters almost exclusively to women.

    Gina Kolata and Natalie Angier used to do this crap at the NYT on a weekly basis. Pick and choose ‘factoids’ from biology, anthropology, or psychology, sprinkle them over a collection of cliches and cultural stereotypes, and wrap it all up with a self-valorizing conclusion about women’s superiority to men. You go girl.

    Universities should really increase the standards necessary to earn a degree in psychology. I would recommend at least 2 years of advanced mathematics (and not a ‘crib-notes’ course on statistics), and throw in a year or 2 of the physical sciences as well. Maybe if students were required to demonstrate an understanding of electrodynamics in physics before they talked about neurons we could weed out most of the prattle that passes for social science these days.

  6. Pingback: Ryan Sager - Neuroworld - True/Slant

  7. Pingback: Linkage 3/24: The Pinky of An Ancestor and Harmful Neurologisms « Science Life Blog « University of Chicago Medical Center

  8. Thank you for writing this.

    I find Dr. Brinzendine supremely annoying and I fear she is reinforcing stereotypes about women having weaker problem-solving abilities and about men being preoccupied with heirarchy and status and being unable to function in equal/egalitarian relationship or to relate to children.

    For example, regarding girls’ math and problem-solving ability: “Among mathematically precocious youth — sixth and seventh graders who score more than 700 on the math SAT — 30 years ago boys outnumbered girls 13 to 1, but only about 3 to 1 now.”(1) I think one possible explanation for this is that socialization has played a huge role in this alleged greater problem-solving or analytical behavior by boys and men, and now that girls can finally study in safety (and often with the support of fathers, who do not display the preoccupation with hierarchy that the author outlines) and take responsible roles in public life, we are beginning to see what girls are really made of. (1)See “Bias Called Persistent Hurdle for Women in Sciences” New York Times, March 21, 2010.

    She reminds me of many women, who claim to be feminists, but who have not done the really hard emotional work of looking at how male dominance has hurt women and even themselves and so they become sort-of co-opted.

    I much prefer Michael Kimmel’s books, such as The Gender of Desire, which do an excellent job of explaining how these stereotypes of male behavior get socialized.

  9. Thank you for another fine posting. Since book publishers are not constrained by peer review, that difficult job falls to vigilant readers and reviewers like you. Keep up the good work.

  10. Pingback: Wednesday Round Up #109 « Neuroanthropology

  11. Pingback: Men Are from Mars, Blah, Blah, Blah… | Em & Lo: Sex. Love. And Everything in Between.

  12. Pingback: The “Man Trance” and Other BS by Louann Brizendine « Sapien Games

  13. This was a fairly interesting article which I appreciated reading as I had recently come across this book which struck my interest. As an added point to this I would like to point out that not only is her claim that there is a “male pursuit region” unfounded, it is in fact wrong. I study Neuroscience and the only region showing any signs of sexual dimorphism is in the Hypothalamus which in Simone LaValle’s study was shown to be smaller in females and homosexual men. (And even this study had too many confounds to be completely believable). Nevetheless, interesting post which I will pass along to any who have found this book.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s