Are Gay Men and Straight Women Lost, Directionally Impaired or Just Being Slammed Again?
Dave Muskera, M.A.
January 08, 2008
A small “study” of gender differences in spatial navigation done recently in the biology department at London’s Queen Mary College is making headlines. You might ask, why is that? And why would such a geekie sounding topic be of any interest to crotchety old newspaper editors and salivating-to-get-promoted young journalists? Well, you’re probably ahead of me on this one - but guess what? The buzzword “gay” was deduced from the research monograph and, true to form, newspaper and article writers were all over it before you could program a GPS! Seems that “gay” sizzles and sells, at least when there’s an opportunity to further slam both straight women and gay men and shore-up the sagging egos of some straight men. Read on and you’ll see what I mean.
The original research was published in an obscure non-peer reviewed journal with the catchy name of “Hippocampus”. Now it has nothing to do with a school for hippos. It’s basically a journal providing (quoting from the journals webpage) “a forum for the exchange of …information between investigator” - That is to say - for researchers working in the area of brain neurobiology and having an interest in the brain structure known as the hippocampus. The hippocampus (for those whose memory for brain anatomy fails them - like me) is thought to be involved in how the brain deals with long term memory and spatial navigation (among other things). The original article’s title was “Sexual Orientation-Related Differences in Allocentric Spatial Memory Tasks”…yawn… with lead authors Drs. Rahman and Loerting. Not withstanding the word “allocentric”, the title is a mouth full! Ya’ gotta wonder how this one ever came to light to begin with.
Now get this...and you’ve got to hand it to the media - they took this dry, ho-hum and uninteresting sounding title and study and morphed them into banner headlines like “Women, Gay Men likely to be “Worst Drivers” , “Women and Gay Men Are Not Straight Drivers” and “Gay Men are as Bad as Women at Navigating, Research Shows!” (Wait till the gals read about this slam).
Keep in mind: it doesn’t matter that the research authors don’t appear to have used the word driving in the original article and it doesn’t matter that no test of actual driving or driving like navigation was used and it doesn’t matter that the sample size was rather small -140, and its doesn’t matter how “representative” the sample was or wasn’t of the sexual orientations mentioned and it doesn’t matter that sexual orientation and gender are different concepts. All that matters is a catchy headline that will hopefully draw attention and sell newspapers, fill airtime, give Rush and company three days worth of talking (or more on slow news days) and attract advertising revenue - all at the same time. Sloppy journalism is always to be found in the media and this sort of Copperfield transformation - from one meaning to another - simply secures the place of some journalists in the world of shoddy and “who cares” about the facts reporting.
I tried getting to a full copy of the journal article but was unwilling to pop the nearly thirty dollar price required at the journal’s website. Otherwise, all I got was the published approved abstract of the research and some interview quotes (and we all know how that goes if you’ve ever been interviewed and later scratched your head when you see what gets into print). The abstract tells us that the testing was done in a “virtual reality” environment – in other words on a computer. No actual driving or driving like situations were used and the models for the testing were drawn from “two classic paradigms developed in animal models of hippocampal functioning”. Hope I’ve not lost all my reader by this point – I’m also having trouble staying awake enough to write all this. Anyway, I won’t go further with the scientific jargon. But I won’t misrepresent it either. As the journal itself said, its purpose is to allow an “exchange of information” between “researchers” - not to provide a springboard to launch inaccurate and provocatively worded news headlines.
But some other factors about this “study” bother me. First, there is the small size of the sample used in the study (about 140) to support all the wild conclusions that are being made (at least by the journalists). By the way, I hate to tell you, but in research science, size does matter – at least when it comes to numbers. In general, the bigger the sample, the more reliable the results (or so it's assumed). We also don’t know, without reading the full research document, just how the sample was "selected" or how many ended up in each of the sexual orientation categories. Having done a bit of research myself, I’m familiar with typical methods used to obtain study samples (human guinea pigs by another name). I don’t know how Dr. Rahman did it, but the easiest folks to recruit into taking part in a study are “students”. Starving students will let you stick electrodes up their noses for a grade or a few dollars…or at least some will. Without students as easy research fodder, many a Ph.D. thesis would not get done. Professors can even make research participation a course requirement or offer extra credit to induce interest. It’s likely then that this study’s 140 came from a student population….which makes them all relatively young, intelligent (hopefully) and self-selected on the basis of any number of student-like factors, including their country of origin, which might be relevant due to cultural differences in how sexual orientations are perceived. We have no information on how the authors determined who was gay, straight or lesbian and we don’t know what safeguards, if any, the authors used to insure truthfulness. Did they just have students fill out a questioner? A bio? Did they require a demo? “Hey, we’re doing this study. Are you gay or straight? ” Just about everyone will answer that one with full truthfulness. Won’t they? Or did they add, “OK, prove it.” No matter - all these things together make it really unwise to even attempt to generalize results to the population at large. The sample is just not likely to be representative of anything other than students.
Assuming that the 140 were completely truthful and that there were no shy gay guys or gals hiding behind a “straight” label (….we know that never happens, now don't we?), and assuming they attempted to get nearly equal groups of gay and straight males and females, that would give us about thirty five individuals in each of the study groups. Thirty five gay identified males, thirty five gay identified females and so fort. So now, if we believe the journalists, we’re suppose to conclude that gay men and women are the “worst drivers” on the basis of the responses of thirty five or so “totally truthful” people (students?) who, it’s implied, adequately represent the millions of others who did not get to take the “tests”. Is that about it? Does such a situation really warrant a headline like “A new study reveals women and gay men are the worst motorists”. What do you think? And don’t you just love the use of the word “reveals” like some mysterious curtain has been drawn back and the “real truth” finally seen. Well, obviously it’s not about truth or facts, its about headlines and what appeals to the masses.
I have little doubt that there are meaningful differences in the brain wiring of men and women. It makes evolutionary sense. We need to understand as much about this as we can. Every little bit of well done research can add to our knowledge base. They all may have important educational and daily living implications. However, the willingness and eagerness of all types of journalism to prostitute the meaning of legitimate research to feed the greedy needs of media outlets is unconscionable. These practices do nothing to educate the public or inform them in a rational way.
I do also believe that there are probably real similarities and differences in the four groups mentioned in Dr. Rahman’s study. But, I don’t think it’s legit or responsible for the media to make such startling conclusions based on this kind of limited data. Scientists don’t do that - and never would. But then again, science is not in charge of selling newspapers. Finally, let me say that while I doubt the research authors had any such intent, the reporting of this “news” seems deliberately biased and an obvious slam at both gay men and women.
At this point, allow me to recall an old and well worn joke: Question: “Why did Moses wonder in the desert for forty years?” Answer: “Because he refused to ask for directions!” Remember, by all accounts, Moses was straight. He must also have been directionally impaired, lost or both. Good thing they didn’t have him in the study group. It would probably have spoiled the conclusions.
PS and BTW: For me, the “worst drivers” on the planet are men, women or teenagers of any sexual orientation, driving while using cell phones! I’ve yet to do any actual research on this topic, but what the heck, don’t need that. I think I’ll just go looking for a hungry or ignorant journalist willing to toss me a catchy headline. See me soon. OK?
The original research was published in an obscure non-peer reviewed journal with the catchy name of “Hippocampus”. Now it has nothing to do with a school for hippos. It’s basically a journal providing (quoting from the journals webpage) “a forum for the exchange of …information between investigator” - That is to say - for researchers working in the area of brain neurobiology and having an interest in the brain structure known as the hippocampus. The hippocampus (for those whose memory for brain anatomy fails them - like me) is thought to be involved in how the brain deals with long term memory and spatial navigation (among other things). The original article’s title was “Sexual Orientation-Related Differences in Allocentric Spatial Memory Tasks”…yawn… with lead authors Drs. Rahman and Loerting. Not withstanding the word “allocentric”, the title is a mouth full! Ya’ gotta wonder how this one ever came to light to begin with.
Now get this...and you’ve got to hand it to the media - they took this dry, ho-hum and uninteresting sounding title and study and morphed them into banner headlines like “Women, Gay Men likely to be “Worst Drivers” , “Women and Gay Men Are Not Straight Drivers” and “Gay Men are as Bad as Women at Navigating, Research Shows!” (Wait till the gals read about this slam).
Keep in mind: it doesn’t matter that the research authors don’t appear to have used the word driving in the original article and it doesn’t matter that no test of actual driving or driving like navigation was used and it doesn’t matter that the sample size was rather small -140, and its doesn’t matter how “representative” the sample was or wasn’t of the sexual orientations mentioned and it doesn’t matter that sexual orientation and gender are different concepts. All that matters is a catchy headline that will hopefully draw attention and sell newspapers, fill airtime, give Rush and company three days worth of talking (or more on slow news days) and attract advertising revenue - all at the same time. Sloppy journalism is always to be found in the media and this sort of Copperfield transformation - from one meaning to another - simply secures the place of some journalists in the world of shoddy and “who cares” about the facts reporting.
I tried getting to a full copy of the journal article but was unwilling to pop the nearly thirty dollar price required at the journal’s website. Otherwise, all I got was the published approved abstract of the research and some interview quotes (and we all know how that goes if you’ve ever been interviewed and later scratched your head when you see what gets into print). The abstract tells us that the testing was done in a “virtual reality” environment – in other words on a computer. No actual driving or driving like situations were used and the models for the testing were drawn from “two classic paradigms developed in animal models of hippocampal functioning”. Hope I’ve not lost all my reader by this point – I’m also having trouble staying awake enough to write all this. Anyway, I won’t go further with the scientific jargon. But I won’t misrepresent it either. As the journal itself said, its purpose is to allow an “exchange of information” between “researchers” - not to provide a springboard to launch inaccurate and provocatively worded news headlines.
But some other factors about this “study” bother me. First, there is the small size of the sample used in the study (about 140) to support all the wild conclusions that are being made (at least by the journalists). By the way, I hate to tell you, but in research science, size does matter – at least when it comes to numbers. In general, the bigger the sample, the more reliable the results (or so it's assumed). We also don’t know, without reading the full research document, just how the sample was "selected" or how many ended up in each of the sexual orientation categories. Having done a bit of research myself, I’m familiar with typical methods used to obtain study samples (human guinea pigs by another name). I don’t know how Dr. Rahman did it, but the easiest folks to recruit into taking part in a study are “students”. Starving students will let you stick electrodes up their noses for a grade or a few dollars…or at least some will. Without students as easy research fodder, many a Ph.D. thesis would not get done. Professors can even make research participation a course requirement or offer extra credit to induce interest. It’s likely then that this study’s 140 came from a student population….which makes them all relatively young, intelligent (hopefully) and self-selected on the basis of any number of student-like factors, including their country of origin, which might be relevant due to cultural differences in how sexual orientations are perceived. We have no information on how the authors determined who was gay, straight or lesbian and we don’t know what safeguards, if any, the authors used to insure truthfulness. Did they just have students fill out a questioner? A bio? Did they require a demo? “Hey, we’re doing this study. Are you gay or straight? ” Just about everyone will answer that one with full truthfulness. Won’t they? Or did they add, “OK, prove it.” No matter - all these things together make it really unwise to even attempt to generalize results to the population at large. The sample is just not likely to be representative of anything other than students.
Assuming that the 140 were completely truthful and that there were no shy gay guys or gals hiding behind a “straight” label (….we know that never happens, now don't we?), and assuming they attempted to get nearly equal groups of gay and straight males and females, that would give us about thirty five individuals in each of the study groups. Thirty five gay identified males, thirty five gay identified females and so fort. So now, if we believe the journalists, we’re suppose to conclude that gay men and women are the “worst drivers” on the basis of the responses of thirty five or so “totally truthful” people (students?) who, it’s implied, adequately represent the millions of others who did not get to take the “tests”. Is that about it? Does such a situation really warrant a headline like “A new study reveals women and gay men are the worst motorists”. What do you think? And don’t you just love the use of the word “reveals” like some mysterious curtain has been drawn back and the “real truth” finally seen. Well, obviously it’s not about truth or facts, its about headlines and what appeals to the masses.
I have little doubt that there are meaningful differences in the brain wiring of men and women. It makes evolutionary sense. We need to understand as much about this as we can. Every little bit of well done research can add to our knowledge base. They all may have important educational and daily living implications. However, the willingness and eagerness of all types of journalism to prostitute the meaning of legitimate research to feed the greedy needs of media outlets is unconscionable. These practices do nothing to educate the public or inform them in a rational way.
I do also believe that there are probably real similarities and differences in the four groups mentioned in Dr. Rahman’s study. But, I don’t think it’s legit or responsible for the media to make such startling conclusions based on this kind of limited data. Scientists don’t do that - and never would. But then again, science is not in charge of selling newspapers. Finally, let me say that while I doubt the research authors had any such intent, the reporting of this “news” seems deliberately biased and an obvious slam at both gay men and women.
At this point, allow me to recall an old and well worn joke: Question: “Why did Moses wonder in the desert for forty years?” Answer: “Because he refused to ask for directions!” Remember, by all accounts, Moses was straight. He must also have been directionally impaired, lost or both. Good thing they didn’t have him in the study group. It would probably have spoiled the conclusions.
PS and BTW: For me, the “worst drivers” on the planet are men, women or teenagers of any sexual orientation, driving while using cell phones! I’ve yet to do any actual research on this topic, but what the heck, don’t need that. I think I’ll just go looking for a hungry or ignorant journalist willing to toss me a catchy headline. See me soon. OK?
Print
Email
