When it comes to sex differences, it appears still that there are two oppositional camps: some people are "for them" while others are "against them." The authors of this book clearly fall into the latter category. They take the perspective that there are no fundamental, evolved behavioral sex differences -- whatever differences do exist are presumed to be due to sexist socialization. There is very little discussion of modern adaptationism or nature-nurture interactionism here. While one might expect such a perspective from authors of a book of radical feminist or social constructionist essays, or perhaps from a book titled something like "The Case Against Sex Differences," it is disconcerting and surprising to see such an uneven analysis in a book that suggests it is about applying critical thinking skills to evaluate research studies.The book begins in Chapter 1 with the section headings titled: "The Cycle of Bias" and "Dangerious Assumptions." The authors first cast suspicion on the motives of sex differences researchers: "...there must be a reason that (some scientists) choose to spend their lives trying to find sex and gender differences" (p. 8). And why might that reason be? The answer is found in their rather sophomoric statement that "since most 'proof' of differences between groups is used to 'prove' that one group is better than the other, and scientists are aware of this, we need to ask what motivates them to pursue such research... Many (researchers)... seem to be intent on justifying the treatment of females as inferior..." (p. 8). Obviously, very few serious scientists use the word "proof" in either the formal publications or even in informal conversations. Fewer still arrive at value judgments that one sex is generally "inferior" to the other. Instead, virually all sex differences researchers, including the well known figures such as Kimura and Benbow, support equality of opportunity even in interest or skill areas where sex differences may indeed exist. This mischaracterization of the motives and values of sex differences researchers casts doubt about the integrity of the rest of the book.
Indeed, the mischaracterizations continue in Chapter 2, "A Brief Historical Perspective on Sex-Difference Research." The authors uncritcally present Kramarae and Treichler's (1985) definition of sociobiology as "an adrocentric science which persistently depicts males as the norm while defining females in relation to them, naming females as passive and inferior" (p. 18). Which sociobiologists? One is unlikely to find such perspectives in any modern evolutionary theory and research. To the contrary, the recent books by Sara Hrdy ("Mother Nature"), Helen Fisher ("The First Sex"), Linda Mealey ("Sex Differences") argue convincingly that females actively and assertively look out for their own reproductive interests.
The authors state that "Sociobiologists often base their theories on the assumption that existing human behavior patterns are good things because they are the patterns that survived as humans have evolved, and therefore they must help to ensure the survival of the human species." (p. 18). And, when commenting on research by Buss and others that suggests that females preferentially mate with high status, resource rich males, the Caplans state that "he (Buss) does not present persuasive evidence that the human species would die out otherwise..." (p. 18). The Caplans are apparently unaware that the "for the good of the species" perspective withered in biology in the 1960s and 1970s with the development of Hamilton's inclusive fitness theory, George's Williams' critique of group selection, and Richard Dawkins "selfish gene" theory. Further, most evolutionists do not commit the naturalistic fallacy by presuming that what is natural is good. The Caplans are misinformed about sociobiology / evolutionary psychology, and they proceed to misinform their readers.
Only seven pages of the entire 123 page book (pages 23 - 30) present a discussion of research design, threats validity (although threats to internal and external validity are not differentiated), and meta analysis. The remaining chapters examine sex difference research on spatial, verbal, and quantitative abilities, and sex differences in aggression, masochism, dependency, and hormones. In each of these chapters, the authors reserve their critiques to studies that have found sex differences, particularly those in politically sensitive areas. They omit a critical review of studies that report no sex differences. An informative discussion of the interaction of biological and social factors is entirely missing.
Given the above, this book borders on being more of a political tract than a informed study and critique of research methods. Their misunderstanding of even the basic postulates of modern evolutionary theories of sex differences is tiresome, if not inexcusable.
Michael E. Mills, Ph.D. Associate Professor Psychology Department Loyola Marymount University
