Гендерный мозг. Современная нейробиология развенчивает миф о женском мозге  - Джина Риппон

Глава 4

Мифы о мозге, нейромусор и нейросексизм

1. N. K. Logothetis, ‘What We Can Do and What We Cannot Do with fMRI’, Nature 453:7197 (2008), p. 869. • 2. R. S. J. Frackowiak, K. J. Friston, C. D. Frith, R. J. Dolan, C. J. Price, S. Zeki, J. T. Ashburner and W. D. Penny (eds), Human Brain Function, 2nd edn (San Diego and London, Academic Press, 2004). • 3. A. L. Roskies, ‘Are Neuroimages like Photographs of the Brain?’, Philosophy of Science 74:5 (2007), pp. 860–72. • 4. R. A. Poldrack, ‘Can Cognitive Processes Be Inferred from Neuroimaging Data?’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:2 (2006), pp. 59–63. • 5. J. B. Meixner and J. P. Rosenfeld, ‘A Mock Terrorism Application of the P300-Based Concealed Information Test’, Psychophysiology 48:2 (2011), pp. 149–54. • 6. A. Linden and J. Fenn, ‘Understanding Gartner’s Hype Cycles’, Strategic Analysis Report R-20–1971 (Stamford, CT, Gartner, 2003). • 7. J. Devlin and G. de Ternay, ‘Can neuromarketing really offer you useful customer insights?’, Medium, 8 October 2016, https://medium.com/@GuerricdeTernay/can-neuromarketingreally-offer-you-useful-customer-insights-e4d0f515f1ec (accessed 13 November 2018). • 8. A. Orlowski, ‘The Great Brain Scan Scandal: It isn’t just boffins who should be ashamed’, Register, 7 July 2016, https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/07/the_great_brain_scan_scandal_it_isnt_just_boffins_who_should_be_ashamed (accessed 13 November 2018). • 9. S. Ogawa, D. W. Tank, R. Menon, J. M. Ellermann, S. G. Kim, H. Merkle and K. Ugurbil, ‘Intrinsic Signal Changes Accompanying Sensory Stimulation: Functional Brain Mapping with Magnetic Resonance Imaging’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89:13 (1992), pp. 5951–5. • 10. K. K. Kwong, J. W. Belliveau, D. A. Chesler, I. E. Goldberg, R. M. Weisskoff, B. P. Poncelet, D. N. Kennedy, B. E. Hoppel, M. S. Cohen and R. Turner, ‘Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Human Brain Activity during Primary Sensory Stimulation’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89:12 (1992), pp. 5675–9. • 11. K. Smith, ‘fMRI 2.0’, Nature 484:7392 (2012), p. 24. • 12. Presidential Proclamation 6158, 17 July 1990, Project on the Decade of the Brain, https://www.loc.gov/loc/brain/proclaim.html (accessed 4 November 2018); E. G. Jones and L. M. Mendell, ‘Assessing the Decade of the Brain’, Science, 30 April 1999, p. 739. • 13. ‘Neurosociety Conference: What Is It with the Brain These Days?’, Oxford Martin School website, https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/event/895 (accessed 4 November 2018). • 14. B. Carey, ‘A neuroscientific look at speaking in tongues’, New York Times, 7 November 2006, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html (accessed 4 November 2018); M. Shermer, ‘The political brain’, Scientific American, 1 July 2006, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thepolitical-brain (accessed 4 November 2018); E. Callaway, ‘Brain quirk could help explain financial crisis’, New Scientist, 24 March 2009, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16826-brain-quirk-could-help-explain-financialcrisis (accessed 4 November 2018). • 15. ‘“Beliebers” suffer a real fever: How fans of the pop sensation have brains hard wired to be obsessed with him’, Mail Online, 1 July 2012, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2167108/Beliebers-suffer-real-fever-How-fans-Justin-Bieber-brainshard-wired-obsessed-him.html (accessed 4 November 2018). • 16. J. Lehrer, ‘The neuroscience of Bob Dylan’s genius’, Guardian, 6 April 2012, https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/apr/06/neuroscience-bob-dylan-geniuscreativity (accessed 4 November 2018). • 17. ‘The neuroscience of kitchen cabinetry’, The Neurocritic blog, 5 December 2010, https://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2010/12/neuroscience-of-kitchen-cabinetry.html (accessed 4 November 2018). • 18. ‘Spanner or sex object?’, Neurocritic blog, 20 February 2009, https://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2009/02/spanner-or-sexobject.html (accessed 4 November 2018). • 19. I. Sample, ‘Sex objects: pictures shift men’s view of women’, Guardian, 16 February 2009, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/16/sex-object-photograph (accessed 4 November 2018). • 20. E. Rossini, ‘Princeton study: “Men view halfnaked women as objects”, Illusionists website, 18 February 2009, https://theillusionists.org/2009/02/princeton-objectification (accessed 4 November 2018). • 21. C. dell’Amore, ‘Bikinis make men see women as objects, scans confirm’, National Geographic, 16 February 2009, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2009/02/bikinis-women-men-objects-science (accessed 4 November 2018). • 22. E. Landau, ‘Men see bikini-clad women as objects, psychologists say’, CNN website, 2 April 2009, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/19/women.bikinis.objects (accessed 4 November 2018). • 23. C. O’Connor, G. Rees and H. Joffe, ‘Neuroscience in the Public Sphere’, Neuron 74:2 (2012), pp. 220–26. • 24. J. Dumit, Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2004). • 25. http://www.sandsresearch.com/coke-heist.html (accessed 4 November 2018). • 26. D. P. McCabe and A. D. Castel, ‘Seeing Is Believing: The Effect of Brain Images on Judgments of Scientific Reasoning’, Cognition 107:1 (2008), pp. 343–52; D. S. Weisberg, J. C. V. Taylor and E. J. Hopkins, ‘Deconstructing the Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations’, Judgment and Decision Making, 10:5 (2015), p. 429. • 27. K. A. Joyce, ‘From Numbers to Pictures: The Development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and the Visual Turn in Medicine’, Science as Culture, 15:01 (2006), pp. 1–22. • 28. M. J. Farah and C. J. Hook, ‘The Seductive Allure of “Seductive Allure”’, Perspectives on Psychological Science 8:1 (2013), pp. 88–90. • 29. R. B. Michael, E. J. Newman, M. Vuorre, G. Cumming and M. Garry, ‘On the (Non) Persuasive Power of a Brain Image’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 20:4 (2013), pp. 720–25. • 30. D. Blum, ‘Winter of Discontent: Is the Hot Affair between Neuroscience and Science Journalism Cooling Down?’, Undark, 3 December 2012, https://undark.org/2012/12/03/winter-discontent-hotaffair-between-neu (accessed 4 November 2018). • 31. A. Quart, ‘Neuroscience: under attack’, New York Times, 23 November 2012, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/neuroscience-under-attack.html (accessed 4 November 2018). • 32. S. Poole, ‘Your brain on pseudoscience: the rise of popular neurobollocks’, New Statesman, 6 September 2012, https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2012/09/your-brain-pseudoscience-risepopular-neurobollocks (accessed 4 November 2018). • 33. E. Racine, O. Bar-Ilan and J. Illes, ‘fMRI in the Public Eye’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6:2 (2005), p. 159. • 34. ‘Welcome to the Neuro-Journalism Mill’, James S. McDonnell Foundation website, https://www.jsmf.org/neuromill/about.htm (accessed 4 November 2018). • 35. E. Vul, C. Harris, P. Winkielman and H. Pashler, ‘Puzzlingly High Correlations in fMRI Studies of Emotion, Personality, and Social Cognition’, Perspectives on Psychological Science 4:3 (2009), pp. 274–90. • 36. C. M. Bennett, M. B. Miller and G. L. Wolford, ‘Neural Correlates of Interspecies Perspective Taking in the Post-Mortem Atlantic Salmon: An Argument for Multiple Comparisons Correction’, NeuroImage 47:Supplement 1 (2009), p. S125. • 37. A. Madrigal, ‘Scanning dead salmon in fMRI machine highlights risk of red herrings’, Wired, 18 September 2009, https://www.wired.com/2009/09/fmrisalmon (accessed 4 November 2018); Neuroskeptic, ‘fMRI gets slap in the face with a dead fish’, Discover, 16 September 2009, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2009/09/16/fmri-gets-slap-in-the-face-with-a-dead-fish (accessed 4 November 2018). • 38. Scicurious, ‘IgNobel Prize in Neuroscience: the dead salmon study’, Scientific American, 25 September 2012, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/ignobel-prize-in-neuroscience-thedead-salmon-study (accessed 4 November 2018). • 39. S. Dekker, N. C. Lee, P. Howard-Jones and J. Jolles, ‘Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions among Teachers’, Frontiers in Psychology 3 (2012), p. 429. • 40. Human Brain Project website, https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/en/; H. Markram, ‘The human brain project’, Scientific American, June 2012, pp. 50–55. • 41. UK Biobank website, https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk (accessed 4 November 2018); C. Sudlow, J. Gallacher, N. Allen, V. Beral, P. Burton, J. Danesh, P. Downey, P. Elliott, J. Green, M. Landray and B. Liu, ‘UK Biobank: An Open Access Resource for Identifying the Causes of a Wide Range of Complex Diseases of Middle and Old Age’, PLoS Medicine 12:3 (2015), e1001779. • 42. BRAIN Initiative website, https://www.braininitiative.nih.gov (accessed 4 November 2018); T. R. Insel, S. C. Landis and F. S. Collins, ‘The NIH Brain Initiative’, Science 340:6133 (2013), pp. 687–8. • 43. Human Connectome Project website, http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org (accessed 4 November 2018); D. C. Van Essen, S. M. Smith, D. M. Barch, T. E. Behrens, E. Yacoub, K. Ugurbil and WU-Minn HCP Consortium, ‘The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An Overview’, NeuroImage 80 (2013), pp. 62–79. • 44. R. A. Poldrack and K. J. Gorgolewski, ‘Making Big Data Open: Data Sharing in Neuroimaging’, Nature Neuroscience 17:11 (2014), p. 1510. • 45. J. Gray, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus (New York, HarperCollins, 1992). • 46. L. Brizendine, The Female Brain (New York: Morgan Road, 2006). • 47. Young and Balaban, ‘Psychoneuroindoctrinology’, p. 634. • 48. ‘Sex-linked lexical budgets’, Language Log, 6 August 2006, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003420.html (accessed 4 November 2018). • 49. ‘Neuroscience in the service of sexual stereotypes’, Language Log, 6 August 2006, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003419.html (accessed 4 November 2018). • 50. Fine, Delusions of Gender, p. 161. • 51. M. Liberman, ‘The Female Brain movie’, Language Log, 21 August 2016, http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=27641 (accessed 4 November 2018). • 52. V. Brescoll and M. LaFrance, ‘The Correlates and Consequences of Newspaper Reports of Research on Sex Differences’, Psychological Science 15:8 (2004), pp. 515–20. • 53. Fine, Delusions of Gender, pp. 154–75; C. Fine, ‘Is There Neurosexism in Functional Neuroimaging Investigations of Sex Differences?’, Neuroethics 6:2 (2013), pp. 369–409. • 54. R. Bluhm, ‘New Research, Old Problems: Methodological and Ethical Issues in fMRI Research Examining Sex/Gender Differences in Emotion Processing’, Neuroethics, 6:2 (2013), pp. 319–30. • 55. K. McRae, K. N. Ochsner, I. B. Mauss, J. J Gabrieli and J. J. Gross, ‘Gender Differences in Emotion Regulation: An fMRI Study of Cognitive Reappraisal’, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11:2 (2008), pp. 143–62; R. Bluhm, ‘Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: The Influence of Gender Stereotypes on Functional Neuroimaging Research on Emotion’, Hypatia 28:4 (2013), pp. 870–86. • 56. B. A. Shaywitz, S. E. Shaywitz, K. R. Pugh, R. T. Constable, P. Skudlarski, R. K. Fulbright, R. A. Bronen, J. M. Fletcher, D. P. Shankweiler, L. Katz and J. C. Gore, ‘Sex Differences in the Functional Organization of the Brain for Language’, Nature 373:6515 (1995), p. 607. • 57. G. Kolata, ‘Men and women use brain differently, study discovers’, New York Times, 16 February 1995, https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/16/us/men-and-women-use-brain-differently-study-discovers.html (accessed 4 November 2018). • 58. Fine, ‘Is There Neurosexism’. • 59. Там же., p. 379. • 60. I. E. C. Sommer, A. Aleman, A. Bouma and R. S. Kahn, ‘Do Women Really Have More Bilateral Language Representation than Men? A Meta-analysis of Functional Imaging Studies’, Brain 127:8 (2004), pp. 1845–52. • 61. M. Wallentin, ‘Putative Sex Differences in Verbal Abilities and Language Cortex: A Critical Review’, Brain and Language 108:3 (2009), pp. 175–83. • 62. M. Ingalhalikar, A. Smith, D. Parker, T. D. Satterthwaite, M. A. Elliott, K. Ruparel, H. Hakonarson, R. E. Gur, R. C. Gur and R. Verma, ‘Sex Differences in the Structural Connectome of the Human Brain’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:2 (2014), pp. 823–8. • 63. Там же, p. 823, abstract. • 64. ‘Brain connectivity study reveals striking differences between men and women’, Penn Medicine press release, 2 December 2013, https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2013/december/brain-connectivity-study-revea (accessed 4 November 2018). • 65. D. Joel and R. Tarrasch, ‘On the Mis-presentation and Misinterpretation of Gender-Related Data: The Case of Ingalhalikar’s Human Connectome Study’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:6 (2014), p. E637; M. Ingalhalikar, A. Smith, D. Parker, T. D. Satterthwaite, M. A. Elliott, K. Ruparel, H. Hakonarson, R. E. Gur, R. C. Gur and R. Verma, ‘Reply to Joel and Tarrasch: On Misreading and Shooting the Messenger’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:6 (2014), 201323601; ‘Expert reaction to study on gender differences in brains’, Science Media Centre, 3 December 2013, http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-on-gender-differences-in-brains (accessed 4 November 2018); Neuroskeptic, ‘Men, women and big PNAS papers’, Discover, 3 December 2013, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2013/12/03/men-women-big-pnas-papers/#.W69vxltyKpo (accessed 4 November 2018); ‘Men are map readers and women are intuitive, but bloggers are fast’, The Neurocritic blog, 5 December 2013, https://neurocritic.blogspot.com/2013/12/men-are-map-readers-and-women-are.html (accessed 4 November 2018); https://blogs.bio medcentral.com/on-biology/2013/12/12/lets-talk-about-sex/ • 66. G. Ridgway, ‘Illustrative effect sizes for sex differences’, Figshare, 3 December 2013, https://figshare.com/articles/Illustrative_effect_sizes_for_sex_differences/866802 (accessed 4 November 2018). • 67. S. Connor, ‘The hardwired difference between male and female brains could explain why men are “better at map reading”’, Independent, 3 December 2013, https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-hardwired-difference-between-male-and-female-brains-could-explainwhy-men-are-better-at-map-8978248.html (accessed 4 November 2018); J. Naish, ‘Men’s and women’s brains: the truth!’, Mail Online, 5 December 2013, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2518327/Mens-womensbrains-truth-As-research-proves-sexes-brains-ARE-wired-differentlywomens-cleverer-ounce-ounce – men-read-female-feelings.html (accessed 4 November 2018). • 68. C. O’Connor and H. Joffe, ‘Gender on the Brain: A Case Study of Science Communication in the New Media Environment’, PLoS One 9:10 (2014), e110830.