A fandom shitstorm - redux

[filthgoblin]

I heard about this questionnaire initially through perdiccas, promoted through crack_van [though the community creator has since expressed deep regret at ever having gotten involved]. The questionnaire itself [questions listed in two parts here and here] was thought by some to be skeevy. I can see that argument for that, but I was more concerned about the fact that not only was it poorly worded and constructed, but didn't seem to offer any way in which to test the "cognitive neuroscience" theories that the researchers were positing. How can anyone claim to draw conclusions about cognition and neurocortical processing from a questionnaire? You'd need to do some kind of hands-on studies with neurological testing equipment to do that.

Fans objected, politely at first, then with increasing vehemence. The shitstorm peaked around about the time that the lead researcher suggested that women who enjoy slash fiction are neurocognitively the same as men who get off on transsexual/transgender pornography. Um, whut?

This article explains in a much more succinct, eloquent and cogent way than I could why fans were intensely irritated by two researchers who are admittedly outsiders to fandom and find the concept of fannish ways "fascinating". It also has some really interesting links to reactions from fans on LJ and DW to having been approached by them. I'd also recommend this post that says really clearly why fans do not want to be subject to an non-participatory anthropological or poorly constructed neurocognitive study by people who just want to point and stare.

Comments

[karaokegal.livejournal.com]

The whole think went from "Hey, let's all take the survey and skew their data." to MAJOR WANK including issues of gender, queer theory, misogyny etc in less than 72 hours.

I know there's a lot of hooey involved, but somehow it's one of those brou-ha-has I find myself THAT freaked out over. Maybe it's one of those things where if I can keep my head while all about me are losing their, I just don't understand the gravity of the situation.

[filthgoblin.livejournal.com]

I don't find it all that grave. I just find it interesting. The assumptions made by the researchers, the shoddy research methodology and the fact that people outside of fandom apparently find people like you and me so fascinating.

To be honest, I've answered questionnaires with creepier questions. I just find the whole thing interesting and the fact that there are so many astoundingly eloquent and intelligent people in fandom a little humbling and refreshing when there's often so much ignorant wank around.

[karaokegal.livejournal.com]

Plus the whole a cognitive neuroscientist and game show contestant. makes for pretty good snark-bait.

[filthgoblin.livejournal.com]

It doesn't really come much better than that.

[elf]

This post has been included in a linkspam roundup.

[filthgoblin.livejournal.com]

Thanks for letting me know. Allcomers are welcome here :)

[samstjames.livejournal.com]

Actually, apart from the poorly worded survey and that I see lots of flaws in this approach and the theory (and think it's stupid to do it like that because it was just bound to piss people off), it's actually an interesting and fascinating idea (that's me, the aspiring molecular neuroscientist talking, although I'm more interested in actual signal transduction and ion channels than behavioural/cognitive/anthropological studies - some of it is big bullshit anyways, sad as it is) and probably - I stress the probably - worth researching. But definitively not like that!
Filling out a questionnaire like that might actually give at least bits of useful data on what they are interested in, but only if done in under fMRI to see which area of the brain will light up while answering. More interesting in this respect would probably be to actually have women/men/whatever read a normal "hetero" fic and a "slash" fic while doing fMRI and compare what lights up then.
That could probably really give you some information if indeed things like that are processed differently between the male and the female brain, or if in fact it was just a matter of taste and maybe socia environment or something (that's actually what I guess). On the other hand, that would only show if maybe different structures of the brain are involved, not if the cognition was different. *shrug*

Aside from that there are some actual differences between male and female brains. While female brains are (usually) smaller in volume, they (usually) have a lot more synapses, which in itself hints to an inherently different approach in processing information and thinking. It's not really that easy though.

If you're interested in things like that I can recommend the works of Simon Baron-Cohen about the eq vs. sq theory (I think there are some works about the differences between the female and the male brain somewhere along the way too), which doesn't distinguish between "male" and "female" thinking but between emphatisers and systemisers and points out that although it seems that usually females are more prone to be emphatisers and males to be systemisers there's actually a very wide range of variety in this. I haven't read the books myself but a prof mentioned them in a lecture about this topic and I trust her if she says they aren't bad.
You could take a test to find out if you're more an emphatiser or a systemiser in your way of thinking here, if interested. (http://eqsq.com/) As far as I know the data is not used for publications or anything - as the test is the same as printed in one of the books; you'd do it just for you. It's not correlated with fandom or fanfiction but it's interesting anyway.

[filthgoblin.livejournal.com]

I think that was my point really. Not that the questionnare wasn't valid as a tool for collecting information - although the researchers' clear disregard for data validity and glee they expressed that they had managed to chalk up a lot of completed responses rather being concerned that they were clearly being polljacked worried me. It was rather that their research method, as you said, wouldn't yield the results they claimed to be after. You rightly pointed out that without some kind of physiological monitoring, such as fMRI, they would be unable to draw any conclusions about how the neurophysiology of study subjects is affected by what they read. And yes, cognition and neurophysiological response are two different things.

I did the test and was quite surprised. I've always been told that I'm quite an empathetic person and considered myself to be so. However, my answers on the questionnaire have me leaning more heavily on the side of systematising which, given the state of my house and my desk at work, surprises me! Though in some ways it does make sense because I can be somewhere bordering on autistic when it comes to having my routine disturbed, I do tend to notice patterns in things and I am extremely pedantic about grammar and language - as you might have been able to tell by my focus on the question construction in the questionnaire over all things in this case. If I'm reading anything that has poor grammar, or is constructed in such a way that it is unclear or misleading, it irritates me so much that I can't continue.

More than anything though, I agree that it seems obvious that they way in which they went about this would be guaranteed to put people's backs up. I'm guessing these guys would have scored quite low on EQ and are probably still blithely unaware why everything turned so nasty.

[samstjames.livejournal.com]

Yeah obviously a high sq doesn't automatically mean that you're not chaotic. You're talking to someone here with an sq of 72 and an eq of 29, and my desk and my room usually look as if something just exploded in the middle of it.

[filthgoblin.livejournal.com]

I guess I just tend to imagine that people who are systematic are also organised. That is absolutely not me.

I'm pretty balanced, actually with an EQ of 47 and an SQ of 56. I'm slightly below average EQ for a woman and slightly higher than average on SQ. Eh *shrugs* It's interesting, but it doesn't define me.