Sociobiology Study: Low voices more "trusting" and why the discipline is sexist, racist nonsense

For the last two nights now, listening to cbc radio one, I have found myself hearing of a ridiculous study conducted by a woman who has clarified her interest in discovering the "evolutionary basis of human behavior" aka sociobiology - you know, the train of thought that fascists hold of human behavior being fixed and unchangeable that lead to war, genocide and oppression.


But I digress.


This new study focuses solely on human voices and how lower voices are apparently more likely to show "dominance" and "leadership." According to this study, several people were asked to listen to the voices of men (yes, they failed to even include women in the study) and judge which voice is more "dominant" -- the findings showed that the lower voices were preferred for whether or not the person speaking could be trusted.


All of this was brought to my attention last night during the airing of my favourite radio programs, "As it Happens" and of course, the amazing Carol Off called her out on her clear sexism by asking why she did not include women. Whenever Carol would ask about what her study presented, especially about non-masculine voices and women in generally in political leadership positions, the woman kept responding with, "we didn't really think about that one..." or "well, that is a good point." She even went so far to highlight how Margaret Thatcher went through voice training to make her voice lower. Rather than critiquing WHY this might be, they simply seem to believe it is all "natural" and not something caused by a sexist society.


And so, tonight as I was listening to a separate program on CBC, the same study comes up as a way to say that a female politician in Canada may be at a "disadvantage" because of what this study has found. There is so much wrong here and no one is discussing this -- this problem is with the study itself. This study is biased in its biological deterministic, sexist, and restrictive approach to research. First of all, why would such research be conducted to begin with? Why would a woman be interested in such a study?


As someone who spends days of her year studying human evolution in Anthropology, I can confidently say that human behavior cannot be studied in the same way that other, non-human animal behavior are for the simple reason that we have culture. Our cultures and upbringings teach us behaviors, socialization skills and ways of being in our world  -- a voice, whether deep or low, is not a starting ground to discuss who makes a better or worse political leader, or who is more "dominant" -- it simply tells us that a group of people who were asked to listen to voices and happened to find the lower ones more "trustworthy." Why are we circulating the story around like it has made some groundbreaking scientific discovery? How can we draw such huge, sexist conclusions about ability to leadership from such a ridiculous "evolutionary trait." Dominance in human societies is something that has a social basis -- dominance in chimps is very different, for example, than dominance in humans and should not be studied using the same guidelines. The pathetic part of this study, too, is the realization that such ideas still exist -- ideas that human behaviors are fixed and unchangeable, relying solely on evolutionary processes that take place in a naturalist scenario. The people who have supported such ideas include eugenicists, racists, sexists, and fascists. These are the people who are "concerned" with trying to "prove" that human behavior has some intrinsic, biological cause. Why must we continue on with such harmful misinformation disguised as "scientific data."


Notions about people being "naturally" one wayor "naturally" another has lead our world into bloody wars, oppression, discrimination, and genocides. This is all in the name of "science" which is allegedly above all scrutiny. An example of this that I did an extensive research paper on regards one  J. Philippe Rushton, a evolutionary psychologist who continues to publish academic papers trying to show that cranium size dictates intelligence. With this, Rushton conducted "research" of measuring skull volume and skull size to support his fallacy that some "races" as he asserts, are of "superior intelligence" than others. Of course, all of his conculsions illustrate a deep racist bias as he constnatly places people of African descent on the lowest level of intelligence. And yet, his work continues to be published because some people still think that sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and the like, are legitmate schools of thought and have a basis in reality when they do not. Sociobiology attempts to create a "science" of segerating humans and pigeon-holing groups of people by attempting to say their learned behaviors and cultures are some how rooted in a "difference" in biology. It takes the "nature vs. nurture" debate and takes a steaming dump on the "nurture" and thus breeding a climate of ignorance and segregation based on "science." This published study is no different.




Here is an opinion piece regarding this topic