The Fifth Issue

As has basically become a trope in psychology today (i.e., psychology of the present day, not the magazine “Psychology Today,” which shares about as much with academic psychology as kool-aid spiked with everclear shares with a good Port wine), traits in an individual are usually a fusion of “nature” (biology) and “nurture.” There’s very little debate that some concoction of the two exists; however, an accurate measurement for either is currently lacking, since, as I’ve said before, moral empirical social science is basically impossible. So the debate rages on…

What we have in issue 5 are two deceptively complex articles that can easily be boiled down to opinionative arguments; Allen’s position, which states that communication is essentially cultural and a construct of society and Brizendine’s position, who, while admitting there is a certain degree towards socialization, says that the larger role is biological in nature.

There is compelling evidence towards both sides, and I don’t entirely see why the two can’t meet in a sort of ‘happy medium.’ Brizendine provides largely irrefutable biological evidence that simply cannot be entirely overlooked. However, often her application towards gendered communication lacks a bridge—I feel that’s where Allen can come in. For example, while it’s certainly true that hormonal changes are likely to affect one’s personality in a very direct manner, were it not for specific normative sociological structures built around pubescent women, they would not reflect their current gendered communication. In my opinion, this particular fusion can be applied amply to just about every point both authors make.

Q1: Both authors seem to agree more than they disagree on most of their steps to their admittedly different conclusions. What might some of those “agreed steps” be?

Q2: Do you think that the “genderedness” currently present in communication will adapt over time, as communication continues to evolve?