[Noisebridge-discuss] Some interesting thoughts on "benevolent sexism"
pnaomi at gmail.com
Sun Apr 7 04:09:30 UTC 2013
Well, even worse, the statistics don't actually map onto anything
It's completely useless to say, "the areas of the brain commonly associated
with spacial reasoning are more active in men". It's about as useful as
saying, "the areas of the crotch commonly associated with reproduction are
more external in men."
Why? Because the idea of there being a "spacial reasoning" area of the
brain is borderline nonsense. What we have actually observed about the
brain is that, yes, there are certain areas that do commonly become
specialized, but -- in normal healthy brains -- there has never been
conclusive evidence that just because male brains commonly "light up" in a
certain area during spacial reasoning doesn't mean that THAT is the
"spacial reasoning area of the brain".
What it means is that females have been observed to use different areas of
the brain during spacial reasoning, and females who are good at spacial
reasoning do not have a "spacial reasoning area" similar to men's. They
have patterns of brain activity that are female, and they presumably use
them "better" than other female brains.
All of the above point back to the idea that describing patterns of brain
activity do absolutely diddly-squat to help sort out who might be good at
Science is only good science when it helps make predictions. Digital
Phrenology, like its namesake, has no predictive value.
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 5:35 PM, LinkReincarnate
<linkreincarnate at gmail.com>wrote:
> Amen rev
> On Apr 6, 2013 4:58 PM, "Mitchel McAllister" <xonimmortal at yahoo.com>
>> That's a good name for it. And it's also an excellent example of what was
>> said earlier about journalists not getting science right. However, Dr. Amen
>> seems like she decided to "spice it up" as well, from the soundbytes she
>> There are more than a few issues with the article, from what I can see.
>> Of course, the main problem is that once again we are handed a bunch of
>> statistics, as predictors.
>> Repeat after me, "Statistics are descriptive, not predictive."
>> - Reverend Mik McAllister
>> --- On *Sat, 4/6/13, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com>* wrote:
>> This is what I call Digital Phrenology.
>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Gavin Knight <gnnrok at gmail.com<http://firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> > wrote:
>> Did you see this article 2 days ago anyone?
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss