[Noisebridge-discuss] Some interesting thoughts on "benevolent sexism"
gnnrok at gmail.com
Sun Apr 7 06:05:10 UTC 2013
Yea it's interesting how Dr. Amen has become the world's expert on this
issue, while writing books like Unleashing the Female Brain. I find the
articles associated to his "research" stripped of all science and hilarious
to say the least. I don't doubt some of the work done gives insight to the
The fact that people just digest this information without being presented
the research is just awesome.
Here's some random blog which critiques Amen, I found it an interesting
read but can't vouch for the source.
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 provided.
>>> 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
> skype: nthmost
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss