<div dir="ltr"><div>Well, even worse, the statistics don't actually map onto anything descriptive. </div><div><br></div><div>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."<br>
</div><div><br></div><div style>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". </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>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.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>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 things.</div><div style><br></div><div style>
Science is only good science when it helps make predictions. Digital Phrenology, like its namesake, has no predictive value.</div><div style><br></div><div style><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology</a><br>
</div><div style><br></div><div style>--Naomi</div><div style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 5:35 PM, LinkReincarnate <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:linkreincarnate@gmail.com" target="_blank">linkreincarnate@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Amen rev </p>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Apr 6, 2013 4:58 PM, "Mitchel McAllister" <<a href="mailto:xonimmortal@yahoo.com" target="_blank">xonimmortal@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;line-height:inherit">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.<br>
<br>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.<br><br>Repeat after me, "Statistics are descriptive, not predictive."<br>
<br>- Reverend Mik McAllister<hr><br><br>--- On <b>Sat, 4/6/13, Naomi Most <i><<a href="mailto:pnaomi@gmail.com" target="_blank">pnaomi@gmail.com</a>></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left-width:2px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(16,16,255);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px">
This is what I call Digital Phrenology.<div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div></div><div>On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:18 AM,
Gavin Knight <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" href="http://mc/compose?to=gnnrok@gmail.com" target="_blank">gnnrok@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Did you see this article 2 days ago anyone?<div><a rel="nofollow" href="http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/surprising-differences-between-male-and-female-brain200" target="_blank">http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/surprising-differences-between-male-and-female-brain200</a><br>
</div></div><div><div><div><br><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table><br></div></div><div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Naomi Theora Most<br><a href="mailto:naomi@nthmost.com">naomi@nthmost.com</a><br>+1-415-728-7490<br><br>skype: nthmost<br><br><a href="http://twitter.com/nthmost">http://twitter.com/nthmost</a>
</div></div>