<div dir="ltr">Thanks for the further confirmation.<div><br></div><div>This wrongly justifies benevolent sexism. <br><div><br></div><div style>I laughed when I noticed the article on dailymail is authored by Daniel Amen, but is written with a female point of view.</div>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:30 AM, John Ellis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:neurofog@gmail.com" target="_blank">neurofog@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Gavin,<div><br></div><div>I'm somewhat familiar with Dr Amen's work, and he likes to overanalyze what amounts to pretty pictures for various patients, without providing clinically useful guidance. And thats putting it politely. Other doctors who do SPECT scans (Dr Amen uses SPECT) and specialized forms of qEEG analysis get better results. Dr Amen seems to generate profit, more than results.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I've stayed on the sidelines of this debate, but I will say that there is no strong credible research that suggests women are neurophysically better or worse any particular skillset than men. eg. There were female shuttle pilots, and male shuttle pilots, both performed exceptionally well.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Just because a men and women have neurophysical differences, and may process information differently does't mean men or women are inherently better or worse at a skill. It takes practice to be proficient at something.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div></font></span><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-John</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Gavin Knight <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gnnrok@gmail.com" target="_blank">gnnrok@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">naom-<br><div><br></div><div>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 differences though.<br>
<br><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2280239/Neuroscientist-Daniel-G-Amens-book-Unleash-The-Power-Of-The-Female-Brain-explains-differences-men-women.html" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2280239/Neuroscientist-Daniel-G-Amens-book-Unleash-The-Power-Of-The-Female-Brain-explains-differences-men-women.html</a> <br>
</div><div><br></div><div>The fact that people just digest this information without being presented the research is just awesome. <br><br>Here's some random blog which critiques Amen, I found it an interesting read but can't vouch for the source.</div>
<div><a href="http://neurocritic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-dark-side-of-diagnosis-by-brain-scan.html" target="_blank">http://neurocritic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-dark-side-of-diagnosis-by-brain-scan.html</a><br></div>
</div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Naomi Most <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pnaomi@gmail.com" target="_blank">pnaomi@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<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>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><br></div><div>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><br></div><div>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><br></div><div>
Science is only good science when it helps make predictions. Digital Phrenology, like its namesake, has no predictive value.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology</a><span><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>--Naomi</div><div><br></div></font></span><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div><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>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>
<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>_______________________________________________<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" 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></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div></div></div><div>-- <br>Naomi Theora Most<br><a href="mailto:naomi@nthmost.com" target="_blank">naomi@nthmost.com</a><br><a href="tel:%2B1-415-728-7490" value="+14157287490" target="_blank">+1-415-728-7490</a><br>
<br>skype: nthmost<br><br><a href="http://twitter.com/nthmost" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/nthmost</a>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<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></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<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></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>