[Noisebridge-discuss] Some interesting thoughts on "benevolent sexism"

Gavin Knight gnnrok at gmail.com
Sun Apr 7 11:23:43 UTC 2013


Thanks for the further confirmation.

This wrongly justifies benevolent sexism.

I laughed when I noticed the article on dailymail is authored by Daniel
Amen, but is written with a female point of view.


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 12:30 AM, John Ellis <neurofog at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Gavin,
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -John
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Gavin Knight <gnnrok at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> naom-
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> http://neurocritic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-dark-side-of-diagnosis-by-brain-scan.html
>>
>>
>> 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
>>> descriptive.
>>>
>>> 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 things.
>>>
>>> Science is only good science when it helps make predictions.  Digital
>>> Phrenology, like its namesake, has no predictive value.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
>>>
>>> --Naomi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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://mc/compose?to=gnnrok@gmail.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you see this article 2 days ago anyone?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/surprising-differences-between-male-and-female-brain200
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Naomi Theora Most
>>> naomi at nthmost.com
>>> +1-415-728-7490
>>>
>>> skype: nthmost
>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130407/011acc3c/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list