|
Men and women are all the same and it turns out we're a species of flaming homosexuals
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 08:49 |
|
|
# ? Apr 17, 2024 22:51 |
|
The Whole Internet posted:transsexual suicide rates are much less bad after transitioning compared to untreated There's actually very little evidence for this, the entire subject is extremely poorly studied. Most reputable reviewd say the existing evidence is too weak to draw any such conclusions one way or the other
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 12:13 |
|
Jesustheastronaut! posted:yes the size is the same, but what about the quality, and fortitude and overall "goodness"? I think its pretty obvious Mens brains contain 75% more gumption, and 93% more sticktoittiveness. Also chutzpah.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 12:33 |
|
Of course the male and female brains are almost identical. It's the hormones that actually make women insane.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 12:44 |
|
Of cpurse the real root of this mess is that people care whether there are natural differences when making moral decisions. Nature is not right or wrong and we ignore it all the time when being decent human beings, as we should.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 13:37 |
|
If gender comes from hormones how does this explain the hairy men built like brick shithouses that are transgender though?
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 14:28 |
|
Medieval Medic posted:Of course the male and female brains are almost identical. It's the hormones that actually make women insane. men actually have more highly fluctuating and inconsistent hormonal levels. for example, men consistently underestimate risk in studies of professional finance workers and are more reckless drivers.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 14:38 |
|
ArmZ posted:men actually have more highly fluctuating and inconsistent hormonal levels. for example, men consistently underestimate risk in studies of professional finance workers and are more reckless drivers. Yeah seriously. Just look at history: full of men making decisions -> full of horrible awful consequences with bloody wars killing millions, brinkmanship with nuclear armageddon, failure to establish peace over really loving petty stuff. Like I'm not saying "women would do it better " because no, history would be just as full of terrible poo poo; but rather I'm saying that there's no fuckin' evidence to support that men are more rational and levelheaded than women.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 14:49 |
|
Using neuroimaging to try to validate or invalidate transgenderism is dumb. I'm almost certain if you bribed a bunch of completely and proudly cis people to do their best to pass as the opposite gender for a year you could then run an fmri and find they're slightly more similar to the opposite gender than the regular population is. Hell, I'd bet you could get a bunch of dudes to think "I'm a girl I'm a girl I'm a girl I'm a girl.." a thousand times a day for a few weeks and when you fire up the fmri and run them past certain stimuli they will appear slightly more female than the average population. I'm not even pulling that out of my rear end, while it hasn't been run for anything quite so controversial as that manipulating the group people identify with and then finding commonality in neuroimaging is easy. Don't read any neuroimaging study that appears to connect to a social/political/popularly controversial topic. Neuroimaging has its uses, but it can also generate pretty much arbitrary data that can be used to lend support to any position. Even if it's supporting your cause you should think of it in the same light as how phrenology was used to justify both racism and classism. You should especially not consider it good evidence if you have any scepticism about the validity of psychology, because neuroimaging studies use the same statistical and testing procedures as regular psychology but with added confusion because the data they obtain and then test is already a product of a bunch of complex maths (with ridiculous amounts of compounded uncertainty and error) that the majority of people involved have no knowledge of.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 14:50 |
|
Mange Mite posted:There's actually very little evidence for this, the entire subject is extremely poorly studied. Most reputable reviewd say the existing evidence is too weak to draw any such conclusions one way or the other With all these appeals to authority without citation you're ready to be a republican politician!
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 14:55 |
|
Moon Atari posted:...Hell, I'd bet you could get a bunch of dudes to think "I'm a girl I'm a girl I'm a girl I'm a girl.." a thousand times a day for a few weeks ... i did this and now I have basically prodromal schizophrenia. im now on antipsychotics.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 14:56 |
|
Moon Atari posted:Using neuroimaging to try to validate or invalidate transgenderism is dumb. I'm almost certain if you bribed a bunch of completely and proudly cis people to do their best to pass as the opposite gender for a year you could then run an fmri and find they're slightly more similar to the opposite gender than the regular population is. Hell, I'd bet you could get a bunch of dudes to think "I'm a girl I'm a girl I'm a girl I'm a girl.." a thousand times a day for a few weeks and when you fire up the fmri and run them past certain stimuli they will appear slightly more female than the average population. I'm not even pulling that out of my rear end, while it hasn't been run for anything quite so controversial as that manipulating the group people identify with and then finding commonality in neuroimaging is easy. MRI is super accurate in my experience though, looking at very small circuitry within closed surface-mount computer chips. You can view every individual layer of circuitry in pretty stunning clarity. It's impressive as gently caress. I don't think the MRI is producing images that are outright inaccurate, and any faults in studies based on MRI are probably related more to neuroelasticity changing the observation and poor interpretation. If you have any resources about the supposed inaccuracy ("ridiculous amounts of compounded uncertainty and error", in your words) of MRI in general for imaging, I would be curious to see them, because anecdotally it hasn't been inaccurate.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:00 |
|
ArmZ posted:men actually have more highly fluctuating and inconsistent hormonal levels. for example, men consistently underestimate risk in studies of professional finance workers and are more reckless drivers. True in regards to risk taking, but nothing to do with hormone fluctuation. If you really want to get into gender wars though safety analysis shows pretty consistently that men gently caress up more in the sense of risk taking and overconfidence, where they consciously perform an action they thought would have desirable outcomes but which causes negative outcome. Women gently caress up more in the sense of slipping up, where they fail to execute an action correctly. In concrete terms, a guy will crash his car because he tried to overtake like an rear end in a top hat when he shouldn't have, a woman will crash her car because gently caress knows she just swerved for (by her own admission) no real reason.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:03 |
|
ashgromnies posted:MRI is super accurate in my experience though, looking at very small circuitry within closed surface-mount computer chips. You can view every individual layer of circuitry in pretty stunning clarity. It's impressive as gently caress. I don't think the MRI is producing images that are outright inaccurate, and any faults in studies based on MRI are probably related more to neuroelasticity changing the observation and poor interpretation. I don't think he's saying that the MRI technology is inaccurate. If I may, what he's saying is that an MRI is just like a camera. You can use it to take pictures as evidence for your position, but the same camera can be used from a different perspective to get evidence for a different position. There's nothing wrong with the camera, it's just a tool. The way you use it, and the way you interpret the data that you gathered with the tool is what comes into uncertainty. also your quote is him talking about psychology tests and stuff that they'd give the subjects.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:04 |
|
Moon Atari posted:True in regards to risk taking, but nothing to do with hormone fluctuation. If you really want to get into gender wars though safety analysis shows pretty consistently that men gently caress up more in the sense of risk taking and overconfidence, where they consciously perform an action they thought would have desirable outcomes but which causes negative outcome. Women gently caress up more in the sense of slipping up, where they fail to execute an action correctly. In concrete terms, a guy will crash his car because he tried to overtake like an rear end in a top hat when he shouldn't have, a woman will crash her car because gently caress knows she just swerved for (by her own admission) no real reason. These things have more to do with social constructions and performativity than with Though I guess the idea here is to prove these things exist physically within the brain... hmmmm
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:07 |
|
SHISHKABOB posted:I don't think he's saying that the MRI technology is inaccurate. If I may, what he's saying is that an MRI is just like a camera. You can use it to take pictures as evidence for your position, but the same camera can be used from a different perspective to get evidence for a different position. There's nothing wrong with the camera, it's just a tool. The way you use it, and the way you interpret the data that you gathered with the tool is what comes into uncertainty. No it isn't. He was saying that neuroimaging has additional uncertainty beyond what traditional psychological studies have, because of its nature. Re-read his last paragraph. Moon Atari posted:neuroimaging studies use the same statistical and testing procedures as regular psychology but with added confusion because the data they obtain and then test is already a product of a bunch of complex maths (with ridiculous amounts of compounded uncertainty and error) that the majority of people involved have no knowledge of. I even pointed out in my post that any fault likely lies with the interpretation of results rather than the MRIs themselves. I just wanted him to address the "complex math = compounded uncertainty, only for neuroimaging" statement. Read better. ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Nov 4, 2015 |
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:09 |
|
ashgromnies posted:No it isn't. He was saying that neuroimaging has additional uncertainty beyond what traditional psychological studies have, because of its nature. Oh ok yeah. Though in neurology there is a lot of crazy math that has nothing to do with MRIs. The models they use to describe the images they take can be hosed up and full of uncertainty. ashgromnies posted:No it isn't. He was saying that neuroimaging has additional uncertainty beyond what traditional psychological studies have, because of its nature. Well no loving poo poo the uncertainty is in the interpretation??????? Is that all you were saying?
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:13 |
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Oh ok yeah. Though in neurology there is a lot of crazy math that has nothing to do with MRIs. The models they use to describe the images they take can be hosed up and full of uncertainty. Yes, I am saying it lies in the interpretation and the data is probably fine. But it seemed like he was saying the data itself is inaccurate because it's obtained via MRI and therefore fraught with "compounded uncertainty and error".
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:18 |
|
ashgromnies posted:MRI is super accurate in my experience though, looking at very small circuitry within closed surface-mount computer chips. You can view every individual layer of circuitry in pretty stunning clarity. It's impressive as gently caress. I don't think the MRI is producing images that are outright inaccurate, and any faults in studies based on MRI are probably related more to neuroelasticity changing the observation and poor interpretation. It's been years since i've touched anything neuro related, so I don't have anything handy, but there are entire technical manuals on how to average out noise so you can actually use mri for neuro related research (which only the people who build the machines are likely to have actually read). Even to begin with in a brain you're definitely not getting spatial resolution equivalent to circuitry layers, because you're using radiowaves and magnetism to detect oxygen concentrations and consumption in blood, where it is supposed oxygen rich blood will travel to areas of high neural activity (note this is a simplification). Then you can only observe it in certain, usually singular, planes and only where significant amounts of neurons are aligned in parallel. Then it has garbage temporal resolution, and there is so much activity going on in the brain at any given time that you have to average out the noise over multiple instances to see anything distinct. Then you have to try to average that across multiple participants. That is a bad explanation because I haven't thought about it in years, there has got to be a neuro or medical radiographer goon who can chip in something better.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:24 |
|
Moon Atari posted:It's been years since i've touched anything neuro related, so I don't have anything handy, but there are entire technical manuals on how to average out noise so you can actually use mri for neuro related research (which only the people who build the machines are likely to have actually read). Even to begin with in a brain you're definitely not getting spatial resolution equivalent to circuitry layers, because you're using radiowaves and magnetism to detect oxygen concentrations and consumption in blood, where it is supposed oxygen rich blood will travel to areas of high neural activity (note this is a simplification). Then you can only observe it in certain, usually singular, planes and only where significant amounts of neurons are aligned in parallel. Then it has garbage temporal resolution, and there is so much activity going on in the brain at any given time that you have to average out the noise over multiple instances to see anything distinct. Then you have to try to average that across multiple participants. You're confusing MRI with fMRI
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:25 |
|
Plus it contains additional uncertainty based on the layout of the circulatory system in the brain, the influence of neural matter on radiowaves, the fact we don't actually know how oxygen consumption in different parts of the brain can be directly translated to equivalent levels of activity in different parts, seriously a million other things. gently caress, I'm pretty sure there is even a calculation necessary to overcome the effect of different average skull thickness between men and women, as this absolutely effects how the radio image is received.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:30 |
|
Mange Mite posted:You're confusing MRI with fMRI Many of these things effect them both, I'm using fMRI because that is of more utility for answering any of the type of gender war questions people are interested in. Even though the study that kicked this off was mri its rare to see it like that, as differences in brain size between men and women are fairly uncontroversial.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:33 |
|
Scientists: The part of the brain used to avoid responsibility is also used to enjoy fried food and gaudy clothing
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:40 |
|
Moon Atari posted:It's been years since i've touched anything neuro related, so I don't have anything handy, but there are entire technical manuals on how to average out noise so you can actually use mri for neuro related research (which only the people who build the machines are likely to have actually read). Even to begin with in a brain you're definitely not getting spatial resolution equivalent to circuitry layers, because you're using radiowaves and magnetism to detect oxygen concentrations and consumption in blood, where it is supposed oxygen rich blood will travel to areas of high neural activity (note this is a simplification). Then you can only observe it in certain, usually singular, planes and only where significant amounts of neurons are aligned in parallel. Then it has garbage temporal resolution, and there is so much activity going on in the brain at any given time that you have to average out the noise over multiple instances to see anything distinct. Then you have to try to average that across multiple participants. Ah that makes a lot of sense, an active brain is a lot more complicated and difficult to image than something static. Thanks.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:41 |
|
Moon Atari posted:Many of these things effect them both, I'm using fMRI because that is of more utility for answering any of the type of gender war questions people are interested in. Even though the study that kicked this off was mri its rare to see it like that, as differences in brain size between men and women are fairly uncontroversial. none of the stuff you talked about is relevant to MRI though, which specifically looks at structure using high-resolution static images, instead of changes in oxygen consumption over time like fMRI. fmri has terrible spatial resolution but regular mris definitely do not
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 15:46 |
|
Mange Mite posted:none of the stuff you talked about is relevant to MRI though, which specifically looks at structure using high-resolution static images, instead of changes in oxygen consumption over time like fMRI. Yeah, I am less clear on mri than fmri. But even the best quality mri is only detecting fairly large neural structures, it has good spatial resolution relative to the crap resolution alternatives. The ability to use it to accurately average that data between people then becomes even more confusing, and still requires huge amounts of noise reduction and interpretation based off approximated absorption of waves through individually differing configurations of skull and brain, and absorption of radio opaque dyes and the like. Its a much better tool for individual diagnosis of physiological illness than for research into very minute neurological differences between groups of individuals, especially when what people are actually asserting is that those differences suggest something about psychology rather than just anatomy. But my point to begin with was just that there is a temptation to take the image that is spat out by a machine as something reasonably pure, that it is only after that point that it is subject to potentially misleading analysis. But that image itself is already based on a huge amount of assumptions and worked data that is hidden from most of the people who will use it to conduct a study, who often aren't technicians themselves but are simply guided vaguely through the process for the sake of their study. Traditional psychology can see much less, but is usually very aware of how little it can see, and is less likely to be blinded by the allure of technology. That isn't a declaration that psychology is better without neuro research, just that neuroimaging is often used disingenuously because the general public automatically grants it legitimacy based on its face value appeal without really understanding its limitations. There is even a study, which i'll see if I can find, that demonstrated people are more likely to accept any assertion about human behaviour if you throw some meaningless neuroanatomy terminology onto it. That is what I'm getting at, the only reason the study that started this thread is getting any attention is because of the impulse to hear that neuro terminology and to assume it has the same legitimacy as anatomy and physiology. But really it is just another of the abstracted and flawed approaches to psychology that are the best we can do right now, and it is far from a decisive trump card in whatever ideological war people are hoping to win.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 16:40 |
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Male butts are narrow and look like raisins. Female butts look like spellbinding moons of fuk. yeah but if you have a good male butt its a huge plus with a lot of women which tbh takes some getting used to because what can a woman do with a butt besides peg it
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 16:45 |
|
Which is why I find the evidence from pathology to be far more compelling than fMRI, which has identified differences between male and female brains definitively. It's just harder to obtain consent for, and specifically with regards to the transgender, people haven't even been interested in studying brain differences for very long at all. http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/12/3132
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 16:59 |
|
Moon Atari posted:Yeah, I am less clear on mri than fmri. But even the best quality mri is only detecting fairly large neural structures, it has good spatial resolution relative to the crap resolution alternatives. The ability to use it to accurately average that data between people then becomes even more confusing, and still requires huge amounts of noise reduction and interpretation based off approximated absorption of waves through individually differing configurations of skull and brain, and absorption of radio opaque dyes and the like. Its a much better tool for individual diagnosis of physiological illness than for research into very minute neurological differences between groups of individuals, especially when what people are actually asserting is that those differences suggest something about psychology rather than just anatomy. fmri is pretty bad but mri is much better than you think. were talkign resolutions in the sub-millimeter range with very good fidelity, and the new super high field strength machiens are only improving that. very little psychology research actually uses mri, though, because it really can't tell you much. but as an anatomical tool it compoares very favorably with traditional pathology, which also introduces a ton of artifacts in addition to the whole "subject is dead" thing. it's just that connecting anatomy and psych behavior is really, really hard. you also seem to be confusing mri contrast with ct contrast. mri doesnt use radioopaque dyes youre not wrong though in saying that most fmri studies getting published are actually really bad and only getting published because functional neuroimaging is "in" right now and not very well understood. Moltke posted:Which is why I find the evidence from pathology to be far more compelling than fMRI, which has identified differences between male and female brains definitively. It's just harder to obtain consent for, and specifically with regards to the transgender, people haven't even been interested in studying brain differences for very long at all. most transgender studies are handicapped by the fact that it's a tiny population of fringe individuals who often have comorbid mental illnesses. this means small study populations with super-high rates of dropout which really kills your ability to get significant results. a huge proportion of srs recipients, for example, pretty much disappear after surgery. are they in hiding or dead? nobody knows. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Nov 4, 2015 |
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:13 |
|
Mange Mite posted:are they in hiding or dead? nobody knows. but if you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them....maybe you can hire The T-Team
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:15 |
|
http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120quote:We at Johns Hopkins University—which in the 1960s was the first American medical center to venture into “sex-reassignment surgery”—launched a study in the 1970s comparing the outcomes of transgendered people who had the surgery with the outcomes of those who did not. Most of the surgically treated patients described themselves as “satisfied” by the results, but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery. And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a “satisfied” but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs. TL:DR Trans have broken brain
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:22 |
|
Statistically speaking, Black people are like 20 times more likely to be convicted of crimes than everybody else, I'm not a neuroscientist so I can't say for sure that it is because their brains are different but it is something to think about.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:27 |
|
a bay posted:Statistically speaking, Black people are like 20 times more likely to be convicted of crimes than everybody else, I'm not a neuroscientist so I can't say for sure that it is because their brains are different but it is something to think about. statistically, i boned ur mom
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:27 |
|
Mange Mite posted:most transgender studies are handicapped by the fact that it's a tiny population of fringe individuals who often have comorbid mental illnesses. this means small study populations with super-high rates of dropout which really kills your ability to get significant results. a huge proportion of srs recipients, for example, pretty much disappear after surgery. are they in hiding or dead? nobody knows. which is why I linked a pathology study involving tissue taken from deceased subjects demonstrating that transgender brains have more in common with an opposite birth-sex brain than their birth-sex brain when compared to control subjects without psychiatric illness or comorbidities that would affect brain size. also hormonal treatment can be ruled out because of comparison to castrated controls. alls im saying is that the pathology provides a far more clear picture at this point than fmri, and its a lot harder to fake a pathology study with ideological driven science than an mri study. Moltke fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Nov 4, 2015 |
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:33 |
|
Moltke posted:which is why I linked a pathology study involving tissue taken from deceased subjects demonstrating that transgender brains have more in common with an opposite birth-sex brain than their birth-sex brain when compared to control subjects without psychiatric illness or commodities that would affect brain size. also hormonal treatment can be ruled out because of comparison to castrated controls. But it still doesn't rule out the fact that other studies find many trans folks suffer from many existing mental disorders, which also includes suffering from an extreme case of body dysmorphia
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:37 |
|
Snatch Duster posted:http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-mchugh-transgender-surgery-isnt-the-solution-1402615120 definitely not an ideology driven conservative rag. Paul McHugh is a joke in the psychiatrict field who goes on record claiming homosexuality is a choice and that the catholic sex abuse scandals are about a gay conspiracy infiltrating the church, not pedophilia. Moltke fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Nov 4, 2015 |
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:38 |
|
with Murdoch taking over the Nat geo publication I'm going to enjoy the leftwing groups becoming anti-science now. Transgender being a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors was just the first step.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:38 |
|
Snatch Duster posted:But it still doesn't rule out the fact that other studies find many trans folks suffer from many existing mental disorders, which also includes suffering from an extreme case of body dysmorphia if they are, then those mental disorders aren't enough to significantly alter their brains to look less like normal opposite-birth sex brains on average, at least not that the evidence shows so far.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:41 |
|
Moltke posted:definitely not an ideology driven conservative rag. What does that have to do with science and facts though? Don't pretend that your pathology posts do not have an agenda. Everyone knows that the human brain can and does changes it pathology because of myriad of factors. Moltke posted:if they are, then those mental disorders aren't enough to significantly alter their brains to look less like normal opposite-birth sex brains on average, at least not that the evidence shows so far. Maybe, but perhaps the root cause of brain is due to an existing mental disorder, body dismorphia. We also do not indulge histrionics in their antics as a cure or treat OCD by giving them poo poo ton of lights to turn on. By treating trans people by changing their sex only amplifies the main mental problems that caused body dismorphia disorder to occur in the first place. Pathology means nothing, since the human brain is influx at any given time. Snatch Duster fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Nov 4, 2015 |
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:43 |
|
|
# ? Apr 17, 2024 22:51 |
|
Snatch Duster posted:What does that have to do with science and facts though? You might have missed this, but I actually didn't author the article or edit the journal in question. If you have a disagreement with the conclusions based on actual substance and not just pissy whining you're welcome to write a response and see if they accept the manuscript.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2015 18:46 |