Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri May 24 20:56:21 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / 90% accuracy telling sex of brain
Thu Nov 15 02:26:02

Other study I read was around 70%

But my values are pinned on the quality of last generations instruments and methodology! Don’t worry, there is always a loophole for you to not change your mind, religious people have been doing it for 2000 years.
Thu Nov 15 03:46:10
Based on these criteria, the authors convincingly establish that there is little evidence for this strict sexually dimorphic view of human brains, counter to the popular lay conception of a “male” and “female” brain. This finding has broad implications not only for the ontology of gender, but also for the statistical treatment of sex in morphometric analyses.
Thu Nov 15 03:49:12
This is fundamentally an argument about how you define the category.

This group is essentially arguing you can look at features correlations with sex and this categorise them.

The other argument is that if this is various, it should emerge naturally and those categories should correlate to sex.
Thu Nov 15 09:57:32
The question was (you can go digg up the thread and see for yourself), can we predict the sex by looking at the brain. The answer was and is still yes, with 90-95% accuracy.

Your waffeling is outside the scope of the original topic and apparently still not even wrong.

So, why did the authors choose those criteria, scoring only the extreme values of these parameters? In a 2017 circumspective, co-written with Margaret McCarthy, Joel states:

In recent years I have been attempting to answer whether sex differences in the brain “add up‟ to create two types of brains, “male” and “female”. For this to be true the effects of sex should be dimorphic, that is, result in the formation of distinct “male” and “female” types, and internally consistent, that is, that all elements of a single brain are either “male” or “female”.

Are these two criteria valid? For “male” brains and “female” brains to be a thing, must the differences between them really be dimorphic? That is, not just a difference in degree, but in kind, like the difference between male and female genitalia, which come in two clearly different forms. Well, no. There is no reason to set that as the criterion.

An analogy with faces makes this clear. Male and female faces differ on a wide range of parameters – size of the jaw, prominence of the ridge over the eyebrows, fullness of the lips, size of the bridge of the nose, and others (think Jason Momoa versus Natalie Portman). For each of these parameters, there is not a male form and a female form – there is a distribution, which is shifted one way in males and the other way in females. None of these markers by itself provides the means to accurately classify faces as either male or female. But taking all of them together certainly does. We are all very good at telling whether a face is male or female and computer programs can also very successfully perform this classification. So, “male” faces and “female” faces are clearly real things, even though the differences in specific parameters between them are not dimorphic.
Thu Nov 15 10:38:05
Guess the poster who wrote this:

”Or to put it another way: if men and women have different brains, then starting only from brain structure, you should be able to identify the sex of the individual to a very good degree of accuracy, and actually it looks like we can't do that well.”

Pretty clear statement, evident by the rest of the thread. Let’s hear the revisionist version of what you _actually_ meant.

Or surprise me, say ”I was wrong about this, we apparently can as you said in that thread identify the sex of a brain with a good degree of accuracy”.
large member
Fri Nov 16 01:03:00
Regression analysis gave 70% after correcting for size. Which admittedly is higher than 50% accuracy that random guessing would give.
Fri Nov 16 02:31:15

Semantics. The fundamental point we were arguing about is whether there is such a thing as a male or female brain. As these authors report:

"These two results are not mutually inconsistent. We wholly agree that a strict dichotomy between male/female brains does not exist"

You quote from me, but appear to have missed the point about starting only from structure. These categories do not emerge from structure, they emerge from associating various features (One of the features they are choosing is size, rather than functional elements) with sex.

If you don't understand the crucial difference I'm not sure how to explain it to you. You say I'm being revisionist, but the words were clear and unambiguous. You need to consider the possibility you just didn't read and understand the point the first time, and instead inserted your own assumptions.

Fri Nov 16 03:10:31
In many ways, this is classic Nim-does-science.

1. Misunderstand proposition.
2. Find an article that superficially appears to rebut some element of proposition
3. Overlook or fail to understand significance of key elements of article (in this case, it's using non functional structure and without just one feature offers marginal improvement over random choice).
4. Ignore paper either explicitly supporting the fundamental elements of the proposition that is being disputed, or ignore authors caveats that paper cannot support conclusion he wishes it to.
5. Post it with loud triumph.
6. Sling mud when above is pointed out, abuse others of bad faith for not being convinced.

Rinse, recycle, repeat until everyone is bored.
Sat Nov 17 16:37:24

You call it semantics, I call it being wrong.

>>wholly agree that a strict dichotomy between male/female brains does not exist"<<

And yet even without a dichotomy you can still put things in two different distinct and identifiable categories.

>Misunderstand proposition.<<


"then starting only from brain structure, you should be able to identify the sex of the individual to a very good degree of accuracy, and actually it looks like we can't do that well.""

The answer is, yes we can, with 90-95% accuracy.

Thanks for playing.
Sat Nov 17 17:31:33

As your own source states, "a strict dichotomy between male/female brains does not exist".

Arguing you can in fact categorise male and female brains, provided you do not restrict yourself only to looking at functional structure and train your model apriori on known gender disproves this is wrong.

All this proves is you can categorise brains into male and female features, but not in a way that is relevant to the central point: male and female functional structure that is known to affect patterns of thought and overall capability.

So yes, very much semantics as you've focused on a misinterpretation of a supporting argument, not the substance in question.

"The answer is, yes we can, with 90-95% accuracy."

The source above does not start only from brain structure. Their model starts with knowledge of the sex of the persons whose brain is being investigated.

And as pointed out by Jergul and noticed by me when I read it too, it's biggest single discriminating factor is size, which is known not to be an indication of function.

It evident now that you haven't bothered to read and properly understand the proposition.

You never even started the game. And yet you think you have won. This is why those with a STEM background don't think highly of your skills.

Sat Nov 17 17:33:02
I.e. you have not presented evidence that brains can be categorised into male and female types starting only from the functional structure of the brain. Or even just the structure.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Sat Nov 17 19:17:18

There is a way where you can be 100% sure. All you have to do is put the brain in a poor defenseless monkey and observe how it acts.

Sat Nov 17 23:08:11
Nim has to be gay. His devotion to toxic masculinity is probably an overreaction towards his deep but repressed love of cocks.
Sat Nov 17 23:43:47
Says the guy watching his wife's Saturday night fire fighters charity gangbang
Cherub Cow
Sun Nov 18 00:12:24
lol, pillz :D
Sun Nov 18 02:59:19
Lol cherub for loling pills for referencing weird cuck sex insults from the far right. I see a beautiful night where the two rub your neckbeards against each other and bask in your hatred of women and immigrangs like the sad little alt-right incels you are
Sun Nov 18 03:08:00
>>And yet you think you have won.<<

I do feel bad for you, because if you think I think I ”won”, then you believe this was some sort of competition where these positions were equally plausible. This is wrong. You made a false claim, which I was already aware of, was wrong. You lost this when you waffled about ”cutting edge neuroscience”. I explained to you in that thread, the image recognition of Joel et al, failed to distinguish between the face of two different species of apes. Make of that what you will, I am sure you will do just that.

>>So, from that perspective, the imaging results of Joel et al do not support either an anatomical or a functional male-female brain mosaic. Nor do they contradict the idea that there exists a “male” brain and a “female” brain, overall. In fact, the very same data strongly support that idea, when analysed in a multivariate fashion (taking multiple differences into account at the same time).

In my original blog, I stated:

A quick look at panel E of the figure shows that… most of the female brains showed a mostly female pattern (lots of pink) while most of the male brains showed a mostly male pattern (lots of blue – don’t blame me, I didn’t pick the colours!).

The group differences are clear and highly significant. And even if very few of the males or females are at the extreme end of the distribution for all ten of these regions, the overall pattern suggests that you could build a very good classifier from the volumes of these ten regions taken together, which would be quite successful at predicting whether a given brain scan came from a male or a female. Indeed, this would have been a far more objective test of whether MRI volumetric differences between male and female brains are categorical or dimensional.

This is exactly what three separate groups rapidly did in response to Joel’s paper. Rosenblatt illustrated very clearly how, combining information from even only two variables at the same time can allow you to distinguish between groups (given the right conditions), even when the distributions overlap considerably for each variable alone. (This is just meant to illustrate the general method).

Using that kind of technique, and the data from the paper itself, Del Giudice and colleagues built a classifier that was 69-77% accurate in distinguishing male from female brains. Rosenblatt built one that was about 80% accurate. And Chekroud et al, using a different dataset, built a classifier that was 90-95% accurate in distinguishing male and female brains, when tested on a separate sample.

Rosenblatt summed up the general conclusion:

Given our empirical evidence and the multivariate intuition depicted above, we cannot help but disagree with the concluding statement in the abstract of Joel et al. (1), “. . . human brains do not belong to one of two distinct categories: male brain/female brain” or their statement that “. . .brains do not fall into two classes, one typical of males and the other typical of females.. . .” A simple multivariate analysis using the same data suggests quite the opposite: Brains are indeed typically male or typically female.<<

Read that again, ”brains are indeed typically male or typically female”. Which btw the medical profession already operates under this assumption, it would have been surprising if it wouldn’t have been like this given what we know about cognitive disease, behavior etc, all other sources indicate small to large, sigificant differences between men and women, you would expect them in the brain.

The next line of questions is what are the consequences of these differences, how does it effect mental health in men and women, neurological disease etc. the topic has outrun you and progress will be made, one funeral at a time ;-)
Sun Nov 18 03:26:56
This is no poorer form than when you said ”the new testament contains no support for homophobia”, then when given the link where say this, you without blinking waffle about how you meant something else. This time you called it ”semantics” lol :) posing claims and hypothesis that are falsifiable (i.e have empirical answers) is ”semantics”.

This is why no one with a tiny bit of honesty and intelligence (STEM degree or not) takes you seriously.
Sun Nov 18 03:52:08
>>As your own source states, "a strict dichotomy between male/female brains does not exist".<<

Idiot, the article goes on to explain with human faces as an example of why this is not even a relevant concept for viewing differences. Not even wrong, you asked a question that has 0 as the answer. You can make up anything you want, that will return such low resolution answers that nothing can be said about anything.

And ROFL at apriori, that boat has sailed buddy, we are in field application, you can make _any_ assumptions you want in the field, what matters is reliability and efficacy at the end of the day. This is about predicting, reliably, ”facts on the ground”, the answer is, 90-95% accuracy. Deal with it.
Sun Nov 18 03:58:54
"I do feel bad for you, because if you think I think I ”won”, then you believe this was some sort of competition"
"Thanks for playing"

You have a habit with leading with things that are so obviously silly it's difficult to muster much enthusiasm for continuing beyond the first paragraph.

I shall return later.

large member
Sun Nov 18 05:19:46
If you want accuracy in the field, then just look at the genitalia. That test is more than 99% accurate for adults.

Sun Nov 18 07:16:56

After slogging through your first post above, I don't think it addresses anything I haven't pointed out already.

The point at dispute is "are there innate cognitive differences between men and women". One way* of testing this is to look for differences in particular boys of brain structure known to affect cognition.

If two distinct categories do not emerge from brain structure known to correlate with cognitive functions *alone*, categories which then correlate to male or female, the original argument stands.

In both cases what you are doing is first sorting brains into male and female.
You need to define sex external to the model which adds information not present in order to define the categories and thus potentially skews your significance.

On top of that the first article you posted is using non functional elements in the mix, which is fundamentally contrary to the point being addressed.

This was all addressed in my first posts - you don't appear to understand the concept.

Sun Nov 18 11:22:06

I Very much doubt in said the New testament has no support for homophobia. I think my point back then in general was very much about interpretation in Christianity differing from the source texts literal statements, so it would seem odd to be pressing that line.

The reason I probably dismissed this point as semantics because, very much like now, you have contrived to find some interpretation of my position and refute it in a trivial way while not actually addressing the point.

So yes, semantics.

"And ROFL at apriori, that boat has sailed buddy, we are in field application, you can make _any_ assumptions you want in the field, what matters is reliability and efficacy at the end of the day."

This pretty much confirms you don't understand the point being made at all.

Sun Nov 18 11:26:02

Creating an arbitrary category and then being able to match continua to the category doesn't make the categorisation non-arbitrary.

If there's such a thing as a male and female brain in a sense *that effects cognition* you should be able to identify two distinct categories from brain structure associated with cognative function - without any knowledge of the sex of the brains - and then you'd find those categories would correlate to sex.

The literature, even your citation, doesnt provide evidence for this.

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share