11–20 of 93 posts
A quick look at Simon Baron Cohen's tweet[1] (linked from the article) shows that this topic seems extremely divisive and inflammatory to people. Is this retraction and resulting modified study seen as an important victory for people promoting that there are no differences between the "male" and "female" brains? [1] https://twitter.com/sbaroncohen/status/832490232721371136
A quick look at Simon Baron Cohen's tweet[1] (linked from the article) shows that this topic seems extremely divisive and inflammatory to people. Is this retraction and resulting modified study seen as an important victory for people promoting that there are no differences between the "male" and "female" brains? [1] https://twitter.com/sbaroncohen/status/832490232721371136
Simon Baren Cohen is an expert, but he's got some stuff badly wrong before, such as saying that autism is a condition marked by lack of empathy because of alexithymia. Turns out this is incorrect, but it caused considerable hardship for many autistic people who were unable to get a dx because they could see things from someone else's point of view, even if only in a limited way.
A quick look at Simon Baron Cohen's tweet[1] (linked from the article) shows that this topic seems extremely divisive and inflammatory to people. Is this retraction and resulting modified study seen as an important victory for people promoting that there are no differences between the "male" and "female" brains? [1] https://twitter.com/sbaroncohen/status/832490232721371136
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Has it happened because of scientific or political reasons?" It's literally in the first sentence: "The authors of a study that claimed to find a link between typical male brain anatomy and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have retracted it and replaced it with a dramatically changed version after finding an error in their methodology."
Quoting the actual mistake is more useful, as that sentence doesn’t actually clarify the question — it’s what they’d say if it were for political reasons, as well. > In the letter, Ecker wrote that she and her coauthors had "identified a problem with the script that was used for the prediction of biological sex in male and female individuals with ASD based on their respective neuroanatomy in our original sample." > T…
Shitty academia code strikes again. It's sort of unfortunate that most of academic fields have turned to domain-specific software engineering, which graduates are woefully unprepared to do properly.
A quick look at Simon Baron Cohen's tweet[1] (linked from the article) shows that this topic seems extremely divisive and inflammatory to people. Is this retraction and resulting modified study seen as an important victory for people promoting that there are no differences between the "male" and "female" brains? [1] https://twitter.com/sbaroncohen/status/832490232721371136
> Meet the neuroscientist shattering the myth of the gendered brain
> Are there any significant differences based on sex alone? The answer, she says, is no. To suggest otherwise is “neurofoolishness”.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/feb/24/meet-the-neu...
A quick look at Simon Baron Cohen's tweet[1] (linked from the article) shows that this topic seems extremely divisive and inflammatory to people. Is this retraction and resulting modified study seen as an important victory for people promoting that there are no differences between the "male" and "female" brains? [1] https://twitter.com/sbaroncohen/status/832490232721371136
Well, it is clearly stated that it's a methological error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoting the actual mistake is more useful, as that sentence doesn’t actually clarify the question — it’s what they’d say if it were for political reasons, as well. > In the letter, Ecker wrote that she and her coauthors had "identified a problem with the script that was used for the prediction of biological sex in male and female individuals with ASD based on their respective neuroanatomy in our original sample." > T…
> "Quoting the actual mistake is more useful" This isn't Twitter, and it's not my job to condense a paper down to a single sentence for people that wouldn't otherwise spare the time to actually read the article in the first place. Commenter is more than welcome to go ahead and do the reading themselves.
You're certainly under no obligation to comment at all. But if you are going to post a comment, especially one that implies some laziness of the person you're responding to ("It's literally in the first sentence"), you might want to take a few extra seconds to make sure you're providing useful and relevant information.
A quick look at Simon Baron Cohen's tweet[1] (linked from the article) shows that this topic seems extremely divisive and inflammatory to people. Is this retraction and resulting modified study seen as an important victory for people promoting that there are no differences between the "male" and "female" brains? [1] https://twitter.com/sbaroncohen/status/832490232721371136
Yes - of that you can be certain. Was the retraction and modification done to satisfy those people? That's an important question that will probably go unanswered.