Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 212 posts

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#111

Post by 1457389 »

vacri wrote: post #99
toufka wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In hard science, the null hypothesis is often 'straw-man-like', and that's usually just fine. Because, oftentimes the straw-man haunts by being kind of true, sometimes. Reality is so strange that doing en experiment that controls well enough to (near-) conclusively exclude even a trivial hypothesis is a good experiment. Not the best experiment, but a good experiment.

You don't need a null hypothesis to do science. If you want to measure the strength of the Moon's gravitational pull, no-one's going to complain that you haven't outlined a null hypothesis. There's all kinds of good science done that doesn't use the null hypothesis - it's a myth that if one isn't presented, then it's "not science".

You are talking past his point, perhaps willfully...

They are saying that in hard science it is often useful to start with a null hypothesis, and report anything that diverges from that as potentially significant (assuming statistical significance of the divergence).

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#112

Post by [deleted] »

maratd wrote: post #39
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle, as it often does. It's fallacious to assume that there are no inborn differences between men and women. It's equally fallacious to insist (as many do and will, probably citing this study) that there are vast and uncrossable gulfs between men and women, and that anyone who crosses those gulfs anyway must be some sort of deviant. Humans are complex, the product of both nature and…

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what your comment actually means. What gulfs? Men and women are complimentary. The masculine and the feminine interplay between each other and cooperate toward mutual benefit. There is no gulf. I reject the notion that we somehow have to eliminate the feminine and the masculine, to be left with some sort of androgynous average. That's just nonsense. And yes, some men can be feminine and…

[deleted]

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#113

Post by vezzy-fnord »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #82
AutoCorrect wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what the GP means is that there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement that claim there is NO reason for the differences in men and women, other than the historical repression of women by men. Which couldn't be further from the truth: up until recently, women were very much at the mercy of the groups of men around them (physically), and only recently has the value of women in soci…

> there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. > only recently has the value of women in society dropped to that of men. I don't think that makes any sense. I mean, I literally don't understand what you're trying to say, and none of your asser…

It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen.

Hardly.

Virtually every feminist scandal that attracts any attention whatsoever is about postmodern feminists and their oversensitive antics.

The most popular feminist media, including Feministing and Jezebel, as well as articles on HuffPost and Slate, deal with postmodern radical ideologies.

Academia has also long been dominated by them.

Either they're not some "tiny and unpopular subsection" and actually a majority, or the logically vast majority of "reasonable" (depending on your views) feminists are doing precisely jack shit.

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#114

Post by 1457389 »

It is really annoying me that biology papers so rarely use SD as opposed to SEM. As a researcher I know the pain involved in making your hard fought data look any less significant, but please include some SD values because otherwise we have no clue about individual variation in the sample.

I'm just looking at all these comments saying "there is a spectrum of individual variation" and it is infuriating that the paper offers no way to confirm or deny this assertion, despite its importance to the conclusions.

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#115

Post by s_baby »

LanceH wrote: post #95
s_baby wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's disappointing to see so many people here read the title of the article and immediately start the see,-social-differences-are-the-result-of-vast-differences-between-the-binary-sexes wheel rolling again. But it's alright to just accept we're all products of socialization as a valid conclusion? >What's the alternative being suggested? A nuanced conversation on the interplay of biology and environment. Which there…

Let's say you were President of Harvard and you suggested such a conversation...

That the most likely scenario is there are predispositions for many traits we consider social. That evolution favors biological variation but also that humans are unique in their ability to adapt to their environment. That anyone trying to pick a side is doing so for political or ideological reasons and is selling you horse shit.

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#116

Post by PhasmaFelis »

cwaniak wrote: post #91
PhasmaFelis wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there aren't, but a lot of people are firmly convinced that there are. Feminism and "political correctness" and your alleged "angry emotional mobs" exist as a necessary backlash to the (historically overwhelmingly popular) idea that Man and Woman are as complimentary and irreconcilable as opposite poles of a magnet. These people don't just assert that "boys, on average, prefer trucks to dolls," but that boys shou…

> No, there aren't, but a lot of people are firmly convinced that there are. Any evidence of that?

Here's an experiment you can try yourself if you're male: attempt to enter a typical* church or school while wearing a dress and makeup. Compare to the reactions you get entering the same establishment wearing "normal" clothes.

*I'm sure you can cherry-pick unusually liberal examples of either, but you know what I'm talking about.

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#117

Post by Dylan16807 »

im3w1l wrote: post #59
demallien wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I didn't read the whole paper, just the abstract, but I would not be surprised to learn (based on previous studies) that the difference between men and women is smaller than the variance amongst men, or the variance amongst women, which is the case for nearly all non-primary sexual differences between men and women.

I (maybe mis)interpret your comment as saying that such a difference would be negligible. I disagree with that.

Variance inside each group is huge, so no, saying the inter-group difference is smaller is not at all calling it negligible.

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#118

Post by rayiner »

MarkTee wrote: post #84
rayiner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quite favor the idea of gender-segregated schooling, because I do think boys as a whole get the short-end of the stick in K-6 because the school environment isn't structured as well for them. That said, the structure of schooling isn't arbitrary. It's a reflection of the needs of a modern knowledge economy. It's something that doesn't just affect boys versus girls, but certain kinds of boys versus other kinds of bo…

The structure of the modern school system (the one employed in the western world, at least) dates back to the Industrial Revolution. It's hardly "a reflection of the needs of a modern knowledge economy".

The modern school system dates back to the industrial revolution, but has continued to evolve in the direction of longer school days, less physical activity and free play, and more material. All this is consistent with the increasing demands as we transition from an industrial economy to the modern economy.

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#119

Post by Dylan16807 »

adamnemecek wrote: post #81
phaer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need me to explain to you why your examples are completely different scenarios than letting your (male) child play with dolls or wear dresses, right? Please find some better examples if you are interested in a constructive discussion and you are not on some kind of crusade about your idea of parenting.

We weren't talking about letting but about forcing.

Forcing children to wear clothes is normal, and the style shouldn't matter as long as they are fitting and such.

I don't think you can really 'force' a child to play, so I discount the part about playing with dolls being potentially 'abusive'.

Re: Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

#120

Post by Fomite »

powertower wrote: post #72
Fomite wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to break it to you, but by 1000 the Roman Empire was well and truly gone. As much as I am fond of the medieval period, I wouldn't hold up 1000 as a bright and shining year for "The West". Hell, at that point, even the Eastern Roman Empire was struggling.

The point was they accomplished things that no one else had by that time. And eventually the doom and gloom that came afterwards was overcome fully with new civilizations, countries, etc... And by the 1800s the Western world and the European countries were so far ahead of anyone else that it's silly to even compare them to the rest of the world at that point in history in regards to reason, law, economy flow, technol…

...which is what the person you were responding to was arguing. The idea that there is a fixed, deterministic "Best", or even a certain distribution, is an absurd concept when talking about humans. That ball has been passed around in history a great deal.
Post reply on HN