![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From this blog entry (unfortunately I think this blog makes fewer substantive, positive points than it used to, but I still read it), book review of "Delusions of Gender":
One neuroimaging study used to support the proposition that "men are thinkers and women are feelers," for instance, relied on observed sex differences in blood flow to different parts of the brain. To demonstrate that such "differences" might be spurious, another set of researchers scanned a dead salmon while showing it "emotionally charged photographs." Then, "[u]sing standard statistical procedures, they found significant brain activity in one small region of the dead fish's brain while it performed the empathizing task, compared with brain activity during 'rest.'"
I may have to read that study. I don't know from that description whether they're concluding random chance, or brain activity based on light sensitivity in a dead fish, or what.
One neuroimaging study used to support the proposition that "men are thinkers and women are feelers," for instance, relied on observed sex differences in blood flow to different parts of the brain. To demonstrate that such "differences" might be spurious, another set of researchers scanned a dead salmon while showing it "emotionally charged photographs." Then, "[u]sing standard statistical procedures, they found significant brain activity in one small region of the dead fish's brain while it performed the empathizing task, compared with brain activity during 'rest.'"
I may have to read that study. I don't know from that description whether they're concluding random chance, or brain activity based on light sensitivity in a dead fish, or what.
