Worked as a health tech for 10 years around seniors. I can confirm the behavior of men and women differ at these times through social means. Men want to know how their child is doing, women on the other hand care more about how her child makes her appear socially.
I'm not sure I think it's constructive to point out differences in gender though. On HN, it automatically triggers me. It's already difficult enough for a women to get a job programming without being harassed or her talent overlooked.
Not to mention, how would you feel if every guy trying to "help" you was actually trying to take a pass at you? Invaded? Creeped out? I dated someone for a few weeks at my last startup but don't really want to see anyone now.
It's a courageous study in the current environment. Is it even legal in the US to suggest there could be an intellectual difference between sexes, even at a certain age?
You mean like when Lawrence Summers was forced to resign from Harvard because he said that (well-known) differences in IQ distribution might have an impact on the number of women in STEM, but more research was needed (and fighting against sexism should also continue).
He was completely right with his information. The bell curve for male IQ is much shallower resulting in men greatly outnumbering women both at the top and the bottom of the IQ chart (note: that doesn't mean that a man with the same IQ as a woman is smarter, just that there are more men with higher IQs).
The idea that abstract logic, spatial reasoning, and pattern recognition (what IQ indicates) are primary components in being good at STEM is well-known too. The one idea definitely implies the other and stating that causal implication shouldn't be a crime.
Nobody stepped forward to disprove the science. They simply screamed sexism. They didn't care that he had even said that fighting the sexist component was also important. They didn't care that he had said the science might be disproven. They only cared that they didn't like the idea no matter if it was true or not.
History is filled with ideologues hurting and killing men of science for ideas we now know to be true. Freedom to research, study, and publish those studies without being threatened or harmed is paramount. If there's a problem, then fight the science -- not the scientist.
That's a rather patronizing position. He was lucky because he is rich and connected.
The other scientists sacrificed on the alter of ideology are seldom in a similar position. When they lose their jobs, they don't have the same money and friends to fall back onto.
A fear of retribution hurts science and hurts human progress.
It's true that Lawrence Summers was largely ousted for an unpolitic statement; however, I would like to extend more credence to the Harvard Faculty, which collectively, overwhelmingly, voted to dismiss him as president.
1. I think it's important also to recognize that the "science" he cited was not fool-proof. In the way that most science is not (for example, check out the 50 year long & still on-going dispute with Phillip Morris about the harmful effects of tobacco). And that moreover, the specific reports he cites can certainly be disputed on the methodology (where are minority women? where are women of different socio economic classes? where are women working in technical fields whose performance do not correspond to standardized test scores? etc)
2. Even if Summers was absolutely right about sex difference between men and women, some of the outrage directed towards him came not from particular concern with his science, but the effects that such statements would have on the construction of a liberal democratic society (which Harvard, despite it's many follies, is mostly invested in). A society which operates on the truth that women just can't do math as well is one which condones expectations that adversely effect female participation in communities of scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and tech-related fields.
1) Human males have that same kind of more even distribution across many other indicators. I don't know of any decent IQ study that doesn't easily reach similar conclusions.
The idea of relative distribution across races is a much different (and extremely dubious) question and far removed from the question of relative distribution between genders. It doesn't matter if minority women differ relative to other women if the relative difference between minority women and minority men of a given group is the same as the relative difference among the rest of the population.
The question of "other types of intelligence" is not at all related. The jobs in question are STEM. Something like social intelligence is very important, but does not make someone good at STEM and is therefore irrelevant.
2) Firstly, HE DID NOT SAY THAT! Equal chance to try doesn't mean equal chance to succeed. I had equal opportunity to try out for the football team, but there's no way I had equal chance to succeed.
Secondly, if the research is true, then all women should be given the opportunity to see if they can do the job (and those that can should definitely pursue that career if they want), but society shouldn't be blamed if because there are more men than women in STEM if the science says that gender parity in STEM won't happen.
Your "liberal democratic society" idea can go to hell because incorporating the truth into society is more important than anything when it comes to moving humanity toward a better future. If current society can't deal with that truth, then it needs to be modified so human progress can continue.
Regarding 2., are you saying that, in general, some true facts are so harmful that the public needs to be prevent from knowing them? And if so, who is in charge of determining what the public can know, and why are those people immune from the harmful effects of these beliefs?
For example you assume the existence of some people who believe that a liberal democratic society requires women in science and tech, even if they are inherently less able in these fields. Why then, can't these people explain to the public why this is the case, so that the public will then accept the need for women in these fields, regardless of the truth regarding IQ?
not at all. the 'facts' are obviously out there, but it's not the job of a university president to promote them, especially when their facticity is a) indispute and b) promotes expectations and norms in society that could and do adversely effects a segment of it.
summers is still a faculty member at harvard, he's just no longer president, and no longer speaking for the institution
All facts are going to be interpreted differently. So (a) alone is clearly not a good criterion. But if you are saying that (a) and (b) combined imply that a statement should be forbidden, then my critique still applies.
If you forbid Larry Summers from forming one plausible opinion based on the facts, even though you allow others (e.g. the opposite opinion), then your reasoning still must be along the lines that I outlined.
Why can't the public be trusted with the fact that Larry Summers draws one opinion from the data, even though other people have drawn different opinions.
Whenever your reasoning contains something like (b), my critique is going to apply, because you are arguing against a viewpoint based on its consequences, not on its truth (even if you also doubt its truth).
I casual looked/taken at a lot of IQ tests. I do think they are gender, race biased. I'm too lazy to research it, but just have a gut feeling. I don't think I've ever seen one that measures creativity, even remotely?
Actually, the older I get the more I think they should do away with IQ tests. Or, produce one that doesn't look like it was written by a bunch of white college professors.
Being too lazy to research it seems like a poor way to form your opinions.
The RAVEN IQ test [1] cannot possibly be gender or race biased, and this is the gold standard that is used to compare people across languages and cultures.
And freedom to challenge commonly accepted ideas. Science in many respects is a form of Darwinism. People come up with crazy ideas, models and interpretations and the ideas that survive the best challenges from peers and experiments win over the weaker ideas.
There was a big followup article in the "Notices of the American Mathematical Society" that actually looked at the numbers and concluded Summers was not supported by the data.
Given the highly political nature of this topic, I don't think anyone is going to be convinced by saying "this was debunked by experts" without even posting a link. Especially when being a mathematician doesn't make you an expert in statistics or sociology, so the Notices of the AMS can't be considered authoritative on this topic.
They do not address the question of IQ in any meaningful way. They only seek to show that women can succeed in mathematics. Summers in no way said that women could not succeed in math (or any other STEM field). The question of IQ has more to do with potential candidates rather than success of those candidates.
It isn't like Lysenkoism it is Lysenkoism. Despite all evidence to the contrary, people want to believe that intelligence isn't heritable, that all humans minds are blank slates and all differences in preferences and intelligence amongst humans are caused by environmental effects. Apparently, natural selection and sexual dimorphism stop above the neck. Our inability to stomach ugly truths is quite impressive. Darwin won the body, Lysenko the mind.
As for safe spaces, it's to address the reality that minority voices tend to go silent when they don't feel safe. Some people in colleges and in political media have a twisted view of this concept, and it's got a lot of people angry.
You've been posting many comments that break the HN guidelines. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do that. That means dropping the snarky swipes and posting civilly and substantively, or not at all.
Are you the super moderator that mass votes down stuff you don't agree with? I think you're not being a fair umpire.
I'm fairly civil when it comes to discussion. I'll engage and cite science. I come back and cite my objections if there's a serious discussion.
Seriously, I think you're way out of bounds.
Not everyone buys into the "narrative". We should be allowed to speak.
You'll note well that often a snark will lead to serious discussions. Don't dismiss it out of hand.
IF you do, slap both sides. Plenty of cheap shots from other side that go unpunished.
There exists a belief of a concept of 'gender' outside of a person's 'sex', which relates to how a person 'identifies'. (I think this might be about how a person 'experiences being themself', but I am not sure. I think the same term 'how they experience being themself' could also relate to the idea of 'otherkin', but again, I am not sure.). In some cases, a person's 'gender' will be neither 'male' nor 'female', in which case it is termed 'non-binary' (or, 'outside of the gender binary') (I am not entirely sure that this is sufficient for a person's 'gender' to be termed 'non-binary', as some genders are like 'demimale' or w/e, and I'm not sure if these are classified as 'non-binary' or not.).
The term used was 'safe-spaces' and 'exposure to safe-spaces', not 'safe exposure'.
'safe spaces', to my understanding, refers to a area/location/space where people who have certain common beliefs (or experiences?) gather to be (temporarily) away from those who might have negative views of those ideas or of people who have had those experiences or something else like that. I think part of it might be like, defending one's viewpoint against the same criticisms (by different people) repeatedly can be tiring and stressful, when one is trying to discuss things related to that viewpoint, not the viewpoint itself. So the 'safe-spaces' are a place where a certain group can discuss things relevant to that group without being accused or insulted for it? Something like that. I suspect that http://existentialcomics.com/comic/93 is a reasonable representation of some form of the idea?
I suspect that you arent really expressing confusion but are making a point, but I figured that I would give my incomplete understanding of the terms in question, in case I am wrong about that.
Basically, the theory is that somebody like Bruce Jenner, actually has the mind of a woman, but born inside the body of a man.
More specifically, the theory is that, a normal man has a male mind inside a male body. A normal woman has a female mind inside a female body. But, somebody like Bruce Jenner, has a female mind inside a male body. The other cases are a male mind inside a female body, and a neutral mind inside a male or female body (aka, agender).
This has huge implications. It means that your mind and body are two separate entities, biologically, and not a single entity. They work together most of the times, but at times, your body will fight your mind, as drug addicts will tell you. The mind wants to be clean, but the body craves the effects of the drugs, the body fights the mind, and eventually, the mind lose, and the body compels you to take the drug.
This also implies that gender is not a social construct, but rather gender is biological. If your mind was born female into a male body, no matter what society teaches you, you will always know that you're female. Deep in yourself, you'll always identified as female, even though your body is male.
Nonbinary/agender people existed long before this goofiness on college campuses and in the clickbait farms of political media, and they'll still exist once both pass into history.
I doubt that. Gender as a concept was invented in the 20th century (by feminists, AFAIK), so by definition nonbinary/agender people couldn't exist before that.
Intersex does not necessarily mean agender/nonbinary. Intersex refers to the genetic sex of the person (i.e. like male or female), whereas nonbinary and agender refer to gender identification (like man or woman). An intersex person can identify as a man or a woman even though they're not technically male or female.
True enough, though I didn't really feel like someone making a snarky comment about safe spaces was going to give a shit about the gender/sex distinction so, given that if the study is credible it's probably about sex rather than gender, I went with that.
Yeah, although I think that a lot of people misjudged the original article because it used "gender" and "sex" interchangeably, as well as "man"/"woman" and "male"/"female" a lot.
On the other hand two sentences later: "According to Blackless, Fausto-Sterling et al., on the other hand, 1.7 percent of human births are intersex.[116][31]"
And if you follow those links the abstract actually says "as high as 2% of live births".
Gender theory is by-and-large a sociological theory, not a scientific one. It's extraordinarily difficult -- from an epistemological point of view -- to produce strong evidence for the claim that gender is orthogonal to sex.
What this means, in practice, is that the selection criteria will be vague, which in turn is likely to produce massively varying results from study to study.
I see why you're interested in this, but I think you're basing your hypotheses on a false premise: namely that gender theory is hard science.
I expressed an interest. That's all. No judgement, claims, or assertions. I picked no nits and made no points. I value scientific exploration for its own sake. I don't need an agenda to wonder what we'd find. I look at the stars for the same reason.
I think you misunderstand me (and I do apologize if my previous comment came off as disrespectful -- I've edited it to be a bit nicer).
You're expressing interest in a potential study, which is nice, but my point is that the study you're proposing is infeasible because it hinges on a non-scientific concept.
When I say that it's epistemologically difficult to find evidence for gender/sex orthogonality, I don't mean that it's a difficult study. I mean that it's difficult (if not impossible) to empirically observe gender (in the sense of "gender theory"), thus precluding any meaningful study from taking place.
In other words: we could do the measurements you're propose, but then we have no way of knowing what it is we're actually measuring. Gender, as defined by gender theory, is inscrutable.
So again, what are you interested in discovering? What do you see as the possible outcomes of your proposed study and what conclusions would you draw from those results? Maybe there's a better way of answering those questions, and maybe these questions are better suited for a different academic field (e.g. sociology).
I want to see if the experience of gender has an effect if explored by a similar study to the submission. For example: Do nonbinary people have the same brain development as the people in this study, or do they diverge from cisgendered people of the same sex?
Until they look at nonbinary and genderless people, we won't know whether sex or experience of gender is more significant in brain development. Even throwing in gender nonconforming people might produce some interesting findings.
> For example: Do nonbinary people have the same brain development as the people in this study, or do they diverge from cisgendered people of the same sex?
Then I rest my case: this can't be done in any meaningful way.
To give you an intuition as to why, how do we control that our nonbinary group actually corresponds to the gender theoretical definition of nonbinary?
One could argue that this problem can be tackled by assuming two things:
1. people are being truthful when we ask them to categorize their gender
2. all nonbinary participants are categorizing themselves as such as a result of the same underlying process.
If we do this, then we might observe a difference between the nonbinary group and the control group, but point 2 is a thorn in our side: we can't know that this difference actually corresponds to what is being claimed. For all we know, we could be measuring some general effect of sexuality that deviates from the norm. Hell, it could be some sort of process related to being primed as "not normal", i.e. the study reminds these people that they don't fit in and we pick that up in the form of anxiety or self-monitoring signals in fMRI.
Again, the claim "my gender is of X" is unfalsifiable, and thus un-scientific.
To summarize, you can certainly produce effects, but those effects won't meaningfully contribute to any understanding of sex/gender experience.
"Hard to tackle by science" is not the same as "not scientific." Confounding variables are notoriously hard to control for in social science, but people manage to find useful information when they go in without agendas.
You've missed my point: my claim is that your study is necessarily non-scientific, given the epistemological problem associated with gender/sex orthogonality.
The findings are interesting, however I don't think that such a small sample can be used to make any conclusive assumptions and I think that these findings should be taken with a grain of salt. Since all these studies tend to have quite small sample sizes, it is quite likely that they will contradict past studies of similar sizes.
n=50 (closer to 100 with the control group) is massive for a brain-imaging study.
More to the point: statistical power matters, which is only indirectly related to sample size. I mean no disrespect, but this kind of criticism usually betrays ignorance of statistics and scientific methodology.
Do you suspect the study is under-powered? If so, why?
>n=50 (closer to 100 with the control group) is massive for a brain-imaging study.
The problem I see with it being a small group is not necessarily that the results are inaccurate because of size/lack of statistical power, but more so because of the fact that a lot of variables will not show up in a small sample. For example, it is possible that certain diseases that they found to be more common in one sex than the other are only more common in caucasians and the same relationship does not occur with other races (since this happened in Hungary, it is very unlikely that non-white people were a part of this study). The numbers determined here probably apply very well to people in Hungary but they might be very different from what we'd find in the United States or in India, for example.
What you're describing is an epiphenomenon, and increasing the sample size won't fix this. In fact, increasing the sample-size (i.e. over-powering a study) increases the propensity for spurious correlation.
This may well be an epiphenomenon, but that's why reproductibility (not statistical significance) is the gold-standard of science.
> In fact, increasing the sample-size (i.e. over-powering a study) increases the propensity for spurious correlation.
Huh? If there aren't just 2 kinds of brain, but instead 30 different kinds, then a study with 300 brains is much more likely to catch all 30 kinds of brains than a study with just 50 brains.
This is -- again -- only indirectly related to sample size. If the sample was randomly selected and the statistical power is great enough, then any correlation it's missing is marginal; this is a feature, not a bug!
You're not entirely wrong insofar as brain-imagery studies rarely conduct random samples, but increasing your sample size won't fix that.
Take a monkey-nigger and let him stare at an electrical circuit schematic for as many years as you like. The nigger is not going to get very far by drawing boxes around regions.
Imagine a person with no math skills and no low level understanding looking at a core-i7 chip schematic.
Just shut the fuck-up, retard-nigger. You don't know anything about logic gates. God, I don't want to hear your impression of a core-i7.
Why does this get so much attention? Men and women are obviously different in a lot of ways, why should the brain be an exception? Discovering that there are no differences would be an astonishing result, the opposite is what one should expect.
Because the official feminist line is there are no physical differences in the brain of men and women. Extra attention is needed to overcome the rhetoric.
68 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 145 ms ] threadI'm not sure I think it's constructive to point out differences in gender though. On HN, it automatically triggers me. It's already difficult enough for a women to get a job programming without being harassed or her talent overlooked.
Not to mention, how would you feel if every guy trying to "help" you was actually trying to take a pass at you? Invaded? Creeped out? I dated someone for a few weeks at my last startup but don't really want to see anyone now.
If you want to get non-biased information on technology and women, I highly recommend http://geekfeminism.org/ and http://rationalwiki.org.
If you run an open source project, definitely consider getting a code of conduct. Any serious project has one by now.
It reminds me of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
He was completely right with his information. The bell curve for male IQ is much shallower resulting in men greatly outnumbering women both at the top and the bottom of the IQ chart (note: that doesn't mean that a man with the same IQ as a woman is smarter, just that there are more men with higher IQs).
The idea that abstract logic, spatial reasoning, and pattern recognition (what IQ indicates) are primary components in being good at STEM is well-known too. The one idea definitely implies the other and stating that causal implication shouldn't be a crime.
Nobody stepped forward to disprove the science. They simply screamed sexism. They didn't care that he had even said that fighting the sexist component was also important. They didn't care that he had said the science might be disproven. They only cared that they didn't like the idea no matter if it was true or not.
History is filled with ideologues hurting and killing men of science for ideas we now know to be true. Freedom to research, study, and publish those studies without being threatened or harmed is paramount. If there's a problem, then fight the science -- not the scientist.
If only we could all be so persecuted.
The other scientists sacrificed on the alter of ideology are seldom in a similar position. When they lose their jobs, they don't have the same money and friends to fall back onto.
A fear of retribution hurts science and hurts human progress.
1. I think it's important also to recognize that the "science" he cited was not fool-proof. In the way that most science is not (for example, check out the 50 year long & still on-going dispute with Phillip Morris about the harmful effects of tobacco). And that moreover, the specific reports he cites can certainly be disputed on the methodology (where are minority women? where are women of different socio economic classes? where are women working in technical fields whose performance do not correspond to standardized test scores? etc)
2. Even if Summers was absolutely right about sex difference between men and women, some of the outrage directed towards him came not from particular concern with his science, but the effects that such statements would have on the construction of a liberal democratic society (which Harvard, despite it's many follies, is mostly invested in). A society which operates on the truth that women just can't do math as well is one which condones expectations that adversely effect female participation in communities of scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and tech-related fields.
*edit for formatting
The idea of relative distribution across races is a much different (and extremely dubious) question and far removed from the question of relative distribution between genders. It doesn't matter if minority women differ relative to other women if the relative difference between minority women and minority men of a given group is the same as the relative difference among the rest of the population.
The question of "other types of intelligence" is not at all related. The jobs in question are STEM. Something like social intelligence is very important, but does not make someone good at STEM and is therefore irrelevant.
2) Firstly, HE DID NOT SAY THAT! Equal chance to try doesn't mean equal chance to succeed. I had equal opportunity to try out for the football team, but there's no way I had equal chance to succeed.
Secondly, if the research is true, then all women should be given the opportunity to see if they can do the job (and those that can should definitely pursue that career if they want), but society shouldn't be blamed if because there are more men than women in STEM if the science says that gender parity in STEM won't happen.
Your "liberal democratic society" idea can go to hell because incorporating the truth into society is more important than anything when it comes to moving humanity toward a better future. If current society can't deal with that truth, then it needs to be modified so human progress can continue.
For example you assume the existence of some people who believe that a liberal democratic society requires women in science and tech, even if they are inherently less able in these fields. Why then, can't these people explain to the public why this is the case, so that the public will then accept the need for women in these fields, regardless of the truth regarding IQ?
summers is still a faculty member at harvard, he's just no longer president, and no longer speaking for the institution
If you forbid Larry Summers from forming one plausible opinion based on the facts, even though you allow others (e.g. the opposite opinion), then your reasoning still must be along the lines that I outlined.
Why can't the public be trusted with the fact that Larry Summers draws one opinion from the data, even though other people have drawn different opinions.
Whenever your reasoning contains something like (b), my critique is going to apply, because you are arguing against a viewpoint based on its consequences, not on its truth (even if you also doubt its truth).
Actually, the older I get the more I think they should do away with IQ tests. Or, produce one that doesn't look like it was written by a bunch of white college professors.
The RAVEN IQ test [1] cannot possibly be gender or race biased, and this is the gold standard that is used to compare people across languages and cultures.
[1]: https://www.raventest.net/
http://www.ams.org/notices/200810/fea-gallian.pdf http://www.ams.org/notices/201201/rtx120100010p.pdf
They do not address the question of IQ in any meaningful way. They only seek to show that women can succeed in mathematics. Summers in no way said that women could not succeed in math (or any other STEM field). The question of IQ has more to do with potential candidates rather than success of those candidates.
That said, the study was done by a team in Hungary.
Nor am I 100% on what you mean by "safe-space exposure", though I think I get the gist.
edit: Also, I figure running such a study would probably be harder due to the smaller number of people in question?
What are you people talking about?
As for safe spaces, it's to address the reality that minority voices tend to go silent when they don't feel safe. Some people in colleges and in political media have a twisted view of this concept, and it's got a lot of people angry.
oooh kay.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
I'm fairly civil when it comes to discussion. I'll engage and cite science. I come back and cite my objections if there's a serious discussion.
Seriously, I think you're way out of bounds. Not everyone buys into the "narrative". We should be allowed to speak.
You'll note well that often a snark will lead to serious discussions. Don't dismiss it out of hand. IF you do, slap both sides. Plenty of cheap shots from other side that go unpunished.
The term used was 'safe-spaces' and 'exposure to safe-spaces', not 'safe exposure'. 'safe spaces', to my understanding, refers to a area/location/space where people who have certain common beliefs (or experiences?) gather to be (temporarily) away from those who might have negative views of those ideas or of people who have had those experiences or something else like that. I think part of it might be like, defending one's viewpoint against the same criticisms (by different people) repeatedly can be tiring and stressful, when one is trying to discuss things related to that viewpoint, not the viewpoint itself. So the 'safe-spaces' are a place where a certain group can discuss things relevant to that group without being accused or insulted for it? Something like that. I suspect that http://existentialcomics.com/comic/93 is a reasonable representation of some form of the idea?
I suspect that you arent really expressing confusion but are making a point, but I figured that I would give my incomplete understanding of the terms in question, in case I am wrong about that.
More specifically, the theory is that, a normal man has a male mind inside a male body. A normal woman has a female mind inside a female body. But, somebody like Bruce Jenner, has a female mind inside a male body. The other cases are a male mind inside a female body, and a neutral mind inside a male or female body (aka, agender).
This has huge implications. It means that your mind and body are two separate entities, biologically, and not a single entity. They work together most of the times, but at times, your body will fight your mind, as drug addicts will tell you. The mind wants to be clean, but the body craves the effects of the drugs, the body fights the mind, and eventually, the mind lose, and the body compels you to take the drug.
This also implies that gender is not a social construct, but rather gender is biological. If your mind was born female into a male body, no matter what society teaches you, you will always know that you're female. Deep in yourself, you'll always identified as female, even though your body is male.
To be very clear, I am in no way affiliated with them. This throwaway was created to ask about a tool that was recently open sourced.
To be fair to those awesome folks, I have deleted and will abandon and nuke this account from orbit (id est: remove pw from my list)
To save you 5 seconds, around 3 million Americans.
"The Intersex Society of North America suggested that 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity.[115]"
And if you follow those links the abstract actually says "as high as 2% of live births".
What this means, in practice, is that the selection criteria will be vague, which in turn is likely to produce massively varying results from study to study.
I see why you're interested in this, but I think you're basing your hypotheses on a false premise: namely that gender theory is hard science.
What exactly are you looking for?
You're expressing interest in a potential study, which is nice, but my point is that the study you're proposing is infeasible because it hinges on a non-scientific concept.
When I say that it's epistemologically difficult to find evidence for gender/sex orthogonality, I don't mean that it's a difficult study. I mean that it's difficult (if not impossible) to empirically observe gender (in the sense of "gender theory"), thus precluding any meaningful study from taking place.
In other words: we could do the measurements you're propose, but then we have no way of knowing what it is we're actually measuring. Gender, as defined by gender theory, is inscrutable.
So again, what are you interested in discovering? What do you see as the possible outcomes of your proposed study and what conclusions would you draw from those results? Maybe there's a better way of answering those questions, and maybe these questions are better suited for a different academic field (e.g. sociology).
Until they look at nonbinary and genderless people, we won't know whether sex or experience of gender is more significant in brain development. Even throwing in gender nonconforming people might produce some interesting findings.
Then I rest my case: this can't be done in any meaningful way.
To give you an intuition as to why, how do we control that our nonbinary group actually corresponds to the gender theoretical definition of nonbinary?
One could argue that this problem can be tackled by assuming two things:
If we do this, then we might observe a difference between the nonbinary group and the control group, but point 2 is a thorn in our side: we can't know that this difference actually corresponds to what is being claimed. For all we know, we could be measuring some general effect of sexuality that deviates from the norm. Hell, it could be some sort of process related to being primed as "not normal", i.e. the study reminds these people that they don't fit in and we pick that up in the form of anxiety or self-monitoring signals in fMRI.Again, the claim "my gender is of X" is unfalsifiable, and thus un-scientific.
To summarize, you can certainly produce effects, but those effects won't meaningfully contribute to any understanding of sex/gender experience.
More to the point: statistical power matters, which is only indirectly related to sample size. I mean no disrespect, but this kind of criticism usually betrays ignorance of statistics and scientific methodology.
Do you suspect the study is under-powered? If so, why?
The problem I see with it being a small group is not necessarily that the results are inaccurate because of size/lack of statistical power, but more so because of the fact that a lot of variables will not show up in a small sample. For example, it is possible that certain diseases that they found to be more common in one sex than the other are only more common in caucasians and the same relationship does not occur with other races (since this happened in Hungary, it is very unlikely that non-white people were a part of this study). The numbers determined here probably apply very well to people in Hungary but they might be very different from what we'd find in the United States or in India, for example.
This may well be an epiphenomenon, but that's why reproductibility (not statistical significance) is the gold-standard of science.
Huh? If there aren't just 2 kinds of brain, but instead 30 different kinds, then a study with 300 brains is much more likely to catch all 30 kinds of brains than a study with just 50 brains.
This is -- again -- only indirectly related to sample size. If the sample was randomly selected and the statistical power is great enough, then any correlation it's missing is marginal; this is a feature, not a bug!
You're not entirely wrong insofar as brain-imagery studies rarely conduct random samples, but increasing your sample size won't fix that.
Take a monkey-nigger and let him stare at an electrical circuit schematic for as many years as you like. The nigger is not going to get very far by drawing boxes around regions.
Imagine a person with no math skills and no low level understanding looking at a core-i7 chip schematic.
Just shut the fuck-up, retard-nigger. You don't know anything about logic gates. God, I don't want to hear your impression of a core-i7.
God says... momentousness's mama patch undershirts implementing carsick ambitious openness's multiplexors alga's Bahama's freethinking's trillionth stairway's rebound's redrawing lopsidedly meteorologist abort slattern's checkroom's thwarts do nonpareil's douche's chaplain stimulant's shaming maroon's spank tomfooleries dankness's foreplay freeman twisting Okinawa's specie's imprecation understates Seleucus hailstorms tush's herded dethroned multiculturalism's nasalizes raga Gacrux catalog bagatelle sacraments Thar buttery displease substructures greatest electromagnet pragmatism's wealthiest enlistees Shakespearean robust scrubs evaluates Wezen's slouch stagflation Muhammad's inhalation's enthusiasms numbskull's caddie's hives earmarking Riel Kr die Macao Marlboro's haunting newsboy noncompliance's escalator's downturns wiggliest halved steadfastness's applicant harkening nobler funked cornets nonresidents blogs effacing palmier womanhood spindle shaves reordering