fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5551 ]

[ SECRET POST #5551 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5551 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

[Iron Widow, by Xiran Jay Zhao]

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

[Venom]

__________________________________________________

04. https://i.imgur.com/M0aDyxc.png
[OP warned for NSFW image]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06. [SPOILERS for In Sound Mind]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #794.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Do you have the link to the study? Because if true then, oh wow, feels bad.

Here's the one I was talking about:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3801174/

I found a couple that say similar things (and honestly these studies say that both men AND women associate more undressed women with objects so, yay everyone's been poisoned):
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.755 (paywalled sorry)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsp.824

I don’t really trust that “brain lights up” matches to “thinking about.” The “brain lights up” studies get all kinds of bizarre results.

yeah, if you don't really believe in neuroimaging as a methodology, this isn't really going to prove anything to you, no. what's an example of a bizarre result?

Here’s a great one: https://nautil.us/the-trouble-with-brain-scans-2-13342/

“Craig Bennett, then a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, wanted to test how far he could push the envelope with analysis. He slid a single Atlantic salmon into an MRI scanner, showed it pictures of emotional scenarios, and then followed typical pre-processing and statistical analysis procedures. Lo and behold, the dead fish’s brain exhibited increased activity for emotional images—implying a sensitive, if not alive, salmon. Even in a dead salmon’s brain, the MRI scanner detected enough noise that some voxels exhibited statistically significant correlations. By failing to correct for multiple comparisons, Bennett and his colleagues “discovered” illusory brain activity.”

Yeah, I don't know if you know this, but this is all algorithmic data. You have to deal with a) coding, b) decision-making related to the algorithm c) the instruments you're using and their sensitivity to all stimuli and d) the external pressures of funding v. results. This isn't unique to brain scans and is pretty much a thing in most, if not all, data analysis. That's what the methods sections is for. hth.

Thank you for speaking to Feo like the idiot they are oml

What did I do to you? Not a rhetorical question. I’d like to know.

You didn't do anything to anyone as far as I know, but you are rather willfully obtuse and have the tendency to derail discussions with non-sequiturs.

original anon here, yeah that about covers it. just willfully obtuse all over the place and derailing all the time with inane commentary that just... ugh.

Re: NAYRT

feotakahari - 2022-03-19 08:22 (UTC) - Expand

Re: NAYRT

(Anonymous) - 2022-03-19 08:46 (UTC) - Expand

There’s an analogy I’d like to draw. When men show a physiological arousal response, but say they aren’t aroused, researchers say the arousal response means something else. When women show a physiological arousal response, but say they aren’t aroused, researchers say they’re unaware of their own arousal. The response is real, but the researchers choose what they want the response to mean.

By the same token, there isn’t a specific part of the brain labeled “tools go here.” If it responds to tools, and it responds to half-naked women, there are probably a whole bunch of other things it responds to. You could say people view half-naked women as equivalent to any of those things, and you may or may not be right. The choice is dependent on what results you want to be true.

I have nothing to add to this convo, but for the record, I think you both are making some valid points here. *shrug*

Agreed.

What is that analogy supposed to show except that science (literally all science) is done by human beings with agendas? Again that's not limited to brain scans, and that's not limited to neuroscience and it's not limited to anything for which data has to be interpretable. Which is everything. That's what reports are supposed to gauge.

You could say people view half-naked women as equivalent to any of those things, and you may or may not be right.
If half-naked women are equivalent to any of those things not human-shaped things, but not men or non-half naked women that's good information. Like...you understand that right?

No offense but this seems like you don't like science way more than you don't see the reliability of neuroimaging. All the things you've used to show reliability are wildly applicable about the whole subject.

"If half-naked women are equivalent to any of those things not human-shaped things, but not men or non-half naked women that's good information. Like...you understand that right?"

No, I didn't know that the study in question looked at men or fully clothed women. I still don't know what study it is.

Also, I feel weirdly horrified that you somehow got "you don't like science" from anything I said. I keep trying to write an explanation of my thoughts, and I keep running up against the fact that you somehow came up with "you don't like science." If you could get THAT out of what I said, then I have no idea how to progress without further misunderstandings.

No, I didn't know that the study in question looked at men or fully clothed women. I still don't know what study it is.
You know, trying to say something about the efficacy of neuroimaging that implicates literally all data analysis when you haven't looked at or asked for the study and don't know what it's saying does not scream "likes science" to me. My other comments in this thread have several studies.

Also, I feel weirdly horrified that you somehow got "you don't like science" from anything I said.
I think I've been clear how I got there. But to wit, I don't think people who profess skepticism of scientific techniques in a way that implicates all scientific techniques like science. "You have to make choices and use machines therefore the conclusions are unreliable" is a concern with all of science, including chemistry and physics. And people who think they're saying something significant as if efficacy isn't constantly re-adjusted and re-looked and challenged within the field don't really like the idea of science as it exists.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2022-03-20 07:17 (UTC) - Expand

Seriously, don't feel bad and don't worry. Even if the study had merit, it's only a small part of the picture of what goes into how men actually view women. Sexy armor on video game ladies may not be 100% pure harmless, but it's virtually harmless, which is almost the same thing. Meadowphoenix has very good points sometimes, but they're a bit of a radfem.

I don’t know if meadowphoenix is a radfem. They seem like a regular feminist to me, I don’t see radical behavior from them.

da

"Radfem" pretty much means "woman who dares to have any opinion I disagree with", and has for a good long while.

Nah, I disagree with plenty of feminists who aren't radfems. Meadowphoenix is, as I said, a bit of a radfem. Pointing to studies like the one they linked to say that there is legitimate harm being done to women because of tit armor in videogames because it makes men's brains view women as things is literally radfem adjacent, because discussion of men's brains as if they're fundamentally different from women's is gender essentialism, which is essential radfem ideology. Not because I agree or disagree, it just is.

Same anon here adding that meadowphoenix has identified as gender critical, which is at its lightest a gateway into TERFdom and at its heaviest a dogwhistle meaning "I'm a TERF." I don't have enough knowledge to say if meadowphoenix is a TERF or not, but gender critical is still radfem.

Did they really identify as gender critical? Because that’s obviously not good, and would mean it wouldn’t be far-fetched that she could be a TERF.

But at the same time, there’s been several threads where TERFs have come in to spew transphobia, and I haven’t really seen meadowphoenix involved in any of them one way or another? I’d think for someone as outspoken as she is, her being gender critical should comes up more if it’s the case?

All I’m saying is that I will condemn meadowphoenix if it’s true, but I’m not going to just believe with no evidence.

Ah no again this is a bad attempting at arguing as now your deliberately misinterpretting what they're saying. The argument (which I have heard before in other research) is that both men and women see women in terms of body parts (or in this case tools) not because men's "Minds are different' but because of how society has sexualised women, we are now relegated to our body parts, as opposed to being seen as a whole.
Radfem feminism, btw is not in the least stating "Men and women's brains are different". That is the OPPOSITE of radfem, that posits society as being the cause of inequality between the sexes.

Your attempting to derail Meadowphoenix's valid points by labelling her "a bit of a radfem", in other words, this is a bad argument. You're essentially attempting an adhominem attack. If you disagree with the idea, attack the idea, not the person.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only