Cognition Update; Bushmeat
March 2, 2005 9:59 AM Subscribe
Hey Summers: Male [monkeys] more susceptible to age-related cognitive decline.
"Gay men adopt male and female strategies. Therefore their brains are a sexual mosaic".
Exotic animals on the menu: Bush/Meat ‘05.
Seems like that should be "Hey, Summers-bashers", since Summers' opponents are the ones saying it's beyond the pale to suggest there could be sex-based differences in cognition.
And how is the third link related?
posted by Axaxaxas Mlö at 10:28 AM on March 2, 2005
And how is the third link related?
posted by Axaxaxas Mlö at 10:28 AM on March 2, 2005
Now hang ON! Gay men are inclined to talk just as much as straight women?! Bollocks! /outrage
Furthermore, there were only about 80 subjects in the gay study. Seems a bit superficial. Le sigh.
posted by paperpete at 11:03 AM on March 2, 2005
Furthermore, there were only about 80 subjects in the gay study. Seems a bit superficial. Le sigh.
posted by paperpete at 11:03 AM on March 2, 2005
To further paperpete comment - The study’s base on talking claims straight woman talk more than straight men as I’m sure the the study is implying. Which I claim is a false statement to begin with. As one either enjoys chit chat or they don't.
Then again; When the study says "talking". the meaning here maybe while in bed having sex? If it is, I may agree with that.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:26 AM on March 2, 2005
Then again; When the study says "talking". the meaning here maybe while in bed having sex? If it is, I may agree with that.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:26 AM on March 2, 2005
Metafilter: Marmosets in Action
(from the link in mcgraw's comment)
posted by goatdog at 11:36 AM on March 2, 2005
(from the link in mcgraw's comment)
posted by goatdog at 11:36 AM on March 2, 2005
mcgraw posted "Hey Summers: Male [monkeys] more susceptible to age-related cognitive decline."
So, let me get this straight: Larry Summers is bad for suggesting that sex-linked genetic traits might be one of the factors influencing the disparity in the ratio of female to male professors, a vocation that should be judged solely on cognitive merit and not such irrelevancies as sex.
So we stick it to Summers, refuting his bizarre claim, by pointing to sex linked genetic traits that influence cognitive function in monkeys.
Possible ways out of cognitive dissonance:
a) even though we save millions of human's lives testing drugs on monkeys, monkeys are entirely different than humans, because humans are a "special creation" of God standing outside the normal laws of physics and biology;
or b) Summers wasn't being so bizarre after all;
or c) STFU! Science is bad for questioning my ideological beliefs: women are exactly the same as men, God created mankind 4004 years ago, and Jupiter's moons don't move because Pope said so!
posted by orthogonality at 11:42 AM on March 2, 2005
So, let me get this straight: Larry Summers is bad for suggesting that sex-linked genetic traits might be one of the factors influencing the disparity in the ratio of female to male professors, a vocation that should be judged solely on cognitive merit and not such irrelevancies as sex.
So we stick it to Summers, refuting his bizarre claim, by pointing to sex linked genetic traits that influence cognitive function in monkeys.
Possible ways out of cognitive dissonance:
a) even though we save millions of human's lives testing drugs on monkeys, monkeys are entirely different than humans, because humans are a "special creation" of God standing outside the normal laws of physics and biology;
or b) Summers wasn't being so bizarre after all;
or c) STFU! Science is bad for questioning my ideological beliefs: women are exactly the same as men, God created mankind 4004 years ago, and Jupiter's moons don't move because Pope said so!
posted by orthogonality at 11:42 AM on March 2, 2005
You make a good point, orthogonality. I was just looking for a thrilling (and admittedly lazy) title.
Part of what I was doing may have been to poke fun at the offensive assumptions of the New Scientist article, which is derisively titled, "Gay men read maps like women."
posted by mcgraw at 11:48 AM on March 2, 2005
Part of what I was doing may have been to poke fun at the offensive assumptions of the New Scientist article, which is derisively titled, "Gay men read maps like women."
posted by mcgraw at 11:48 AM on March 2, 2005
And to think they wanted to ban mcgraw.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 12:30 PM on March 2, 2005
posted by Kleptophoria! at 12:30 PM on March 2, 2005
By "they" I mean the international Jewish conspiracy.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 12:30 PM on March 2, 2005
posted by Kleptophoria! at 12:30 PM on March 2, 2005
mcgraw writes "I was just looking for a thrilling (and admittedly lazy) title... Part of what I was doing may have been to poke fun at the offensive assumptions of the New Scientist article, which is derisively titled, 'Gay men read maps like women.'"
Hey, you know I love your posts, man. And frankly I wasn't sure I wasn't underlining your more subtly made point.
As to the New scientist headline, I'm not sure it's offensive. While it's true that "like a woman" is often used derogatorily in casual conversation ("you throw like a woman", "he wears make-up like a woman"), and is testament to our society's sexism, in the case of the headline I read it as shorthand for "gays, when map-reading, use the same brain areas as women". That is, in the case of the headline, there's no implication that reading maps "like a women" is emasculating.
(Although, without having read the article, I presume women on average (and thus, from the headline, gays) are less adept than men, on average, at constructing spatial models in their heads, simply because lots of research has shown this to be the case. And to forestall any horrified responses, men are less adept at picking out objects against a background than are women. To forestall those who still wish to soke themselves up into righteous indignation at this point, I'll not women are far better at being pregnant than are men, and that men on average have higher mortality rates than women. To presume biology only applies from the neck down is to implicitly buy into a Cartesian dualism and a belief in a soul, both of which I reject as a materialist.)
posted by orthogonality at 12:38 PM on March 2, 2005
Hey, you know I love your posts, man. And frankly I wasn't sure I wasn't underlining your more subtly made point.
As to the New scientist headline, I'm not sure it's offensive. While it's true that "like a woman" is often used derogatorily in casual conversation ("you throw like a woman", "he wears make-up like a woman"), and is testament to our society's sexism, in the case of the headline I read it as shorthand for "gays, when map-reading, use the same brain areas as women". That is, in the case of the headline, there's no implication that reading maps "like a women" is emasculating.
(Although, without having read the article, I presume women on average (and thus, from the headline, gays) are less adept than men, on average, at constructing spatial models in their heads, simply because lots of research has shown this to be the case. And to forestall any horrified responses, men are less adept at picking out objects against a background than are women. To forestall those who still wish to soke themselves up into righteous indignation at this point, I'll not women are far better at being pregnant than are men, and that men on average have higher mortality rates than women. To presume biology only applies from the neck down is to implicitly buy into a Cartesian dualism and a belief in a soul, both of which I reject as a materialist.)
posted by orthogonality at 12:38 PM on March 2, 2005
orthogonality writes: "...I wasn't sure I wasn't..."
I'm not yet certain we don't share a common diction.
posted by mcgraw at 12:55 PM on March 2, 2005
I'm not yet certain we don't share a common diction.
posted by mcgraw at 12:55 PM on March 2, 2005
Quartermass writes: Stop fucking with our brains mcgraw. We cannot handle it.
posted by Quartermass at 1:35 PM on March 2, 2005
posted by Quartermass at 1:35 PM on March 2, 2005
totally.
posted by Quartermass at 1:41 PM on March 2, 2005
posted by Quartermass at 1:41 PM on March 2, 2005
Possible ways out of cognitive dissonance:
Eating monkey meat?
posted by Quartermass at 1:44 PM on March 2, 2005
Eating monkey meat?
posted by Quartermass at 1:44 PM on March 2, 2005
The study’s base on talking claims straight woman talk more than straight men as I’m sure the the study is implying.
Gee, until seven or eight years ago, I didn't talk that much. Didn't have much to say. Now I yammer on like crazy. Does that mean I "turned gay" when I married my wife, or just that we have lots to talk about? Or maybe we're both monkeys. Yeah, that's it. That explains everything.
posted by davejay at 1:48 PM on March 2, 2005
Gee, until seven or eight years ago, I didn't talk that much. Didn't have much to say. Now I yammer on like crazy. Does that mean I "turned gay" when I married my wife, or just that we have lots to talk about? Or maybe we're both monkeys. Yeah, that's it. That explains everything.
posted by davejay at 1:48 PM on March 2, 2005
Now I yammer on like crazy. Does that mean I "turned gay" when I married my wife,
The word gay was originally used for being happy.
From your comment, you sound like a happily married man, so it may be true.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:56 PM on March 2, 2005
The word gay was originally used for being happy.
From your comment, you sound like a happily married man, so it may be true.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:56 PM on March 2, 2005
I almost posted the New Scientist article. (I did reference it in an AskMe answer). The funniest part is, Left at the church. Rich stuff. Thanks, mcgraw.
posted by geekyguy at 2:57 PM on March 2, 2005
posted by geekyguy at 2:57 PM on March 2, 2005
By "they" I mean the international Jewish conspiracy.
I heard it was the map-reading monkeys. I, a non-monkey map-reading, female talker feel no need to ban mcgraw. My gay (in the sense of "happy") non-map-reading, non-talking husband is nuetral on the subject.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:44 PM on March 2, 2005
I heard it was the map-reading monkeys. I, a non-monkey map-reading, female talker feel no need to ban mcgraw. My gay (in the sense of "happy") non-map-reading, non-talking husband is nuetral on the subject.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:44 PM on March 2, 2005
From the bushmeat article:
"Some people describe cane rat as sweet, but I never discovered that," [Berkeley biologist Justin Brashares] says.
That being said,
posted by gramschmidt at 4:24 PM on March 2, 2005
"Some people describe cane rat as sweet, but I never discovered that," [Berkeley biologist Justin Brashares] says.
That being said,
posted by gramschmidt at 4:24 PM on March 2, 2005
I think the real question is, which tastes better: male monkeys or female monkeys? What what about male monkeys that read maps like women?
ps: klepto: this international Jewish conspiracy?
posted by greatgefilte at 5:06 PM on March 2, 2005
ps: klepto: this international Jewish conspiracy?
posted by greatgefilte at 5:06 PM on March 2, 2005
« Older Ride the BIG One! | The New Hows and Whys of Global Eavesdropping Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by koeselitz at 10:23 AM on March 2, 2005