Originally posted by inimalist look, we seem to get into this time and again.
its the same as when I tried to explain how hypothesis testing worked, or why observing random people in a room with a gun isnt scientific, or when I tried to explain why you get pissed at video games.
This isn't an insult, it is just that you have a very "folk" understanding of how the brain and science works, and you seem determined to argue it. Its cool, you have interesting thoughts, but its not really the level (errr, thats not meant to sound arrogant, Imeant level as in level of mechanism, not like as in how smart people are) I'm interested in. I've also been frusterated these past couple of weeks, so that probably doesnt help.
blah, break it down to something simpler. Why can't it be denial? it could, but that would indicate far more (and almost cartoonishly sinister) variables than the current explanations, and in fact poses no alternative theory for how and why TS individuals feel the way they do.
If it isn't that there is a biological difference between body map and body, why is it that this is exactly the feeling described by TS people?
Okay, cool.
And, yes, that was the problem I had him my psychology classes: I always approached every study with negativity and questioned the results...even if my alternatives were not better or more soundly designed.
With the gun "idea" I crapped out a idea that was thought of in mere seconds. Obviously, I tired to keep the idea of the study alive in the hopes that you would see my point (but you already saw it and partially agreed with it). If I had time to actually think out and design a real study the limited the variables to a desirable controlled outcome, while also improving on the (what I think) inferior data sampling method, my primary hypothesis would surely net results closer to what I was suggesting.
On video games, it's very similar: this aggression is contained, for the most part. There's no doubt that playing a violent or just a very competitive video game will increase aggression: my problem with the results is how quickly and swiftly it was almost ignorantly applied to the real world, as if it transferred almost wholly in sweeping statements. That was more me lashing out at the conservatards rather than the study itself.
I'm sure you took logic or even multiple logic courses. My problem with these is rejecting the swift "then Q" portions of the studies simply because of the environments, procedures, and variables used. It's possible that I put too much complexity to how the brain works. Well, that's probably a misnomer. Rather, I should say, I have a problem with making jumps without very small baby steps, proving and paving the way to the "then Q" conclusions in these studies.
Often, when thinking about alternatives, I disregard the null-hypothesis or secondary hypothesis because I'm hasty, arrogant, or both...not due to an ignorance of the proper way to set up a study. If were really designing experiments, I would setup them up properly. Since this is more of a casual conversation, I feel it rather unnecessary to mention things beyond the primary hypothesis in a casual conversation on a message board. Don't you agree that that kind of muddies up the discussion? Well, that was probably a stupid question because you do not believe that and you probably expect better out of me. I'll try to remember that the next time I suggest alternatives. I guess that takes care of the conflict: I apologize for trying to pass-off half assed ideas as alternatives.
In the topic at hand, you mentioned the primary researcher was transgendered. That presents a conflict of interest, does it not (Before you read farther, it probably doesn't, but keep in mind, I'm not nearly as knowledgeable in this area as you are. In full honesty, I could be speaking in complete arrogance...so read the rest of this paragraph with that in mind)? They teach people in college how to manage conflict of interest. To me, this smacks of more of a social motivation of the researcher to prove that it was biological from the start do to all of the skepticism and hatred that comes from the world around them. But, like I mention later, conflict of interest can be avoided with nice post-study work vis-a-vis peer review and results duplication. For me, the conflict of interest can be either financial or social. I'm sure you're not big on the latter, but those are red flags to me.
Motivation towards specific outcomes should be expected. Peer review should reduce criticism, and duplication should all but eliminate it. But, in the end, is it really that conclusive? Is it even scientific to consider the results of a "biological mechanism" when the biological mechanism wasn't even directly measured but was, instead, measured through the word of the patients? Even phrasing the questions in certain ways and orders could possibly taint that type of pool. Peer review should pick up on that, but how well would they be able to do that? The subconscious is nearly impossible to measure, and knowing how one will react to those questions and controlling for things such as "unintentional suggestions" is nearly impossible to completely avoid. There are ways to present and order as neutrally as possible, I'm sure. There's probably even ways to try and "reset" the "sample", but you're definitely more familiar with that method of setup than I am. But me simply being aware of those should at least make you feel a tad better...knowing that I'm not a complete idiot. 😆
If feel more comfortable with these types of studies when they've stood up to legitimate criticisms and they have also been vindicated with something more solid like an fMRI or MEG (not a CAT scan, like I originally suggest. I was just throwing 'brain scan" out there, but you obviously knew what I meant, thankfully) measuring the connections in the somatosensory cortex (That has a name but I can't remember what it's called...it's like crossmodal perception, but it is has more to do with brain having adjacent parts and overlapping so that touching, say, your hand creates a response on another part of your body (closer towards the eyes, but he squama frontalis), even the phantom limb.)
I don't know much about the penis phantom "limb", though. It's relatively new, to me. I am a small fan of Vilayanur S. Ramachandran MD, PhD, and he's literally the leading expert on phantom limbs. Dr. Ramachandran has been a pioneer of neuroscience and he was the one that inspired me to (almost) get into neurosience. It would appear, however, that Dr. Ramachandran believes that the brains of the male to female transgendered are hardwired for female genitalia.* Of course, he hasn't done direct research on it with things such as an fMRI, but, this goes back to what you and I had talked about in a previous discussion: the plasticity of the human brain. Were they born that way? Maybe..maybe not. Let's assume not, just to have something to discuss: if not, is it possible that the brain can actually re-wire itself based on the will of the individual? Is that conversation ringing a bell? If not, then are people ACTUALLY born as the wrong gender? Meaning, the brain is wired for one gender, and the body is born a different gender. If that's the case, then we should see a hereditary marker for this, right?
*http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/removing-the-phantom-penis.html
Anywho, I should probably STFU and let the professional speak for a bit. Let me know your thoughts.