Women are confusing, men are simple
Jul. 30th, 2008 02:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Yesterday I posted a link to the page which tried to use your browser history to work out if you were male or female.
Today I found myself discussing the vagaries of research into female sexuality with
marrog.
Strangely, these two things seem somehow linked together in my mind, along with the results of some of Simon Baron-Cohen's research into systemising/empathising functions in brains, and the male/female split therein. I exchanged an email or two with him after his research was covered in some newspapers, pointing out that while men did, statistically, seem to have a tendency to be focussed systemisers, lacking in empathy, women tended not towards empathy, but towards balance between the two functions. The papers were, of course, reporting it much more one-sidedly than that.
This linked into the poll yesterday, where it's obvious that the (very basic) algorithm can tell that a man is a man 2/3 of the time - but is no better at telling that a woman is a woman than a coin toss would be. Which would, again, tend to indicate that men are more likely lean over in one direction, making them easy to spot, while women are spread all over the place.
This tends to be picked up by reporters as "Men tend to be X, and women don't." and then reported as "Men are X, women are the opposite of X.", which is clearly nonsense.
(This then tends to be interpreted by a large chunk of people as "_all_ Men are X, _all_ Women are Y", which is beyond nonsense and into gibberish.)
Today I found myself discussing the vagaries of research into female sexuality with
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Strangely, these two things seem somehow linked together in my mind, along with the results of some of Simon Baron-Cohen's research into systemising/empathising functions in brains, and the male/female split therein. I exchanged an email or two with him after his research was covered in some newspapers, pointing out that while men did, statistically, seem to have a tendency to be focussed systemisers, lacking in empathy, women tended not towards empathy, but towards balance between the two functions. The papers were, of course, reporting it much more one-sidedly than that.
This linked into the poll yesterday, where it's obvious that the (very basic) algorithm can tell that a man is a man 2/3 of the time - but is no better at telling that a woman is a woman than a coin toss would be. Which would, again, tend to indicate that men are more likely lean over in one direction, making them easy to spot, while women are spread all over the place.
This tends to be picked up by reporters as "Men tend to be X, and women don't." and then reported as "Men are X, women are the opposite of X.", which is clearly nonsense.
(This then tends to be interpreted by a large chunk of people as "_all_ Men are X, _all_ Women are Y", which is beyond nonsense and into gibberish.)
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 01:34 pm (UTC)Well, not for your friends list. But since you're a man who tested as one, is it surprising that your online friends also visit male-categorised websites?
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 01:39 pm (UTC)Andy - I'm not entirely sure you should infer too much about the reliability and validity of that tests based on the sample from your friends group.
Also, there are lots of problems with the actual test. It looks what what sites you've visited, but it can't actually tell what you were doing there.
Its interesting to look at trends, but I would be careful to applying to the wider world.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 01:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 02:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 01:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 02:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 02:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 02:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 04:06 pm (UTC)Also, it might have been interesting to have a better idea of how wrong the guesses were, since the results themselves gave an actual percentage likelihood. If, for example, the test were 100% certain on every correct guess, but only 51% certain on the wrong ones, the results suddenly might not look so bad.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 02:05 am (UTC)Plus, the script doesn't analyze how often you go to certain sites, from what I can tell, which would be an important piece of data, but rather just that you've been to a site recently (however long it takes for a link to change from "visited" to "unvisited").
no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 02:08 am (UTC)My results included a long list of websites, with both high and low and mid-range numbers.... too much for me to calculate in my mind. I guess their calculation must be correct, but it seems odd.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 01:35 pm (UTC)This is one of the things that particularly infuriates me with any kind of research misreported.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 02:10 pm (UTC)I was thinking about X and Y chromosomes. Now, this is something I know absolutely nothing about, but I was wondering what effect the Y chromosome might have on "Men tend to be X, and women don't."
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 04:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 04:15 pm (UTC)wait, that's systemising isn't it? :D
no subject
Date: 2008-07-30 04:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 02:27 pm (UTC)I think it's much more like 'maleness' and 'answering Andy's poll' are both positively correlated with something that for want of a better name I'll just call 'geekiness'...