While this comment is very well written, I believe the reason you’re not getting a lot of upvotes compared to the other guy is because you didn’t cite a paper, which was the original request.
This sent me on an hour-long scour of a variety of papers, and it ended with me finding one titled “Sexual dimorphism in a neuronal mechanism of spinal hyperexcitability across rodent and human models of pathological pain” by Dedek et al.
In this paper, they take spinal samples from deceased humans and mice and compared sex differences after they doused them in BDNF. They found that the pathway responsible for uptaking BDNF was only active in male samples.
I think you’re extrapolating a little if you’re saying, based on this, that men solely use this pathway for pain and women don’t, but then again, I can’t tell what paper you’re looking at because you never posted it.
TL;DR: what you’re saying about BDNF might be true, but please post sources when making specific claims like that, especially when asked :3
it’s bullshit. that’s why I downvoted it. agreed, it’s well-written, but it’s bullshit none the less, and they are basically fictionalizing the results of the study for their own ends and passing it alone as if it’s factual reality, when it isn’t. most of it is fictionalized re-enforcement of sexist stereotypes.
it’s false information presented as authoritative truth, that has no basis in medical reality, and articulates a lot of magical thinking nonsense. they are pushing a magical thesis and found some study that vaguely supports their magical thinking and are presenting it as some profound truth.
a lot of science writing and reporting suffers from the author getting high on their own supply of verbiage, and often straight up contradicts the study they are reporting on to make it sound more dramatic and profound and meaningful for a lay audience.
and the lay audiences eat it up. CERN is going to cause a blackhole and destroy the planet!, etc.
but people like hearing nice sounding magical nonsense rather than they like bearing boring facts of biology where the differences between men and women he’s citing are entirely trivial.
further there are way bigger factors at play in pain perception than sex, like your genetics, but talking about the COMT (Catechol-O-methyltransferase) gene differences in people influences how they perceive pain isn’t as ‘sexy’ as claiming being born with a vagina gives you magical pain perception powers.
While this comment is very well written, I believe the reason you’re not getting a lot of upvotes compared to the other guy is because you didn’t cite a paper, which was the original request.
This sent me on an hour-long scour of a variety of papers, and it ended with me finding one titled “Sexual dimorphism in a neuronal mechanism of spinal hyperexcitability across rodent and human models of pathological pain” by Dedek et al.
In this paper, they take spinal samples from deceased humans and mice and compared sex differences after they doused them in BDNF. They found that the pathway responsible for uptaking BDNF was only active in male samples.
I think you’re extrapolating a little if you’re saying, based on this, that men solely use this pathway for pain and women don’t, but then again, I can’t tell what paper you’re looking at because you never posted it.
TL;DR: what you’re saying about BDNF might be true, but please post sources when making specific claims like that, especially when asked :3
PS your book sounds really interesting
it’s bullshit. that’s why I downvoted it. agreed, it’s well-written, but it’s bullshit none the less, and they are basically fictionalizing the results of the study for their own ends and passing it alone as if it’s factual reality, when it isn’t. most of it is fictionalized re-enforcement of sexist stereotypes.
it’s false information presented as authoritative truth, that has no basis in medical reality, and articulates a lot of magical thinking nonsense. they are pushing a magical thesis and found some study that vaguely supports their magical thinking and are presenting it as some profound truth.
a lot of science writing and reporting suffers from the author getting high on their own supply of verbiage, and often straight up contradicts the study they are reporting on to make it sound more dramatic and profound and meaningful for a lay audience.
and the lay audiences eat it up. CERN is going to cause a blackhole and destroy the planet!, etc.
but people like hearing nice sounding magical nonsense rather than they like bearing boring facts of biology where the differences between men and women he’s citing are entirely trivial.
further there are way bigger factors at play in pain perception than sex, like your genetics, but talking about the COMT (Catechol-O-methyltransferase) gene differences in people influences how they perceive pain isn’t as ‘sexy’ as claiming being born with a vagina gives you magical pain perception powers.
I’d rather call it cherry-picking.