Digit length ratios and overinterpreting the data

Jen mocked this argument that Dave Futrelle highlighted on his blog. Some wacko MRAs have been diagnosing Sandra Fluke as being a lesbian with higher than normal levels of testosterone because, they say, she has “man hands”: they’ve looked at some photos of her hands and have subjectively determined that her ring finger is too long.

her ring finger is quite a bit longer than her index. It’s almost as long as her middle finger. In general, a low 2d:4d ratio in women indicates a greater proclivity towards homosexuality or bisexuality and greater tendency towards aggressiveness and assertiveness. So, yeah, pirate fits.

I hate this shit.

It’s really bad science — it’s not even science — and reflects a very poor understanding of the evidence. Yes, it is true that there has been an observation that men have relatively longer 4th digits (ring finger) compared to 2nd digit (index finger) than women. But let me show you the actual, real, quantitative raw data on this metric.

There is a statistically significant difference between those two distributions. You’ve gotta trust the math: P=0.0002. The male average ratio is 0.98, or that the index finger is 2% shorter than the ring finger, and the female average ratio is 1.0, or the two fingers are essentially identical in length.

But look at the variation! If you were given a blind assortment of ratios, you would not be able to reliably estimate the sex of the individuals. Yeah, sure, if it were a game in a casino, over many trials you might be able to make money at it, but as a guide for one on one sex determination, it sucks.

But, you say, isn’t there a reported correlation between digit length ratios and testosterone? Yes indeed there is, in men. Not in women, obviously. And here’s the raw data on that:

There is a statistical bias in the distribution, but really, if I told you the lengths of my fingers, you would not be able to use that to make significant estimates of my testosterone levels…and these differences are tiny relative to age-related changes anyway. We do not turn into women in our old age, though.

It’s a peeve of mine, though, that too often it’s considered sciencey to ignore the variation, when that’s the most interesting and important part, and reduce everything to a mean or a trend. There are morphological differences between men and women — you may have noticed — and since they’re driven to a large extent by systemic differences in hormones that regulate growth and metabolism, it’s not surprising at all that there are subtle variations in details. The question is whether they are at all significant functionally or selectively, and there’s no evidence for that at all in these ridiculous digit length studies.

Manning T, Scutt D, Wilson J, Lewis-Jones DI (1998) The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length: a predictor of sperm numbers and concentrations of testosterone, luteinizing hormone and oestrogen. Human Reproduction 13(11):3000-3004.

Kylie doesn’t get it

American Atheists has sponsored another billboard, and this one is both ugly and controversial (Surprise!). Kylie doesn’t get it at all.

And with all that (because of that?), perhaps there’s something I’m missing. Because I honestly don’t freaking get this:

 

I don’t get how the hell this was every approved as a billboard by an atheist group. I just don’t. I personally find it rather shockingly confronting, distracting me from seeing it as being about atheism (was that its intent? This lesson?) and… maybe it’s meant to compliment (somehow?) the recent African Americans for Humanism campaign?

I get it. I even approve of the sentiment, but not the implementation.

The Pennsylvania legislature recently passed a meaningless declaration that this was the year of the bible. This is a confrontational, provocative billboard aimed in opposition to the bible: I consider it reasonable and appropriate for an atheist group to mock such a stupid law, and to point out that the bible is not a consistent or useful source of morality. I am all for confrontation.

However, there is good, informative confrontation and there is pointless lashing out. This billboard doesn’t do the job.

Once again, the lack of serious, qualified design experts really hurts. Graphic design is a discipline with skills and conventions and widely accepted principles: it actually takes a lot of training and talent to do it well. This ad…doesn’t. Not only is it ugly, but sarcasm is really, really hard to communicate well on a billboard. You’re best off avoiding it. Especially when it’s on a sign that is as esthetically unprofessional as that — that’s in Pennsylvania, a place rich in racism. There are rural farmers who’d post that sign approvingly.

And it’s not just Pennsylvania, this is America, where racism is endemic. If you’re going to put up something that addresses the racism of the bible and Christianity, especially when many of the targets of our institutional racism approve of the church, you’d damn well better tread carefully, and demand some taste and clarity. That sign has neither. I also have to wonder how many black American atheists were consulted in its design.

I’m going to disagree in part with Kylie: I think shockingly confrontational is a good thing, and I want more of it, and that’s the wrong thing to be upset over. But jeez, it has to be done well, and I don’t understand why American Atheists continues to use cheap-ass design work in what is clearly a major promotional effort for them.

Why I am an atheist – Kate

My story is fairly simple. C.S. Lewis did it.

As a kid I had an extremely active imagination, I loved to believe all of the stories my Mum told me about fairies and magic woods etc. I had a voracious appetite for books, and the one that seemed the most real, the most plausible was the story of Aslan, singing the world or Narnia and surrounding country into existence. A giant, mysterious and wise talking lion, now there was a God you could believe in! Of course, my mother, being the brilliant woman she is took the time to explain that you cannot believe everything you read, and that you must think carefully about whether something is true or not. She is and never has been religious, but my father is (in that weird creepy way of mumbling and muttering at odd times around the house), so my mother was careful to leave it up to us kids to decide for ourselves. Trouble began when during Sunday School and storytime at the front of the congregation with the Minister, I began comparing Jesus and Aslan, as their similarities seemed obvious to me (I’ve only just learned recently that this was by design!). Of course it was then carefully explained to me by the adult believers around me, that the story of Aslan was just make-believe, but the story of Jesus was very very true. I immediately recognized this as ridiculous. I understood that I had no idea whether a giant talking lion had the ability to come back from the dead, or sing a world into existence, but I had plenty of evidence that human beings certainly couldn’t do any of the things they were claiming Jesus did. The combined stories of the Narnia Chronicles made for a far more convincing gospel, and C.S. Lewis seemed a much more reliable source, his writing was simpler and far more direct, not cloaked in metaphor that constantly needed to be explained, and everyone knew he had really existed as he had been alive far more recently than the Bible’s authors, and it seemed strange to me that someone would not have confronted him about lying if it was all just made up (I didn’t quite have a grasp on the whole ‘fiction/non-fiction thing’ yet). But the adults around me insisted that the more plausible story was false, and that their story was the truth. In my little brain it seemed obvious that they were mistaken, and if they were wrong about that, I reasoned, they could be wrong about everything.

We all continued to go to church, even long after my Dad left, as my siblings, my Mum and I enjoyed the sense of community, and the damn good burgers they made for the lunch afterwards. My Mum was even the church secretary for many years, making the bulletins every week, and I was the janitor during my teen years after my brother quit. But passed the age of five I knew that there was a very big dividing line between the way my thinking worked and the way the rest of congregations did, and I often found myself feeling sorry for them. As a kid it was weird knowing that in this regard you are probably smarter than many of the adults around you, but I think it was a big confidence booster, and has kept me questioning authority figures all my life, which has been invaluable in terms of my life as a “science enthusiast” and a sensible human being in general.

I will admit though, there is still a little part of my heart that insists that Aslan is real, and I just haven’t found the right wardrobe or picture frame yet. And if it is ever revealed to me that there is a God, I have every confidence he will have a lovely big mane for me to cuddle in.

Kate
Canada

“Biological Information: New Perspectives”

That’s the title of an academic science book. It sure sounds sciencey, doesn’t it? It got accepted by Springer-Verlag for publication. And then inside it claims that one of their conclusions is that “conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms seem insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life”. Oooh, more of that fancy science talk. It must be taken seriously!

Only, it turns out that this book was being peddled as a contribution to the category of “Engineering and Applied Science” rather than biology, because if it were proposed to Springer-Verlag as a biology text, it would have gotten reviewers who knew something about biology. And it was the product of a creationist conference held in a School of Hotel Administration at Cornell. And the editors are Marks, Behe, Dembski, Gordon, and Sanford, names well known for their affiliation with the Discovery Institute.

Once again, the ID crowd engages in some stealth creationism in order to get a line on their CV. Only this time, Springer-Verlag noticed, and the book has been quietly removed from their listings, pending further review.

Man, those guys at the DI are pathetic.

(Also on Sb)

The Discovery Institute is winding up their persecution complex again

It has the potential to be fun or a fizzle. The Discovery Institute is leaping to the defense of David Coppedge, a computer technician (don’t be fooled, the DI is desperately straining to enhance his credentials) who was demoted and then fired at the JPL. Coppedge claims to be the victim of discrimination against his views on Intelligent Design creationism; the JPL has argued that he was out of line to be harassing scientists with nonsense, passing out DVDs of ID BS, pushing his silly creationist website, and basically wasting his time and not doing his job. They warned him, he persisted. They demoted him, he persisted. Finally they fired him.

So now Coppedge, with the assistance of a fine team of creationist lawyers, is suing the JPL. There’s lots of information at The Sensuous Curmudgeon, which is shaping up to be the go-to place to follow the trial, which started today.

This is a big case for the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). They’re trying to establish some new kind constitutional right — an employee’s freedom to promote creationism in the workplace. One of their top legal talents, Discoveroid Casey Luskin, is advising the lawyer for Coppedge — that’s William J. Becker, Jr., who (until he picked up a few creationist clients) appears to be mostly a personal injury and workers’ comp lawyer.

To promote the issue, the Discoveroids initially waged a public relations campaign which we described here: The Coppedge Case: A Study in Tactics and Strategy. They’ve set up a page devoted to this case, which is here, but which seems to have languished for months.

The official information source for the Coppedge case requires payment of fees to obtain copies of pleadings from the court clerks here: Superior Court of California, Los Angeles. At the box for “Case Number” you need to enter BC435600. Some minimal information is available for free — the names of the parties and their lawyers, a list of what documents have been filed, what proceedings have been held, and what future hearings have been scheduled.

It’s going to be a weird trial. It sounds like the JPL was reasonable and put up with Coppedge for quite some time, clearly telling him to desist in his problematic behavior at work; The Discovery Institute has nothing to lose — Coppedge is a nobody — and their enthusiasm for the case has waxed and waned. We’ll see if they put up a fight or not.

(Also on Sb)

Rush Limbaugh isn’t the only moron out there, unfortunately

I’ll say one thing for Rush Limbaugh: he just cracked the sewer valve wide open, but he’s not the only one contributing to the gusher of sewage. Take Bryan Fischer: he’s even worse than that slick pig Limbaugh. He thinks there’s nothing wrong with what Limbaugh said, and acknowledges, like Limbaugh, that the only thing he did wrong was use the “slut” word, which is naughty…but that his sentiment was entirely correct.

Here’s his interpretation of Sandra Fluke’s testimony. He is shocked that:

…this woman could, without any trace of shame, any trace of embarrassment, give open testimony before the entire United States of America, about how much promiscuous sex she and her classmates are having.

Of course, that’s not what she testified. She testified that women’s reproductive health could be expensive, citing the use of contraceptives for prevention of ovarian cysts. But she could have talked about the importance of contraception for a healthy, happy sex life even within a monogamous relationship: it does not make a woman a slut for enjoying sex with her partner. But even if she did have multiple partners, so what? There’s no shame in enjoying sex: every human does, unless they’re wracked with religious guilt.

It really exposes these people for what they are: anti-sex, anti-human prudes. Fuck the Puritans. Please.

And here’s another idiotic perspective on Fluke from Scott Adams, Dilbonian dimbulb. He sees two possible interpretations.

Which of these two events do you find more distasteful?

1. Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut for her position on contraceptives.

Or

2. Activists are treating Fluke as a helpless victim who needs society’s protection against the harsh words of an entertainer.

My interpretation of events is that Limbaugh saw Fluke as a capable adult, and a public figure, tough enough to handle some harsh language. The boycotters apparently see Fluke as more of an endangered child, or a helpless damsel in distress, threatened by a monster. Light the torches and launch the boycott!

Adams has always been this clueless. I don’t know of a single person who has responded to this by thinking that Fluke needs our protective embrace: she seems confident and mature. The reaction has been anti-Limbaugh. He has been exposed as a blue-nosed asshole who despises women in general — not specifically Sandra Fluke — who have a healthy attitude towards sex, who treat it as a reasonable and expected and even joyful aspect of normal behavior, rather than something to hide in shame.

That’s the battle. Not some peculiar chauvinistic idea that one poor woman needs our chivalrous shelter. I suspect Adams is just projecting.

Another person who is projecting is Bill Maher.

Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout

He did not apologize for despising women who enjoy sex or need medical assistance in maintaining their reproductive health; clearly, he still feels that’s a valid stance. He only apologized for using words like “slut” instead of being more formal and calling her a harlot or something similarly antiquated. Jon Stewart got this right: what’s wrong with Maher that he can’t see this?

As someone who also says things on behalf of a minority that a majority finds offensive, I sympathize with the detestation of “intimidation by sponsor pullout” — but the problem lies in the reliance on money to fund free speech, and coupling that to selling soap. What Limbaugh said is still wrong and stupid.

I get email

Those Australians…they recently ran a segment on their Dateline program featuring their fellow Australian Ken Ham and the Creation “Museum”, which includes portions of an interview with me. Actually, I seem to be the only critic to get any airtime in the show, which is flattering, but I could have used a little more support!

Anyway, the show was recently aired, my name is played up as an atheist opponent of creationist nonsense, and now I’m suddenly receiving lots of email from Australian creationists because they want to persuade me to their foolish cause. And some of them are just weird. I’m including one of the weirder ones below the fold — warning, it’s very long — in which the author uses a novel argument: the zodiac, therefore God.

This ain’t astrology: it’s that arbitrary, human-assigned labels attached to groupings of stars can be rationalized into Christian symbology, therefore, the stars are evidence of the truth of the Bible. It’s one of the sillier arguments I’ve seen. Would you believe that the Sphinx is a Christian testimony, since it binds together a virgin woman (Mary) and a lion (Jesus)? Centaurs represent “Christ’s dual nature”. You can just imagine what he does with Virgo and the Southern Cross.

And then he does the usual thing of claiming that the Bible foretold legitimate scientific conclusions: Somehow, “He [God] set a compass [circle] upon the face of the deep” becomes a biblical explanation that the Earth is spherical. How do you draw a sphere with a compass?

It is grammatically well written, he spells my name correctly, and he uses paragraph breaks, so it’s a step above what I usually get. But behind the superficial courtesies, there lies a brain that has totally stripped its gears and lost most of its connections to reality.

(Also on Sb)

[Read more…]

Veeery interestink

A reader sent along an interesting quote from Heinrich Himmler, taken from Heinrich Himmler: A Life by Peter Longerich. Since we’ve got another religious idiot claiming the Nazis were atheists, it seemed appropriate to include it here…and since I’m lazy, I’m just going to include everything my correspondent wrote to me.

I am a WWII history buff and I was reading the English translation of Peter Longerich’s biography of Heinrich Himmler. Longerich made the point that Himmler did not like Christianity or the Christian churches even forbidding SS men from having any leadership role in the church. He further made the point that Himmler described himself as a believer in God.

He then noted something that I had not heard before: Longerich quoted a letter that Himmler wrote a pastor in 1937 to the effect that what denomination an SS man chose was his own person business. However, apparently this deference did not extend to non-belief. Atheism, Himmler wrote, “is the only world- or religious view that is not tolerated within the SS.” He further wrote, “I have not tolerated an atheist in the ranks of the SS. Every member has a deep faith in God, in what my ancestors called in their language Waralda, the ancient one, the one who is mightier than we are.” (Longerich, Heinrich Himmler, Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 220)

I found that passage interesting in light of the claim that the Nazis were an atheistic system. It clearly rebuts that claim. (As if it needed further rebuttal.) But further, if the Nazi were supposedly atheistic, how is it that the SS — the group that was supposed the vanguard of the Nazi system, the epitome of the Nazi ideal — did not admit atheists in its ranks? One had to be at least a theist. So how, again was the Nazi system atheist??

And of course, for those of you who want to argue that this is merely Heinrich Himmler, we can always turn to good ol’ Adolf Hitler, who was quite clear on the subject of atheism.

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

You want to call the Nazi leadership unorthodox, marginally Christian, or representative of a pathological religious extreme, I’ll agree with you; but you don’t get to call them atheist.