Talk:INAH 3

So uh.

What does it do? Think that might be important to mention. Ric | opiaterein 20:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagreements

Please do not edit the page to say that "It has been suggested..." or interpret the findings. First of all, this was not a case study, it involved many subjects. Variables were not controlled in the way they are in experiments in the physical sciences because that is impossible in the social sciences. However, they were accounted for as best they could be. The source that is used states that the findings implicate the area as a substrate with regards to sexual orientation. I never claimed it was the sole source, so your anti-Gay POV is not needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.236.222 (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You are interpreting the findings by saying that some scientific finding 'suggests' something. Scientific discoveries cannot 'suggest' anything by themselves. Only the people who interpret them 'suggest' anything. So what you want the article to say is wrong as a matter of logic. Skoojal (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Levay quote

'Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later."' It's there on the page about LeVay. Skoojal (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My objection to LeVay's interpretion?

The person who recently undid my latest edit seemed to think that I was 'objecting to LeVay's interpretation.' Well, no. I was doing nothing of the kind. I was simply pointing out that it was an interpretation. That doesn't mean I think it's necessarily incorrect. You just don't seem to understand the point of what I did, although I am trying to explain. Skoojal (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For a specific admission by LeVay that INAH3 size could be an effect rather than a cause of sexual orientation, see his book Queer Science, page 144. I have added a mention of this to the article on LeVay. Skoojal (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have developed a compromise in the wording. Happy? C0h3n (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's OK basically. It might still be better if the article made clear that the exact importance of INAH3 size is an open question, even according to LeVay. Skoojal (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LeVay's own words eh? Give me the full quote that you took that from and I will consider allowing suggest to be in the article instead of conclude. C0h3n (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to this on your talk page. Skoojal (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You (Skoojal) wrote:

You may want to take note of the following comment by LeVay in that paper, "In particular, the results do not allow one to decide if the size of INAH 3 in an individual is the cause or consequence of that individual's sexual orientation, or if the size of INAH 3 and sexual orientation co-vary under the the influence of some third unidentified variable." This again shows that "suggested" is the right word, not "concluded." Your wording has no basis in what LeVay wrote. Skoojal (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, note that the article links to a website [1] that says, "LeVay suggested that this difference is related to sexual orientation." Skoojal (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

However, where is the quote I requested? It is not present. Did you then lie about LeVay had used the word suggested? Yes, one source uses it. However, I do not think it is the most appropriate term. Nor is throwing in MORE biased and out of context quotations. LeVay also said, directly following the quote you provided:

"In rats, however, the sexual dimorphism of the apparently comparable hypothalamic nucleus, the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area (SDN-POA), arises as a consequence of the dependence of its constituent neurons on circulating androgen during a perinatal sensitive period. After this period, even extreme interventions, such as castration, have little effect on the size of the nucleus. Furthermore, even among normal male rats there is variability in the size of the SDN-POA that is strongly correlated to the amount of male-typical sexual behavior shown by the animals. Although the validity of the comparison between species is uncertain, it seems more likely that in humans, too, the size of the INAH 3 is established early in life and later influences sexual behavior than that the reverse is true"

I think this shows YOU are the one that is doing the biased editing, attempting to cast doubt by taking quotes out of context. LeVay is anticipating criticism and then arguing against it, and you only quote the parts where he anticipates that criticism. C0h3n (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

LeVay himself used the word "suggests." Have you read the paper? Your personal opinion about what is the most appropriate term is not really the issue. Your quote from LeVay doesn't prove your point - LeVay talks there about what is likely, and that doesn't contradict suggests, it rather supports it. Furthermore, you removed a quote from LeVay without explanation. Why? Skoojal (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly because of the reasons I just listed. Also, point out to me where LeVay uses suggests. Your half quote does not do justice to all the evidence and so should be removed. And yes, I have read the article, I did a presentation on it for a neuroscience class, thank you very much. C0h3n (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If, as you state, you have read the article, then you should know perfectly well where LeVay uses the word suggests. I'm not sure why you would ask that question. The quote from LeVay was not a 'half quote', and saying that it 'doesn't do justice to the evidence' simply seems to be your way of saying that LeVay is wrong - a very odd, and certainly irrelevant reason for removing it. Skoojal (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I doubt it because if the word suggests is used, it says the evidence suggests and not "I, Simon LeVay, suggest". I have searched for it and could not find it. Funny that you still haven't provided the quote. As stated before, LeVay argues AGAINST the POV of the quote you are so determined to include, so I'm not saying LeVay is wrong, I'm saying you are wrong in trying to use the quote to represent LeVay's beliefs. Perhaps if you actually had knowledge on the subject at hand you would also recognize that the comparative neuroanatomical evidence suggests that the INAH 3 size is set during the perinatal period and then later has a strong effect on sexual orientation. This is what LeVay is saying in the rest of the quote. C0h3n (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has read the article knows that there is no 'if' here. The article does use the word 'suggests'. There is no meaningful difference between saying that the evidence suggests something and saying that LeVay says something; the former is a different way of expressing the latter. Your comment about the 'POV of the quote' is extremely confused - it is LeVay's quote, and hence his POV. Obviously what LeVay said there reflects his beliefs, or he would not have said it. The last couple of sentences of your post are also extremely confused, since now you're using the word 'suggests' yourself - which was what you had been arguing against! Skoojal (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny, again, no quote. Also, let's not forget that you wanted to change the wording to LeVay concluded and not the article concluded. So I'll change it to the study suggests. I'm removing the quote as LeVay argues against its premise in a satisfactory fashion. C0h3n (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think that LeVay does not use the word 'suggests', that only shows that your claim to have read the article is wrong. It's available on LeVay's website if you want to read it. LeVay is quoted to this effect in the article about him, as you appear not to have noticed. LeVay does not argue against the premise of his own quote, as you ridiculously suggest. The quote is part of his argument. Your real problem seems to be that LeVay didn't come down as strongly in favour of biological explanations of sexual orientation as you wish he had. Skoojal (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to be dense, Skoojal? If you are going to include this quote, you should also include LeVay's view that it is more likely that the INAH 3's size is set during a perinatal sensitive period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C0h3n (talk • contribs) 03:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you not capable of responding sensibly and politely to what I said? Including both quotes should be fine - and I note that this is not what you'd been arguing before. Skoojal (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is perfectly in line with what I was arguing before, which was that you were using a half quote to cast doubt on the finding and choosing not to include the arguments in favor of biological determination of sexual orientation. C0h3n (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote was about the interpretation of the finding (eg, what it showed), not the finding itself - a perfectly simple distinction. Skoojal (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

True, however, what I was saying is still valid. It casts doubt on the interpretation when in fact LeVay makes the argument that it is likely that the INAH 3 is set up very early in life and then influences sexual orientation and you did not include that material. Also, as mentioned on the Simon LeVay talk page, such admissions of ambiguity are common, but you have a habit of not including the later arguments towards biological determinations. Take for example the fact that we can't prove the theory of plate tectonics. Yet no one (at least I wouldn't expect so) is quoting scientists making this admission in the article because it is inappropriate to do so. Finally, I'll end in an apology for any rudeness and/or offense I may have caused you, I should assume more good faith on your part. I simply think you are taking this article in the wrong direction, but perhaps you are doing so in good faith and not simply to push an agenda. Again, sorry for any rudeness or offense caused. C0h3n (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My point remains the same: if someone says that something is likely, he is suggesting that it is true, not saying that it is true beyond all reasonable doubt, which is what 'concludes' might lead someone to think. 'Suggested' follows LeVay's own wording more closely. Including more material from LeVay's paper than only that one quote should be fine, but its absence is not a reason to delete the quote. Skoojal (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal asked on my talk page if I would provide input here, which I am happy to do. For the record: I have never met LeVay, although we have had some email correspondance. I have published some research on homosexuality and some research on the association between other sexual interests and the brain, but I have never conducted research on this exact topic.

If I have followed the thread correctly, you two appear to be disagreeing over (1) whether "the finding suggests" or "LeVay concludes" is the better way to introduce LeVay's description of the relevance of INAH3 to sexual behavior, and (2) whether to include a quote from LeVay wherein he points out that his finding does not prove causality.

Regarding suggests/concludes, I am indifferent, personally. Although you both appear to be responding to what you perceive to the be a potential difference in how seriously the reader might interpret LeVay's findings, I see no meaningful difference between the versions. Both statements are accurate (to my eye), and neither is going to mean the difference for anyone reading it. For a solution, however, I suggest expanding the entry to include the basis for LeVay's statement/conclusion. Although I haven't re-read his paper recently, I seem to remember LeVay pointing out animal research indicating the central role of the hypothalamus (especially the anterior hypothalamus) in sexual behavior. Giving readers the information LeVay used will allow readers to come to their own decisions over whether LeVay's suggestion/conclusion is a reasonable one. It might also be helpful to cite other researchers, such as Byne, who will have commented on INAH.

Regarding LeVay's quote about causality: When writing scientific reports for publication, I am very sure to include statements such as LeVay's. Scientists do not want to be found overstating or overinterpreting their results. However, even though LeVay's comparison of a gay group and a straight group cannot by itself reveal causality, it was never meant to. LeVay's finding (and just about every finding like it) represents a single entry in an entire literature. Findings such as the association between homosexuality and handedness (which develops mostly before birth), provide information about there having existed differences early in life, whereas LeVay shows that differences exist in the brain. Each finding assists in the interpretation of the other.

So, personally, I would include the quote, but also insert for readers a link to biology and sexual orientation and a sentence or two so that readers could put LeVay's finding into its proper context.

I hope that is a help.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 15:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that was helpful. It might be good to add something by Byne; I'm not myself sure what would be the best thing. Skoojal (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus?

This article states that the INAH3 is part of the SDN. On the other hand the article on SDN says that the SDN is a generic name for an Hypothalamus nucleus that is found in many animals, and has different names for different species: INAH3 for humans, oSDN in sheep, SDN-POA in rats, etc. This information is in accordance with Simon LeVay in Gay Straight and the reason Why. As the article on SDN is more elaborated and referenced that the present one, I tend to get credit to Levay. If there are no objections I will proceed to modify this article accordingly.--Auró (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. Looie496 (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)