Re: Gender differences
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Sun, 28 May 1995 06:18:34 GMT
In article <60.11362.3724.0N1E33E0@canrem.com>, J. Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com) writes:
>I certainly see a lot of knee-jerk reactions in brain studies, but
>mostly they knee-jerk in the direction of assuming that physical
>differences seen *must* be innate, rather than developed. This is done
>over and over, from the first time I read the "Einstein's brain's cells"
>stuff to the corpus callosum stuff. Yet the only study I've heard of
>that actaully attempted to address this question (innate or developed?)
>concluded "developed" was the answer.
You missed that the "knee jerk reactions" to all this drivel here on
sci.anthropology are only against the idea that it is anthropology in
any the first place.
I do grant that you people may not in fact be trying to colonise our
profession, and so find yourselves a place in the queue for science
funding. After all, we have had legitimate biologists lurking here
from time to time insisting that none of you would know a gene from a
pair of jeans.
I grant too that anthropologists are tolerant, and suppose that you
can hang around here as cultural curiosities, but let's just be quite
honest about it and admit to the world that none of you have ever been
accepted anywhere to study genetics, or biology, or even cognitive
psychology, and so take up your ruminations here on the Usenet News
instead.
Yes?
>In other words, just like your muscles develop in certain ways when you
>use them, so too does your brain. (If you use it instead of assuming
>"physical difference" equals "innate" ;-)
So what, Jim? This is silly fresher level stuff, with applications in
all fields of human endeavour not least ergonomics and sports since at
least the 1960s.
Were you a legitimate scientist surely you would have progressed
much further than this by now.
|