|
|
Re: Gender differences
Mary Beth Williams (mbwillia@ix.netcom.com)
23 May 1995 23:49:25 GMT
In <3pr8p9INN3de@hpsdlmc1.sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl)
writes:
>
>In article <3poamv$8a8@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> mbwillia@ix.netcom.com
(Mary Beth Williams) writes:
>>In <3pm6c7$2vq@triton.unm.edu> mycol1@unm.edu (Bryant) writes:
>
>>>I think Gerald meant only that sexual dimorphisms in the nervous
>>system
>>>were "proven" (and, indeed, such dimorphisms are well documented).
>
>>Hmmm... I re-read this and it still sounds to me like one presenting
a
>>yet undetermined hypothesis as generally accepted. *Clear
differences
>>were shown between male and female cognitive processes* sounds rather
>>positivist, wouldn't you agree?
>
>Yes, I was under the impression that actual cognitive differences
between
>male and female had been demonstrated. The physical dimorphism of the
>brain, as bryant mentioned, is well documented, and apparently less
>controversial. But I was talking about cognitive differences.
>
>The results that I saw reported the results of very basic cognitive
>functions, and showed differences as large as .6sigma or so. I forget
the
>name of the researchers; what exactly is the nature of the
controversy? Is
>it a question of the experimental methodology, or just some people who
>don't like the results, and then refuse to accept them?
>
>Unfortunately, the latter seems quite likely, given the knee-jerk
hysteria
>which we've witnessed here in response to any findings relating to
innate,
>hereditary aspects of human capability.
>
Although I remember that a few of the responses (in the Arch-L debate)
were reactionary, most were well thought out and very valid. The
entire debate is archived on WWW on the Arch-L archive... I can get you
the address if you're truly interested (the debate went on for weeks).
In addition, if I recall correctly, most of the more viceral responses
sprung from an unquestioning assertion by the original poster that such
findings were along the lines of *innate, hereditary aspects of human
capability* and thus hard, scientific facts.
In addition, I would recommend that in the future, if you choose to
cite controversial findings (or anyone else's work, for that matter),
proper citation of sources would be in order, don't you think?
MB Williams
Wesleyan
>--
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of
meself,
>me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you
won't.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @
.hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf
|