Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Isn't calves' liver more common?
    
    Ray

    
    I thought it was oysters?
    
    just kidding.
    
    I didn't see it - could you tell me the premise?  What the show
    intended to get across, or what aspects of how the brain and sex affect
    each other?  
    
    Or did you mean the brain and gender (men's brains, women's brains,
    etc.)?
    
    -Jody

    
    We had this program broadcasted in Canada (by CBC), in june. I think it
    was a 6-part mini-series.
    
    The premise was that there are pathological differences between a man's
    and a woman's brain, and that these differences affect your behaviour
    in more and deeper ways than the society-induced differences.
    
    I feel that the program was an honest attempt to make people understand
    that equality is not a synonym for sameness.
    
    Art.

    
    In reference to my .3:
    
    I was recovering from surgery at a hospital (maybe for too
    long!!), what I meant to say was "physiological", rather than
    "pathological".
    
    Art.

    I dunno, I think I like "pathological" better. ;-)
    
    So, like, are CAT scans going to become part of the hiring process?
    "Sorry, but your parietal lobe just isn't up to our standards..."
    
    -b

    I had read an article last week in the Globe & Mail which had the
    headline "Sex Affects Brain Size".  The article didn't say whether you
    got smarter or dumber if you had more sex.  No mention of the size of
    one's head.

    re .6, what does it all mean?
    
    Lorna
    

    It means that the media will use the word "SEX" to attract attention. 
    Even when they mean "gender".

    No, they used the word sex correctly.  Words have gender, people
    have -- well, you get the idea.
    
    					andrew

    my favorite is the claim that the female praying manta eats the males
    head _during_ copulation. Followed by the statement that it makes for
    less inhibited sex. (Careful with those dentures....)

    re .3
    
    Gee, I remember getting roundly attacked for positing just that premise
    in this conference about a year ago.  Watch out sociology freaks - the
    truth will out.

    re: .10
    	This presupposes that the function of whatever a mantis keeps in
    its head has anything to do with what a human keeps in its head. Along
    the same vein of comparing unlike species, some of the dinosaurs had
    their main "brain" a long way down the backbone, and relatively close
    to their genitals. Should we conclude that the closer your brain is to
    your genitals the more likely you are to become extinct?

    Given that the dinosaurs ruled the earth for hundreds of millions of
    years perhaps we should move our brains closer to our genitals.  Of
    course, there are some who wouldsay this is true of men, anyway.

    re: the mantis'
    
    Actually, I believe the head of the mantis contains bundles of
    inhibitory nerve endings, so removing it may increase sexual function.
    
    A commentator on NPR two months ago summed it up this way: "So this is
    just the old story of the birds and the bees...retold by Stephen King!"
    
    ------->daniel

    What's a mantis got to be inhibited about?  "Maybe I'm not doing this
    right.  Maybe I won't taste good.  All the other guy mantises are going
    to tease me about being consumed by the ugliest one."
                                       

    Re: .12
    
    Not so.  The "main" brain of all dinosaurs was in the head.  The spinal
    enlargement in the hips was responsible for rapid, coordinated movement
    of the largish hindquarters - the stegosaurs, for example, were built
    so that they could swing their bodies very quickly to face an attacker,
    and that tail was capable of delivering precisely-controlled swipes
    sufficient to bury its 2- to 3-foot spikes in the underbelly of an
    incautious allosaur.  The spinal enlargement made control of the tail
    possible.  Certain modern species have a similar enlargement, altnough
    not so pronounced.
    
    As an interesting corollary, human genital stimulus is routed to the
    base of the spinal cord and directly back to the genitals - it gets to
    the brain, too, but the response that results in uncontrolled
    contraction of the genital muscles (orgasm) comes from down near the
    hips.
    
    -dick

    Thanks for sharing that with us Dick, I feel better now.
    

    Sounds like something out of an old Woodie Allen Flick. Like the
    orgas-ma-tron.:) Sex without getting sweaty or dirty. :) Nothing like
    low down dirty sex....:)

    You can find the book "Brain Sex" in most bookstores.  I
    can't remember the authors name, but there were two - a man
    and a woman.  Interesting reading...some cold, hard facts
    about how men/womens brains work in such different ways -
    but understanding them can also help in your interpersonal
    relationships.

    re:.11
    
    Dave, there are a few articles in this month's Scientific American on
    the differences between the brains.  It's real and documented, regard-
    less of what people want to belivee.

    all this from a science which appears to have done a mix and match of
    body parts from different species.  Incredible.
    
    Are these "theories" or "facts"?
    
    ed

    	How do you tell a "theory" from a "fact"?
    	Dave (with left hand side of brain taking over ;-)

    re .20
    
    Mike, there has been a wealth of studies on this topic done around the
    world in the past decade, much to the fury of the sociology freaks. 
    Stay tuned, the next few years should demolish the environment first,
    foremost and always nuts and with them the radical feminist ideologies
    that require biology to be ignored.

    The show talked about children (girls) with only 1 X chromosone who
    therefor have no ovaries. They tend to be ultra feminine as we would
    traditionally think of little girls.
    
    They showed experiments on female rats where they gave them large
    amounts of testosterone (sp) and they tended to become agressive and
    'mount' anyone in sight. Conversely, they castrated (ouch) rats at
    various times during their development and observed the results.
    
    It was interesting and worth seeing.
    
    Steve

    Shades of 658.* etc.

    re .20, I believe it as I've always thought there was something weird
    about men.    (then again I often think there's something weird about a
    lot of women, too....)
    
    Lorna
    

those of us who understand that different does NOT mean inferior...and that
"natural tendency" does NOT mean superiority....and that each individual
is more or less an admixture of the male and female characteristics that
are a result of the very delicate, and very specifically unique hormonal
wash that occurred during development in the womb...AS WELL AS the 
conditioning that occurred after leaving the womb...are NOT afraid to
admit that male and female brains are different.  We find that information
interesting, but not threatening.

There were many folks who believed that there was no difference - and they
had many scientists agreeing with them...however, further research has
changed that viewpoint.  It wasn't a feminist plot that people used to
believe that the only differences came from nuturing/environment...a
lot of very credible people believed it - and, using it as a premise,
went on to prove it was NOT correct.  What some here fail to recognize
is that several women researchers are in the forefront of the research
which disproves this "sameness".  

What IS distressing in its ignorance is the attempt by some to use the
reported differences to claim a superiority for the male of the species
because his brain "is better at this than a woman's"...pure drivel.
Each woman/man was subjected to the hormonal wash during development...
making their brains neither pure female nor pure male.  For discussion
purposes, the "pure" female brain is compared to the "pure" male...but,
these characteristics by gender are no more locked in concrete than the 
exact placement of internal organs in the individual human body...and my
recently acquired scar from gallbladder surgery is in a very different
place than anyone else I know who has had this surgery....so, too, are
the different characteristics of each person's brain.  I, for instance,
have a natural ease in using logic and doing program design - it is a 
"talent" for me to be able to perform this work and to learn new programming
languages quite easily.  I also find it easy to take apart complex
machinery and put it back together because I learned in my childhood to
help build car engines....so, to some, my brain must be quite masculine.
I am also, however, very strong in the verbal communications arena which 
is considered a "female" trait.  What I am is ME....as are you YOU.

    We've been through this a zippitydoodah of times.  Research indicates
    there is a measurable statistical correlation between some test results
    and the sex of the subjects.  Research also indicates that the deviance
    from the norm within each sex so outweighs the extent of the supposed
    sex-related characteristic that such a correlation is of little use in
    making Real Life judgments.
    
    Not that anyone here is all that interested in making Real Life
    judgments.
    
    Ray

    re:.29
    
    Yes, Ray, the distributions overlap quite a bit, but the best in the 
    better group is significantly better than the best in the other group,
    and the medians are also significantly different.  This implies that
    some roles are performed better (better = faster or more accurately,
    by the metrics in Sci Am) by one gender.
    
    For years, some people have denied this intrinsic gender advantage.

.28>                   -< its not "proof" of any superiority... >-

    Sure it is, depending on the metrics.
    
    Men, for example, are better with spatial tasks (ie: object rotations
    in space and along an axis, dismebedding tests) and mathematical rea-
    soning, women are better at pattern matching, languages, and mathe-
    matical calculations.

    
    "It is important to place the differences described above in context:
     some are slight, some are quite large.  Because men and women overlap
     enormously on many cognitive tests that show average sex differences,
     researcher use variations within each group as a tool to gauge the
     differences between groups.
    
     Imagine, for instance, that on one test the average score is 105
     for women and 100 for men.  If the scores for women ranged from 100
     to 110 and for men from 95 to 105, the difference would be more
     impressive than if the women's scores ranged from 50 to 150 and the
     men's from 45 to 145.  In the latter case, the overlap in scores would
     be much greater.
    
     One measure of the variation of the scores within a group is the
     standard deviation.  To compare the magnitude of a sex differences
     across several distinct tasks, the difference between groups is
     divided by the standard deviation.  The resulting number is called
     the 'effect size.'  Effect sizes below 0.5 are generally considered
     small.  Based on my data, for instance, there are typically no
     differences between the sexes on test of vocabulary (0.02), non-
     verbal reasoning (0.03) and verbal reasoning (0.17).
    
     On tests in which subjects match pictures, find words that begin with
     similar letters or show ideational fluency (eg: naming objects that
     are white) - the effect sizes are larger : 0.25, 0.22 and 0.38.  As
     discussed above, women tend to outperform men on these tasks.
    
     Researchers have reported the largest effect sizes for tests measuring
     spatial rotation (0.7) and targeting accuracy (0.75). The large effect
     size in these tests means there are many more men at the high end of
     the score distribution."
    
    [...]
    
    "No correlation was found between testosterone levels and performance
     on perceptual speed tests. On mathematical reasoning, however, the
     results were similar to those of spatial ability tests for men: low-
     androgen men tested higher, but there was no such relation in women.
    
     Such findings are consistent with the suggestion by Camilla P. Benbow
     of Iowa State University that high mathematical ability has a signi-
     ficant biological determinant.  Benbow and her colleagues have reported 
     consistent sex differences in mathematical reasoning favoring males.
     These differences are especially sharp at the upper end of the distri-
     bution, where males outnumber females 13 to 1."
    
     	    [ Scientific American, 9/92, pp119-125 ]

    Interesting article, indeed:
    
    "Major sex differences in intellectual function seem to lie in
    patterns of ability rather than in overall level of intelligence
    (IQ).  We are all aware that people have different intellectual
    strengths.  Some are especially good with words, others at using
    objects - for instance, at constructing or fixing things.  In 
    the same fashion, two individuals may have the same overall
    intelligence but have varying patterns of ability."
    
    "It is important to keep in mind that the relation between natural
    hormonal levels and problem solving is based on correlational data.
    Some form of connection between the two measures exists, but how
    this association is determined or what its causal basis may be is
    unknown.  Little is currently understood about the relation between
    adult levels of hormones and those in early life, when abilities
    appear to be organized in the nervous system.  We have a lot to
    learn about the precise mechanisms underlying cognitive patterns
    in people."
    
    "So that even though any one individual might have the capacity to
    be in a 'nontypical' field [such as women in engineering,] the
    sex proportions as a whole may vary."
    
					Scientific American
    					Sept 1992, p. 118 - 125

    By the way, the article does not use the term "superior" to characterize
    men as a group for their performance in SOME tests (excluding non-verbal
    and verbal reasoning tests where both sexes were shown to have virtually 
    the same abilities.)
    
    If someone decides that the cited performance differences do amount to
    a designation of "superior," then it would follow that the differences
    between the sexes in the occurrences of violence and crimes would
    suggest that men (as a group) are inferior to women (as a group)
    when it comes to being civilized human beings.  Since I do not regard
    such performance differences as criteria for designations of "superior"
    or "inferior" (for either sex,) I wouldn't support this notion myself.

    By the way, the series mentioned in the base note, "Brain Sex,"
    is broadcast on The Discovery Channel on Tuesday nights at 10pm.
    
    It's also rerun at other times during the week.

    Tuesday night's show was very informative.
    
    The researchers sat babies in a room.  There was a string attached to
    one arm.  Pulling the string changed a picture on a TV screen.  Both
    sexes learned this equally fast.  When the switch mechanism was dis-
    connected, boy babies kept pulling, harder and harder, the girl babies
    stopped pulling and started crying.
    
    Interesting difference, I'd say.

    Re .36: Yeah; proves that neither violence nor tears will move the
    heart of a researcher. 
    
    ;-)
    
    -b

    When they grow up the boy babies will just keep driving around lost,
    but girl babies will ask directions.
    
    						- Vick

  .38 >  When they grow up the boy babies will just keep driving around lost,
    
    We kinda figured that happened to you Vick.;^)

    Columbus did it first...

    re:.38
    
    How do you suppose that gender difference would manifest itself in
    corporate America?
    
    Who's more likely to give up first and start crying?

    
    gee, even as babies, boy babies are more encouraged to go explore and
    do it themselves than girl babies, who are often rewarded/soothed for
    crying, and nursed and nurtured close to the resident adult.
    
    bet it's not in the brain at all, inherently.
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .41  Mike Z.
    
    > How do you suppose that gender difference would manifest itself in
    > corporate America?
    
    > Who's more likely to give up first and start crying?
    
    Boy babies are also known to remain in dirty diapers (without worrying
    about it or requesting a diaper change) far, far longer than girl babies.
    
    In corporate America, which gender is more likely to mess their pants
    (and stay in messed pants all day)?
    
    If you're arguing about baby behavior, let's get down to cases, after
    all.
    
    (By the way, boy babies do cry for plenty of other reasons, including
    frustration when they can't get their toys to work correctly!)

    The Discovery channel must be making a FORTUNE from advertising for
    this show (since they know they'll get good ratings from all the folks
    who are absolutely DESPERATE to find some way to prove that women are 
    inherently inferior in the workplace.)
    
    So now it's babies pulling on a string (and crying or not crying.)
    Good grief.

    re:.42
    The babies looked to be about 1 year old.  I think they said 4 months
    old, but I'd have to replay the tape to be sure ...
    
    The point was to test them before they'd been influence by parents
    and surroundings - to separate nature from nurture.
    
    
    re:.43, .44
    As with a previous discussion on mental illness and women, you've jumped
    in again without first doing your homework.  Experiments on the behavioral
    differences between very young boys and girls have been going on for more
    than 2 decades.  This is not an isolated finding.
    
    And, speaking of "absolutely DESPERATE" ("... the folks who are absolutely
    DESPERATE to find some way to prove ...", 830.44) we have this gem from
    the previous note, by the same author :
    
.43> In corporate America, which gender is more likely to mess their pants
.43> (and stay in messed pants all day)?

Why is it that some people are unwilling to accept findings that indicate
that there are inherent differences between the sexes?

    Possibly because those findings are too often used as excuses for not
    doing anything about inequality?
    
    Daniel

    RE: .46     political correctness.......
    
    
    Paul C.

Whenever I hear about men supposedly being better thsn women at spatial
relationships, I'm reminded of the rejoinder that has a woman saying "Oh yeah?
Well then how come they call this (she holds thumb and forefinger a short
distance apart) six inches?"

				Steve

    RE: .45  Mike Z.
    
    > The babies looked to be about 1 year old.  I think they said 4 months
    > old, but I'd have to replay the tape to be sure ...
    
    > The point was to test them before they'd been influence by parents
    > and surroundings - to separate nature from nurture.
    
    None of these babies had spent any time around their parents (or
    other human surroundings) by then???  Get serious.
    
    > Experiments on the behavioral
    > differences between very young boys and girls have been going on for more
    > than 2 decades.  This is not an isolated finding.
    
    Such findings do not support the conclusions YOU are hoping to prove,
    however.  
    
    > And, speaking of "absolutely DESPERATE" ("... the folks who are absolutely
    > DESPERATE to find some way to prove ...", 830.44) we have this gem from
    > the previous note, by the same author :
    
    .43> In corporate America, which gender is more likely to mess their pants
    .43> (and stay in messed pants all day)?
    
    If you're going to argue that baby behavior carries over to adulthood,
    then this question is as appropriate as your question (about whether
    differences in baby behavior would carry over to adulthood.)
    
    By the way, as I mentioned before, boy babies do cry when toys don't
    work and/or they don't get their way (whether you acknowledge this
    or not.)

    RE: .46
    
    > Why is it that some people are unwilling to accept findings that 
    > indicate that there are inherent differences between the sexes?
    
    Ask the folks that scream and wail along the lines of, "I'm  being 
    called a rapist and I don't like it" when people point out the
    behavioral differences between men and women when it comes to stats
    on rape.
    
    Why are these men so unwilling to stand up and say, "As a man, I'm far 
    more likely to rape others than a woman is likely to do so"...?  If the
    behavioral differences are indicative of INHERENT (hard-wired) variations
    between the sexes, then be willing to accept that men are hard-wired as
    rapists (if women are hard-wired to follow the behavior in the babies'
    string-pulling experiment.)
    
    Personally, I don't accept that men are hard-wired as rapists any more
    than I accept that women are hard-wired for the behavior exhibited in
    the string-pulling experiment.  If you do accept the idea of hard-wiring,
    though, you must take the good with the bad.

    RE: .45  Mike Z.
    
    Back to the point about 'parents' influence'...
    
    > The babies looked to be about 1 year old.  I think they said 4 months
    > old, but I'd have to replay the tape to be sure ...
    
    > The point was to test them before they'd been influence by parents
    > and surroundings - to separate nature from nurture.
    
    I've seen studies showing that parents treat boy and girl babies
    differently from birth (in NON-verbal ways):
    
    	Boys are handled in a more rough, playful way with more aggressive
    		verbalizations.
    	Girls are cuddled and cooed to more often.
    
    This difference would have an influence even before a baby could
    understand words.

re .51:

There are physical differences that make it more likely for men to
commit rape.  So, with your permission, I'll change "rape" to "murder."
Many more men than women commit murder (there seems to be an exception
when it comes to spousal murder, as we've already discussed).  Have
there been any studies that indicate that there's an inherent factor?

Is there anyone who claims that "nurture" doesn't matter in "nature vs.
nurture?"  That seems to be your implication when you equate rape with
string pulling.

    re .49
    
     <<< Note 830.49 by QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent" >>>

>Whenever I hear about men supposedly being better thsn women at spatial
>relationships, I'm reminded of the rejoinder that has a woman saying "Oh yeah?
>Well then how come they call this (she holds thumb and forefinger a short
>distance apart) six inches?"

    Probably came from the same commedian that said, "And why do women
    call this ( forms O by touching fingertimps from opposite hands
    over his head ) tight.  :^).
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .53
    
    > Is there anyone who claims that "nurture" doesn't matter in "nature vs.
    > nurture?"  That seems to be your implication when you equate rape with
    > string pulling.
    
    I was only pointing out the implications about men if measured behaviors
    could be shown to prove certain inherent differences between the sexes.
    
    While it may be fun to take girl babies' behavior and project it onto 
    women in corporate America (as a demeaning joke,) it might not seem 
    quite as funny to some to take boy babies' behavior (or adult rapists' 
    behavior) and project it onto men in corporate America.

Ms. Conlon --

Do you believe there are no inherent behavioral differences between the sexes?

    RE: .56
    
    > Do you believe there are no inherent behavioral differences between 
    > the sexes?
    
    I believe there are statistical patterns of behavior that differ
    between the sexes (such as men committing more rapes, murders and
    other violent crimes than women.)
    
    However, I do not believe that the future behavior of an individual
    can be predicted based on his/her sex alone (such as predicting that
    any given man is likely to be a future rapist since he is male.)

    Cerebral developmental differences create potentials for intellectual
    differences, not inherent differences. 
    	Just because rape and murder are forms of aggressive behavior, and
    men have tendencies to be more aggressive than most woman, doesn't
    justify equating men as "inherent rapists and murderers".
    	This type of rationalization is creating major problems in
    developing fair and effective policies in the domestic arena.
    	Because men are seen as potential perpetrators of violent acts
    they are being denied fair and equal treatment in the eyes of the law.

    
>    justify equating men as "inherent rapists and murderers".
    
    Agreed, except that NOBODY here said that.
    
    				- Vick

re .57:

You didn't answer the question.  It's obvious that there are differences
in behavior between men and women, and it's obvious that men aren't all
doomed to be rapists.

Do you believe there are no *inherent* (inborn) behavioral differences
between the sexes?

    RE: .58
    
    > Cerebral developmental differences create potentials for intellectual
    > differences, not inherent differences. 
    
    Individual males also have the potential for intellectural differences,
    as I'm sure you know.
    
    > Just because rape and murder are forms of aggressive behavior, and
    > men have tendencies to be more aggressive than most woman, doesn't
    > justify equating men as "inherent rapists and murderers".
    
    Exactly right.  By the same token, just because female babies (during
    experiments) tend to stop trying to pull the string and cry when it
    fails doesn't mean they are "inherent quitters (or whatever)" in the
    corporate world as adults.
    
    > This type of rationalization is creating major problems in
    > developing fair and effective policies in the domestic arena.
    
    Rationalizing that women are inherently inferior (intellectually)
    because of behavioral differences could create major problems in
    getting equal opportunity in the workplace.
    
    > Because men are seen as potential perpetrators of violent acts
    > they are being denied fair and equal treatment in the eyes of the law.
    
    Due to the historical practice of viewing women as inferior to men,
    women have been denied equal opportunity in the workplace (although
    we have seen progress in this area.)

    RE: .60
    
    > Do you believe there are no *inherent* (inborn) behavioral differences
    > between the sexes?
    
    Although I've seen patterns of behavior differences documented (such
    as rape stats,) I've not yet seen evidence that behaviors exist that
    are hard-wired strictly based on sex (other than biological functions.)
    
    Scientific American's recent article on sex differences stated quite
    clearly that they were only discussing PATTERNS of skills, by the way,
    while any individual has the capacity for non-typical skills.

    Did I miss something here?  The fact the the girl babies quit pulling
    and cried while the boys just kept pulling harder implies to me that
    the girls had the better of it - they realized sooner that pulling
    harder wouldn't work and they had the common sense to call for help.
    
    Why is this behavior being characterized as "quitter"?
    
    -dick

    RE: .58
    
    By the way...
    
    > Cerebral developmental differences create potentials for intellectual
    > differences, not inherent differences. 
    
    In case you didn't know this, researchers have pointed out the men
    and women (in general) have the same intellectual capacity (IQs).
    Behavioral tests indicate that women score higher on some types of
    tests while men score higher on others (but both sexes have the same 
    level of non-verbal and verbal reasoning skills, among others.)

    RE: .63  -dick
    
    > ...the girls had the better of it - they realized sooner that pulling
    > harder wouldn't work and they had the common sense to call for help.
    
    > Why is this behavior being characterized as "quitter"?
    
    Ask Mike Z. (see .41)

    Each sex has a set of complimentary characteristics to the other making
    a rather effective "unit". Neither is superior to the other. Specific
    areas of expertise exist in either sex but the beauty of the "human"
    is the ability to adapt and overcome. Men can learn to be effective
    nurturers and woman effective bread-winners or whatever you choose to
    use to as an example of male vs female traits. 
    	Society creates barriers, not sex.

>    Although I've seen patterns of behavior differences documented (such
>    as rape stats,) I've not yet seen evidence that behaviors exist that
>    are hard-wired strictly based on sex (other than biological functions.)
>
>    Scientific American's recent article on sex differences stated quite
>    clearly that they were only discussing PATTERNS of skills, by the way,
>    while any individual has the capacity for non-typical skills.

Who's saying that "all men are better at <whatever> than any woman?"
You keep missing my point.  It must be one of those inherent male-female
communications things.  Let me try again.

Do you think there are no inherent behavioral *tendencies* that are based
on sex?

.50> None of these babies had spent any time around their parents (or
.50> other human surroundings) by then???

    Note: Those are YOUR words, not mine.

    There's no need to distort replies or to put words in others' mouths.
    
.50> If you're going to argue that baby behavior carries over to adulthood,
.50> then this question is as appropriate as your question (about whether
.50> differences in baby behavior would carry over to adulthood.)

    No, not baby behavior,   i n n a t e   behavior.
    
    This is where you erred in .43, asking if male adults were more likely
    to poop in their pants based on observations of male babies.  Adults
    do not poop in their pants, that ends in childhood, yet males are, in
    general, more aggressive and competitive than females, throughout their
    lives.

.50> By the way, as I mentioned before, boy babies do cry when toys don't
.50> work and/or they don't get their way (whether you acknowledge this
.50> or not.)

    Of course they do, and of course I acknowledge this.  I'd have to be
    quite insane to ignore the truth ... and the truth is that they have
    indeed been observed stopping and expressing displeasure (ie: crying),
    but this doesn't happen as frequently or as quickly as it does with
    girl babies.


.51> Ask the folks that scream and wail along the lines of, "I'm  being 

    "The folks that scream and wail"  ... ?

    Why do you say were they screaming and wailing?  Did they use CAPS?
    _Underlines_?  *Asterisks*?

    Please show us some examples of this so we can decide if this "screaming
    and wailing" is real, or just a figment of your perception ...


.52> I've seen studies showing that parents treat boy and girl babies
.52> differently from birth (in NON-verbal ways):

    Ok, enlighten us ... what studies are those and where can we find out
    about them for ourselves?


.55> While it may be fun to take girl babies' behavior and project it onto 
.55> women in corporate America (as a demeaning joke,) it might not seem 
.55> quite as funny to some to take boy babies' behavior (or adult rapists' 
.55> behavior) and project it onto men in corporate America.

    You don't seem to understand the purpose of baby studies.

    We already know that adult men and women behave differently in similar
    situations, the introduction of baby studies is to determine if these
    documented and verified differences are the result of the environment
    or if they have a biological origin.


.61> Rationalizing that women are inherently inferior (intellectually)
.61> because of behavioral differences could create major problems in

    Note: Those are YOUR words, not those of any other noter in this topic.

    To reiterate :
    
    There's no need to distort replies or to put words in others' mouths.

    RE: .66
    
    > Each sex has a set of complimentary characteristics to the other making
    > a rather effective "unit". 
    
    We have mostly OVERLAPPING characteristics, though, rather than
    complementary (making each of us a rather effective human 'unit'
    alone or as part of a human team of women or men or both.)
    
    > Neither is superior to the other.
    
    Agreed.
    
    > Specific areas of expertise exist in either sex but the beauty of the 
    > "human" is the ability to adapt and overcome.  Men can learn to be 
    > effective nurturers and woman effective bread-winners or whatever you 
    > choose to use to as an example of male vs female traits. 
  
    Men also have to learn to be effective bread-winners (and women must
    learn to be effective nurturers) as well as the other way around.
    
    > Society creates barriers, not sex.
    
    You should keep this in mind yourself.

    RE:  .67  Gerald
    
    >> Although I've seen patterns of behavior differences documented (such
    >> as rape stats,) I've not yet seen evidence that behaviors exist that
    >> are hard-wired strictly based on sex (other than biological functions.)
    >>
    >> Scientific American's recent article on sex differences stated quite
    >> clearly that they were only discussing PATTERNS of skills, by the way,
    >> while any individual has the capacity for non-typical skills.

    > Who's saying that "all men are better at <whatever> than any woman?"
    
    Where in the above quote did you think I made this claim?
    
    > You keep missing my point.  It must be one of those inherent male-female
    > communications things.  Let me try again.
    
    You keep missing my answer.
    
    > Do you think there are no inherent behavioral *tendencies* that are based
    > on sex?
    
    As I've stated repeatedly, I've seen some PATTERNS of behavioral
    differences between the sexes (but I believe that any individual
    has the capacity for non-typical behavior.)

    RE:  .68  Mike Z.
    
    .50> None of these babies had spent any time around their parents (or
    .50> other human surroundings) by then???

    > Note: Those are YOUR words, not mine.
    
    Do you know what a 'question' is, Mike?
    
    > There's no need to distort replies or to put words in others' mouths.
    
    If you ever figure out what a 'question' is, you will understand that
    this point is moot.
    
    > No, not baby behavior,   i n n a t e   behavior.
    
    You have yet to describe innate behavior, though.
    
    > Adults do not poop in their pants, that ends in childhood, yet males 
    > are, in general, more aggressive and competitive than females, 
    > throughout their lives.
    
    Men are rewarded for being more aggressive and competitive (while
    females are more often punished for this behavior.)  It does make
    a difference (whether you care to acknowledge it or not.)
    
    > ...the truth is that they have indeed been observed stopping and 
    > expressing displeasure (ie: crying), but this doesn't happen as 
    > frequently or as quickly as it does with girl babies.
    
    How big of a statistical sample was used to make this observation?
    In my family, my brother was the baby who cried his lungs out at
    every opportunity (while my sister cried less and I cried the least
    of all three kids.)  My son cried as little as I did, though, while
    my sister's son cried as much as my brother.
    
    Babies are individuals.  In a relatively small sample, you might see
    some patterns, but I doubt that a significantly larger sample would
    produce identical results.
    
    > Please show us some examples of this so we can decide if this "screaming
    > and wailing" is real, or just a figment of your perception ...
    
    Gee, when women are typically described as crying or wailing (in the
    course of debate about various issues,) do you think folks should have
    been forced to provide indisputable documentation of these emotions
    all this time???  Wow.  Others have been getting away with murder in
    notes all these years, haven't they?  Get busy and tell these folks
    about this immediately.
    
    > You don't seem to understand the purpose of baby studies.
    
    I understand why you're so interested in them, that's for sure.
    
    > We already know that adult men and women behave differently in similar
    > situations, the introduction of baby studies is to determine if these
    > documented and verified differences are the result of the environment
    > or if they have a biological origin.
    
    Unfortunately, it's impossible to get a control group of babies who
    have not been exposed to the human environment.
    
    These studies inadvertently become mis-used by ignorant people who
    seek to prove that women are different enough from men to justify
    discriminatory treatment (and I'm not naming anyone in particular
    when I use the term "ignorant people," so don't bother to interrogate
    me about it.)
    
    .61> Rationalizing that women are inherently inferior (intellectually)
    .61> because of behavioral differences could create major problems in

    > Note: Those are YOUR words, not those of any other noter in this topic.
    
    Notice that I phrased it as "COULD CREATE" (and did not attribute the
    statement to anyone in particular.)
    
    > There's no need to distort replies or to put words in others' mouths.
    
    When you learn to read, you will understand that this point is also moot.

    Babies are only born with a very few innate behaviors (all of which
    can be observed in healthy newborns before they've had much exposure
    to human interaction):
    
    	Suckling (when their faces/cheeks are touched, they turn towards it)
        Fear of loud noises (newborns cry loudly in response)
    	Fear of falling (when babies are placed on their backs on a flat
    	   surface, the protrusions of the backs of their heads makes them 
    	   unsteady on the surface and they respond by jutting both arms in 
           the air)
    
    Babies socialize almost immediately (and learn to smile, interact, etc.
    from this social interaction.)  Babies who do not interact with others
    usually die (it's called "failing to thrive.")
    
    Boy and girl babies are treated differently from birth (from the pink
    versus blue color schemes to tones of voices used, and well beyond.)

    Back to .41 for a minute ...
    
    If we take behavioral differences and apply it to work behavior,
    Mike Z.'s questions could be reworded for men in this way:
    
               "How do you suppose that gender difference would manifest 
                   itself in corporate America?"
    
               "Who's more likely to give up first and start crying?"
    
    ...would become...
    
    	       "Who's more likely to be unable to complete a work task
    		   due to being too busy raping someone (or thinking
    		   about it.)"
    
    *Neither* question/implication is appropriate, of course.  

    "Modern technology is opening new windows on the inner workings of the
     male and female brain, and discovering interesting distinctions between 
     the two.  In our first program, we learned how hormones serve to shape
     the brains of men and women differently, and, in fact, our brains have
     a distinct gender long before environmental factors begin to shape our
     personalities.

     These differences have turned up across the animal kingdom and in
     wide-ranging experiments with rats and monkeys.  Varying doses of
     hormones in the womb may affect our communication skills, our spatial
     abilities, even our sexual preference.

     In this program, we'll investigate how brain-sex differences may affect
     our success in school and at work.  Scientific research into these
     differences is beginning to challenge old perceptions about why and how
     our interests and abilities diverge."

    "If we consider the possibility of differences between men and women,
     to some people that looks like a giant step backward because women
     have, for so long, been saying 'we are equal, we are equal.'  Well,
     equal does not necessarily mean the same."
    
    Carmen Adams
    Eductaion Specialist
    Cape Coral Academy, Florida

    "I guess it goes against our egalitarian views ... we don't like to
     think that there are gender differences or that there are differences
     between groups of people ... that we all come out the same.  And that
     doesn't really fit with our political and emotional views of the way
     the world should work."
    
    Camilla Benbow (she was also quoted in the Sci Am article)
    Professor of Psychology
    Iowa State University

    Now, to the baby study I cited earlier...
    
    At Rutgers Medical School, "extensive tests have shown that a sex
    difference in temperament shows up early.  Babies are seated in front
    of a screen and given a string they can pull to change the picture in
    front of them.  Boys and girls learn fast, but they react differently
    when the switch they've learned to control is secretly disconnected.
    The boys keep pulling, harder and harder.  Girls, on the other hand,
    stop pulling and show their dismay (cry).  This difference is evident
    in babies as young as six weeks."

.71> If you ever figure out what a 'question' is, you will understand that
.71> this point is moot.
    
    No, dishonesty is not moot.  And being a question is not an excuse.
    
    "When did you stop beating your wife?" is a question, too, and similarly
    misleading.
    
    
.71> In my family, my brother was the baby who cried his lungs out at
    
    You ask about sample size, and then you introduce an anecdotal study
    with a sample size of 1.
    
    
.71> Gee, when women are typically described as crying or wailing (in the
.71> course of debate about various issues,) do you think folks should have
.71> been forced to provide indisputable documentation of these emotions
.71> all this time???  Wow.  Others have been getting away with murder in
.71> notes all these years, haven't they?
    
    There we have it, folks.  The screaming and wailing didn't really 
    happen, she made it up, but because others have also made things up,
    what she did is Ok.
    
    
.71> Unfortunately, it's impossible to get a control group of babies who
.71> have not been exposed to the human environment.
    
    That's right.  That's also irrelevant.
    Exposure to the "human environment" does not have to be avoided.
    
    
.71> These studies inadvertently become mis-used by ignorant people who
.71> seek to prove that women are different enough from men to justify
.71> discriminatory treatment (and I'm not naming anyone in particular
.71> when I use the term "ignorant people," so don't bother to interrogate
.71> me about it.)
    
    Sure you are.  At the very least, you've just called Camilla Benbow
    ignorant.  She was quoted extensively for the article in Scientific
    American.  I'm surprised that they (The Discovery Channel and Sci Am)
    would use an ignorant person.  Do you know something they don't ...?
    
    
.73> "Who's more likely to be unable to complete a work task
.73> due to being too busy raping someone (or thinking
.73> about it.)"
    
    Men, of course.
    
    Now, who's more likely to give up and cry, men or women?

    Just out of curiosity, Mike.  Do you think that women are biologically
    inferior to men?  Do you think that women are intellectually inferior
    to men?  
    					- Vick

    RE: .78  Mike Z.
    
    > No, dishonesty is not moot.  And being a question is not an excuse.
    
    Your description of the test was as follows:  "The point was to test
    them before they'd been influence by parents and surroundings - to
    separate nature from nurture" (although the babies tested were either
    1 year old or 4 months old, according to you.)
    
    It is absolutely preposterous to suggest that babies have not yet
    received any influence by their parents or surroundings by then.
    Dishonest?  Only on your part (for suggesting that querying you
    about this point was such an attempt.)  
    
    > You ask about sample size, and then you introduce an anecdotal study
    > with a sample size of 1.
    
    Nice dodge on the question of sample size, Mike.  (My personal
    experience was cited as such, by the way, to demonstrate that babies
    of both sexes are individuals.)
    
    > There we have it, folks.  The screaming and wailing didn't really 
    > happen, she made it up, but because others have also made things up,
    > what she did is Ok.
    
    Nice distortion.  "Others have made THINGS up" doesn't accurately
    report that others have also used the words 'screaming' and 'wailing'
    without providing extensive, irrefutable documentation for them.
    
    > Exposure to the "human environment" does not have to be avoided.
    
    If your studies' validity is based on the idea that they were done
    PRIOR to exposure to the human environment, then exposure to the
    human environment sure as hell DOES have to be avoided to make
    such claims accurate.

    RE: .78  Mike Z.
    
    .71> These studies inadvertently become mis-used by ignorant people who
    .71> seek to prove that women are different enough from men to justify
    .71> discriminatory treatment...
    
    > At the very least, you've just called Camilla Benbow
    > ignorant.  She was quoted extensively for the article in Scientific
    > American. 
    
    She didn't use the studies' results to justify discrimination against
    women, though.  I read the article in Scientific American (looking
    specifically for such justification since I knew you'd try to use
    the article to do so yourself.)  
    
    The article specifically stated that any individual (man or woman)
    has the capacity for non-typical skills (and that they had only found
    *patterns* of skills that correlated to the level of hormones washed
    over human brains during development but DID NOT KNOW enough about
    the human brain to explain it.)  They did not rule out environmental
    effects for this.  
    
    They only stated that the differences could not be READILY explained
    by environmental influences.
    
    .73> "Who's more likely to be unable to complete a work task
    .73> due to being too busy raping someone (or thinking
    .73> about it.)"
    
    > Men, of course.
    
    Is this a disadvantage for men at the workplace?  Would this justify
    discriminating against men (and if so, do you think discrimination
    practices against men should be put into effect?)
    
    Also, does this justify keeping men from gaining custody of their
    children?

    By the way, the Scientific American article stated that the research
    involved with patterns of intellectual skills could be used to explain
    patterns of *career choices* (i.e., why larger numbers of men or women 
    might choose particular careers) - but, again, the article stated quite 
    specifically that any individual has the capacity for non-typical skills.
    
    IN NO WAY did the article justify discrimination against women in the
    workplace (except in the minds of those who were hoping desperately
    that it would and/or those who might now make the false claim that the
    researchers in the article *did* justify such discimination.)

    RE: .75  Mike Z.
    
    > "If we consider the possibility of differences between men and women,
    >  to some people that looks like a giant step backward because women
    >  have, for so long, been saying 'we are equal, we are equal.'  Well,
    >  equal does not necessarily mean the same."
    
    It *does* become a giant step backward when ignorant people take
    these researchers' work and transform it into justification for
    discrimination.  The researchers themselves state quite clearly
    that they have only found different *patterns* of interests and
    abilities (and that any individual has the capacity for non-typical
    skills.)  Others who have agendas promoting discrimination against
    women are distorting these findings in attempts to use them as a
    justification for discrimination against individuals who have every
    bit as much intelligence and skills as their co-workers.
    
    > -< why some people fight the truth >-
    
    Some people are fighting *distortions* of these findings.

    My read on this issue around the "tug test" is that the female babies
    gave in to the emotional frustration of the situation more readily than
    the male babies. I'm sure that as the children mature they will develop
    the skill needed to manage the situation. 
    	The results only underline the tendencies of females to be more
    emotional. This doesn't imply that woman cannot learn the skills
    required to function effectively, i.e. manage their emotions but still
    be cognizant and sensitive to their emotional enviroment. 
    	The same is true of men. With awareness men learn to become more
    cognizant and sensitive to their feelings and learn to integrate their
    emotions into daily lives.
    				Dan D 

            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;2 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 658.70                      Mid-life Crisis                       70 of 128
BIGUN::SIMPSON "PCI with latitude!"                 330 lines  17-OCT-1991 07:31
                     -< you have eyes but you do not see >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
I shall quote selectively but I hope judiciously from 'Brain Sex', by Anne 
Moir, PH.D. (Genetics) and David Jessel, writer.  It is a solid introduction 
without being overly technical, but is firmly based upon reputable scientific 
studies and is but one of a growing number of publications in this field which 
all broadly support each other.

I offer these slices as a hint to the genuinely interested and the monstrously
ignorant (like good friend Applegate) who wish to deny the reality not only of
an Everest of evidence, published in the most reputable scientific journals of
the world, but simply of their own eyes as well.

"'bear in mind that someday all our provisional formulations in psychology will 
have to be based on an organic foundation... It will then probably be seen that 
it is special chemical substances and processes which achieve the effects of 
sexuality...'

	Sigmund Freud.

"The sexes are different because their brains are different.  The brain, the 
chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently constructed in 
men and women; it processes information in a different way, which results in 
different perceptions, priorities and behaviour.

"In the past ten years there has been an explosion of scientific research into 
what makes the sexes different.  Doctors, scientists, psychologists and 
sociologists, working apart, have produced a body of findings which, taken 
together, paints a remarkably consistent picture.  And the picture is one of 
startling sexual asymmetry.

"Until recently, behavioural differences between the sexes have been explained 
away by social conditioning...  Today there is too much new biological evidence 
for the sociological argument to prevail.

"[Yet] the truth is that every professional scientist and researcher into the 
subject has concluded that the brains of men and women are different.  There 
has seldom been a greater divide between what intelligent, enlightened opinion 
presumes - that men and women have the same brain - and what science knows - 
that they do not.

"If there is still a dispute about how sex differences arise there is now no 
argument in the scientific community that such differences exist.  It cannot be 
stressed often enough that this book concerns itself with the *average* man and 
the *average* woman.  In the same way, we might say that men are taller than 
women... Of course some women will be taller than some men, and the tallest 
women may possibly be taller than the tallest man.  But statistically men are 
on average 7 per cent taller, and the tallest person in the world... is 
certainly a man.

"These [sex] differences have a practical, social relevance.  On measurements 
of various aptitude tests, the difference between the sexes in average scores 
on these tests can be as much as 25 per cent.  A difference of as little as 5 
per cent has been found to have a marked impact on the occupations or 
activities at which men and women will, on average, excel.

"The area where the biggest differences have been found lies in what scientists 
call 'spatial ability'... One scientist who has reviewed the extensive 
literature on the subject concludes, "The fact of the male superiority in 
spatial ability is not in dispute.'  It is confirmed by literally hundreds of 
different scientific studies.

"Boys also have superior hand-eye co-ordination necessary for ball sports...

"While the male brain gives men the edge in dealing with things and theorems, 
the female brain is organised to respond more sensitively to all sensory 
stimuli.  Women do better than men on tests of verbal ability.  Females are 
equipped to receive a wider range of sensory information, to connect and relate 
that information with greater facility, to place a primacy on personal 
relationships, and to communicate.  Cultural influences may reinforce these 
strengths, but they are innate.

"Girls say their first words and learn to speak... earlier than boys.   They 
read earlier too... Boys outnumber girls 4:1 in remedial reading classes.  They 
[women] are also more fluent: stuttering and other speech defects occur almost 
exclusively among boys.

"Girls and women hear better than men.  When the sexes are compared, women show 
a greater sensitivity to sound.

"Men and women even see some things differently.  Women see better in the dark. 
They are more sensitive to the red end of the spectrum, and have a better 
visual memory.

"Men see better than women in bright light.  Intriguing results also show that 
men tend to be literally blinkered; they see in a narrow field - mild tunnel 
vision - with greater concentration on depth... Women, however, quite literally 
take in the bigger picture.  They have wider peripheral vision, because they 
have more of the receptor cones and rods in the retina, at the back of the 
eyeball, to receive a wider arc of visual input.

"There is strong evidence that men and women have different senses of taste - 
women being more sensitive to bitter flavours like quinine, and preferring 
higher concentrations and greater quantities of sweet things.  Men score higher 
in discerning salty flavours.  Overall, however, the evidence strongly suggests 
a greater female delicacy and perception in taste.

"Women's noses, as well as their palates, are more sensitive than men's; a case 
in point is their perception of exaltolide, a synthetic musk-like odour 
associated with men, but hardly noticeable to them.  Women found the smell 
attractive.  Interestingly, this superior sensitivity increases just before 
ovulation; at a critical time of her menstrual cycle, the biology of women 
makes her more sensitive to man.

"This superiority in so many of the senses can be clinically measured - yet it 
is what accounts for women's almost supernatural 'intuition'.  Women are simply 
better equipped to notice things to which men are comparatively blind and 
deaf... Women are better at picking up social cues, picking up important 
nuances of meaning from tones of voice or intensity of expression.

"The hormones determine the distinct male or female organisation of the brain 
as it develops in the womb.  We share the same sexual identity for only the 
first few weeks after conception. Thereafter, in the womb, the very structure 
and pattern of the brain begins to take a specifically male or female form.  
Throughout infant, teenage, and adult life, the way the brain was forged will 
have, in subtle interplay with the hormones, a fundamental effect on the 
attitudes, behaviour, and intellectual functioning of the individual.

"Infants are not blank slates, on whom we scrawl instructions for sexually 
appropriate behaviour.  They are born with male or female minds of their own.  
They have, quite literally, made up their minds in the womb, safe from the 
legions of social engineers who impatiently await them.

"Our identity blueprints come in the form of forty-six chromosomes, half 
contributed by the mother, half by the father.  The first forty-four team up 
with one another... But the last pair are different.

"The mother contributes an 'X' chromosome to the egg.  If the father's 
contribution ... is another 'X' chromosome, the outcome will - normally - be 
the formation of a girl baby.  If the father's sperm contains a 'Y' chromosome, 
normally a baby boy will be born.

"But genes alone do not guarantee the sex of a child.  That depends on the 
intervention, or the absence, of the other factor in sex determination - the 
hormones.  Whatever the genetic make-up of the embryo, the foetus will only 
develop as a male if male hormones are present, and it will only develop as a 
female if male hormones are absent... It is only by looking at where 
development has gone wrong that scientists have been able to build a picture of 
what happens during normal development.  These studies have shown that male 
hormones are the crucial factor in determining the sex of a child.

"...so the embryonic brain takes some time before it begins to acquire a 
specific sexual identity... In broad terms, the natural template of the brain 
seems to be female.  In normal girls it will develop naturally along female 
lines.

"In boys it is different.  Just as male gender depended on the presence of male 
hormone, so a radical intervention is needed to change the naturally female 
brain into a male pattern.

"This literally mind-altering process is the result of the same process that 
determined those other physical changes - the intervention of the hormones.

"Having found that there was a connection between hormones and behaviour, the 
next step was to see whether physical differences in the structure of the brain 
could be found.

	[skipping over accounts of animal experiments]

"The earliest clues to how the brain works came from examining the behaviour of 
people with brain damage.  Different areas of the brain control specific 
functions.

"... the left side of the brain deals predominantly with verbal abilities and 
the detailed orderly processing of information.  That is, speaking, reading and 
writing are all largely under the control of the left... Damage to the left 
side of the brain causes all sorts of problems relating to language.

"The right side of the brain is the headquarters for visual information.  It 
deals with spatial relations.  A person with brain damage to the right-hand 
side often loses their sense of direction... The right side is responsible for 
taking in 'the big picture', basic shapes and patterns.

"He [Landsell] took a group of epileptics who had had part of their bran 
removed - some of the right sphere which deals with the shape of things and the 
space they occupy... The men with right-side brain damage did badly in tests 
relating to spatial skills.  Yet the relative performance of the similarly 
brain-damaged women were scarcely affected.

"Landsell moved on to the left hemisphere, where language skills are located.  
Once again, men with left-side damage lost much of their command of language; 
but women with damage in the area retained most of theirs.  Men were three 
times more likely to suffer from a language problem than women - in spite of 
having been damaged in exactly the same place.

"This led Landsell to the conclusion, now accepted, that in women language and 
spatial skills are controlled by centres in both sides of the brain; but in men 
such skills are more specifically located - the right side for spatial skills, 
the left for verbal ones.  Numerous studies have confirmed the early findings.

"In women the functional division between the let and right sides of the brain 
is less clearly defined... Men's brains are more specialised.

	[skipping lengthy additional evidence and argument]

"The importance of the differences in brain organisation for emotion becomes 
clearer in the light of the latest discovery of sex differences in the brain.

"The difference relates to the corpus callosum, the bundle of fibres that link 
the left and right sides of the brain.  These nerve fibres allow for the 
exchange of information between the two halves of the brain.  In women the 
corpus callosum is different from in the male brain.

"In blind tests on fourteen brains obtained after autopsy, the scientists found 
that in women an important area of the corpus callosum was thicker and more 
bulbous than in men.  Overall, this key message-exchange centre was bigger, in 
relation to overall brain weight, in women than in men.  The difference could 
be precisely discerned.... This means that more information is being exchanged 
between the left and right sides of the female brain.

"Some scientists suggest that the difference in emotional response in men and 
women can be explained by the differences in the structure and organisation of 
the brain.

"Man keeps his emotions in their place; and that place is the right side of the 
brain...  Because the two halves of the brain are connected by fewer fibres... 
it is then often more difficult for a man to express his emotions because the 
information is flowing less easily to the verbal, left side of his brain.

"A woman may be less able to separate emotion from reason because... the female 
brain has emotional capacities on both sides... there is more information 
exchanged between the two sides... The emotional side is more integrated with 
the verbal side of the brain.

	[skipping childhood]

"The hormonal flow is regulated by that part of the brain which researchers 
first noticed was different in men and women - the hypothalamus.  In men, its 
job is to keep the hormone levels fairly constant...  Scientists call this 
process 'negative feedback'...  But in women... the hypothalamus-pituitary 
command system seems to behave like a lunatic in charge of a flood barrier; 
when the water level rises, instead of closing the gates he opens them wider 
[positive feedback].  This leads to wide fluctuations in hormone concentrations 
in women - and sometimes great fluctuations in female behaviour.  

"It is now accepted that regular changes in personality correlate with phases 
of the menstrual cycle, involving a swing in some women between 'elevated 
positive moods' and 'elevated negative mods' in a manner independent of social 
factors.

"The most obvious difference between boys and girls is male aggression; and it 
has an overwhelmingly biological rather than social cause... It's not just a 
matter of the hormones: to produce aggression, the hormones have to have a 
developed male brain to act upon.  

"Most criminals who have committed violent offences during adolescence had high 
testosterone levels - in much the same way that the irrational and 
over-emotional women had high secretions of female hormones... The law has 
begun to recognise PMT as a source of problems for women.  Maybe one day men 
will be able to advance the plea of VMT - violent male testosterone.  This is 
not to denigrate the problems that women with premenstrual tension suffer, but 
to point out that some men suffer a similar severe reaction as a consequence of 
their biology.

	[skipping more about childhood]

"An interesting behavioural effect of the menopause is that women no longer 
produce the female hormones that counteracted the small amount of male hormone 
produced by their adrenal glands.  In consequence they may become more 
aggressive and assertive, as well as producing more facial hair.

"In old age, men and women increasingly resemble each other in behaviour, as 
the influences of the hormones fades away.

"As we have seen, boys do not do particularly well at school initially.  Come 
puberty, though, and the boys accelerate dramatically.  They catch up with the 
girls on the verbal and writing scores, and surge ahead in mathematical 
ability.

"The most dramatic difference, which the preadolescent years have hinted at, is 
in mathematical and scientific aptitude.  The academic shorthand for this is 
'visuo-spatial ability'.  As we know, the area in the male brain which deals 
with this is more tightly and exclusively organised than in females.

"The principal researchers involved, Camilla Benbow and Julian Stanley, admit 
that any hypothesis involving biological differences between males and females 
will be 'unpopular and controversial'.  Accordingly they went to great lengths 
to iron out any alternative social or environmental factors.

"Research into human beings suggests that girls with the highest oestrogen 
levels seem to be at an intellectual disadvantage, while those girls with high 
levels of male hormone tend to do better than the female average in all 
academic disciplines.

"We [appear] to have written at inordinate length about this particular 
difference between men and women.  We've done so for two reasons - first, to 
show that there is an experimentally demonstrable difference between the 
average male and female brain; secondly because the worlds of mathematics, 
vision and space are not confined to the academic cloisters.  They play a part 
in everyday life.  If men are more interested in the structure of things - 
which they are - they are not just interested in isosceles triangles; they are 
interested in new cars.

"Other tests, while confirming the female disadvantage during high-oestrogen 
periods, have also revealed a corresponding advantage.  High levels of female 
hormone seem to enhance co-ordination skills in women.

"With puberty, the full differences between the male and female brain are made 
manifest; differences in behaviour, emotion, ambition, aggression, skill and 
aptitude.  The much-lamented sexual stereotyping of boys and girls, men and 
women, comes from themselves at least as much as it does from society.  There 
are limits to the 'ideal' of non-sexist child-rearing.

	[argument and evidence on marriage, polygamy, social structures, sexual 
politics, aggression, domination and the like]

"When a prominent feminist friend of ours heard about this book, her eyes 
narrowed and she said, not without a hint of menace, 'It had better be good.'

"She assumed, as many have done, that because this is a book about sex 
differences, it must somehow be a book against women.

"The argument about the existence of brain sex differences has been won.  It 
now begins to seem a little strange that the battle ever had to be fought at 
all, when men and women are so obviously different in physique and behaviour.

"There is solid and consistent evidence from scientists all over the world that 
a biochemical influence in the womb determines the structure and function of 
our brains.  Through the influence of hormones the brain cells 'acquire a 
"set"... highly resistant to change after birth.'  This organisation of the 
brain into a male or female neural network is permanent...

"There are also morphological differences between the brains of men and women - 
that is, a difference in structure or form.

"In old age, as the hormonal springs begin to run dry, those differences in the 
brain that they accentuated begin to lose their sharp focus.  

"If sex differences, once acknowledged, are deemed to be wrong, hurtful, and 
unjust, there is a way to eliminate them...  [] if we want to eliminate [them] 
we must change the biological cocktail of Creation.

	Why can't some folks see that these findings do not
	indicate superiority/inferiority....especially 
	inferiority of one *individual* male or female 
	compared with another individual of the opposite sex ?

	I really see these as confirmation of my perceptions
	about male/female differences that make women *fascinating*.

	I think my life is greatly enhanced by what I consider
	the utterly feminine aspects of my wife's choices and
	perceptions.  I find that mens' and womens' different
	ways of doing things make for a wonderful continuum
	of ways of approaching life:  from the ultra-feminine
	concerns about colors of party napkins, and the like, to
	enjoying drinking beer, eating bad food, and swearing 
	with "the boys."

	I have met and appreciated women who were very feminine, and
	those who could scratch and break wind with the boys.  Each
	had something special to offer.

	My own take on this wrangle going on is that we should
	acknowledge the fact that the two sexes are quite different,
	and that the spectrum of difference enhances all of our lives.

	Steve H

    RE: .85  Simpson_D
    
    One part of this research that is constantly overlooked (when it's
    being discussed) is quoted from material in your note:
    
    > "It cannot be stressed often enough that this book concerns itself 
    > with the *average* man and the *average* woman.  
    
    > "In the same way we might say that men are taller than women... 
    > Of course some women will be taller than some men, and the tallest 
    > women may possibly be taller than the tallest man.  But statistically
    > men are on average 7 per cent taller...
    
    They aren't suggesting that women and men are two separate species
    (with distinctly different capabilities.)  They see different patterns
    (among AVERAGE men and women.)
    
    *In no way* does this suggest that any individual can be said to be at
    an intellectual disadvantage strictly due to his/her sex.

    RE: .86  Steve
    
    > My own take on this wrangle going on is that we should
    > acknowledge the fact that the two sexes are quite different,
    > and that the spectrum of difference enhances all of our lives.
    
    Humans have so many aspects to our selves, it's possible to see
    some differences while acknowledging the areas where men and
    women can (and should) have equal opportunities to excel (such
    as in education and employment) because any individual has the
    capacity for non-typical skills and interests.
    
    Is it true that your wife is a software specialist?  If so, then
    you can enjoy all the differences between you and your wife but
    *must* also acknowledge that you have a great deal in common when 
    it comes to career abilities, choices and interests.

    RE: .88  Simpson_D
    
    > Assume it is true that on average men will be superior in some skill
    > sets, and women will be better in other skill sets. 
    
    Correction:  Some women will be *superior* in other [intellectual]
    skill sets.
    
    > However, this in and of itself cannot be used to deny entry by men or
    > women with the appropriate skill levels to vocations that happen to be
    > dominated by the opposite sex.  But it does follow that there will not
    > be vocational demographic proportionality.
    
    This in and of itself cannot be used to justify lower wages for either
    men or women with the appropriate skill levels, either, of course (nor
    should it be used to justify the regarding of individual women or men
    as intellectually 'disadvantaged' purely because of her/his sex.)

  <<< Note 830.88 by UTROP1::SIMPSON_D "$SH QUO: You have 0 miracles left!" >>>

    re .87
    
>    *In no way* does this suggest that any individual can be said to be at
>    an intellectual disadvantage strictly due to his/her sex.
    
    Indeed, and I have never said otherwise.  What I have said is this:
    
    Assume it is true that on average men will be superior in some skill
    sets, and women will be superior in other skill sets.  Assume further a
    causal link between these skill sets and vocations.  It follows that
    barring interference men will predominate in certain vocations, and
    women in others.  (This can be extended to non-vocational areas as
    well).
    
    However, this in and of itself cannot be used to deny entry by men or
    women with the appropriate skill levels to vocations that happen to be
    dominated by the opposite sex.  But it does follow that there will not
    be vocational demographic proportionality.

.79> Just out of curiosity, Mike.  Do you think that women are biologically
.79> inferior to men?  Do you think that women are intellectually inferior
.79> to men?  

    Vick, that would depend on what the metrics are.

    For example, biologically inferior ... if we are measuring people on
    physical strength, men are superior, if we are measuring them on pro-
    ficiency on delicate manual tasks, women are superior.

    Are women intellectually inferior?  Again, the metrics are needed.  If
    we examine mathematic or spatial skills, for example, then we can say
    that men are superior, if we weigh language and communication skills,
    then we can say that women are superior.

    Men and women have their own skill sets, and some of those skills are
    biologically determined.  This is not to say that no women posses skill
    X, a skill that all men posses.  It is to say that few women posses
    skill X, a skill that many men posses.  And vice-versa, naturally.

    I thought I'd already addressed this in .30 and .31.

.80> If your studies' validity is based on the idea that they were done
.80> PRIOR to exposure to the human environment, then exposure to the
.80> human environment sure as hell DOES have to be avoided to make
.80> such claims accurate.

    So silly!  The only "people" who haven't been exposed to the "human
    environment" are babies still in the womb, though I bet you could
    argue for weeks that even they have been pre-conditioned to act like
    traditional boys and traditional girls.
    
    
.81> She didn't use the studies' results to justify discrimination against
.81> women, though.

    Well, this has apparently mutated overnight ... in .71 you said :

.71> These studies inadvertently become mis-used by ignorant people who
.71> seek to prove that women are different enough from men to justify
.71> discriminatory treatment...

    No longer are they ignorant for trying to show that people are different,
    a conclusion they readily state, and one which you felt was a component
    of their ignorance, now they are ignorant for trying to discriminate, a
    motive YOU assign without evidence.

    Flip flop flip flop ... what'll be next time, heads or tails?


.81> Is this a disadvantage for men at the workplace?  Would this justify
.81> discriminating against men (and if so, do you think discrimination
.81> practices against men should be put into effect?)

    Well, that depends on the job, doesn't it?  If it's prison guard in
    a female prison, yes.  Shower attendant in a girls locker room?  Yes.


    Now, who's more likely to give up and cry, men or women?

.83> It *does* become a giant step backward when ignorant people take
.83> these researchers' work and transform it into justification for
.83> discrimination.

    Who are these ignorant people?

    Do they exist?  If so, show me.


.83> skills.)  Others who have agendas promoting discrimination against
.83> women are distorting these findings in attempts to use them as a
.83> justification for discrimination against individuals who have every
.83> bit as much intelligence and skills as their co-workers.

    Who are these people promoting discrimination against women?

    Do they exist?  If so, show me.

    Now ... regarding "discrimination" ... is is discrimination if a job
    requires a particular set of job skills, and if men, on average, fit
    the skill profile better than women?
    
    Would that be discriminatory?

.71> You have yet to describe innate behavior, though.
    
    innate, adj.

    1. born in a person; natural. SYN: native, inborn, inbred.  2. existing
    naturally; inherent.  3. Philosophy. (of ideas or principles) present
    in the mind or soul as originally constituted or created, not learned
    or otherwise acquired.

    Mike, you knew the answer to that one before you asked.  A job
    necessarily requires a certain set of skills, and irregardless of which
    sex tends to excel in that set it is discriminatory to refuse to hire a
    person of the vocational sexual minority solely because of sex.

    re: .94
    
    If it were anyone but you I would just assume you had screwed up the
    question.  But in your case I'm absolutely sure it's a trick question.
    But I'll try to answer.
    
    If you mean would it be discriminatory for an organization to rule out
    women for a position on the basis that men are on average better at the
    tasks involved in the job, then yes, absolutely, that would be flagrant
    discrimination.
    
    						- Vick

    RE: .92  Mike Z.
    
    > So silly!  The only "people" who haven't been exposed to the "human
    > environment" are babies still in the womb,...
    
    Babies exposed to their parents (and the 'human environment') are
    influenced by it.  Therefore, if 1 year old and/or 4 month old babies
    are being tested, it is NOT done before they have been influenced by
    their parents and/or environment (which is what I've been trying to
    explain to you.)
    
    .71> These studies inadvertently become mis-used by ignorant people who
    .71> seek to prove that women are different enough from men to justify
    .71> discriminatory treatment...

    > No longer are they ignorant for trying to show that people are different,
    
    I never claimed that the researchers were ignorant for the points they
    actually made.  You're creating more distortions.
    
    > a conclusion they readily state, and one which you felt was a component
    > of their ignorance, 
    
    This is an outright lie.  (Your distortions are getting worse.)
    
    > now they are ignorant for trying to discriminate, a motive YOU assign 
    > without evidence.
    
    This is another lie.  I specifically stated that the researchers are
    NOT the ones using their research to promote discrimination against
    women.  In fact, I stated the opposite.
    
    Your reading skills are getting worse, too.
    
    > Flip flop flip flop ... what'll be next time, heads or tails?
    
    You tell me (since you're the one creating these flip flops.)
    
    > Now, who's more likely to give up and cry, men or women?
    
    It depends on the job.  If we're talking about playing for the
    NFL, then I'd say women.

    Isn't it funny that physical differences (anatomical) would not also
    be reflected internally in brain chemistry?  At least that is the 
    implication when some maintain 'there are no inherent differences
    between male and female brains' that is other than strictly learned
    behavior.
    
    Jeff

    RE: .99 Jeff
    
    > Isn't it funny that physical differences (anatomical) would not also
    > be reflected internally in brain chemistry? 
    
    Hormones present during brain development do cause different patterns
    between the sexes (which is a difference beyond 'strictly learned
    behavior.')
    
    However, this is only true on "AVERAGE" (while any individual has the
    capacity for non-typical intellectual abilities, skills and interests 
    as any other individual, male or female.)

    Mike Z., since you were incapable of reading this earlier, I'll give
    you another shot at it now (to help clear up this point for you):
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                  <<< Note 830.81 by CX3PT2::WSC641::CONLON >>>

    RE: .78  Mike Z.
    
    .71> These studies inadvertently become mis-used by ignorant people who
    .71> seek to prove that women are different enough from men to justify
    .71> discriminatory treatment...
    
    > At the very least, you've just called Camilla Benbow
    > ignorant.  She was quoted extensively for the article in Scientific
    > American. 
    
    She didn't use the studies' results to justify discrimination against
    women, though.  I read the article in Scientific American (looking
    specifically for such justification since I knew you'd try to use
    the article to do so yourself.)  
    
    The article specifically stated that any individual (man or woman)
    has the capacity for non-typical skills (and that they had only found
    *patterns* of skills that correlated to the level of hormones washed
    over human brains during development but DID NOT KNOW enough about
    the human brain to explain it.)  They did not rule out environmental
    effects for this.  
    
    They only stated that the differences could not be READILY explained
    by environmental influences.

    You seem to have sidestepped that question again.
    
    Shall I ask once more, or would that be a waste of time?

    RE: .102  Mike Z.
    
    You side-stepped *my* question.
    
    You asserted that (in corporate America) men are more likely than
    women to be unable to complete a work task due to being too busy
    raping someone (or thinking about it).
    
    Is this a disadvantage for men who work in corporate America (and
    I'm not talking about specific jobs but in the workplace IN GENERAL,
    since "work tasks" can include management, engineering, or almost
    any field...)?
    
    Should a system of discrimination against men be set up if men are
    disadvantaged (in the workplace) by this tendency to commit rape?
    Yes or no?

.96> sex tends to excel in that set it is discriminatory to refuse to hire a
.96> person of the vocational sexual minority solely because of sex.
    
    I agree, but that's not the question.
    
    
.97> If you mean would it be discriminatory for an organization to rule out
.97> women for a position on the basis that men are on average better at the
.97> tasks involved in the job, then yes, absolutely, that would be flagrant
.97> discrimination.
    
    I agree again, and again, that's not the question.
    
    
    Perhaps I was ambiguous ... allow me to offer an example ..
    
    
    Let's say we have a job that requires a large, strong person. If we 
    sample the general population and find that 1 of every 50 men meet the
    job requirements, but only 1 of every 1,000 women meet them, can we say
    that the hiring process, the process that would, on average, hire 20
    times more men than women, is discriminatory?

    I feel like I'm at a tennis match....

    re .104
    
    Even with your revised question my answer still stands and is valid. 
    If the natural ratio of that skill set was 20:1 in favour of men then
    an employee ratio of 20:1 would not be discriminatory.  

    RE: .106  Simpson_D
    
    > If the natural ratio of that skill set was 20:1 in favour of men then
    > an employee ratio of 20:1 would not be discriminatory.  
    
    So - no matter how many qualified (big, strong) women apply for these
    particular jobs, it would not be discriminatory if employers used the
    stats on skill sets to set up a quota for the number of men they
    think they should have?

    By the way, if a skill set (such as non-verbal or verbal reasoning)
    has a natural ratio of 50:50, would it be discriminatory if employers
    only hired women for 5-10% of these jobs?  (What if the women who
    were hired were also paid less for the same ability and experience
    than their male counterparts?)

    re .106
    
    Your point rests on an assumption of some interference in the process
    (a quota).  I explicitly ruled that assumption out earlier.  If it is
    true that for that job the natural ratio was 20:1 in favour of men then
    on average it is not discriminatory to hire about 20 men for every
    woman.  In individual cases you might get more and appropriately
    skilled women applying, but not on average.
    
    The notion of introducing quotas based of statistics of this sort is
    problematic.  I lean towards thinking that such quotas would be
    discriminatory because of the individual cases I mentioned.  My
    argument is not intended to support quotas, but rather to remove
    ill-advised intentions to 'equalise' everything regardless of how
    things like skill sets really pan out across the population.

    RE: .109  Simpson
    
    > In individual cases you might get more and appropriately skilled women 
    > applying, but not on average.
    
    So, in individual cases, the 20:1 hiring ratio might be discrimination
    (depending on who actually applied to a given hiring group.)
    
    > My argument is not intended to support quotas, but rather to remove
    > ill-advised intentions to 'equalise' everything regardless of how
    > things like skill sets really pan out across the population.
    
    Ratios of skill sets could be used to limit the number of women in
    certain professions (by deciding to deny women jobs on the basis
    that the proper 'quota' of men, based on their average share of skill
    sets in the general population, has been reached.)

    re.94
    
    no, it is not discriminatory.
    
    the scenario presented has not action in it.
    
    if a job requires a particular set of skills for which men, on average, are
    a better match ... that just _is_
    
    interviewing only men would be discriminatory.
    advertising the position where only men would see it would be
      discriminatory
    if there were a large number of that job available and only men filled
      them, I might _suspect_ that discrimination had occurred and look
      into it
    
    using "on average" as a short-cut in hiring practices is discriminatory
    as it ignores the wide range of abilities that individuals exhibit.
    
      Annie

    RE: .95  Mike Z.
    
    .71> You have yet to describe innate behavior, though.
    
    > innate, adj.

    > 1. born in a person; natural. SYN: native, inborn, inbred.  2. existing
    > naturally; inherent.  3. Philosophy. (of ideas or principles) present
    > in the mind or soul as originally constituted or created, not learned
    > or otherwise acquired.
    
    Ok.  If behavioral patterns (such as the ones used in the studies
    presented earlier) can be used to distinguish "innate behaviors" for
    each sex, then men could be called "innate rapists and murderers"
    (or "born rapists and murderers.")
    
    FWIW, I disagree that observed behavior patterns (for either sex) are
    enough to define such behaviors as innate.

    .95, .112
    
    Exactly.  Just because you define what you mean by an innate behavior
    doesn't mean that any exist.
    						- Vick
    

    RE:  .114  Vick
    
    > Exactly.  Just because you define what you mean by an innate behavior
    > doesn't mean that any exist.
    
    By the way, the article in Scientific American most definitely did NOT
    refer to the observed patterns of behavior/abilities/interests as
    "innate."  
    
    As mentioned several times now, they saw a correlation between behavior
    patterns and the hormones present during early development (but admitted
    openly that they ONLY saw a correlation but do not know enough about the
    brain to understand why this correlation exists.)

.106> If the natural ratio of that skill set was 20:1 in favour of men then
.106> an employee ratio of 20:1 would not be discriminatory.  
    
.111> if a job requires a particular set of skills for which men, on average, are
.111> a better match ... that just _is_
    
    We all agree.
    
    But there are some people who claim that unequal numbers of men and
    women in certian positions in corporate and political America is due
    to oppression by those in power (ie: the white male patriarchy)?

.107> particular jobs, it would not be discriminatory if employers used the
.107> stats on skill sets to set up a quota for the number of men they
    
    "Quota" is a strawman you've just brought into the discussion.
    
.108> only hired women for 5-10% of these jobs?  (What if the women who
.108> were hired were also paid less for the same ability and experience
.108> than their male counterparts?)
    
    As I tried to explain to you in WomanNotes recently, until you assess
    performance, you cannot determine pay inequity, unless you are to first
    assume that pay and performance are unrelated.

    "The finding of consistent and, in some cases, quite substantial sex
     differences suggests that men and women may have different occupational
     interests and capabilities, independent of societal influences (there's
     your 'innate' implication, Vick).  I would not expect, for example, that
     men and women would necessarily be equally represented in activities or
     professions that emphasize spatial or math skills, such as engineering
     or physics.  But I might expect more women in medical diagnostic fields
     where perceptual skills are important.  So that even though any one
     individual might have the capacity to be in a 'nontypical' field, the
     sex proportions as a whole may vary."
    
        [ Scientific American, 9/92, p125, (conclusion) ]

    RE: .116  Mike Z.
    
    > But there are some people who claim that unequal numbers of men and
    > women in certian positions in corporate and political America is due
    > to oppression by those in power (ie: the white male patriarchy)?
    
    Remember - women were shown to be superior to men in many of the tests
    (while women and men were shown to be equal in intellectual capacity 
    as well as equal in non-verbal and verbal reasoning.)
    
    If men and women are equal in skill sets (which accounts for most of
    the jobs in corporate and political America with the exception of some
    engineering jobs,) the lack of women in these positions can't honestly
    be blamed on a different in skills.

    RE: .118  Mike Z.
    
    Thanks for reposting a quote I entered earlier.
    
    I agree that there may be a difference in occupational interest in
    jobs that require spatial or math skills (such as engineering or
    physics,) but any individual women who pursue these fields have
    as much chance as anyone to have the capacity for these non-typical
    skills.
    
    Meanwhile, most jobs in corporate America do NOT require spatial
    or higher math skills.  The article cites no evidence that women
    are less likely than men to have the skills required for these jobs.
    
    If women are excluded (despite having the requisite skills,) it's
    likely due to societal discrimination.

    RE: .117  Mike Z.
    
    > As I tried to explain to you in WomanNotes recently, until you assess
    > performance, you cannot determine pay inequity, unless you are to first
    > assume that pay and performance are unrelated.
    
    As I tried to explain to you in Womannotes, you can't use 'performance'
    to explain widespread pay inequity for women unless you are willing
    to claim that women (as a group) are inferior performers to men in
    the workforce.
    
    Are you willing to claim that women (in general) are inferior
    to men (thus deserving widespread lower pay than men receive for
    the same education, jobs, experience?)

.119> Remember - women were shown to be superior to men in many of the tests
    
    Remember - the tests that yielded the largest effect sizes were those
    that favored men.
    
    With all the tests discussed in the Scientific American article, when
    women were better, they were slightly better (small effect sizes), but
    when men were better, they were significantly better (larger effect
    sizes).
    
    Those tests and the effect sizes were : spatial rotation (men/0.7),
    target-directed motor skills (men/0.75), mathematical reasoning (no
    effect size specified, but we do know that "these [mathematical]
    differences are especially sharp at the upper end of the distribution,
    where males outnumber females 13 to 1" - p122), matching pictures
    (women/0.25), finding words that begin with a specific letter
    (women/0.22) and ideational fluency (women/0.38).
    
    The article states that "effect sizes below 0.5 are generally considered
    small."  There wasn't one test where women excelled and the effect size
    was greater than 0.38.

    RE: .123  Mike Z.
    
    > Remember - the tests that yielded the largest effect sizes were those
    > that favored men.
    
    Remember - women and men showed as virtually equal in intelligence,
    non-verbal and verbal reasoning (as well as showing above men in many
    of the tests.)
    
    It doesn't matter whether or not women were *significantly* superior
    to men in these tests.  An equal or superior standing (for intellectual 
    tasks) in so many tests is enough to show that men and women have many, 
    many intellectual skills that closely match.
    
    When it comes to individuals, the article stated that ANY INDIVIDUAL
    can have the capacity for non-typical skill sets (such as women in
    engineering who have full capacity for spatial rotation and mathematical
    reasoning skills.)

    After reading the Scientific American article very closely, I found
    absolutely nothing (in their actual findings or conclusions) that
    bothered me in any way.  Women and men are very closely matched in
    intelligence and in nearly all intellectual skills (except for a
    couple of skills that appear to be influenced by hormones during
    the brain's early development. This is *not* a huge difference.)
    
    I knew immediately, however, that some of the ignorant people who
    would buy and read this magazine would jump on it as some sort of
    bogus proof of male superiority (employing their fallacies first 
    and foremost in attempts to cast aspersions on women's value in 
    the workplace.)  
    
    What else is new, though?  People have been claiming male superiority 
    for thousands of years.  So now they have scientific data to *distort*
    (in vain attempts to prove the same old bogus claims yet again.)
    
    Oh well.

    "Basically, what we have found, by studying well over a million kids,
     is that there are many more math-talented boys than girls, and de-
     pending on the ability level that you're talking about, the discre-
     pancies become larger and larger, such that, if you look at the very
     extreme end of the distribution, what you find is that there are 13
     boys for every 1 girl.
    
     I want to point out that we began with a totally environmental stand.
     When we first saw our gender difference, first we thought : we pro-
     bably don't know what we're doing, so if we do this stuff again, it'll
     probably disappear.  Well, we did it again, we've done it now for 20
     years, we've tested over a million kids, these gender differences,
     they're stable, they're robust."
    
    Camilla Benbow (Brain Sex, The Discovery Channel)
    Professor of Psychology
    Iowa State University

.125> It doesn't matter whether or not women were *significantly* superior
.125> to men in these tests.
    
    That "ignorant" Doreen Kimura disagrees :
    
================================================================================
Note 830.32                       BRAIN SEX...!                        32 of 127
HDLITE::ZARLENGA "Michael Zarlenga, Alpha P/PEG"     48 lines  12-SEP-1992 14:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    "It is important to place the differences described above in context:
     some are slight, some are quite large.  Because men and women overlap
     enormously on many cognitive tests that show average sex differences,
     researcher use variations within each group as a tool to gauge the
     differences between groups.
    
     Imagine, for instance, that on one test the average score is 105
     for women and 100 for men.  If the scores for women ranged from 100
     to 110 and for men from 95 to 105, the difference would be more
     impressive than if the women's scores ranged from 50 to 150 and the
     men's from 45 to 145.  In the latter case, the overlap in scores would
     be much greater.
    
     One measure of the variation of the scores within a group is the
     standard deviation.  To compare the magnitude of a sex differences
     across several distinct tasks, the difference between groups is
     divided by the standard deviation.  The resulting number is called
     the 'effect size.'  Effect sizes below 0.5 are generally considered
     small.  [...] "

    RE: .128  Mike Z.
    
    > That "ignorant" Doreen Kimura disagrees :
    
    You're lying again, of course.  I've stated quite specifically (several
    times now) that I was not referring to the researchers you and I have
    both quoted here when I discussed 'ignorant people.'
    
    It's ok, though.  I just watched an hour of "Brain Sex" so I know
    exactly how badly you've misrepresented the show in this forum.
    
    Your dishonesty about all this has surprised even me (in spite of 
    the fact that I probably started out with the lowest expectations
    of anyone here when it comes to your integrity.)
    
    You've now sunk lower than even *I* ever thought you could.  Congrats.
    
    More on this in a bit.

    RE: .127  Mike Z.
    
    We're sending away for the whole "Brain Sex" series (I thought it
    was absolutely wonderful.)
    
    The narrators (and researchers) stated repeatedly that sexism and
    discrimination play a big role in performance differences between
    the sexes.  At the beginning of the show, the narrator stated that
    "discrimination is still an obstacle [for women]."
    
    Camilla Benbow herself stated that the sex differences in math start
    out SMALL but grow larger due to cultural sexism and discrimination.
    
    Further, they spent a great deal of time demonstrating the SIGNIFICANTLY
    higher reading skills that girls show in childhood.  Remedial reading
    classes have a boy to girl ratio of 3:1.
    
    Towards the end of the show, they demonstrated that boys can be taught
    to overcome their reading disadvantages (with special techniques in
    education) just as girls can be taught to overcome any possible
    difficulties with spatial skills or higher mathematic reasoning skills.
    
    Again, the show *repeatedly* stressed the role that sexism and
    discrimination have played in sex differences.  Camilla Benbow
    stated that the sexes start out life very close together but deviate
    later in life (but can now be brought back together again.)
    
    The narrator stated (early on) that this information is not supporting
    bias (against women.)  The information can be used to our mutual
    advantage (as women and men.)
    
    Mike, I'm glad you gave such a biased account of this show (because
    I might not have watched it otherwise.)  I do watch the Discovery
    Channel when I get the chance, but I've been a bit too busy to do
    so lately.  I'm very, very, very glad I saw this show (and I'll be
    prepared to include quotes when I get my copy of the series set.)

    By the way, I highly recommend this show to anyone interested in
    equality between the sexes.  The next episode is about bringing 
    the sexes together (to end the antagonism.)
    
    This show seems to have been produced specifically for the purpose
    of debunking the false notion of male superiority (using scientfic
    data) and to work towards equality for women.
    
    Bravo to the author of the book "Brain Sex" and to the producers
    of this series!

    One last comment -
    
    One of the researchers (a male, but I didn't catch his name) pointed
    out that the difference in math skills between the sexes seems to
    occur because women have already "used up" so much of the brain with
    their significantly higher reading, verbal and communication skills.
    
    It isn't a matter of having less brain function, but rather a matter
    of the sexes (in general) tending to use different parts of the brain
    to be superior at different skills.
    
    These differences can be overturned with specialized approaches to
    education for boys and girls, though.  Boys can be trained to try
    an approach to reading that will increase their skills (and girls
    can be trained early on to learn as many spatial and higher math
    skills as they could possibly need.)

    
    From:  "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors"  (there is an Eastern European
    Movie by the same name, good, but apparently not directly related.)
    
    By:  Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan
    
    ... Scientists have witnessed the emergence of cultural norms in a
    kind of monkey called a macaque on Koshima, a small Japanese island. 
    The natural food supply there had become inadequate, so if the monkeys
    were to survive, they had to be provisioned - with sweet potatoes and
    wheat dumped on the shore.
    	As anyone knows who has ever been to a picnic at the beach, sand
    sticks to food and makes it unpleasantly gritty.  In September 1953, a
    young female named Imo figured out that she could rinse the sand off
    her sweet potatoes by dunking them in a nearby brook.  Very slowly,
    others copied her - a playmate, Imo's mother, Imo's brother, sister,
    and niece, then other youngsters, then their mothers and, only after a
    long delay, the adult males.  Three years later, Imo dropped a handful
    of mixed wheat and sand in the brook.  The sand sank, the wheat
    floated; soggy, but ungritty, it could also be eaten.  Others began
    copying her again.
    	Imo was a primate genius, an Archimedes or an Edison among the
    macaques.  Her inventions spread slowly; macaque society, like
    traditional human societies, is very conservative.  As is usually true,
    adult males were the slowest to catch on, obstinate to the last; a
    female invented the process, then it was taken up by adult females and
    youngsters of both sexes.  Eventually, infants learned it at their
    mother's knee.  The reluctance of the adult males must tell us
    something.  They are fiercely competitive and hierarchy-ridden.  They
    are not much given to friendships or even to alliances.  Perhaps they
    felt impending humiliation - if they were to imitate Imo, they would be
    following her lead, becoming in some sense subservient to her and
    therefore losing dominance status.  They would rather eat sand.
    
    

.129> <<< Note 830.129 by CX3PT2::WSC641::CONLON >>>
.129> -< I forgive your dishonesty, though, because I loved the show! >-
    
.129> You're lying again, of course.
    
.129> exactly how badly you've misrepresented the show in this forum.
    
.129> Your dishonesty about all this has surprised even me (in spite of 
.129> the fact that I probably started out with the lowest expectations
.129> of anyone here when it comes to your integrity.)
    
.129> You've now sunk lower than even *I* ever thought you could.  Congrats.
    
    Those are very serious charges, Ms Conlon.
    
    Are you prepared to substantiate these claims?

.133> As is usually true,
.133> adult males were the slowest to catch on, obstinate to the last;
    
    Let us remember than Signor Vick is mixing and matching from the text
    reference he's cited and his own personal opinions.
    
    Vick, tell us, is the above sentence in the book you've cited, or does
    it fall into the second category?

    The passage was copied verbatim from the Parade section of the Boston
    Globe.  It was said to be an excerpt from the book.  I assumed that to
    be true.  I added nothing.
    
    					- Vick

    P.S.  In fact, my own personal opinion is that it is probably more a 
    matter of power than of maleness.  Those in power fear change.  But I
    thought it was an interesting quote that bore on the discussion.
    
    					- Vick

    That was unclear from .133.   My apologies.

    RE: .134  Mike Z.
    
    > Her words were : "My personal view is that it's probably a combination
    > of environmental and biological factors and it may be that boys and
    > girls come born just a slight bit different, then you have the impact
    > of the environment that would accentuate these differences, rather than
    > minimize them, and so, a small difference becomes a larger difference
    > because of the interaction of biology with environ- ment."
    
    Thanks for posting this.  Notice that her view is that boys and girls
    are born "just a slight bit different."  Your earlier quotes from her
    didn't even hint that her personal view was that the difference began
    as SLIGHT but was then accentuated because of the environment.
    
    > You see, that is precisely why I've entered direct quotes from the show.
    
    You have it on tape already.  I've stated that I'm ordering a set.
    
    > It is convenient that you forgot to mention that it was her own personal
    > view, and also that you dropped the may in "may ... come born just a
    > slight bit different."
    
    As mentioned, I don't have it on tape (nor did I take notes.)  I'm
    ordering the taped series through the mail (so it will be awhile before
    I have exact quotes, as I told you earlier.)
    
    As often as you've quoted her, though, it's funny that you didn't
    bother discussing that she does mention sexism and discrimination
    several times (as causing the differences between men and women
    that go BEYOND the 'slight bit' of difference the sexes have at
    birth.)  You do have a tape of the show so I wonder why you made
    this particular omission.

    RE: .135  Mike Z.
    
    .129> You're lying again, of course.
    
    > -< I'm lying? >-
    
    Each time you claimed (or implied) that I called the researchers
    'ignorant,' it was a downright falsehood.  I cleared it up for
    you more than once, but you continued the falsehood anyway.
    
    If the problem was that you have inferior reading comprehension,
    then I apologize for assuming malice where there was mere ignorance
    on your part.

    By the way, Mike - you also didn't bother mentioning that the infamous
    baby-pulling-string experiment took up less than 5 minutes of the
    entire show (and that babies involved couldn't even SIT UP, much
    less talk or walk.)  
    
    As I mentioned, babies who can't talk or walk (or even sit up, as it
    turns out) have very few options beyond anger or tears.  It's absolutely
    proposterous to insinuate that adult women in corporate America would
    respond in tough work situations as though they had as few options as
    an infant.  The show made absolutely NO such claim or insinuation.
    
    In this way, you misrepresented the show, IMO.

    RE: .135  Mike Z.
    
    > Those are very serious charges, Ms Conlon.
    > Are you prepared to substantiate these claims?
    
    If I'd said this in 822.* (after you'd called my typo correction an 
    'admission' of a falsehood,) you probably would have accused me of 
    '90s crying to Mommy' behavior.
    
    If you're going to cry now, I'll stop pointing out your errors and/or
    falsehoods here.  
    
    We were only having a discussion.  I never meant to upset you so much.

    I think using inate regarding behaviour is dangerous because of its
    connotations of biological determinism.  What is inate are
    predispositions to learning certain types of behaviour.  These
    differences become exacerbated in the ways we enculturalise these
    biological differences.  Thus the male tendency towards aggression and
    the female tendency towards passivity become enculturalised in ideals
    of masculinity and femininity and the ways society implements these
    expectations.  
    
    One thing that has not been mentioned (although I documented it in
    658.*) is that the male range on skill set tests is almost always
    larger than the female range.  Thus while men provide more genii they
    also provide more dunces.  This is because the male fetus undergoes
    more radical changes (beginning at about 6 weeks) than the female, and
    therefore more can go wrong (or right).

    RE: .144  Simpson
    
    > I think using inate regarding behaviour is dangerous because of its
    > connotations of biological determinism.  What is inate are
    > predispositions to learning certain types of behaviour.  These
    > differences become exacerbated in the ways we enculturalise these
    > biological differences. 
    
    Exactly!
    
    The "Brain Sex" show was able to demonstrate that new educational
    approaches could bring male and female skill sets closer together
    (enabling boys to read as well as girls and enabling girls to have
    as many spatial and math reasoning skills as boys.)
    
    Hormones during brain development have an influence in patterns of
    skills between males and females, but the "Brain Sex" program made
    it clear that environment (sexism and discrimination) still account
    for much of the differences we normally associate between the sexes.

    So, why doesnt' someone tell us more about these new
    educational approaches to bring the boys and girls 
    skill sets together?  I was unable to watch the show
    and am quite curious.  My own personal experiences
    regarding math skills were horrible.  Even as early
    as first grade, the teacher sent me home with a note
    telling my mother I needed extra help.  I've had a
    thing about math ever since.  My questions:
    1.  Could I have been socialized prior to 5 years old
    that I would not be a good math student (BTW-a poor
    math student for me was receiveing a B or B+ grade
    rather than an A)?
    2.  By being told I needed extra help, was my reaction
    in not liking math for the rest of my life an inherent
    reaction or perhaps a rebellion to the notion of needing
    the extra help?
    3.  If I was indeed socialized to believe that as a girl,
    I could not excel in math, what proposals are available in
    the educational arena to insure that I would not unconsciously
    socialize my own daughter (when I have one) in a similar
    manner, but still insure a well rounded education/ability 
    to strengthen all skills?
    
    Christine

    Extracted from 658.93
    
Anastasi developed his continuum of indirectness, which maps the proximity of 
biology (on the left) and culture (on the right), and examines the way 
biological factors influence but become less directly important as we move from 
left to right thanks to the multiplier effect.  The five columns of the map are 
Organs, Hormones, Self - Body, Self - Higher Brain Centres, and Culture & 
Society.  For example, you can trace from the pituitary gland across to 
something like menstrual taboos.  Menstrual taboos are but one example of how a 
society or culture enculturalises biology.

Faust developed this further.  She remapped it into a biosocial feedback model, 
and renamed the multiplier effect the elaborator effect to try to de-emphasise 
the linear connotations of the first word.

One thing becomes abundantly clear: the extent of biological variation, within 
the standard deviations, give rise to a bewildering extent of possible 
sociological responses.  She argues persuasively that biological variation 
should give rise to far greater and flexible forms of gender role.  We need, 
she says, to use biology as a force for choice.

    
    
    re .146
    
    On new educational approaches, from what I've seen of the
    show, they are trying to teach young girls spacial realities
    and trying to teach young boys how to read by sounding out
    the letters instead of just memorizing the words.  
    
    So now I know why I had such an unbearable time in 
    my Graphics course!!  As for math skills the show
    indicated that boys do better mainly due to their
    spacial abilities and partly to the societal conditioning.
    Interesting stuff!!
    
    

.140> As often as you've quoted her, though, it's funny that you didn't
.140> bother discussing that she does mention sexism and discrimination
.140> several times

    You find it funny that I would reply to the subject of the base note
    and tailor my replies to the topic at hand, do you?

    That's interesting, because I've found it curious that you have been
    trying to refocus this discussion away from brain sex differences into
    one about sexism and discrimination. And also that you are complaining
    that I have stayed on the topic rather than follow you.

    You should feel free to avoid the subject of brain sex differences, and
    opt to continue grinding your own personal axe, but you shouldn't become
    upset if I try to stick to the topic.


.142> By the way, Mike - you also didn't bother mentioning that the infamous
.142> baby-pulling-string experiment took up less than 5 minutes of the
.142> entire show (and that babies involved couldn't even SIT UP, much
.142> less talk or walk.)  

    I didn't realize that anyone would expect a 6 week old baby to sit up,
    talk or walk.  (see 830.77, last sentence).

    
.142> As I mentioned, babies who can't talk or walk (or even sit up, as it
.142> turns out) have very few options beyond anger or tears.

    And very few learned responses.  If you are going to examine nature
    vs. nurture you have to examine children when the effects of nurture
    are at a minimum, ie: at the youngest ages.

.141>               <<< Note 830.141 by CX3PT2::WSC641::CONLON >>>
.141>         -< Maybe you simply didn't know any better. If so - sorry. >-

.141>    RE: .135  Mike Z.
    
.141>    If the problem was that you have inferior reading comprehension,
.141>    then I apologize for assuming malice where there was mere ignorance
.141>    on your part.
    
    .141 was a very nasty reply.
    
    
.143>               <<< Note 830.143 by CX3PT2::WSC641::CONLON >>>

.143>    RE: .135  Mike Z.
    
.143>    If you're going to cry now, I'll stop pointing out your errors and/or
.143>    falsehoods here.  
    
.143>    We were only having a discussion.  I never meant to upset you so much.
    
    I guess .141 wasn't nasty enough.
    
    Is there anything else you'd like to say?

.145> Hormones during brain development have an influence in patterns of
.145> skills between males and females, but the "Brain Sex" program made
    
    Hormones during brain development affect the way the brain is wired.
    
    The person's skill sets are a result of this wiring.
    
    The wiring is not something that can be undone with "new educational
    approaches."  I suggest you wait for your tapes to arrive before you
    attempt to quote the show again.

    RE: .150  Mike Z.
    
    .140> As often as you've quoted her, though, it's funny that you didn't
    .140> bother discussing that she does mention sexism and discrimination
    .140> several times

    > You find it funny that I would reply to the subject of the base note
    > and tailor my replies to the topic at hand, do you?
    
    The show ("Brain Sex") made several comments about sexism and
    discrimination against women (as being a primary cause of performance
    differences between the sexes.)  It's appropriate to talk about this
    in a discussion about the program.
    
    > That's interesting, because I've found it curious that you have been
    > trying to refocus this discussion away from brain sex differences into
    > one about sexism and discrimination.
     
    The topic is about the program "Brain Sex" (per the basenote, which
    I will repost for you here):
    
    		"There was an interesting show on the (cable) Discovery 
    		Channel last night on the brain and sex...
    
    		"It was the 1st one, there will be two more on the next 
    		(I assume) two tuesdays.
    
    		"Comments?"
    
    > And also that you are complaining that I have stayed on the topic 
    > rather than follow you.
    
    You've only selected the parts of the program that fit your agenda
    (rather than staying 'on topic' to discuss the entire program.)
    
    > You should feel free to avoid the subject of brain sex differences, and
    > opt to continue grinding your own personal axe, but you shouldn't become
    > upset if I try to stick to the topic.
    
    You misrepresented the program by emphasizing the parts and some isolated
    quotes that complied with the axe you have to grind.  I merely spoiled
    your fun.
    
    > I didn't realize that anyone would expect a 6 week old baby to sit up,
    > talk or walk. 
    
    You also didn't seem to realize that adult humans of both sexes (not
    just males) have more options in difficult situations that those
    available to 6 week old babies.  Or perhaps you did realize it, but
    were hoping to get away with a cheap shot at women's value in the
    workplace anyway.
    
    > If you are going to examine nature vs. nurture you have to examine 
    > children when the effects of nurture are at a minimum, ie: at the 
    > youngest ages.
    
    You must also avoid the profound ignorance associated with jumping
    to absurd conclusions as a result of this examination.  As I mentioned
    before, it's absolutely preposterous to suggest that adult women in
    the workplace are more likely than men to find no additional options
    (in tough situations) than the ones they had when they were 6 weeks old!
    
    You distorted the results of this test to cast aspersions on women's
    value in the workplace (which was not *at all* the conclusion reached
    by the researchers who presented the findings of the test.)

    RE: .152  Mike Z.
    
    > Hormones during brain development affect the way the brain is wired.
    
    Hormones affect the tendencies for boys and girls to have (on average)
    different skill sets.  
    
    > The person's skill sets are a result of this wiring.
    > The wiring is not something that can be undone with "new educational
    > approaches." 
    
    The show pointed out that boys *can* be given better reading skills
    (and girls *can* be given better spatial and math reasoning skills)
    by better educational approaches.
    
    Male and female brains are not wired without possibility of change.
    As Michelle, I think, pointed out - the show demonstrated that boys
    can be given better reading skills by teaching them to sound out
    the words instead of memorizing them.  Girls can be helped with
    spatial and math reasoning by spending more time with girls to
    develop spatial skills.
    
    Boys are NOT incapable of sounding out words and girls are NOT
    incapable of getting a better handle on spatial skills.
    
    > I suggest you wait for your tapes to arrive before you attempt to quote 
    > the show again.
    
    I'm not the only person who has described this aspect of the program
    so I think you'd better think twice before you keep denying that the
    show made this specific point.

    RE: .151  Mike Z.
    
    > .141 was a very nasty reply.
    
    > I guess .141 wasn't nasty enough.
    > Is there anything else you'd like to say?
    
    Let's drop the whole discussion (and agree to disagree.)
    
    Obviously, I'm every bit as competitive and aggressive as you are
    when it comes to debating this issue, so you're never going to
    succeed in frightening me away with quasi-threats or accusations.
    
    I'm just happy that the program turned out to be so much better than
    you made it sound in this topic (and I'm glad I saw it for myself to
    find out what the program *really* said.)
    
    Let's drop it now.

    
    I am glad I was not the only one who picked up the comments made by
    Carmen Adams: "equal does not necessarily means the same".
    
    I pointed out that in my .3 and Michael Zarlenga did it too in his .75
    
    Art.

    RE: .156  Art
    
    > I am glad I was not the only one who picked up the comments made by
    > Carmen Adams: "equal does not necessarily means the same".
    
    Keep in mind that this statement is not a 'vote against' equality,
    though.  The program stated repeatedly that sexism and discrimination
    account for many of the differences between the sexes but that there
    is *also* a biological component to patterns of skills and interests
    (caused by hormones present during early brain development.)
    
    If we understand the biological component, we can use it to our
    mutual advantage (to gain equality between the sexes while knowing
    that we are not exactly "the same.")  This also means that we can
    use education to increase non-typical skill sets for both boys and
    girls (bringing the two sexes closer together.)

.153> You've only selected the parts of the program that fit your agenda
.153> (rather than staying 'on topic' to discuss the entire program.)

    I find this most interesting as I have taken care to enter exact
    quotes in context, but since I didn't enter the quotes you want,
    it upsets you and you call me names like "dishonest" and say I'm
    "lying" and "misrepresenting the show."


.153> You also didn't seem to realize that adult humans of both sexes (not
.153> just males) have more options in difficult situations that those
.153> available to 6 week old babies.  Or perhaps you did realize it, but
.153> were hoping to get away with a cheap shot at women's value in the
.153> workplace anyway.

    How much longer do we have to put up with this name-calling tirade
    of yours?  I've already explained why very young children were used,
    but instead of acknowledging the reasons are legitimate, you resort
    to more of this petty name-calling.


    You see, Ms Conlon, I've been following your progress from subtle,
    vague, indirect little snipes, like these :

.44> The Discovery channel must be making a FORTUNE from advertising for
.44> this show (since they know they'll get good ratings from all the folks
.44> who are absolutely DESPERATE to find some way to prove that women are 
.44> inherently inferior in the workplace.)

.83> It *does* become a giant step backward when ignorant people take


    To inappropriate, direct insults like these :

.71> Do you know what a 'question' is, Mike?
.71> If you ever figure out what a 'question' is, you will understand that
.71> this point is moot.
.71> These studies inadvertently become mis-used by ignorant people who
.71> When you learn to read, you will understand that this point is also moot.

.98> Your reading skills are getting worse, too.

.101> Mike Z., since you were incapable of reading this earlier, I'll give

.129> exactly how badly you've misrepresented the show in this forum.
.129> Your dishonesty about all this has surprised even me (in spite of 
.129> You've now sunk lower than even *I* ever thought you could.  Congrats.

    And quite frankly, I think you've begun to cross the line.
    

.155> Let's drop the whole discussion (and agree to disagree.)

    Anytime you want to stop calling me names, go right ahead.  I haven't
    responded in like and quite frankly, I was beginning to wonder how much
    longer it would take you to realize I wasn't going to stoop to that level.

    As for dropping the discussion on male/female brain differences, no
    thank you, I still have information to enter.

    RE: .158  Mike Z.
    
    > I find this most interesting as I have taken care to enter exact
    > quotes in context, but since I didn't enter the quotes you want,
    > it upsets you and you call me names like "dishonest" and say I'm
    > "lying" and "misrepresenting the show."
    
    More of your doggone games, I see.  You lied about what *I* wrote,
    Mike (and I think you're intelligent enough to know this.)
    
    .153> You also didn't seem to realize that adult humans of both sexes (not
    .153> just males) have more options in difficult situations that those
    .153> available to 6 week old babies.  Or perhaps you did realize it, but
    .153> were hoping to get away with a cheap shot at women's value in the
    .153> workplace anyway.

    > How much longer do we have to put up with this name-calling tirade
    > of yours?
    
    What name are you being called in this paragraph??
    
    > I've already explained why very young children were used,
    > but instead of acknowledging the reasons are legitimate, you resort
    > to more of this petty name-calling.
    
    You used the experiment to try to cast aspersions on adult women
    in the workplace (by insinuating that they would be likely to resort
    to the actions of 6 week old infants in the face of difficult problems
    on the job.)  
    
    > You see, Ms Conlon, I've been following your progress from subtle,
    > vague, indirect little snipes, like these :
    
    > And quite frankly, I think you've begun to cross the line.
    
    You crossed the line when you took isolated parts of this excellent
    program to cast aspersions on women's value at the workplace.
    
    > Anytime you want to stop calling me names, go right ahead.  I haven't
    > responded in like and quite frankly, I was beginning to wonder how much
    > longer it would take you to realize I wasn't going to stoop to that level.
    
    More games and accusations (and insults,) I see.
    
    > As for dropping the discussion on male/female brain differences, no
    > thank you, I still have information to enter.
    
    Of course you won't drop it.  If quasi-threats and accusations won't
    work, you'll try other ways to get your agenda across.  It's your
    obsession.
    
    Keep going.  "It's what Zarlenga does.  It's all that he does."

.159>             <<< Note 830.159 by CX3PT3::WSC641::CONLON >>>
.159>          -< Of course you won't quit.  It's your life's work. >-

.159> More of your doggone games, I see.  You lied about what *I* wrote,
    
.159> You used the experiment to try to cast aspersions on adult women
.159> in the workplace (by insinuating that they would be likely to resort
.159> the actions of 6 week old infants in the face of difficult problems
.159> on the job.)
    
.159> More games and accusations (and insults,) I see.
    
.159> Of course you won't drop it.  If quasi-threats and accusations won't
.159> work, you'll try other ways to get your agenda across.  It's your
.159> obsession.
    
.159> Keep going.  "It's what Zarlenga does.  It's all that he does."

    Do you have anything else to add?

    The program "Brain Sex" does an excellent job of debunking any last
    lingering notions of male superiority, using scientific data to make
    the point.  (Yes, there are some patterns of performance differences
    in a couple of narrow areas, but persons of either sex can be educated
    in ways that bring the sexes closer together in these areas.)
    
    Like most archaic but highly-treasured ideas, the myth of male
    superiority will die a drawn-out, gruesome, violent death (kicking
    and screaming all the way.)
    
    It *will* eventually die, though.

    As mentioned before, the end of the show featured a demonstration
    of the educational techniques that can help boys have better reading
    skills.  (At the current time, boys are so disadvantaged at reading
    that they populate remedial reading classes at a ratio of 3:1 with
    girls.)  Boys can be taught to 'sound out' words instead of memorizing
    them.
    
    They also stated that girls can be taught spatial skills (Camilla
    Benbow suggested this as a way to give girls the spatial and math
    skills needed for careers that might interest them, such as being
    architects or engineers.)

    re:.162
    
    No one here is saying that women are inferior to men.
    
    There's no reason to keep repeating yourself.
    
    Let's move on, shall we?

    Q: Are the male and female brains "wired" differently?
    A: Yes.
    
    "The view that a male brain is functionally more asymmetric than a
     female brain is long-standing.  Albert M. Galaburda of Beth Israel
     Hospital in Boston and the late Norman Geschwind of Harvard Medical
     School proposed that androgens incresed the functional potency of the
     right hemisphere.  In 1981 Marion C. Diamond of the Univeristy of
     California at Berkeley found that the right cortex is thicker than the
     left in male rats but not in females.  ... Last year [Marie-Christine]
     de Lacoste and her colleagues reported a smilar pattern in human
     fetuses.  They found the right cortex was thicker than the left in
     males."
     
    [ Scientfic American, Sex Differences in the Brain, 9/92, p124 ]

    Q: Do the brains of men and women function differently?
    A: Yes.
    
    "Women and men differ not only in their physical attributes and repro-
     ductive function but also in the way in which they solve intellectual 
     problems.  It has been fashionable to insist that these differences
     are minimal, the consequence of variations in experience during devel-
     opment.  The bulk of the evidence suggests, however, that the effects
     of sex hormones on the brain organization occur so early in life that
     from the very start the environment is acting on differently wired
     brains in girls and boys."
    
    	( see also 830.134 )
    
    [ Scientfic American, Sex Differences in the Brain, 9/92, p119 ]

    Researchers in this field admit that they do not yet have any
    absolute answers.  Far from it, in fact.  Further, they acknowledge
    that any individual (regardless of sex) can have ANY set of abilities:
    
    "Major sex differences in intellectual function seem to lie in
    patterns of ability rather than in overall level of intelligence
    (IQ).  We are all aware that people have different intellectual
    strengths.  Some are especially good with words, others at using
    objects - for instance, at constructing or fixing things.  In 
    the same fashion, two individuals may have the same overall
    intelligence but have varying patterns of ability."
    
    "It is important to keep in mind that the relation between natural
    hormonal levels and problem solving is based on correlational data.
    
    "Some form of connection between the two measures exists, but how
    this association is determined or what its causal basis may be is
    _unknown_. 
    
    "Little is currently understood about the relation between adult 
    levels of hormones and those in early life, when abilities appear 
    to be organized in the nervous system.  We have a lot to learn 
    about the precise mechanisms underlying cognitive patterns in people."
    
    "So that even though any one individual might have the capacity to
    be in a 'nontypical' field [such as women in engineering,] the
    sex proportions as a whole may vary."
    
    
					Scientific American
    					Sept 1992, p. 118 - 125

    RE: .164  Mike Z.
    
    > No one here is saying that women are inferior to men.
    
    I doubt that anyone here would say it outright (no matter how many
    weeks or months a person might spend building a biased case that 
    tended to cast aspersions on women's intellectual abilities and value 
    at the workplace.)  It could be dangerous.
    
    > There's no reason to keep repeating yourself.
    
    There's no reason to be arguing over a magazine article and a TV
    documentary that we both enjoyed so much, either.  (Well, at
    least you seemed to enjoy isolated parts of them both, even if you
    didn't care much for the overall messages of either.)
    
    > Let's move on, shall we?
    
    Let's try sticking to the topic (about the show "Brain Sex") which 
    includes the effects of sexism and discrimination on the differences
    between men and women.

    By the way, I'm not sure anyone here described the tests they did
    to show the significantly superior reading skills exhibited in
    girls.
    
    The test had a list of 'made-up' words (like 'glack,' for instance)
    and the point was to see if the child could read and pronounce a
    new word.  The girls had significantly better performance on this
    test (because girls tend to 'sound out' words as part of reading.)
    
    They showed a boy performing poorly in this test (he could memorize
    the first several on the list, but once the list started to get long,
    he was absolutely lost.)  At this point, they showed a young boy who
    had to go through remedial reading (because he was 'faking' reading
    by memorizing the sight of a number of words rather than actually
    reading the letters and sounding out the words.)
    
    Boys can overcome this problem with educational techniques (just as
    more girls can develop excellent spatial and math reasoning skills
    by working on spatial skills.)  The show demonstrated that skills
    are not hard-wired, even though men and women do tend to use different
    parts of the brain to function in these skills.

    I think Suzanne is overstating the potential for educational
    techniques.  The natural distribution of skill sets is such that while
    there is overlap nevertheless one sex predominates.  Take visuo-spatial
    skills (the results are mirrored for other skill sets where females
    dominate).  The male average will be above the female average, the best
    female will be better than the average male but inferior to the best
    male.  It follows that improved education techniques will help females
    but to suggest that they will bring females en masse up to the level of
    males is nonsense.  Assuming no overt discrmination then it follows
    that vocations will not be demographically proportional.
    
    This information could be misused to demonstrate (general) male
    superiority thus: since males will dominate in certain vocations and
    society a priori values these occupations and professions more highly
    than those where females dominate it 'follows' that men are generally
    superior.                            ^       ^ 
                                         ^       ^ 
                                         ^^^^^^^^^ 
                                             ^
                         (An aid for the logically challenged).

    
.164>    No one here is saying that women are inferior to men.
    
 .41>   How do you suppose that gender difference would manifest itself in
 .41>   corporate America?
    
 .41>   Who's more likely to give up first and start crying?

In the above quoted material, you implied that *apparent* differences in
task approach by infants could be used to predict task approach by full
grown adults.

If that wasn't implying something inherently inferior about women, it was
making a pretty good imitation.

Daniel

    perhaps Mike's intent was not to prove or imply inferiority,
    but to underscore that men and women are indeed different and
    the differences go deeper than outward appearances.   I haven't
    gotten the impression that he is denying the fact that any given
    individual has the ability to acquire various skill sets.  I think
    he may be trying to point out a possible reason that it seems many
    women still choose "traditionally" female occupations.  We know it
    happens, and some factors are enviornment, educational guidance, and
    now I think Mike has presented another possibility, but I don't think
    he's using this example as a means to tell women to stay away from
    occupations involving spatial or mathamatical skill sets.  To answer
    Mike's original question, I don't think that women (general) are more
    likely to give up and cry in the corporate world, but there are 
    individual women who may experience this, however, I don't think it
    can be applied as a metric for the general population of women in the
    workplace.  Now, can somebody please discuss the aspects of education
    which are supposed to help girls acquire spatial/math skills?  It's
    already been mentioned how boys can be helped with reading.  
    
    Christine

    RE: .170  Simpson_D
    
    > I think Suzanne is overstating the potential for educational techniques.
    
    Giving girls better spatial and math reasoning skills doesn't mean
    that women will choose engineering or physics professions in the
    same numbers as men (at some point in the future.)  Given the cultural
    differences between the sexes, I seriously doubt that as many women
    as men will *ever* want to be engineers or physicists.  However,
    the girls who do grow up wanting such professions will have the skills.
    (Many girls growing up without these educational techniques have such
    skills already, of course.)
    
    > It follows that improved education techniques will help females
    > but to suggest that they will bring females en masse up to the level of
    > males is nonsense.
    
    Your wording suggests that males "en masse" are at some level higher
    than females "en masse," which isn't true.  As the author you quoted
    mentioned, it cannot be stressed enough that the documentation about
    their research is discussing the "average" person.
    
    In the absence of cultural biases which discourage women from trying
    to excel at higher math reasoning, women have the intelligence to
    benefit from educational techniques that would strengthen spatial
    and math reasoning skills.  Without the cultural influences, there
    is no reason why women and men could not be brought to an even
    level where such skills are concerned (even if women never do choose
    to join engineering or physics professions in great numbers.)
    
    > This information could be misused to demonstrate (general) male
    > superiority thus: since males will dominate in certain vocations and
    > society a priori values these occupations and professions more highly
    > than those where females dominate it 'follows' that men are generally
    > superior. 
    
    The information could also be misued to attempt to demonstrate that
    average males in a profession such as engineering could be presumed
    to be superior to average female peers in the same profession (thus
    justifying lower wages for women.)  Of course, this point may be
    moot since a recent survey shows that the salary gap between men
    and women engineers is very close to being eliminated.

    RE: .172  Christine
    
    > Now, can somebody please discuss the aspects of education
    > which are supposed to help girls acquire spatial/math skills?  It's
    > already been mentioned how boys can be helped with reading.  
    
    I'm not sure that the program actually detailed the education
    techniques (beyond stating that such techniques exist,) but I
    have some ideas.
    
    My son played extensively (to an unbelievable degree) with Lego
    blocks as a child (starting at the age of 4.)  When I got him
    his first Lego set, he couldn't put the pieces together to save
    his life (until I built models for him and spent a lot of time
    helping him learn how the pieces fit together.)  Once he caught
    on, he spent an unbelievable amount of time building things
    with Legos.
    
    He also spent time learning to "catch" (which requires the skill
    of knowing where the thrown object is in relation to your hand
    or glove.)
    
    Girls (in general) do not spend nearly as much time in these sorts
    of activities.  Those who do are better at spatial skills and
    higher math reasoning skills.  (When I look back to my own higher
    math reasoning skills, I believe I can account for them by having
    an older brother who liked teaching me what he called "math tricks,"
    which sounded like fun to me.  My brother always gave me math tricks
    that were far beyond my level at school, so as a young child I was
    using algebra as a fun game.  When I got my Philosophy degree later,
    I specialized in Symbolic Logic and Boolean algebra.  The two top
    logicians in the Philosophy department were women, by the way.  I was
    second from the top.)

    Thank you for your theories/experiences Suzanne.
    
    When you get a chance, send me some of those math tricks :-)
    
    I don't know whether or not to envy or pity you for finding 
    algebra fun! My experiences were quite nasty, of course my
    freshman Algebra teacher probably didn't help any.  At the
    beginning of the course, I was absent for a week due to a
    terrible strep and my best friend informed me that during my
    absence, the teacher lectured the class on the nature of my
    absence, indicating that I was a lazy student like my brother
    (who she taught the previous year) and that anybody out sick
    that long is hiding.  She had the nerve to repeat such things
    to my face infront of the class on my first day back.  I guess
    I was terrorized away from it!  I went home and told my Mom
    about it.  She ran right up to the highschool, called the priciple,
    vp and the teacher, chewed them out royally.  I was kinda embarrassed
    at the time, but she taught me a good lesson on defending myself,
    but I still hated Algebra :-)

    algebra....*shudder*  
    
    although if I managed to slug my way through AB calculus, I supposes
    anybody can!

    re .173
    
>    Your wording suggests that males "en masse" are at some level higher
>    than females "en masse," which isn't true.  As the author you quoted
    
    In visuo-spatial skills men are.
    
>    and math reasoning skills.  Without the cultural influences, there
>    is no reason why women and men could not be brought to an even
>    level where such skills are concerned (even if women never do choose
    
    This is exactly what won't happen.  Improved education will help, as I
    said, but you can't buck the fact that men's brains, on average, are
    geared towards these sorts of skills and women's, on average, are not. 
    To hear you talk about education you'd think that all the earlier stuff
    about morphological brain differences between the sexes was irrelevant
    and could be 'cured' by education (read environment).  It is not. 
    Given the best possible education, where best may be amended to account
    for brain differences, women will, on average, never be as good as men,
    on average, in these sorts of skills (and vice versa for some other
    skill sets).

    
    I've found this whole string amazing.  When I first read Mike's entry
    (100 replies or so ago) I had two reactions.
    
    1) Baby girls, on average, got emotional when the experiment changed
          mid course and got stuck not trying and did not deal with the 
          situation very well.
    
    2) Baby boys, on average, got pig headed when the experiment changed
          mid course and got stuck trying and did not deal with the
          situation very well.
    
    IMO both groups, on average, didn't handle the change well ... it
    appeared on average that they responded differently ... not better or
    worse .. just different.
    
    The tie I made to the business environment was that on average both
    baby girls and boys would fail at that age ... that it would help if
    you gave them 20 years or so to work on their strengths and weaknesses.
    
    My 2 cents,
    Greg
    
    
    

.164> No one here is saying that women are inferior to men.
    
.168> I doubt that anyone here would say it outright (no matter how many
.168> weeks or months a person might spend building a biased case that 
.168> tended to cast aspersions on women's intellectual abilities and value 
.168> at the workplace.)  It could be dangerous.

    Please take your accusations elsewhere.  I've grown tired of your
    insults and insinuations regarding your coworkers here in MenNotes.

    Ms Conlon, you've called people here ignorant(1), said that they are
    lying(2), you've said that their intentions are to discriminate against
    women(3) and to prove women inferior(4).

    You've also made varied other negative comments along the lines that
    some people here "don't know what questions are" (.71), and that they
    suffer from reading disorders (.98, .101, .141).

    Those kinds of personal comments are inappropriate for this forum.

    I'm asking you to stop.
    
    (1): 830.71, 803.83, 803.126, 803.129, 803.141, 803.153
    (2): 830.129
    (3): 830.71, 830.83. 830.101, 830.168
    (4): 830.44, 830.61, 830.121, 830.126, 830.168

    re:.167

    Aside from the 3 sentence preface, .167 is identical to .33.

    It's not necessary to repost previous replies that we've already seen.

.171>If that wasn't implying something inherently inferior about women, it was
.171>making a pretty good imitation.

    The next time you think I'm trying to imply something, just ask me.

    Otherwise, you're bound to be wrong some of the time.


.172> perhaps Mike's intent was not to prove or imply inferiority,
.172> but to underscore that men and women are indeed different and
.172> the differences go deeper than outward appearances.

    The voice of reason, at last.  Thank you.

    As anyone can see by looking back, I have only entered the "superior/
    inferior" discussion when someone else brought it up (.28/.31, .79/.91),
    and then I was careful to explicitly list tasks where women excel, not
    just those that favor men.

    I also took pains to explain, _twice_, that the metrics were crucial.

    Also, I pointed out in .164 that no one here has said that women are
    inferior to men.

    Judging by ,168, polygraphs are required before we can be believed.

    Re: .178
    
    > 1) Baby girls, on average, got emotional when the experiment changed
    >    mid course and got stuck not trying and did not deal with the 
    >    situation very well.
    
    This is a common - and in this case very serious - misperception.  The
    baby girls did not get emotional.
    
    It is tremendously important when dealing with babies to understand
    that crying is a baby's first, most natural response when it wants
    something in its environment to change.  The howls are not emotion,
    they're a call for help - and this is why my view of the experiment is
    that the girls did better by realizing that they had lost control and
    needed help.  The boys, on the other hand, just got, as you say,
    pigheaded.
    
    -dick

    Its amazing that there is even an argument over whether male brains are
    hard wired differently from female brains.  To me is as obvious as the
    external physical differences.  I did not say either was BETTER OR
    WORSE... just different.  I also did not say that different implies
    that either sex is incapable of improving on skills usually associated
    with the other sex.
    
    Jeff

    What I find amazing is that a year ago I was fairly well attacked for
    saying just these things, and with much the same source material. 
    Today it's obviously OK because it was on TV.  No, amazing doesn't
    cover it.  Try faintly disgusting.

    RE: .179  Mike Z.
    
    > Please take your accusations elsewhere.  I've grown tired of your
    > insults and insinuations regarding your coworkers here in MenNotes.
    
    I've grown *very* tired of your distortions of my words and the 
    increasing escalation of thinly-veiled threats to me (not to *mention* 
    your persistent insinuations about women's intellectual abilities 
    and/or overall value in the workplace.)
    
    Please try to remember that if you can keep accusing me of insults
    and/or falsehoods, it would be discrimination to suggest that I don't
    have the same right to point out the ways *you* are insulting your
    co-workers (as well as the false statements you've made.)
    
    > Those kinds of personal comments are inappropriate for this forum.
    > I'm asking you to stop.
    
    I'm asking you to stop your thinly-veiled threats to me.  Stop now.
    
    If you have any complaints about our exchanges, please take it up
    with moderators.  Otherwise, stick to the topic at hand (and leave
    your personal comments about me out of the discussion.)

    RE: .177  Simpson_D
    
    >> Your wording suggests that males "en masse" are at some level higher
    >> than females "en masse," which isn't true.  As the author you quoted
    
    > In visuo-spatial skills men are.
    
    Ok, we have a communication difficulty here, because I do realize
    that you're aware that men's and women's skills overlap considerably
    in this area (rather than men being "en masse" higher than women.)
    The "average" tends to be higher, but much of this can be accounted
    for by environment (per Camilla Benbow, "Brain Sex.")
    
    > This is exactly what won't happen.  Improved education will help, as I
    > said, but you can't buck the fact that men's brains, on average, are
    > geared towards these sorts of skills and women's, on average, are not. 
    
    Sure you can.  Men only have a tendency for these skills (aided quite
    a bit by the environment.)  Education techniques can bridge this gap
    (according to Camilla Benbow, "Brain Sex.")  It may not be bridged
    100% (and many girls may still not be interested in math or engineering,)
    but girls' brains are not incapable of these skills.
    
    > To hear you talk about education you'd think that all the earlier stuff
    > about morphological brain differences between the sexes was irrelevant
    > and could be 'cured' by education (read environment).  It is not. 
    
    Any individual woman is capable of a full set of non-typical skills,
    so obviously, women's brains are capable of acquiring these skills
    (naturally or otherwise.)
    
    It would be patently false to presume that the talk of "different
    brains" means that women do not possess the capability for higher
    math reasoning, etc.  Many women have a natural ability for such
    skills already.  Education could make the numbers much higher.

    Going back aways...
    
    > ...males are, in general, more aggressive and competitive than females, 
    > throughout their lives.
    
    Men are rewarded for engaging in aggressive, threatening behavior when
    challenged.  Women are expected to avoid threats and/or danger.
    
    Of course this amounts to a culturally-induced advantage for men (if
    they believe it's part of their 'place' to win against other men, and 
    especially women, by being more aggressive, competitive and threatening.)
    
    It's a built-in bias to help perpetuate male dominance (and to foster
    notions of male superiority.)  It's a phenomenon that is also seen
    among other primates.

    re .186
    
>    Sure you can.  Men only have a tendency for these skills (aided quite
>    a bit by the environment.)  Education techniques can bridge this gap
>    (according to Camilla Benbow, "Brain Sex.")  It may not be bridged
>    100% (and many girls may still not be interested in math or engineering,)
>    but girls' brains are not incapable of these skills.
    
    Step back a minute.  Not everybody (forget sex) is capable of going to
    university and doing a doctorate in higher mathematics.  They lack the
    fundamental capacity, and no amount of education is going to get them
    there.
    
    Now, it is quite fair to say that improved education (and probably
    cultural attitudes) will get more girls doing mathematics in high
    school, and maybe college.  But it is not going to push them to the
    top, any more than it will push boys without the capacity.  Why? 
    Because those who succeed in going further in mathematics are already
    predisposed to learning mathematics, which is to say their brains are
    receptive to the relevant concepts, and this goes right back to the
    hormones structuring brain thesis.  And so
    
>    It would be patently false to presume that the talk of "different
>    brains" means that women do not possess the capability for higher
>    math reasoning, etc.  Many women have a natural ability for such
>    skills already.  Education could make the numbers much higher.
    
    this is not so.  Many (most?) people lack the capacity for higher math
    reasoning and it's not all down to education.  It's down to brain
    structures and capacities, and thus in the end men will, on average,
    always be ahead of women, on average, even if the Professor of
    Mathematics at your college is a woman, because on average men's brains
    are more suited to this kind of activity.

.173> Without the cultural influences, there
.173> is no reason why women and men could not be brought to an even
.173> level where such skills are concerned (even if women never do choose
    
    I have yet to see any evidence of this claim.
    
    If you have, please provide it.
    
    We know that the brains of men and women are wired differently, and
    we know that education and special learning methods can minimize the
    differences between men and women, but no one has show that those
    strategies can bring the mean abilities of two sexes "to an even level,"
    which I assume means the same level.

    re .187
    
    Extracted from 658.93:
    
Biology disposes us to learn certain types of behaviour more easily than 
others.  For example, it's not socialisation that makes boys more aggressive - 
boys are more often punished for aggression than girls.  It's that boys are 
predisposed to learning aggressive behaviours.

This predisposition is encultured.  This means that society develops ways to 
incorporate, channel and sometimes control it.  The individual is then free to 
act within the limits of both biology and society.
    
    .
    .
    .
    
Except in extreme cases of hormonally abnormal development (from Turner's 
syndrome girls who receive no male hormones at all to males with exceptional 
imbalances of testosterone over female hormones) everybody receives a complex 
mix of hormonal influences during prenatal development.  Not only are the 
amounts significant, but timing is critical as well.  Even aside from 
influences like genetic abnormalities or disease, these processes can be 
significantly affected by things such as the degree of stress on the mother 
during the pregnancy.  As noted earlier, this is more crucial for the male, who 
must radically alter his development away from the female template.  It should 
therefore come as no surprise that many men and women, while still anatomically 
and genetically normal, should exhibit traits which lean towards what the 
opposite sex on average is best at.  

There have been many careful studies on biologically normal children whose 
mothers took hormones because of problems with the pregnancy, and the results 
are consistent.  Boys whose mothers took female hormones were less dominant, 
ambitious, rough etc., and vice versa.  Note that the embarrassment implicit in 
this situation arises only because of rigid gender roles.

.187> Men are rewarded for engaging in aggressive, threatening behavior when
.187> challenged.  Women are expected to avoid threats and/or danger.
    
.187> Of course this amounts to a culturally-induced advantage for men (if
    
    This difference is found in children as young as 6 weeks.
    
    It is not culturally induced, nor is it a product of a system of rewards.
    
    See 830.77 and 830.122.

    RE: .188  Simpson_D
    
    > Step back a minute.  Not everybody (forget sex) is capable of going to
    > university and doing a doctorate in higher mathematics. 
    
    Some people have the capability but are prevented from realizing
    this capability due to circumstances.
    
    > Because those who succeed in going further in mathematics are already
    > predisposed to learning mathematics, which is to say their brains are
    > receptive to the relevant concepts, and this goes right back to the
    > hormones structuring brain thesis.  And so
    
    The point I believe you are missing is that intelligent people of
    both sexes are very adaptable (and can be especially motivated by
    interest.)  In my case, although I showed an ability in math to
    some degree, it wasn't until I got "hooked" on Symbolic Logic in
    college (enough to major in it) that I really excelled in it.
    
    Later, I developed a passing interest in Biology (as a science
    elective) and to my lab instructors' amazement, I was surpassing
    the grades/performance of the pre-med students in my class
    (due to the interest I developed in the course.)  My lab teachers
    spent a great deal of time trying to talk me into going to medical
    school (since I had the grades and the apparent aptitude for it,)
    but although I enjoyed it, my affection for symbolic logic was
    always much stronger.
    
    Intelligent women who are given the tools to learn spatial and
    math reasoning skills can apply their intelligence to these
    skills to reach excellence.

    RE: .191  Mike Z.
    
    .187>Men are rewarded for engaging in aggressive, threatening behavior when
    .187>challenged.  Women are expected to avoid threats and/or danger.
    
    .187> Of course this amounts to a culturally-induced advantage for men (if
    
    > This difference is found in children as young as 6 weeks.
    > It is not culturally induced, nor is it a product of a system of rewards.
    
    The "advantage" is culturally-induced.  The behavior (aggression,
    competitiveness, threats) may be more of a male behavioral tendency,
    but it's our culture that has turned this behavior into an advantage
    for men.  In different circumstances, it could have been regarded as
    a disadvantage (with men being seen as lacking in control, etc.)

    Simpson - It might help if you keep in mind one of the recent quotes
    from Scientific American that I posted again last night.
    
    Researchers DO NOT KNOW what causes the correlation between hormones
    during brain development and skill patterns.  They only know that
    there is a correlation.
    
    However, they DO know that men and women are evenly matched when it
    comes to intelligence.  They also know that girls can be taught to
    acquire spatial and math reasoning skills.
    
    Therefore, there is NO evidence to suggest that a natural predisposition
    for math is required to develop excellent math reasoning skills (for an
    intelligent person who is given the tools to acquire spatial and math
    reasoning abilities.)

    re .192
    
>    Some people have the capability but are prevented from realizing
>    this capability due to circumstances.
    
    This is true, but tangental to my point.
    
>    The point I believe you are missing is that intelligent people of
>    both sexes are very adaptable (and can be especially motivated by
    
    This, also, is true, and again tangental.  I could post a similar
    anecdote of how I switched from a degree in Commerce to Computer
    Science (much to the disgust of the Science Faculty, who didn't believe
    in letting non-people, ie., not B.Sc's, in).
    
>    Intelligent women who are given the tools to learn spatial and
>    math reasoning skills can apply their intelligence to these
>    skills to reach excellence.
    
    As I said, improved education will help them further along, but
    ultimately they *must* run into the brick wall of their capacity to
    learn in a given area, which is very largely dependent upon their brain
    structures.

    re .195
    
>    However, they DO know that men and women are evenly matched when it
>    comes to intelligence.  They also know that girls can be taught to
>    acquire spatial and math reasoning skills.
    
    I am not talking about general levels of intelligence (and at the risk
    or ratholing, just what is intelligence?).  I'm talking about how
    brains are generally differently organised betwen the sexes which leads
    to general superiority in skill sets and predispositions to certain
    types of behaviour.

    RE: .196  Simpson
    
    > As I said, improved education will help them further along, but
    > ultimately they *must* run into the brick wall of their capacity to
    > learn in a given area, which is very largely dependent upon their brain
    > structures.
    
    Once again, keep in mind that researchers still DO NOT KNOW the cause
    of the correlation between hormones during brain development and
    skill patterns (they only know the correlation exists.)
    
    Therefore, you can't presume that there is some structural problem
    that would prevent many women from obtaining math reasoning skills.
    Researchers don't have evidence that this exists.
    
    When they talk about "structured differently," they're talking about
    different parts of the brain being used for language function, etc.
    (which means that women use both sides of the brain for speaking,
    for example, while men use only one side.)  This structural difference
    allows the SAME ACTIVITIES to occur in different parts of the brain,
    but there is no evidence that men or women are predisposed to a lack
    of capacity for certain brain functions.

    re.116
    
    Interesting juxtapostion
    
>.106> If the natural ratio of that skill set was 20:1 in favour of men then
>.106> an employee ratio of 20:1 would not be discriminatory.  
    
>.111> if a job requires a particular set of skills for which men, on average, are
>.111> a better match ... that just _is_
    
>    We all agree.
    
    I'm not so sure we do.  I know that I don't agree with the excerpt from
    .106.  I don't believe that 'the natural ratio of [a] skill set' is a
    good measure of non-discriminatory hiring practices.  A sound basis for
    raising questions.  If I encounter a ratio such as 20:1, I'm much more
    likely to investigate the validity than when I encounter something like
    5:2.  And I would also continue to test the validity of such an
    un-equal ratio over time to determine that it is not a cultural
    anomaly.
    
>    But there are some people who claim that unequal numbers of men and
>    women in certian positions in corporate and political America is due
>    to oppression by those in power (ie: the white male patriarchy)?
    
    If the ability to bear young were considered a critical success factor
    in managing corporate and political America, I would look at the
    underlying social/cultural reasoning behind this conclusion rather than
    accepting on faith that it was truth and thus perpetuating a system
    where men were excluded to a large degree.
    
    I honestly believe that the gender skew in positions of power in
    corporate and political America is more a function of nurture and
    culture than it is natural ability. Leaders tend to be non-typical
    individuals.
    
      Annie

    When people see the words "different brain structures," it almost
    sounds as though they're being interpreted as "different physical
    structures" (the way ovaries and testicles are different.)
    
    Considering that researchers don't even *know* the reason for the
    correlation between hormones during fetal development and *patterns*
    of skill sets for the sexes, it's way too presumptuous to assert
    that women face some sort of "brick wall" when it comes to performing
    certain math functions.  
    
    Researchers simply don't know enough about the brain to make such a 
    determination (and the presumption that women's brains lack the
    capability to do certain math functions is an unproven assumption
    that has the potential to cause *additional* sexism and discrimination
    towards women.)  Such an assumption is just a quasi-scientific way
    to state the same old "women can't do math" myths that we've had in
    our culture for a long, long time.
    
    Brain function research is also being done on primates, by the way,
    and scientists are finding many presumptions (about their brain
    capabilities) untrue.  Apes and monkeys are performing language
    communications (and sentence creations) that scientists never
    thought possible.  For example, it's been discovered that monkeys
    can describe their future actions (they can tell researchers what
    they plan to do, then carry out these actions at a later time.)
    Also, it's been found that monkeys can categorize objects by
    their symbols (names.)
    
    In other words, some "brick walls" that members of these species
    were believed to face have been found to be non-existent.
    
    Before we presume that such "brick walls" exist for members of our
    own species (based on their sex, race, or whatever,) let's do a lot
    more research in this area (rather than promote additional needless
    prejudice towards people that have already faced too much unfairness
    in this area.)

    
    RE: .157 ::CONLON
    
    I think that my .3, my .156 and your .157 are saying the same thing.
    
    In other words, I think we agree. However, I never thought of Carmen
    Adams' statement as a "vote against" equality. Quite the opposite, I
    saw it as a "vote for" equality. And that is what I am for. But, I am
    against sameness. Men and women are (should) be equal, men and women
    are not the same. When I translate the above sentence to my "mother"
    tongue (spanish) it makes a lot of sense to me, I hope that when I put
    it in english, the meaning is not lost or misunderstood.
    
    Art.
                                                                     

.200> Considering that researchers don't even *know* the reason for the
.200> correlation between hormones during fetal development and *patterns*
.200> of skill sets for the sexes, it's way too presumptuous to assert
.200> that women face some sort of "brick wall" when it comes to performing
.200> certain math functions.  
    
    There are two issues here, unrelated to each other:
    
    	1. The mechanisms and processes involved in brain development,
    	   the ones responsible for this "brick wall," are not fully known.
    
    	2. At the upper end of mathematics ability, we find 13 men for
    	   every 1 woman.
    
    To determine the presence of something, one doesn't need to know why
    it exists, one needs only to show that it exists.
    
    I refer you to 830.32.
    
    
.200> women.)  Such an assumption is just a quasi-scientific way
.200> to state the same old "women can't do math" myths that we've had in
.200> our culture for a long, long time.
    
    These are YOUR words.
    
    Women can do math, no one here has said differently.
    
    
.200> In other words, some "brick walls" that members of these species
.200> were believed to face have been found to be non-existent.
    
    This math-talented "brick wall" has been investigated for 2 decades
    and has been well-documented with tests of over a million children.
    
    I refer you to 830.127.

    RE: .202  Mike Z.
    
    > There are two issues here, unrelated to each other:
    
    >	1. The mechanisms and processes involved in brain development,
    >	   the ones responsible for this "brick wall," are not fully known.
    
    Incorrect.  The mechanisms and process involved in brain development
    are not fully known, period.  The existence of a so-called "brick wall"
    in women's (or men's) brains has *not* been proven.  In fact, the term
    hasn't even been *suggested* in any of the literature I've seen (here
    or elsewhere) about this research.
    
    Let me repeat this quote from Scientific American again:
    
       "It is important to keep in mind that the relation between natural
       hormonal levels and problem solving is based on correlational data.
    
       "Some form of connection between the two measures exists, but how
       this association is determined or what its causal basis may be is
       _unknown_."
    
    >	2. At the upper end of mathematics ability, we find 13 men for
    >	   every 1 woman.
    
    This is not an issue.  It's a *correlation* that is not yet understood
    by researchers:
    
       "Little is currently understood about the relation between adult 
       levels of hormones and those in early life, when abilities appear 
       to be organized in the nervous system.  We have a lot to learn 
       about the precise mechanisms underlying cognitive patterns in people."
    
    > To determine the presence of something, one doesn't need to know why
    > it exists, one needs only to show that it exists.
    
    No one has shown that a "brick wall" exists.  Researchers have only
    shown (so far) that a correlation exists.  Beyond this, "little is
    understood."
    
    > This math-talented "brick wall" has been investigated for 2 decades
    > and has been well-documented with tests of over a million children.
    
    Again, the investigations have determined that a correlation exists
    between hormones during brain development and patterns of abilities.
    Scientists have not proven that a "brick wall" exists which prevents 
    people of either sex from having the capability for certain cognitive
    functions.
    
    You can quote all sorts of scientific material which insinuates or
    suggests that such a brick wall could exist, but it's only *your*
    (and Simpson's) layman's opinion of the material.
    
    In the absence of proof of a "brick wall," it is inappropriate to
    promote this idea as a fact.  When women are falsely characterized
    as being incapable of certain cognitive functions (especially those
    that happen to be needed quite a bit in the business of our employer,) 
    it amounts to an implication that women are inferior to men (in our
    work environment and elsewhere.)
    
    Until you have proof (beyond laymen's assumptions of others' research)
    that a "brick wall" exists, I suggest you give your co-workers the
    benefit of the doubt.

    By the way, the next "Brain Sex" installment aired tonight.
    
    One interesting disadvantage to having a male brain:
    
    	Men lose more brain cells (and at a faster rate) than women do
    	as people get older.
    
    Sorry, guys.  :>
    

    Mike Z. - 
    
    Thanks very much for returning your tone to a 'discussion level.'
    

.203> The existence of a so-called "brick wall" in women's (or men's)
.203> brains has *not* been proven.
    
    Has it been shown that men and women differ in math ability?
    
    Do you believe this difference has a significant biological determinant?
    
    Does the term "brick wall" need to be used by a researcher before you
    come to accept it?

    re .199
    
    The 20:1 ratio is purely hypothetical and was originally chose, I would
    think, precisely because it is extreme and focuses the issue.
    
    re .200
    
>    In other words, some "brick walls" that members of these species
>    were believed to face have been found to be non-existent.
    
    This is an excellent example that goes a long way to proving my point. 
    The chimpanzee, to whom we are most closely related, is capable of a
    vocabulary of 300-400 words, and that's it.  It is true that once
    language was thought to be an exclusively human property, and now we
    know this is not so.  However, and this is the crucial bit, we know
    absolutely that the chimpanzee brain is utterly incapable of
    progressing beyond this limit (which approximates the capacity of a
    human 2 year old).  The chimpanzee brain lacks the capacity (literally,
    it lacks certain bits that we have).
    
    So there is a brick wall in this case.  We found a way to exploit a
    hidden potential, but we also found out that chimps could go thus far
    and no further.
    
    .205
    
>    	Men lose more brain cells (and at a faster rate) than women do
>    	as people get older.
    
    Since male brains are, on average, 2 percent heavier than female brains
    it follows that we can afford to lose a few more cells, particularly
    since no-one has yet found any significant meaning to the weight
    difference.

    re.208
    
    I was fairly certain that "20:1" was purely hypothetical; but on the
    off-chance that it was not, I expressed what my reaction might be to
    such un-even disctribution.
    
    Regardless, I do not believe that staffing that mirrors any ratio
    proves non-discrimination, especially where the staff size is small. A
    staff that mirrors such ratios would not raise any red flags, but I
    would not exempt it from testing.
    
    In fact, such ratios could be used to constitute quotas. If the ratio
    of excellence in a given skill were [hypothetical] m:f  2:3, it would
    discriminatory for an employer to interview only those of the gender
    that was lagging the ratio in filling an open position.
    
      Annie

    RE: .207  Mike Z.
    
    > Does the term "brick wall" need to be used by a researcher before you
    > come to accept it?
    
    Camilla Benbow (at the end of last week's episode of "Brain Sex")
    described some of the educatinal techniques involved with training
    boys to 'sound out' words (instead of memorizing them) as a method
    of changing some of the skill set patterns that correlate with the
    presence of hormones during brain development.
    
    She also stated that girls can be given spatial skills (so that they
    would have more of the higher math reasoning skills enjoyed by men
    and women who work as engineers and architects, for example.)  She
    said absolutely NOTHING about a brick wall (which would prohibit
    boys or girls from obtaining these non-typical skills.)
    
    Scientific American did, however, state that ANY INDIVIDUAL can
    have such non-typical skills.
    
    The notion of a "brick wall" in women's brains is only the assumption
    of a couple of laymen who introduced this concept in this notesfile.
    
    How on Earth could anyone expect me (or anyone else) to accept this 
    assumption (especially since there is absolutely NO direct scientific 
    proof backing it up, nor has it been theorized by the researcher 
    quoted most often in this topic)..???

    RE: .208  Simpson_D
    
    >> In other words, some "brick walls" that members of these species
    >> were believed to face have been found to be non-existent.
    
    > This is an excellent example that goes a long way to proving my point. 
    
    Not at all.  It only goes to show that assumptions about "brick walls"
    can be mistaken.
    
    In the case of the human "brick wall" that you have introduced to this
    string, scientists have not yet CLAIMED that such a brick wall exists
    (so they don't need to worry about their assumptions being mistaken.)
    
    You have no scientific data that proposes (or proves) that women are
    incapable of some cognitive functions that men are capable of doing.
    It is only your assumption (as a layman) and you have absolutely
    nothing to back it up.
    
    >> Men lose more brain cells (and at a faster rate) than women do
    >> as people get older.
    
    > Since male brains are, on average, 2 percent heavier than female brains
    > it follows that we can afford to lose a few more cells, particularly
    > since no-one has yet found any significant meaning to the weight
    > difference.
    
    Sorry to disappoint you, but men CAN NOT afford to lose more brain
    cells than women (although I can understand why you would want to
    make this erroneous assumption.)
    
    The "Brain Sex" show explained that men use the outer layers of their
    brains for cognitive functions (and it is this area that loses brain
    cells so rapidly.)  Women use the inner portions of the brain for
    the SAME cognitive functions and this area is less prone to losing
    brain cells.  The show made it clear that women retain MORE cognitive
    functions as they get older than men do.

    Last week's "Brain Sex" program showed a phenomenon that occurs in
    interactions between men and women...
    
    Women tend to be more influenced by suggestion (especially from men)
    than men are influenced by suggestion from women.  They showed a man
    gently insisting to individual women that a tower was a certain height
    (impossibly high) and the women went along with him.
    
    When a woman tried to suggest to individual men that the tower was
    the same height, they refused to accept it (or outright laughed or
    shook their heads in derision.)
    
    Our culture teaches men that they can, indeed, simply insist on a
    point or position to a woman and she will accept it ("Gee, this guy
    says it's true so it must be right.  I'm probably wrong.")
    
    Well, I'm glad the "Brain Sex" program showed this phenomenon so
    that more men and women can be aware of it when they interact (and
    so that men won't be too terribly surprised if women don't accept what
    they say simply because they have the authority of a Y chromosome
    to back them up.)

    By the way, the fact that ANY WOMEN can reach the heights of the
    best math reasoning minds (even if the ratio is only 1:13) proves
    in itself that the female brain is not constructed with a "brick
    wall" preventing women in particular from spatial rotation and
    higher math reasoning skills.
    
    The combination of hormones during brain development and cultural
    influences (which make math a less attractive interest for women)
    serve to help reduce the numbers of women who reach the highest
    acheivement in math reasoning skills.  Camilla Benbow (of "Brain
    Sex") asserts that girls who are given help with spatial skills
    are capable of excelling at math reasoning skills, which can be
    used if these girls later choose to be engineers or architects.
    
    If these education techniques were done on a widespread basis,
    the ratio of women and men who excel at spatial rotation and math
    reasoning skills would change.

    OK, so more men are geeks.  I still blame society.
    
    Ray

    
    
    re -1
    
    I think you've got a valid point on blaming society.  Still 
    to this day there are kids that are told they can't do something.
    Most of them take those words for granted and don't even bother
    to try.  Others take them as a challenge to prove the person
    wrong.  
    
    I've always loved math and did quite well in it during school.
    Had 12 different math courses during my college days in engineering.
    I loved it than and still do.  Yet neither of my two brothers or
    my younger sister like math at all.  For that fact neither does
    my mom.  However, from the earliest time I can remember, I was
    always told I was good at math and that I was also going to college.
    In fact, I was the only one who did graduate from college.  Was this
    because I was continually told so whereas my siblings were not?
    
    And what's wrong with being a geek!!!!

> Math majors are people too. Just not interesting people... 
    
    Da. Huh! Hey! Take that back!
    					- Vick

    Also, they have no sense of humor.
    
    And I should know,
    Ray

    
    Men and women are not equal.  They are complementary.  The two
    together are greater than the sum of the parts.
    
    fred();

    Men and women *are* equal (although we do not yet enjoy equal rights.)
    
    We aren't exactly the same, but each of us is a complete individual 
    (with value as a member of a family and/or as part of a work team.)

    
    
    Each part can be equally valuable without necessarily being equal.
    Depends on your definition of _equal_ I guess.
    
    fred();

    Among other things, the word "equal" means "like in quality, nature, or
    status" and it is clear that men and women are *not* equal even by this
    society-oriented definition.  And it is not reasonable to treat the
    sexes in exactly the same way because there are admitted fundamental
    differences.
    
    Could we possibly agree that "deserving of equal respect" in all its
    myriad ramifications is what is really meant when someone says men and
    women are equal?
    
    -dick

.218>  Men and women are not equal.  They are complementary.  The two
.218>  together are greater than the sum of the parts.
    
.218>  fred();

       I both LIKE and AGREE with this concept...

       How would the realization of this Synergy cause the status of both women
       and men to improve?

    RE: .220  Fred
    
    > Each part can be equally valuable without necessarily being equal.
    
    Which part?  (Like an arm or a leg?)  If you're only discussing
    "part" of a human being, which part is it?
    
    I'd rather discuss individual, complete human beings (who may not
    be identical, but who deserve the same rights as any other individual,
    complete human being.)

    RE: .221  Dick
    
    > Could we possibly agree that "deserving of equal respect" in all its
    > myriad ramifications is what is really meant when someone says men and
    > women are equal?
    
    Nope.  It's not good enough if "equality" doesn't include equal rights
    to education, employment, etc.
    
    Let's not forget that men and women are members of the same species.
    We deserve equal rights (as humans first, regardless of our sex.)

    
    Suzanne,
    
    We obviously have a fundamentally different definitions of _equality_.
    
    fred();

    RE: .225  Fred
    
    > We obviously have a fundamentally different definitions of _equality_.
    
    Perhaps.
    
    Do you view yourself as an entire human being or only *part* of a
    human being?  (Just curious.)

    
    I view myself as an entire human being and as a part of a marriage
    and a part of society.
    
    fred();

    RE: .227  Fred
    
    > I view myself as an entire human being and as a part of a marriage
    > and a part of society.
    
    As an entire human being, you are equal to other entire, individual
    human beings.
    
    (Guess what:  So am I.)

    re .228

    >As an entire human being, you are equal to other entire, individual
    >human beings.

    Equal in value--probably (I like to think so anyway--;^) ).  Equal in 
    physical and mental capability--definitely not.

    >(Guess what:  So am I.)

    And yes, Suzanne, so are you.

    fred();

    RE: .229  Fred
    
    > Equal in value--probably (I like to think so anyway--;^) ).  Equal in 
    > physical and mental capability--definitely not.
    
    Individuals are going to differ from each other (regardless of sex,
    race, age, etc.)  
    
    Do you think that a smarter or stronger man should have more rights
    than you are allowed to have (or should you have equal rights 
    regardless of your individual strength or intelligence?)

    re: .224
    
    Suzanne, please read what I wrote before saying it's not good enough. 
    you, who are so careful of language, should be well aware that the
    phrase "'deserving of equal respect' in all its myriad ramifications,"
    as I proposed, implies equal rights and all that goes with them.  It
    means that men as a class are just as valuable as women as a class, and
    conversely; hence, neither deserves to be slighted in any way.  And it
    says this without implying that men are the same as women, which I
    think we all agree is not the case.
    
    -dick

    re .230

    >Do you think that a smarter or stronger man should have more rights
    >than you are allowed to have (or should you have equal rights 
    >regardless of your individual strength or intelligence?)

    Suzanne,  if you look back at my notes over the _years_ you will find
    that I have _always_ supported _equal_ rights.  I have, however, had
    serious doubts as to the goals and agenda of certain groups that use
    "equal rights" as a politically correct store-front.

    fred();

    RE: .231  Dick
    
    > Suzanne, please read what I wrote before saying it's not good enough. 
    
    Take your own advice:
    
    	"It's not good enough *IF* "equality" doesn't include equal rights
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    	to education, employment, etc.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > you, who are so careful of language, should be well aware that the
    > phrase "'deserving of equal respect' in all its myriad ramifications,"
    > as I proposed, implies equal rights and all that goes with them. 
    
    I'm not a mind-reader (so I had no way of knowing whether you meant
    to imply all this or not.)  I'm glad you did, but it was worth it to
    me to check.

    RE: .232 Fred
    
    > Suzanne,  if you look back at my notes over the _years_ you will find
    > that I have _always_ supported _equal_ rights. 
    
    If you support equal rights for men and women, then we are in agreement.
    
    > I have, however, had serious doubts as to the goals and agenda of 
    > certain groups that use "equal rights" as a politically correct 
    > store-front.
    
    Regardless of your opinion of political groups - if you support equal
    rights for men and women, then we are in agreement.
    
    I believe men and women should have equal rights.  I'm glad you
    believe this, too.

    "Equal rights" is what is meant by the "equality" in "Liberty,
    equality, fraternity".  Having "equal rights" is what is meant by
    "all men are created equal".  Equal rights means that everyone should
    be treated as if they have the same potential, even if it is true that 
    no two people have the same potential.  So jobs should not have
    requirements that exclude anyone because of their sex, race, religion,
    etc.  No one should be excluded from educational opportunities because
    of their sex, age, etc.  No one should be given less pay than someone
    else for the same job just because or their sex, physical disability,
    etc.  
    
    Arguing that we can't use the word "equal" to mean "equal rights" is
    wrong, boring, and diversionary.
    
    If brains can be wired differently, and if we can test to determine the
    kind of wiring an individual possesses, then it may be reasonable to
    offer different kinds of educational opportunities based on the wiring.
    But ALL, regardless of sex, should be given the same opportunities. 
    For any individual man may be wired more like the average woman, and
    any individual woman may be wired more like the average man.  It would
    be unfair not to give these individuals the same opportunities as other
    individuals.  The question of whether or not men and women have, on
    average, different wiring, is perhaps of scientific interest, but has
    little relevence to the ethics of a free society.
    
    					- Vick

    Men and women may be complementary to each other, but seldom complimentary
    to each other.
    
    					- Vick  

    Is that like the old saw that says "You can't live with them and you
    can't live without them."?

    RE: .235  Vick
    
    > But ALL, regardless of sex, should be given the same opportunities. 
    
    > For any individual man may be wired more like the average woman, and
    > any individual woman may be wired more like the average man.  It would
    > be unfair not to give these individuals the same opportunities as other
    > individuals.  
    
    > The question of whether or not men and women have, on average, different 
    > wiring, is perhaps of scientific interest, but has little relevence to 
    > the ethics of a free society.
    
    Absolutely!  Thanks, Vick.

    But truly, if you take any two individuals, one man, one woman.  The
    likelihood that you could call them complementary seems pretty slim
    to me.  And if you mean that if you take all men and all women together
    that they make up the human race, then that is trivially true.
    
    The idea that men and women are complementary seems like kind of a
    societal myth.  Yin and Yang, and all that.  But all it really means
    is that society teaches the sexes different roles, and if the training
    takes, then indeed, the sexes will have different traits and will
    seem to complement each other, on average, in many ways.  It is not
    beyond the realm of science fiction to imagine a society in which
    the only real differences were the minor physical ones.
    
    This seems to be one of those concepts that if you think about it long
    enough it seems to lose its meaning.  Kind of like the Chesire Cat.
    
    					- Vick

    Question to ponder:  How much of the different wiring between men and
    women may have resulted from evolutionary societal (possibly
    pre-homo-sapien) pressures.  For example, assertive females over time 
    might have had more trouble finding mates in a society of dominant males 
    and submissive women.
    					- Vick

    .239 -- Yep.
    
    My first thought on reading fred()'s
    
>    Men and women are not equal.  They are complementary.  The two
>    together are greater than the sum of the parts.
    
    was: "Two men are not equal. They are complementary. The two together
    are greater than the sum of the parts.  Two women are not equal.  They
    are complementary.  The two together are greater than the sum of the
    parts."
    
    Ray

    When I hear the idea that "men and women are not equal; they are
    complementary," it (unfortunately) sounds to me like:  "Men and
    women each have their places; you don't belong in a man's domain
    (i.e., being an engineer at Digital.)"
    
    I'm glad to see that this doesn't seem to be the actual meaning
    of this idea, but it still grates on my nerves just a tad.  :-}

.173> Without the cultural influences, there
.173> is no reason why women and men could not be brought to an even
.173> level where such skills are concerned (even if women never do choose
    
    I have yet to see any evidence of this claim.
    
    If you have, please provide it.

    
.213> If these education techniques were done on a widespread basis,
.213> the ratio of women and men who excel at spatial rotation and math
.213> reasoning skills would change.

    I have yet to see any evidence of this claim.
    
    If you have, please provide it.

    
.207> Does the term "brick wall" need to be used by a researcher before you
.207> come to accept it?
    
.210> How on Earth could anyone expect me (or anyone else) to accept this 
.210> assumption (especially since there is absolutely NO direct scientific 
.210> proof backing it up, nor has it been theorized by the researcher 
.210> quoted most often in this topic)..???

	    ... does that mean Yes or No?

    Also, please explain what you would require as "direct scientific
    proof."


.213> By the way, the fact that ANY WOMEN can reach the heights of the
.213> best math reasoning minds (even if the ratio is only 1:13) proves
.213> in itself that the female brain is not constructed with a "brick
.213> wall" preventing women in particular from spatial rotation and
.213> higher math reasoning skills.

    No, fact is, the absence of a brick wall in 10% of the women does
    not prove the absence of the wall in the other 90%.

.205> Men lose more brain cells (and at a faster rate) than women do
.205> as people get older.
    
    And what are the implications of this?
    
    I see that in .211 you made a follow-up reference to "cognitive
    functions" but you didn't state which ones and whether women surpass
    men or not.
    
    Do you know?

    Also, Ms Conlon, I've noticed that you have been talking about the
    opinions here, or as you refer to them : "laymen's" opinions, as if
    they carry little, if any weight.
    
    Does that also apply to laywomen's opinions?
    
    Are not those equally dubious, perhaps even more, if the laywoman in
    question has only just begun to educate herself on this topic?

    And, lastly, you would consider responding to these, from .207:
    
.207> Has it been shown that men and women differ in math ability?
    
.207> Do you believe this difference has a significant biological determinant?

    re .239
    
>    The idea that men and women are complementary seems like kind of a
>    societal myth.  Yin and Yang, and all that.  But all it really means
>    is that society teaches the sexes different roles, and if the training
>    takes, then indeed, the sexes will have different traits and will
>    seem to complement each other, on average, in many ways.  It is not
>    beyond the realm of science fiction to imagine a society in which
>    the only real differences were the minor physical ones.
     
    You haven't been paying attention.  According to the evidence short or
    radical genetic engineering this is not so.  I shall recapitulate:
    
"The sexes are different because their brains are different.  The brain, the 
chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently constructed in 
men and women; it processes information in a different way, which results in 
different perceptions, priorities and behaviour.
    
"Until recently, behavioural differences between the sexes have been explained 
away by social conditioning...  Today there is too much new biological evidence 
for the sociological argument to prevail.
    
"These [sex] differences have a practical, social relevance.  On measurements 
of various aptitude tests, the difference between the sexes in average scores 
on these tests can be as much as 25 per cent.  A difference of as little as 5 
per cent has been found to have a marked impact on the occupations or 
activities at which men and women will, on average, excel.
    
"Infants are not blank slates, on whom we scrawl instructions for sexually 
appropriate behaviour.  They are born with male or female minds of their own.  
They have, quite literally, made up their minds in the womb, safe from the 
legions of social engineers who impatiently await them.
    
"The most obvious difference between boys and girls is male aggression; and it 
has an overwhelmingly biological rather than social cause... It's not just a 
matter of the hormones: to produce aggression, the hormones have to have a 
developed male brain to act upon.  
    
"If sex differences, once acknowledged, are deemed to be wrong, hurtful, and 
unjust, there is a way to eliminate them...  [] if we want to eliminate [them] 
we must change the biological cocktail of Creation."

    RE: .244  Mike Z.
    
    .205> Men lose more brain cells (and at a faster rate) than women do
    .205> as people get older.
    
    > And what are the implications of this?
    
    Men lose more of their cognitive functions than women do.
    
    > I see that in .211 you made a follow-up reference to "cognitive
    > functions" but you didn't state which ones and whether women surpass
    > men or not.
    
    > Do you know?
    
    Men and women start out with equal intelligence and equal nonverbal
    and verbal reasoning skills (per Scientific American,) remember.
    As men get older, they lose more cognitive functions than women do
    (per this week's program "Brain Sex.")

    RE: .245  Mike Z.
    
    > Also, Ms Conlon, I've noticed that you have been talking about the
    > opinions here, or as you refer to them : "laymen's" opinions, as if
    > they carry little, if any weight.
    
    They carry very little weight compared to professional researchers
    on this subject (who have not backed up your independent laymen's
    theories AT ALL.)
    
    > Does that also apply to laywomen's opinions?
    
    If I were to suggest that men have a "brick wall" when it comes to
    being able to stop themselves from raping women, it would also apply
    (as a made-up theory with absolutely no scientific backing.)
    
    > Are not those equally dubious, perhaps even more, if the laywoman in
    > question has only just begun to educate herself on this topic?
    
    I've been reading the material about brain differences for years, Mike.
    I have yet to see researchers post anything whatsoever that has bothered
    me or worried me (about women's comparitive mental capabilities) in any
    way.
    
    I do, however, object to the distortions of this material (especially
    when they are used as potential weapons against women's equality in
    the workplace by falsely suggesting that women have some sort of
    "brick wall" when it comes to cognitive functions.)
    
    Scientists have stated (unequivocably) that any individual has the
    capability of non-typical skills (such as the high degree of spatial
    and math reasoning skills held by women in engineering and physics
    professions.)  Scientists have *NOT* proposed that women have any
    sort of "brick wall" preventing acquisition of these skills.
    
    You have no backing for these theories (and claims to have read
    these studies for a longer period of time than someone else does
    NOT constitute 'backing' for these theories.)
    
    The "brick wall" theory is bogus, whether you ever admit it or not.

    re .248
    
>    Wait - you can't possibly be suggesting that women are guilty of having 
>    this ficticious "brick wall" in our brains until proven innocent...
    
>    I've seen absolutely ZERO evidence that the so-called "brick wall"
>    exists.  If you have such evidence, please provide it.
    
    What we can do, in the absence of definitive proof, is logically infer
    from what we do know.
    
    We know that men's and women's brains are, on average, organised
    differently (see 658.93).  We know that these different organisations
    lead to one sex having advantages over the other in certain skill sets,
    and also lead to general behavioural diferences.
    
    It is possible, even probable, that modified education techniques which
    cater for the difference in structures can help.  Example: generally
    improving female skills in maths.  But this is where we run into
    trouble.
    
    Is it reasonable to expect these new education methods to bring the
    female average up to the male average, or the best female up to the
    best male?  On the face of it: no.  
    
    In the first place it assumes no new techniques that improve the male
    average, that would keep them ahead in this area.
    
    In the second place it assumes that people can learn against the
    brain's fundamental organisation, and this is prima facie absurd.  We
    all have our brick walls.  No-one's skills are unlimited.  In the
    specific case in question males tend to do better in this skill because
    that portion of their brain that deals with it is more specialised than
    it is with females, and it is also bigger, even after taking into
    account relative baverage body size differences.  Not only will they
    develop these skills more easily, on average, because their brains are
    predisposed to learning these things, but it is reasonable to project
    that they, too, have hidden potential and can go further than they
    currently do.
    
    To assume that education can equalise these things across the board is
    to relegate the biological brain differences to mere curiosities, and
    that is exactly what the researchers are not saying.  And, BTW, there
    is more to this than one article in Scientific American, or a couple of
    hours of TV.  I have already posted lengthy excerpts from Brain SEx the
    book and other sources in this topic and earlier.

    RE: .243  Mike Z.
    
    .173> Without the cultural influences, there
    .173> is no reason why women and men could not be brought to an even
    .173> level where such skills are concerned (even if women never do choose
    
    > I have yet to see any evidence of this claim.
    > If you have, please provide it.
    
    Wait - you can't possibly be suggesting that women are guilty of having 
    this ficticious "brick wall" in our brains until proven innocent...
    
    I've seen absolutely ZERO evidence that the so-called "brick wall"
    exists.  If you have such evidence, please provide it.
    
    .213> If these education techniques were done on a widespread basis,
    .213> the ratio of women and men who excel at spatial rotation and math
    .213> reasoning skills would change.

    > I have yet to see any evidence of this claim.
    > If you have, please provide it.
    
    Camilla Benbow stated (in "Brain Sex") that educational techniques
    *DO* increase girls' spatial and math reasoning skills (which means
    that the ratio has already changed to some very slight degree,
    depending on the number of schools that have already started employing
    this technique.)  You've quoted Camilla Benbow extensively throughout
    this topic.  Is her statement enough for you?
    
    .207> Does the term "brick wall" need to be used by a researcher before you
    .207> come to accept it?
    
    .210> How on Earth could anyone expect me (or anyone else) to accept this 
    .210> assumption (especially since there is absolutely NO direct scientific 
    .210> proof backing it up, nor has it been theorized by the researcher 
    .210> quoted most often in this topic)..???

    >       ... does that mean Yes or No?
    
    It means that your made-up theories about how human brains work
    (in the face of researchers' admitted lack of knowledge about it)
    do not constitute a reasonable argument on the subject.  You can
    make all the assumptions you like, but if they amount to promoting
    a prejudice about women's capabilities or value in the workplace
    then I object.  
    
    It is totally and completely inappropriate to promote misinformation
    about women's mental capabilities and/or value in the workplace based
    on your own assumptions and prejudices about women.

    RE: .251  Simpson
    
    >> Wait - you can't possibly be suggesting that women are guilty of having 
    >> this ficticious "brick wall" in our brains until proven innocent...
    
    >> I've seen absolutely ZERO evidence that the so-called "brick wall"
    >> exists.  If you have such evidence, please provide it.
    
    > What we can do, in the absence of definitive proof, is logically infer
    > from what we do know.
    
    What professionals know is that they do NOT have enough information
    to make such inferences (i.e., assumptions) about the human brain.
    They do this for a living and know enough to refrain from making
    the kinds of assumptions you're making (as an amateur,) in other words.
    
    > In the second place it assumes that people can learn against the
    > brain's fundamental organisation, and this is prima facie absurd.  We
    > all have our brick walls.  No-one's skills are unlimited.
    
    It is true that INDIVIDUALS have personal brick walls.  Some men,
    for example, can't do math to save their lives.  I've met men that
    were absolutely baffled when I described what I was doing in my
    Trig and Calculus classes.  Some individual men simply do not have
    the capability for higher math reasoning.  Some individual women
    have the same problem.
    
    Men and women's brains have PATTERNS of abilities (and PATTERNS
    of different organization,) but it is not the case that male and
    female brains are fundamentally different organs for all men and
    women.
    
    > In the specific case in question males tend to do better in this skill 
    > because that portion of their brain that deals with it is more 
    > specialised than it is with females, and it is also bigger, even after 
    > taking into account relative baverage body size differences. 
    
    Once again, scientists still DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH about the mechanisms of
    the brain to support your theory about this:
    
    	    "It is important to keep in mind that the relation between natural
            hormonal levels and problem solving is based on correlational data.
    
            "Some form of connection between the two measures exists, but how
            this association is determined or what its causal basis may be is
            _unknown_. 
    
    	    "Little is currently understood about the relation between adult 
            levels of hormones and those in early life, when abilities appear 
            to be organized in the nervous system.  We have a lot to learn 
            about the precise mechanisms underlying cognitive patterns in 
            people."
    
    You can't expect me to accept your theory when scientists have stated
    specifically that they can't make such inferences/assumptions.
    
    > Not only will they develop these skills more easily, on average, because 
    > their brains are predisposed to learning these things, but it is 
    > reasonable to project that they, too, have hidden potential and can go 
    > further than they currently do.
    
    What - no "brick walls" in men's brains?  (By the way, it does sound
    like you acknowledge that women's brains have hidden potential - as
    opposed to a brick wall - when it comes to higher math reasoning skills.)
    
    > To assume that education can equalise these things across the board is
    > to relegate the biological brain differences to mere curiosities, and
    > that is exactly what the researchers are not saying. 
    
    Due to societal influences, it may never be the case that boys and 
    girls will develop identical skill patterns (even with educational
    techniques available.)  However, scientists have NOT stated that
    women are in any way limited by some sort of "brick wall" when it
    comes to having (or being able to acquire) higher math reasoning
    skills.
    
    > I have already posted lengthy excerpts from Brain SEx the book and 
    > other sources in this topic and earlier.
    
    I went back (the other night) and read your excerpts again.  I saw
    absolutely NOTHING in anything you posted that supports the theory
    of a "brick wall" in women's brains when it comes to math reasoning
    skills.  Absolutely nothing!

    re .252
    
>    What - no "brick walls" in men's brains?  (By the way, it does sound
>    like you acknowledge that women's brains have hidden potential - as
>    opposed to a brick wall - when it comes to higher math reasoning skills.)
    
    That's not what I said or implied.  What I did imply, all the way
    along, was that you would expect men to have similar limits when it
    came to skill sets where women predominate.
    
    In the sense that very few people stretch themselves or are stretched
    to their limits intellectually it is true that we all have hidden
    potential.  But that's not the same thing as saying that we all can
    overcome the inherent limits of our brains due to education.  Education
    can help us develop what potential we have, but if, in general, women
    don't have the potential for certain skill sets that men have because
    men's brains are organised better for them, then education can only go
    thus far and no further.
    
    

    All this talk about the sizes of men's brains compared to women's
    is starting to remind me of the research the Nazis did in the 1930s
    and 1940s (and the lessons they taught German school children about
    how the size and shape of Aryan brains was proof of genetic superiority
    over other ethnic groups, especially Jews.)
    
    Considering the fact that humans only use a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE
    of the brain, it was amazing to see it suggested that the slight size
    differences within the range of brains in the human race would make
    one sex or ethnic group superior to another.

    RE: .253  Simpson
    
    > Education can help us develop what potential we have, but if, in 
    > general, women don't have the potential for certain skill sets that 
    > men have because men's brains are organised better for them, then 
    > education can only go thus far and no further.
    
    It hasn't been proven that women (in general) do not have the
    potential for these certain skill sets, though.  It *has* been proven
    that there is a correlation between hormones during brain development
    and skill patterns, but scientists DO NOT KNOW the cause of this
    correlation (they only know that the correlation exists.)
    
    It's also been proven that a substantial number of women *DO* have
    these skills (after having been born with the potential for these
    skills.)  The patterns of skills sets are different for men and
    women, but since some women (and men) DO POSSESS non-typical skill
    sets, there is nothing about the female or male brain which actually
    prohibits the acquisition of non-typical skills.

    re .254
    
    Whoa!!!  Strawman alert!
    
    No-one mentioned ethnicity.  And when I mentioned the fact than on
    average men's brains weigh 2 percent more than women's brains I very
    carefully and specifically said that no-one had yet found any
    significance to this fact.

    RE: .256  Simpson
    
    > No-one mentioned ethnicity.
    
    The Nazis did (notice that I stated it "WAS" amazing, not "IS" amazing
    to see it suggested that sex or ethnic groups could be characterized 
    as inferior due to slight differences in brain sizes among members of 
    the human race.)
    
    > And when I mentioned the fact than on
    > average men's brains weigh 2 percent more than women's brains I very
    > carefully and specifically said that no-one had yet found any
    > significance to this fact.
    
    If you believe this, then you'd best go back to edit your note (where
    you did, indeed, attach significance to brain size):
    
    .251> ...In the specific case in question males tend to do better in 
    .251> this skill because that portion of their brain that deals with 
    .251> it is more specialised than it is with females, and it is also 
    .251> bigger, even after taking into account relative baverage body 
    .251> size differences. 
    
    "Males tend to do better in this skill because" 1) <mumble> *and* 
    2) "[the brain] is also bigger..."
    
    Was this a typo?

    re .257
    
    Ah!  I see the confusion.
    
    I said that men's brains weighed about 2 percent more than women's when
    we were discussing cell loss, and in that note I did mention that
    no-one had found any significance to this fact.
    
    In your last quote I was talking about the specific portion of the male
    brain being bigger, and this is taken from .85.  That part of the male
    brain (located in the right hemisphere) which is concerned with
    visuo-spatial skills is in fact both more concentrated than in females
    and is in fact larger.

    The ability of a human being to generate enough will to overcome
    obstacles has nothing to do with brain size or hard-wiring. The human
    spirit has tremendous power and can be focused to achieve any goal. It
    is the will of the individual that sets the limits.
    Someone mentioned we only use a small portion of our brains. This is a
    false statement. We use all of it, we are only conciously aware of
    about 10%. The other 90% is still chugging along just below our
    cognizant level of conciousness. 
    Neither men or woman have any advantage in this context.

    No need to bring the Nazis into it.  19th-century scientists were
    chockfull with physiological evidence explaining why Italians, Irish,
    and Africans (as well as women of all races) were not as intellectually
    adept as the WASPish crown of creation.
    
    Ray

    RE: .258  Simpson
    
    > In your last quote I was talking about the specific portion of the male
    > brain being bigger, and this is taken from .85.  That part of the male
    > brain (located in the right hemisphere) which is concerned with
    > visuo-spatial skills is in fact both more concentrated than in females
    > and is in fact larger.
    
    Going back to your reply .85, allow me to point out to you that women's
    spacial abilities are located in BOTH the left and right hemispheres
    of the brain (which add up to a bigger brain area than men's right
    hemisphere.)  Scientists didn't mention brain size in this context
    (in .85,) however, so I'll let you back out of your newest erroneous 
    assumption gracefully:
    
        .85> "This led Landsell to the conclusion, now accepted, that in women 
             language and *spatial skills* are controlled by centres in both 
             sides of the brain; but in men such skills are more specifically 
             located - the right side for spatial skills, the left for verbal 
             ones.  Numerous studies have confirmed the early findings.
    
             "In women the functional division between the left and right sides 
             of the brain is less clearly defined... Men's brains are more 
             specialised."
    
    Men's brains use a smaller (more concentrated and specialized) area
    of the brain for spacial skills.  Women's brains use a larger (multi-
    hemispheric) area.

    re .261
    
    Yes, it wasn't in .85, but I found it again in 658.93:
    
We have seen how the corpus callosum is physiologically different.  In essence, 
women not only have more 'bandwidth' between the left and right sides but they 
use it.  This physiological difference is consistent with the way we know the 
brain localises specific functions.  In general, these functions are organised 
like this:

	FUNCTION		BRAIN LOCATION		SUMMARY
	--------		--------------		-------
	Mechanics of language,  MEN: Left hemisphere	More diffuse
	e.g., speech, grammar	     front & back
				WOMEN: Left hemisphere	More specific
				       front

	Vocabulary,		MEN: Left hemisphere	More specific
	Defining words		     front & back
				WOMEN Left & right	More diffuse
				      hemispheres,
				      front & back

	Visuo-spatial		MEN: Right hemisphere	More specific
	perception		WOMEN: Right & left	More diffuse
				       hemispheres

	Emotion			MEN: Right hemisphere	More specific
				WOMEN: Right & left	More diffuse
				       hemispheres

The right side of the male brain is also relatively larger than the female.

    RE: .262  Simpson
    
    > Yes, it wasn't in .85, but I found it again in 658.93:
    
    The material you've included (from 658.93) is quoted from YOURSELF
    (not from a researcher in this field!!)  Do you hope to provide support 
    for your words by quoting MORE of your own words???
    
    > The right side of the male brain is also relatively larger than the 
    > female.
    
    Again, this is a quote from yourself.
    
    Meanwhile, as I pointed out from your quoted text from actual scientists
    in .85, women use both sides of the brain for spatial skills (and the
    two sides together are significantly larger than the right side of the
    male brain.)

    re .263
    
    Actually, although it appears that way it isn't the case.  I was
    quoting from Brain Sex the book, as I did so many times in that string. 
    Forgot all the quotation marks that time.
    
    And the fact that women use _part_ of both hemispheres for certain
    functions which are more specifically located in men does not mean that
    the sum is therefore the greater.

    Neither does it mean that the sum is less.

    No, it doesn't.  But the evidence does suggest that certain skills are
    enhanced by brain organisation specificity and some by diffusion, hence
    men and women, on average, are better at different things.

    RE: .265  Dick
    
    .264> And the fact that women use _part_ of both hemispheres for certain
    .264> functions which are more specifically located in men does not mean 
    .264> that the sum is therefore the greater.
    
    > Neither does it mean that the sum is less.
    
    Exactly!
    
    Simpson - your assertion (about men's skills being caused by a larger
    portion of the brain being used for them) is merely an assumption
    you made.  Do you see that now?
    
    Lest you forget, let me remind you (once again) what scientists have
    written (in Scientific American) about the causes of skill set pattern
    differences between men and women:
    
    	    "It is important to keep in mind that the relation between natural
            hormonal levels and problem solving is based on correlational data.
    
            "Some form of connection between the two measures exists, but how
            this association is determined or what its causal basis may be is
            _unknown_. 
    
            "Little is currently understood about the relation between adult 
            levels of hormones and those in early life, when abilities appear 
            to be organized in the nervous system.  We have a lot to learn 
            about the precise mechanisms underlying cognitive patterns in 
            people."
    

    RE: .266  Simpson
    
    > But the evidence does suggest that certain skills are
    > enhanced by brain organisation specificity and some by diffusion, hence
    > men and women, on average, are better at different things.
    
    It may suggest all sorts of things to you personally, but as long as
    scientists (the professionals in this area) maintain that they do not
    have enough information to make such assertions, your assumptions
    are just that (and are not based on fact.)

    An experiment that the program "Brain Sex" did *not* show (that
    I would like to see tried and shown):
    
    The comparison of a little boy's and little girl's times in duplicating
    a Lego structure (where the boy finished in 20-30 seconds and the girl
    was still struggling after one minute) should be followed up by a week
    or month of allowing the girl to play with Legos all she wants (building
    models, creating her own structures, interacting with others who build
    Lego kits, etc.)
    
    If the girl seems to enjoy her new Lego toys (and I believe that her
    enjoyment of these toys can be influenced by positive reinforcement
    or other rewards,) THEN test her for the amount of time it takes her
    to duplicate the Lego model (and compare it to the boy's earlier time.)
    
    Let's remember that boys' toys *tend* to be physical objects (that are
    moved in a spatial environment,) such as cars, trucks, blocks, Lego
    blocks, wagons, bikes, skateboards, etc.  Girls' toys *tend* to be more
    along the lines of dolls, simulations of homes, clothing for dolls,
    tea sets, etc.  Girls also ride bikes and may skate (or stateboard,)
    but overall, girls' toys tend to be more "relationship"-oriented than
    "physical-device"-oriented.
    
    It seems rather absurd to draw all sorts of conclusions after comparing
    a boy's and a girl's skills with toys that the boy is *much* more
    likely than the girl to have already played with extensively (in one
    way or another.)

    I guess what I am having trouble in understanding is: Why all the
    paranoia over the fact that men and women are different.  That
    women (in general) are better at some things than men (in general),
    and men (in general) are better at some things than women (in general).

    Believe it or not, this is the justification for Digital's "Valuing
    Differences".  Not some esoteric sense of social righteousness.
    The first to note is the recognition that there _are_ differences.
    The second thing to note that these differences  _are_ indeed
    valuable.  Why?  Because the_things_that_men_do_better + the_
    things_that_women_do_better + the_things_that_both_do_equally_
    well = greater_than_the_sum_of_the_parts. (And yes the full case
    extends far beyond groups of just men and women).

    Most of the "Valuing Differences" campaign is to get all of these
    groups to work _together_ rather than scratching each other's eyes
    out.  (Can you think of other places where this might be valuable?).

    fred();

    RE: .270  Fred
    
    > I guess what I am having trouble in understanding is: Why all the
    > paranoia over the fact that men and women are different.  That
    > women (in general) are better at some things than men (in general),
    > and men (in general) are better at some things than women (in general).
    
    Try this scenerio (for a peek into the possible dangers of presuming
    too much about brain/behavior studies):
    
    	Judge's thought processes in custody case:
    
    		"I can't give custody of these kids to their father.  After
    		watching the 'Brain Sex' series, I know now that men are BORN
    		to be aggressive.  Men's brains are also geared for spatial
    		rotation and higher math skills while women's brains seem
    		more geared for relationships.  I can't possibly trust some
    		guy who's mind is busy with spatial relationships to care
    		as much	about relationships with his kids.
    
    		"Besides, men are so violent.  The latest crime stats show
    		men as committing the vast majority of murders, rapes,
    		armed robberies, etc.  I can't put kids in a home with some
    		aggressive guy who has a 'brick wall' when it comes to
    		expressing his feelings and nurturing kids.
    
    		"He can pay plenty in child support, though."

    re .271
    
    It appears that that is indeed what is _already_ happening.  My
    question is:  Why aren't you as concerned about this injustice
    as you seem to be about others?
    
    fred();
    

    Meanwhile, Fred, do you (now) understand the paranoia surrounding
    assumptions and presumptions that are made about brain/behavior
    studies?
    

    RE: .272  Fred
    
    > It appears that that is indeed what is _already_ happening.  My
    > question is:  Why aren't you as concerned about this injustice
    > as you seem to be about others?
    
    I've expressed my concern numerous times in this conference (and
    have stated more than once that I believe in 'joint custody' of
    children after the parents divorce.)  I've also stated in this
    conference that I would like to see child support agreements
    improved (to be fairer to men.)
    
    If you acknowledge that "other" injustices (against women) exist, I'd 
    appreciate seeing more concern from *you* about such things (such as 
    sexism and discrimination against women in the workplace.)
    
    You could start by saying that sexism and discrimination does occur
    against women in the workplace (and that you oppose it.)

    re .273
    
    
>    If you acknowledge that "other" injustices (against women) exist, I'd 
>    appreciate seeing more concern from *you* about such things (such as 
>    sexism and discrimination against women in the workplace.)
>    
>    You could start by saying that sexism and discrimination does occur
>    against women in the workplace (and that you oppose it.)
    
    Again you conveniently ignore _years_ of my input.  
    
    The support against this type of discrimination goes from individual,
    to Digital, to State law, To Federal Law, to the Supreme Court.
    
    The support agains the injustice that you describe in .271 is ZILCH.
    
    A bit lop sided wouldn't you say? 
    
    fred();

    
    re .274
    
    >Meanwhile, Fred, do you (now) understand the paranoia surrounding
    >assumptions and presumptions that are made about brain/behavior
    >studies?
    
    What I have an even harder time understanding is:  Why do you seem
    to only be concerned about it when it may be detrimental to _you_?
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .275  Fred
    
    >> You could start by saying that sexism and discrimination does occur
    >> against women in the workplace (and that you oppose it.)
    
    > Again you conveniently ignore _years_ of my input.  
    
    Well, just for the record, go ahead and tell me again (that you
    acknowledge the sexism and discrimination against women that exists
    in the workplace and that you strenuously oppose it.)  Is this true
    or not?
    
    > The support agains the injustice that you describe in .271 is ZILCH.
    > A bit lop sided wouldn't you say? 
    
    Prejudice against women as "bread winners / wage earners" comes from
    the same belief set as prejudice against men as "nurturers / custodial
    parents."  If women are viewed as being humans who are mostly capable
    of nurturing and men are viewed as being humans who are mostly capable
    of cognitive functions, children are going to be seen as human beings
    who should be with their mothers (if they can't have both parents
    together.)

    RE: .276  Fred
    
    > What I have an even harder time understanding is:  Why do you seem
    > to only be concerned about it when it may be detrimental to _you_?
    
    Tell me (first) that you acknowledge sexism and discrimination against
    women in the workplace and that you strenuously oppose it.
    
    I've already acknowledged that I do want to see more 'joint custody'
    and child support agreements that are fairer to men.  Before you 
    continue commenting on where you think most of MY concerns are, I'd 
    like to see you respond with one affirmative statement describing your
    concerns about injustices towards women.
    
    Can you do it?

    reply .278

    >Tell me (first) that you acknowledge sexism and discrimination against
    >women in the workplace and that you strenuously oppose it.

    If you have to ask by now, then I doubt if I will succeed in
    exaplaining it to you again but... I have stated in _numerous_
    notes that I believe that _all_ discrimination is wrong.

    However, Suzanne, you on the other hand have given scant lip
    service to "joint custody" (only one fragment of the problem)
    while conducting tirade after tirade after tirade about 
    injustices that involve _you_.  The fact that many of the 
    solutions that you have proposed to these injustices involve 
    even to more injustice to other groups you conveniently ignore.

    Tell me, Suzanne, just who _is_ the bigot here?

    fred();

    RE: .279  Fred
    
    >> Tell me (first) that you acknowledge sexism and discrimination against
    >> women in the workplace and that you strenuously oppose it.

    > If you have to ask by now, then I doubt if I will succeed in
    > exaplaining it to you again but... I have stated in _numerous_
    > notes that I believe that _all_ discrimination is wrong.
    
    You can't say the words, can you?  You can't state outright that
    women experience sexism and discrimination at the workplace and
    that you personally oppose it.
    
    > However, Suzanne, you on the other hand have given scant lip
    > service to "joint custody" (only one fragment of the problem)
    > while conducting tirade after tirade after tirade about 
    > injustices that involve _you_. 
    
    For someone who can't even say THE WORDS that acknowledge sexism
    and discrimination against women, you have absolutely no room to
    turn this into a personal criticism about the subjects I choose
    to discuss.
    
    > The fact that many of the solutions that you have proposed to 
    > these injustices involve even to more injustice to other groups 
    > you conveniently ignore.
    
    Well, this was to be expected.  Now you've turned the discussion
    into generalized accusations about me (that cover a period of who
    knows how many years.)
    
    > Tell me, Suzanne, just who _is_ the bigot here?
    
    Well, I didn't call you a bigot, but I do make note of the fact that
    your criticism of me has escalated into downright aggression since
    I discovered that you are incapable of saying the words that openly
    acknowledge sexism and discrimination against women.
    
    Give it a rest now.  I don't expect you to be able to openly acknowledge
    the kind of discrimination that doesn't affect you (even though I'm
    able to do so.)

    Fred, let's drop this portion of the discussion.
    
    You asked why people are paranoid about studies discussing possible
    male and female brain differences, and I gave you an example of how 
    presumptions about these studies could keep hurting fathers (just as 
    such presumptions could keep hurting women at the workplace.)
    
    If you want to discuss me (my character, my noting stances at Digital,
    etc.,) then open a new notesfile for this purpose.
    
    Meanwhile, let's stick to the topic.

    >injustices that involve _you_.  The fact that many of the 
    >solutions that you have proposed to these injustices involve 
    >even to more injustice to other groups you conveniently ignore.

    Just what "solutions" are you talking about?  I don't recall any
    unjust solutions coming from Suzanne.  Could you refresh my memory?
    
    >Tell me, Suzanne, just who _is_ the bigot here?
    
    Suzanne did not call you a bigot.  In fact, she asked you to state
    what you did, more or less begrudgingly, state.  Maybe I'm wrong, but
    I got the impression she knew that's what you believed, but that you
    didn't want to admit it.  You cannot use the fact that Suzanne strongly
    advocates women's rights as proof that she does not support the rights
    of everyone.  She is a woman and is very concerned about women's
    rights.  Human beings in general are more concerned about the rights
    of the groups that they belong to and fight for those rights the
    hardest.  That is natural, normal, and acceptable.  You do not have
    sufficient grounds to label her a bigot and it is rather unmannerly of
    you to do so here, if in fact not counter to Policies and Procedures.
    
    					- Vick
    

    re .280


    >You can't say the words, can you?  You can't state outright that
    >women experience sexism and discrimination at the workplace and
    >that you personally oppose it.

    No I won't say what you are trying to bait me into saying other
    that to state _yet again_ that I am opposed to _all_ discrimination.
    If that does not include discrimination in the workplace, then
    tell me why?  But I will not fall into your clever little ploy
    of trying to get me to knowledge one injustice wile ignoring another.

    >I don't expect you to be able to openly acknowledge
    >the kind of discrimination that doesn't affect you (even though I'm
    >able to do so.)

    No Suzanne, you have not.  You have only gone so far as to give
    lip service to _joint_ custody.  There are many other facets
    to this problem ( the best interests of the child, primary custody, 
    fair child support awards, visitation, outright reverse discrimination
    to name a few ) that you have conviently ignored.

    fred();

    re .282
    
    And for anyone who needs an example of this one-sided....
    
    >You cannot use the fact that Suzanne strongly
    >advocates women's rights as proof that she does not support the rights
    >of everyone.  She is a woman and is very concerned about women's
    >rights.  Human beings in general are more concerned about the rights
    >of the groups that they belong to and fight for those rights the
    >hardest.  That is natural, normal, and acceptable.  You do not have
    >sufficient grounds to label her a bigot and it is rather unmannerly of
    >you to do so here, if in fact not counter to Policies and Procedures.
    
    Would it also follow then, that as a male that I would not be
    overly concerned about problems that do not effect me (which I am
    concerned about)?
    
    fred();

    RE: .283  Fred
    
    > No I won't say what you are trying to bait me into saying other
    > that to state _yet again_ that I am opposed to _all_ discrimination.
    > If that does not include discrimination in the workplace, then
    > tell me why?  But I will not fall into your clever little ploy
    > of trying to get me to knowledge one injustice wile ignoring another.
    
    I wanted you to acknowledge that sexism and discrimination *exist*
    against women in the workplace, Fred.  You can say you oppose all
    discrimination, but it wouldn't include cases where you haven't 
    admitted that discrimination exists.
    
    > You have only gone so far as to give lip service...
    
    You can't even go so far as to SAY THE WORDS that acknowledge injustices
    towards women, so your criticisms about me are coming from pretty shaky 
    ground.
    
    > There are many other facets to this problem...that you have
    > conviently ignored.
    
    Meanwhile, you are incapble of verbal acknowledgement of ANY
    discrimination against women, so it's pointless to discuss this.
    
    Let's drop it.  The presence of aggression in men has already been
    documented here (at length,) so you don't need to give us yet
    another demo.

    RE: .284  Fred
    
    > And for anyone who needs an example of this one-sided....
    
    > Would it also follow then, that as a male that I would not be
    > overly concerned about problems that do not effect me (which I am
    > concerned about)?
    
    None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the topic being
    discussed.
    
    Please open a new topic or a new conference or a new corporation
    to discuss this.
    
    Meanwhile, let's return to the topic.

    re .285
    
    >Let's drop it.  The presence of aggression in men has already been
    >documented here (at length,) so you don't need to give us yet
    >another demo.
    
    Well, Suzanne, I haven't noticed _you_ being overly shy about 
    dishigh out aggression.  What's the sudden concern now?
    
    fred();

    RE: .287  Fred
    
    > Well, Suzanne, I haven't noticed _you_ being overly shy about 
    > dishigh out aggression.  What's the sudden concern now?
    
    A *new* rathole, I see.
    
    Well, open another new topic, another new notesfile and/or another
    new corporation to deal with this.
    
    Now let's get back to the topic at hand.

    re .288

    Again, Suzanne, I have not seen _you_ overly shy about ratholing
    subjects.  In fact, this topic started out as a discussion about
    whether there are physical differences in the brains of men and
    women, and whether these differences may result in _some_ of 
    different behavior and abilities in men and women.  In fact
    I see many of the "gay" community that would dearly _love_
    proof of this.

    Unless I am seriously mistaken, Suzanne,  90% of this discussion
    has been a rathole about the heresy of such notions and how they may 
    result in the enslavement of women.

    fred();

    RE: .289  Fred
    
    Fred, the title of this topic is "Brain Sex" (and the basenote talks
    about the TV program of that name.)
    
    The TV program called "Brain Sex" did actually mention both sexism
    and discrimination against women (it mentioned them repeatedly, in
    fact.)
    
    > Unless I am seriously mistaken, Suzanne,  90% of this discussion
    > has been a rathole about the heresy of such notions and how they may 
    > result in the enslavement of women.
    
    You're mistaken.  The "Brain Sex" series is GREAT!!  I've seen two
    episodes of it and I'm very impressed (and not at all concerned about
    either their research or findings.)
    
    I'm concerned about the distortions, assumptions and presumptions
    about these findings.  I object to the ramifications involved with 
    the promotion of such misinformation.
    
    If you're all squared away on this now, we can get back to scheduled
    programming (already in progress.)

    >Would it also follow then, that as a male that I would not be
    >overly concerned about problems that do not effect me (which I am
    >concerned about)?
    
    I honestly don't understand your question.  It is perfectly natural for
    you to be more concerned about men's rights than women's rights.  I'm
    not saying it wouldn't be better if everyone were vociferously
    concerned about everyone's rights.  I'm just saying it is natural and
    acceptable and to be expected that you (and most of us) aren't that
    altruistic.  It doesn't make you a bigot anymore than it makes Suzanne
    a bigot.  How am I being one-sided?  Being for women's rights doesn't
    mean you are against men's rights, and vice versa.
    
    							- Vick

.248> Wait - you can't possibly be suggesting that women are guilty of having 
.248> this ficticious "brick wall" in our brains until proven innocent...
    
    That's a non-answer.
    
    Do you or do you not have any evidence which suggests in any way that
    "there is no reason why women and men could not be brought to an even
    level" regarding math and spatial skills?  Yes or no?
    
    
.248> *DO* increase girls' spatial and math reasoning skills (which means
.248> that the ratio has already changed to some very slight degree,
    
    No, it doesn't.  Your laywomen interpretation of what you think the
    data means is demonstrably wrong.  How many examples would you like me
    to provide where she is right and your "which means ..." is wrong?
    
    
.248> Is her statement enough for you?
    
    Yes, when she's quoted verbatim, without laywoman translations, it is,
    but, when translated incorrectly, it isn't.
    
    
.248> It means that your made-up theories about how human brains work
    
    That's another non-answer.
    
    Does a researcher have to use the term "brick wall" before you accept it?
    
    Yes or no?
    
    
.249> Men lose more of their cognitive functions than women do.
    
.249> As men get older, they lose more cognitive functions than women do
    
    The questions are :
    	Which cognitive functions?
    	And how much do they lose?
    
    You either know or you don't.  If you don't, I'll wait for your tapes
    to arrive, just say so.
    
    
.250> They carry very little weight compared to professional researchers
.250> on this subject (who have not backed up your independent laymen's
    
    Thank you for admitting this.
    
    
    And, Ms Conlon, you seem to have missed these questions once more ...
    
.207> Has it been shown that men and women differ in math ability?
.207> Do you believe this difference has a significant biological determinant?

    RE: .292  Mike Z.
    
    > Do you or do you not have any evidence which suggests in any way that
    > "there is no reason why women and men could not be brought to an even
    > level" regarding math and spatial skills?  Yes or no?
    
    First off, let's include my entire sentence (since it changes the
    meaning considerably):
    
        .173> *Without the cultural influences*, there is no reason why women
        .173> and men could not be brought to an even level where such skills
        .173> are concerned (even if women never do choose to join engineer-
        .173> ing or physics professions in great numbers.)
    
    Camilla Benbow (whose opinion as a researcher carries more weight than
    either yours or mine) stated:  "My personal view is that it's probably 
    a combination of environmental and biological factors and it may be that 
    boys and girls come born just a slight bit different, then you have the 
    impact of the environment that would accentuate these differences, rather 
    than minimize them, and so, a small difference becomes a larger difference
    because of the interaction of biology with environment."
    
    She also described educational techniques that give girls spatial
    ability (so that they can have the math reasoning skills needed if
    they chose professions such as engineering later.)  *Without the
    cultural influences*, it is entirely possible that boys and girls
    could develop the same (or very similar) levels of such skills.
    
    The issue seems to be that you believe women have some sort of "brick
    wall" which keeps us from learning higher math reasoning (and you say
    this without any proof whatsoever.)  I disagree that this "brick wall"
    exists.  In fairness, you should give your co-workers the benefit of
    the doubt before you keep insisting (WITHOUT PROOF) that such a wall
    does exist.
    
    The burden of proof for this is clearly on you (unless you believe that
    women should be judged guilty of having the brick wall until proven
    innocent.)

    re .293
    
>    impact of the environment that would accentuate these differences, rather 
>    than minimize them, and so, a small difference becomes a larger difference
>    because of the interaction of biology with environment."
    
    I'm glad you posted this.  Note: Minimise does not mean eliminate, so
    your earlier contention that improved education can bring women, on
    average, up to men, on average (or vice versa) must therefore be an
    unwarranted assumption on your part.

    RE: .292  Mike Z.
    
    > Does a researcher have to use the term "brick wall" before you accept it?
    > Yes or no?
    
    No, they don't have to use this term.  They would have to espouse this
    theory (the way it's been described here) and prove it.  So far, they've
    done NEITHER.
    
    In fact, Scientific American stated that any individual is capable
    of having non-typical skills (and described women in engineering
    as having such skills.)  They said absolutely nothing about a brick
    wall theory.
    
   .250> They carry very little weight compared to professional researchers
   .250> on this subject (who have not backed up your independent laymen's
    
    > Thank you for admitting this.
    
    You're welcome.  (Does it seem unusual to you that I might give more
    weight to professionals' words than to laypersons in any given field?)
    
    > The questions are :
    >	Which cognitive functions?
    >	And how much do they lose?
    
    > You either know or you don't.  If you don't, I'll wait for your tapes
    > to arrive, just say so.
    
    Did you see the show (or tape it yourself)?  If not, then I suggest
    you watch it for yourself.  When I get my tapes, I'll watch it again
    myself (and perhaps we can discuss it then.)
    
    > And, Ms Conlon, you seem to have missed these questions once more ...
    
    Well, your interrogation on these points can end here:
    
        .207> Has it been shown that men and women differ in math ability?
    
    		As explained to you many, many times - scientists have
    		found a correlation between hormones during brain develop-
    		ment and skill patterns (between men and women.)  They do
    		not know why this correlation exists (they only know that
    		it does exist.)
    
        .207> Do you believe this difference has a significant biological 
        .207> determinant?
    
    		The determinants appear to be a combination of environmental
    		and biological, but scientists do not yet know enough about
    		the mechanisms of the brain (and they admit this!!!) to know
    		precisely how cognitive function works.
    
    As you've pointed out numerous times, math-talented women match up
    with men at the ratio of 1:13.  In a species population of 5 billion
    or so, how many math-talented women are among them?  If all men were
    math-talented (as a biologically-determined result of being born male,)
    then approx. 384,615,384 women (in a world population of exactly
    5 billion) would be math-talented as well.
    
    Of course, we KNOW that it is not the case that all men are born
    math-talented (as a result of being born male.)  Similarly, we know
    that many women *are* born math-talented.  Even if you discount the
    numbers of women who never discover or use their math talents (due
    to environmental influences which discourage or fail to interest
    women in math,) a significant number of women still show math talent.
    
    When such a huge overlap exists (between the members of each sex,)
    where does a brick wall (defined as belonging to one sex and not
    the other) show up?  It doesn't.

    RE: .294  Simpson
    
    >>impact of the environment that would accentuate these differences, rather 
    >>than minimize them, and so, a small difference becomes a larger difference
    >>because of the interaction of biology with environment."
    
    > I'm glad you posted this.  Note: Minimise does not mean eliminate, so
    > your earlier contention that improved education can bring women, on
    > average, up to men, on average (or vice versa) must therefore be an
    > unwarranted assumption on your part.
    
    This is not the sentence (from Camilla Benbow in "Brain Sex") that
    described the idea that men and women can have the same (or similar)
    skill sets.
    
    She doesn't comment (in this sentence) about the educational techniques
    that teach boys to 'sound out' words and that teaches girls spatial
    skills.  She mentions this a bit later (and describes the techniques
    as bringing the sexes together.)
    
    I'm sorry that I don't have the exact quotes to provide for you that
    would show you what (precisely) she said about this.

    I would consider education part of the environment which will either
    accentuate or minimise the inate differences.

    re .291
    
>    I honestly don't understand your question.  It is perfectly natural for
>    you to be more concerned about men's rights than women's rights.  I'm
>    not saying it wouldn't be better if everyone were vociferously
>    concerned about everyone's rights.  I'm just saying it is natural and
>    acceptable and to be expected that you (and most of us) aren't that
>    altruistic.  It doesn't make you a bigot anymore than it makes Suzanne
>    a bigot.  How am I being one-sided?  Being for women's rights doesn't
>    mean you are against men's rights, and vice versa.
    
    When you _demand_ that everyone support _your_ problems, and then
    ignore and/or belittle their problems,  and when you remove the
    disadvantages of one group while ignoring the problems of another
    group, you do not create the "equality" that you claim to champion.
    
    If anyone has any doubts as to what is really going on here, .291
    and .282 demonstrate it admirably.
    
    fred();

    RE: .298  Fred
    
    > When you _demand_ that everyone support _your_ problems, and then
    > ignore and/or belittle their problems,  and when you remove the
    > disadvantages of one group while ignoring the problems of another
    > group, you do not create the "equality" that you claim to champion.
    
    You can't even admit that women are treated with discrimination and/or
    sexism, so you have absolutely NO room to accuse others of ignoring
    the problems of another group.
    
    In any case, this is yet another rathole.  Please open several new
    topics, several new notesfiles and several new corporations to deal
    with all these various side issues (and let's stay on track with
    the topic we have here.)

    
    re .299
    
    >You can't even admit that women are treated with discrimination and/or
    >sexism, so you have absolutely NO room to accuse others of ignoring
    >the problems of another group.
    
    Now, Suzanne, it is _you_ who are twisting the facts to fit your
    agenda.  
    
    But if you want a rundown of what I beleve on this _one_ problem:
    
    First of all, it depends on where I look.  If I look around CX0 
    (where you and I both work) and see the number of female specialists,
    female unit managers, female district managers, and female staff
    members, I have to say no.  If I look at Digital as a whole I have
    to say that I honestly don't know except that I know that Digital
    has poured _millions_ of dollars into "Affirmative Action", "EEO",
    "Valuing Differences", and various "minority" support activities.
    As to America as a whole, it probably does still exist, but probably
    to a much lesser degree than you and  most of the "equality" groups 
    would like us to beleve.  There are _already_ tons of laws on the 
    books from local, to state, to federal, to the Supreme Court.  
    *Billions* of tax dollars are spent *each year* already to overcome 
    these barriers.  
    
    Comare this to the support to what is happening to men today.  Not
    only are their problem totally ignored except for a few voices
    crying in the wilderness, but the injustices are coupounded by
    things like "deadbeat dads", and "family violence" campaigns.
    
    And yet you, Suzanne, not only ignore the problems of others, you
    actively interfere with those others from trying to discuss these
    problems by rat-holing every serious discussion into yet another
    personal hate campaign.  These actions, Suzanne, make me seriously
    question your real commitment to the "equality" that you hold up
    as a banner as justification of your actions.
    
    fred();
    

    RE: .300  Fred
    
    >>You can't even admit that women are treated with discrimination and/or
    >>sexism, so you have absolutely NO room to accuse others of ignoring
    >>the problems of another group.
    
    > Now, Suzanne, it is _you_ who are twisting the facts to fit your
    > agenda.  
    
    Not at all.  You haven't directly admitted in this topic (up to now)
    that discrimination and sexism towards women exists.
    
    > First of all, it depends on where I look.  If I look around CX0...
    
    OH - we only have to be concerned about discrimination we can SEE
    for ourselves - is that it?  Well, I haven't seen any men being
    discriminated against in child custody cases, so I guess I don't
    need to believe it happens, right?  (Notice that this is a question.)
    
    > As to America as a whole, it probably does still exist, but probably
    > to a much lesser degree than you and  most of the "equality" groups 
    > would like us to beleve. 
    
    Well, I guess I'm free to believe that discrimination against men
    (if it occurs at all) happens to a much lesser degree than you and
    most of the "men's rights" group would like us to believe - right?
    (Again, this is a question.)
    
    > Comare this to the support to what is happening to men today.  Not
    > only are their problem totally ignored except for a few voices
    > crying in the wilderness,...
    
    I've been *listening* to these voices crying in the wilderness (since
    I hadn't seen this discrimination myself and figured they were telling
    the truth.)  Now, you've made me wonder if such voices can or should
    be trusted.
    
    I've been supporting men's right to a better deal in child support
    and/or 'joint custody' agreements up to now.  You've given me some
    pretty good reasons to stop this support (but I won't, of course,
    since it isn't the fault of other fathers if you can only support
    discrimination issues that involve you.)
    
    > And yet you, Suzanne, not only ignore the problems of others, you...
    
    Here you go again (you're back to generalizing about my character,
    years of noting positions, etc.)
    
    Why don't you open a dozen new topics, a dozen new notesfiles and
    a dozen new corporations to deal with your opinions about me.
    
    Now let's get back to the topic.

.293> cultural influences*, it is entirely possible that boys and girls
.293> could develop the same (or very similar) levels of such skills.

    Another non-answer.

    I am not asking what your laywoman opinion is, I'm asking if you have
    any evidence which suggests in any way that "there is no reason why
    women and men could not be brought to an even level" regarding math
    and spatial skills?

    Do you or do you not have any evidence which suggests in any way that
    "there is no reason why women and men could not be brought to an even
    level" regarding math and spatial skills?  Yes or no?


.293> The burden of proof for this is clearly on you

    And I've already presented quite a bit of evidence to help answer
    this question.  I also asked earlier what you would require as "direct
    sceintific proof," since the avaliable evidence doesn't seem to be
    enough for you, but that question, like others, was ignored.


.295> Did you see the show (or tape it yourself)?  If not, then I suggest
.295> you watch it for yourself.  When I get my tapes, I'll watch it again
.295> myself (and perhaps we can discuss it then.)

    That's a non-answer.

    The questions were :
    	Which cognitive functions [do men lose as they age]?
    	And how much do they lose?

    You either know or you don't.  If you don't, I'll wait for your tapes
    to arrive, just say so.
    

.295> The determinants appear to be a combination of environmental and
.295> biological, but scientists do not yet know enough about

    That answer doesn't address the question.

    But, from looking back at:
.126> After reading the Scientific American article very closely, I found
.126> absolutely nothing (in their actual findings or conclusions) that
.126> bothered me in any way.  Women and men are very closely matched in

    and to the following quote from the article:
.32> Such findings are consistent with the suggestion by Camilla P. Benbow
.32> of Iowa State University that high mathematical ability has a signi-
.32> ficant biological determinant.  Benbow and her colleagues have reported 
.32> consistent sex differences in mathematical reasoning favoring males.

    I would guess your answer is "yes."  Did I guess right?

    
.295> women in math,) a significant number of women still show math talent.

    But of course they will, and they will be overshadowed by the larger
    number of men who will also be math-talented.  The fact that some women
    will be math-talented does not mean that women, as a whole, can be as
    math-talented as men, as a whole.

    I refer you to 830.127.

    re .301
    
    Well if anybody needs _yet another_ example of what I've been
    talking about......
    
    fred();

    RE: .302  Mike Z.
    
    > I am not asking what your laywoman opinion is, I'm asking if you have
    > any evidence which suggests in any way that "there is no reason why
    > women and men could not be brought to an even level" regarding math
    > and spatial skills?
    
    Mike, if you want me to answer your question, please include my
    entire sentence (not a mere sentence fragment that changes the
    meaning of what I wrote.)  Ok?
    
   .293> The burden of proof for this is clearly on you

    > And I've already presented quite a bit of evidence to help answer
    > this question.
    
    You've presented us with the evidence that led you to draw this
    assumption (as a laymen,) which is NOT the same thing as evidence
    proving your assumption.  Further, I've provided evidence that
    the professionals doing the research DO NOT KNOW enough about
    how the brain works to support the types of assumptions you've
    made.  (I've repeated this quote many, many, many times here
    but you still haven't received it.  Do I need to post it for
    you yet again?)
    
    > I also asked earlier what you would require as "direct sceintific 
    > proof," since the avaliable evidence doesn't seem to be enough for you, 
    > but that question, like others, was ignored.
    
    The available evidence is that scientists DO KNOW KNOW enough about
    how the brain works to support your assumptions.  I'm perfectly
    satisfied with this.  You've offered unsupported theories about how
    the brain works (and it is these theories that I do not accept without
    the support of scientific experimentation documented by experts in
    the field.)
    
    Meanwhile, your interrogation continues...
    
    > The questions were :
    >	Which cognitive functions [do men lose as they age]?
    >	And how much do they lose?

    > You either know or you don't.  If you don't, I'll wait for your tapes
    > to arrive, just say so.
    
    We can discuss this after you've seen the show and I've received
    my tapes.  If you interrogate me further on this point, I'll give
    you the same response.
    
    > I would guess your answer is "yes."  Did I guess right?
    
    My answer (to this point of interrogation) is that both environment
    and biology (hormones present during brain development) play a part
    in the observed patterns of skill sets.  However, scientists admit
    that they do not understand why this correlation exists - they only
    know that the correlation does exist.
    
    Meanwhile, you still have absolutely no support for your "brick wall"
    theory (no matter how long and hard you continue to interrogate me.)
    Until you have scientific support for this theory of yours, it is
    inappropriate for you to keep promoting it in a work environment
    where belief in such a false theory could result in prejudice and/or
    discrimination against your co-workers.

    RE: .303  Fred
    
    > Well if anybody needs _yet another_ example of what I've been
    > talking about......
    
    Not to worry, Fred.  I won't hold it against fathers that you are
    incapable of acknowledging discrimination that you can't see.
    
    I still believe others when they say that men are treated unfairly
    in child support cases and I support changes to the family court
    system.

    Mike Z., this is the evidence that scientists do not know 
    enough about how the brain works to support your assumptions.
    I'm satisfied with this proof:
    
    "Major sex differences in intellectual function seem to lie in
    patterns of ability rather than in overall level of intelligence
    (IQ).  We are all aware that people have different intellectual
    strengths.  Some are especially good with words, others at using
    objects - for instance, at constructing or fixing things.  In 
    the same fashion, two individuals may have the same overall
    intelligence but have varying patterns of ability."
    
    "It is important to keep in mind that the relation between natural
    hormonal levels and problem solving is based on correlational data.
    
    "Some form of connection between the two measures exists, but how
    this association is determined or what its causal basis may be is
    _unknown_. 
    
    "Little is currently understood about the relation between adult 
    levels of hormones and those in early life, when abilities appear 
    to be organized in the nervous system.  We have a lot to learn 
    about the precise mechanisms underlying cognitive patterns in people."
    
    "So that even though any one individual might have the capacity to
    be in a 'nontypical' field [such as women in engineering,] the
    sex proportions as a whole may vary."

    Mike Z., no matter how intensely (and aggressively) you hound me
    with your interrogations, it won't change the fact that scientists
    do not know enough about the brain to support *your* personal 
    assumptions about "brick walls."
    
    Further, these personal assumptions are derogatory to your co-workers.
    
    Once again, I'm asking you to stop promoting such derogatory
    misinformation about the mental capacities of your co-workers.
    
    If you dislike it that scientists are unable to support your
    personal theories about how women's brains work, take your
    aggression to them.  I'm growing weary of it.

    By the way, I just located this quote from the book "Brain Sex"
    and it takes issue (quite specifically) against the idea that
    either boys or girls are born with any sort of innate "brick wall":
    
      "After all, we have proof that children can overcome an initial
      handicap; boys suffer, at first, from an education unconsciously
      biased to the female, yet eventually learn to read and write and
      speak fluently, because their parents insist that they do so, and
      worry if these skills are not acquired by an early age.  But 'no
      such insistence induces the female to learn about spacial-mechanical
      relationships; thus the male overcomes his initial handicap at 
      school, but by the time certain spatial skills are required by the
      curriculum, the female may be too old to acquire them.'"
    
    							Brain Sex, p. 185

.304> please include entire sentence ...

.173> Without the cultural influences, there
.173> is no reason why women and men could not be brought to an even
.173> level where such skills are concerned (even if women never do choose
.173> to join engineering or physics professions in great numbers.)
    
    Do you or do you not have any evidence which substantiates the claim
    you've made above?  Yes or no?


.304> satisfied with this.  You've offered unsupported theories about how
    
    That's a non-answer.

    Me : "What do you require for direct scientific proof?"
    You: "Not your theories."


.205> One interesting disadvantage to having a male brain:
.205>    Men lose more brain cells (and at a faster rate) than women do
.205>    as people get older.
.205> Sorry, guys.  :>

.244> And what are the implications of this?
.244> I see that in .211 you made a follow-up reference to "cognitive
.244> functions" but you didn't state which ones and whether women surpass
.244> men or not.
.244> Do you know?

.249> Men lose more of their cognitive functions than women do.

.292> The questions are :
.292>	Which cognitive functions?
.292> 	And how much do they lose?

.304> Did you see the show (or tape it yourself)?  If not, then I suggest
.304> you watch it for yourself.  When I get my tapes, I'll watch it again
.304> myself (and perhaps we can discuss it then.)

    Tell me, Ms Conlon, should I ask a 3rd time?

    It's beginning to look like you're ducking my questions.


.307> Mike Z., no matter how intensely (and aggressively) you hound me
.307> with your interrogations, it won't change the fact that scientists

    I'm intensely and aggressively hounding you?

    I'm not sure what I've done to give you that impression, but, if you
    would take the time to explain it to me, I promise to make a conscious
    effort to avoid doing it again.

    I must tell you, though, this smells remarkably like 803.51 where you
    referred to people here as "screaming and wailing," and then couldn't
    explain what they had done that made it screaming and wailing.

.205> Men lose more brain cells (and at a faster rate) than women do
.205> as people get older.
    
.211> The show made it clear that women retain MORE cognitive
.211> functions as they get older than men do.
    
.249> Men lose more of their cognitive functions than women do.
    
    Well, I haven't gotten that far on review of the tape yet, but I did 
    notice that the show opened with the statement that :

    Narr: "... with age, the brain sex differences fade."

.306> Mike Z., this is the evidence that scientists do not know 
.306> enough about how the brain works to support your assumptions.
.306> I'm satisfied with this proof:
    
    They don't know everything, that's true.  But it's also unnecessary.
    Observation is a very large part of the scientific method. Observing
    a situation, for example, a 13:1 ratio of men to women at the very
    upper end of math abilities, indicates a large disparity.
    
    The only question now is "what causes this?"
    
    Observing another situation, for example, data from tests for math 
    abilities that stretch back 2 decades and involve more than a million
    children, indicates that environment's role in this phenomenon is not
    nearly as big as originally thought.
    
    I can understand that this may not be acceptable to you as proof (and
    that's why I've asked a few times already what you require for proof),
    but that doesn't make the tangential quotes you keep referencing any more
    relevant to the pro-brick-wall data that's been cited.
    
    One need not know the mechanism to see the result.  Ancient men didn't
    need to know the laws of gravity to know that a rock would fall downward.
    
    
.308> By the way, I just located this quote from the book "Brain Sex"
.308> and it takes issue (quite specifically) against the idea that
.308> either boys or girls are born with any sort of innate "brick wall":
    
    I think you misunderstand the concept of the brick wall.
    
    Not all women have a brick wall, indeed, some female brains develop
    like male brains (see the paragraphs on CAH, p122, Sci Am) and those
    women do well at math.
    
    To disprove the brick wall theory one needs to show that women, on
    average, can improve their math skills to that of men, on average.
    Showing an unquantified improvement is only half the data needed.
    
    The data you've been citing and re-citing has been conspicuously
    absent of that key piece of information.

    RE: .309  Mike Z.
    
    .173> Without the cultural influences, there
    .173> is no reason why women and men could not be brought to an even
    .173> level where such skills are concerned (even if women never do choose
    .173> to join engineering or physics professions in great numbers.)
    
    > Do you or do you not have any evidence which substantiates the claim
    > you've made above?  Yes or no?
    
    Do you have any evidence which substantiates the contrary?  Yes or no?
    
    > Tell me, Ms Conlon, should I ask a 3rd time?
    > It's beginning to look like you're ducking my questions.
    
    I'm not giving you the answers you want, that's all.
    
    .307> Mike Z., no matter how intensely (and aggressively) you hound me
    .307> with your interrogations, it won't change the fact that scientists

    > I'm intensely and aggressively hounding you?
    
    You have a pretty good sense of humor to ask me this immediately
    after demonstrating your persistence in interrogating me (as well
    as your aggressive manner when it comes to making futher demands 
    after I've refrained from giving you the answers you wanted.)

    RE: .310  Mike Z.

    .249> Men lose more of their cognitive functions than women do.
    
    > Well, I haven't gotten that far on review of the tape yet, but I did 
    > notice that the show opened with the statement that :

    > Narr: "... with age, the brain sex differences fade."

    Well, I taped this episode, too (last night) after watching it earlier
    in the week.

    Let me know when you get to this part of the tape:
    
    	Witelson: "What we found is that the corpus callosum is gradually 
    	getting smaller starting from the earliest age that I was able to 
    	look at - but this only seems to be true in men."
    
    	"So, the mental skill to make connections and concentrate on many
    	things at the same time may be doomed to decline in the aging
    	brains of men.  Reuben Gur used magnetic resonance imaging to
    	investigate this innate male disadvantage."
    
    	Gur:  "Men lose, apparently, brain cells as a function of age
    	a lot faster than women.  The amount of loss in elderly men
    	is about three-fold compared to what we see in women.  The loss
    	of cells was more in the outer layers of the brain (the cortico
    	area) which is the part associated with more higher cognitive
    	funcions, whereas in women it was equally both in the cortico
    	and inside the brain.  We would expect there would be sex
    	differences with men losing cognitive abilities faster."

    RE: .311  Mike Z.
    
    > Observation is a very large part of the scientific method. Observing
    > a situation, for example, a 13:1 ratio of men to women at the very
    > upper end of math abilities, indicates a large disparity.
    
    > The only question now is "what causes this?"
    
    Scientists have admitted that they definitely do not know the answer 
    to this question, though.  It is NOT part of the scientific method to 
    decide that you can make something up (as an unsubstantiated answer
    to the question) as long as scientists can't answer it for you.
    
    > I can understand that this may not be acceptable to you as proof (and
    > that's why I've asked a few times already what you require for proof),
    > but that doesn't make the tangential quotes you keep referencing any more
    > relevant to the pro-brick-wall data that's been cited.
    
    It isn't tangential to point out to you that scientists DO NOT KNOW
    the causes of different skill patterns in the sexes each time you claim
    you DO know the causes.  It shows that your assumptions have no scientific
    backing.
    
    > I think you misunderstand the concept of the brick wall.
    
    > Not all women have a brick wall, indeed, some female brains develop
    > like male brains (see the paragraphs on CAH, p122, Sci Am) and those
    > women do well at math.
    
    Your definition of "brick wall" also applies to many men, though, when
    it comes to spatial abilities and higher math reasoning skills.  I'm
    sure you're aware that many, many, many men do not perform well in
    spatial or math abilities.  If such skills were common among all or
    most men, engineers wouldn't make much more than those who flip burgers.
    
    If you're talking about each individual (male and female) having a 
    *personal* "brick wall" on cognitive abilities, I agree.
    
    > To disprove the brick wall theory one needs to show that women, on
    > average, can improve their math skills to that of men, on average.
    > Showing an unquantified improvement is only half the data needed.
    
    There is no such thing as "the brick wall theory" when it comes to
    women (specifically.)  You and Simpson have talked about it quite a
    bit, but it's only your invention.  You've provided no proof that
    such a formal theory exists, so it's inappropriate for you (as an
    amateur) to be laying rules for what it would take for scientists
    (or anyone else) to dispute this non-theory.
    
    > The data you've been citing and re-citing has been conspicuously
    > absent of that key piece of information.
    
    Men and women have personal limitations on cognitive skills.  Why
    do you keep describing your "brick wall" non-theory as if it is a
    case of only women having cognitive limitations?  Futher, why do
    you think the burden of proof lies of those who disagree with your
    non-theory?  (Are women guilty of having this so-called "brick wall"
    until proven innocent???)

    Another interesting passage from the book:
    
    	"Men, on the other hand, should find no cause for complacent
    	celebration, although some will inevitably find ammunition for
    	their bar-room prejudices; it is, for instance, true that most
    	women cannot read a map as well as a man.  But women can read
    	a character better.  And people are more important than maps.
    	(The male mind, at this point, will immediately think of
    	exceptions to this.)"
    
    							Brain Sex
    							  p. 7

.313> Do you have any evidence which substantiates the contrary?
    
    Let's review what has happened :
    
    You made a claim that I doubted, a claim offered without any obvious
    basis in facts presented already, and when I asked you to provide cor-
    roborating data, you avoided the question three times, the last time
    you asked me to disprove it.
    
    I believe that it's time to conclude that the claim in .173, that women
    can achieve the same skill levels as men w.r.t. math and spatial abilities
    is unproven.
    
    It would have been much simpler if you would have just said "I have no
    data, but I believe this."  There's nothing wrong with offering opinions
    as long as you don't try to pass them off as facts.
    
  
.313> You have a pretty good sense of humor to ask me this immediately
.313> after demonstrating your persistence in interrogating me (as well
.313> as your aggressive manner when it comes to making futher demands 
.313> after I've refrained from giving you the answers you wanted.)
    
    Another non-answer.
    
    How am I "intensely and aggressively hounding" you?
    
    
.311> The only question now is "what causes this?"
    
.315> Scientists have admitted that they definitely do not know the answer 
.315> to this question, though.
    
    Camilla Benbow says it's significantly biological (see 830.127).
    
    
.315> If you're talking about each individual (male and female) having a 
.315> *personal* "brick wall" on cognitive abilities, I agree.
    
    Good, now do you agree that more women have the math-talent brick wall
    than men?
    
    
    There are still some relevant questions unanswered, most notably:
    
    	Which cognitive functions [do men lose as they age]?
    	And how much do they lose?

    RE: .317  Mike Z.
    
    > You made a claim that I doubted, a claim offered without any obvious
    > basis in facts presented already,...
    
    My statement came in response to a claim from Simpson that later evolved 
    into the "brick wall" non-theory (which was started by Simpson, not you,
    after all.)
    
    He had no substantiation for his claim, nor have you had ANY futher
    substantiation for this claim/theory since he made it up.
    
    > ... and when I asked you to provide cor-
    > roborating data, you avoided the question three times, the last time
    > you asked me to disprove it.
    
    You've provided zero corrobarating data for Simpson's "brick wall"
    theory.  All this questioning about the opposition to it is nothing
    more than a smoke screen.  Are women guilty of having brick walls
    in our brains until proven innocent???
    
    > I believe that it's time to conclude that the claim in .173, that women
    > can achieve the same skill levels as men w.r.t. math and spatial abilities
    > is unproven.
    
    It's time for you to admit that the "brick wall" theory has no basis
    in fact (but is rather an assumption in the face of scientists who
    acknowledge that such information about the brain is NOT YET KNOWN.)
    
    > It would have been much simpler if you would have just said "I have no
    > data, but I believe this."  There's nothing wrong with offering opinions
    > as long as you don't try to pass them off as facts.
    
    Bingo!  The "brick wall" non-theory is Simpson's and your opinion.
    Do not continue to pass it off as fact.
    
    Thanks.
    
    .315> If you're talking about each individual (male and female) having a 
    .315> *personal* "brick wall" on cognitive abilities, I agree.
    
    > Good, now do you agree that more women have the math-talent brick wall
    > than men?
    
    Do you now acknowledge that men have a math-talent brick wall?
    
    > There are still some relevant questions unanswered, most notably:
    >	Which cognitive functions [do men lose as they age]?
    >	And how much do they lose?
    
    Watch the tape and see for yourself how much information is provided.

    RE: .317  Mike Z.
    
    .313> You have a pretty good sense of humor to ask me this immediately
    .313> after demonstrating your persistence in interrogating me (as well
    .313> as your aggressive manner when it comes to making futher demands 
    .313> after I've refrained from giving you the answers you wanted.)
    
    > Another non-answer.
    
    > How am I "intensely and aggressively hounding" you?
    
    You still have a good sense of humor to interrogate me about the 
    precise details of your interrogation (as a demonstration of the
    persistence of your interrogation techniques.)
    
    Meanwhile, you've avoided nearly all of my questions.  I'd like to
    know, once and for all (after having waited patiently for your answer
    while you've ignored it several times now):  
    
    	Are women guilty of having brick walls in our brains until
    	proven innocent???
    
    If you continue to make claims about the mental capacity of women,
    the burden of proof is on you (and lest you forget, assumptions
    and inferences are simply not enough and never have been.)
    
    Scientists admit that they don't know the causes of different skill
    patterns between men and women.  Do you think you know more about
    this field than they do (simply because you've READ some of their
    findings?)  Your assumptions go against what they said, rather than
    being supported by it.
    
    Do you think you know something these scientists don't know?

    Mike Z., by the way, isn't it true that even Albert Einstein had a
    brick wall for spatial and higher math reasoning skills?
    
    Isn't it true that he had a limit as to how far he could excel (or
    do you think his reasoning powers were infinite?)
    
    If every individual on Earth has a brick wall when it comes to math,
    then it's not possible for one group to have more brick walls than
    another unless it is a larger group than the other (with one brick
    wall per individual.)  In this case, since there are more women than
    men on this planet, women would have a slightly higher number of
    brick walls (matching the differences in population for men and
    women exactly.)

    perhaps the "brick wall" idea is not so much the idea that
    not everybody has one, but that certain individuals will reach
    the limit of their capacities than will others.  I think Mike
    and Dave are drawing the conclusion that in general, women tend
    to hit the limit of their math/spatial abilities at a point 
    lesser than do men.  If this is true, it can also be said that
    men, in general, tend to hit their limit of reading/verbal skills
    at a point lesser than women.  I think their theory has merit, in
    that it does not deny the concept of individuals, be they men or
    women, have and will continue to have the ability to attain higher
    limit levels in either area, but it is dealing with certain differences
    on an average.

    
    I don't think women "hit a wall" in their abilities.  I think they are
    made to believe there is a wall there from day one.  Our educational
    system frequently teaches girls they cannot do math or science well.
    
    Cats raised in an environment consisting of nothing but horizontal
    lines will bump into vertical lines as adults because they cannot "see"
    them.
    
    People raised in an environment that subtly teaches them they are
    ill-fit or intrinsically underqualified to do something will bump into
    "walls" as adults because they were taught the walls were real.
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .321  Christine
    
    > perhaps the "brick wall" idea is not so much the idea that
    > not everybody has one, but that certain individuals will reach
    > the limit of their capacities than will others. 
    
    How do you know when any individual has reached the limits of his/her
    capacity, though (when so many other things such as interest, health,
    situation are involved)??  For example, if someone has learned to
    speak 12 languages, is this the person's limit?  Is it impossible
    to learn another language (or does it depend on the person's level
    of interest in doing so?)
    
    > I think Mike and Dave are drawing the conclusion that in general, 
    > women tend to hit the limit of their math/spatial abilities at a point 
    > lesser than do men. 
    
    Right - Mike and Dave (amateurs in this field) have drawn this
    conclusion, in spite of what the scientists in this field have said
    about not having enough info to draw such conclusions.
    
    Although humans do not have infinite capacity for reasoning, we do
    have more capacity than even the most brilliant humans use.  If you've
    ever seen the individuals that used to be referred to as "idiot savants"
    (an example is the character Dustin Hoffman played in "Rainman") - these
    individuals are capable of doing mathematical calculations that are
    impossible for others to even comprehend.  They are able to invent and
    perform these calculations because they have almost nothing else to
    take up their mental time and energy.
    
    Is it fair to see a healthy child and declare that he or she has
    reached some sort of impenetrable limit (ALREADY!) in mental capacity
    simply because a couple of amateurs (in the field of this science)
    want to believe that this is true???  Absolutely not!!!

    I agree with the concept that to an extent, many of us are
    taught in such a way that we do hit walls do to a lack of
    encouragement in certain areas.  But how do we explain the 
    levels of capabilities amongst individuals?  If you can take
    away the effects of enviornment in learning, do you really 
    think that all men and women would be shown to have the same
    capabilities?  I don't believe that would be the case, nor do
    I believe that it would prove men to be better than women.  I
    think you'd find radical differences within same-sex
    groups.  For example, Boy 1 may be much smarter than Boy 2,
    girl 3 smarter than boy 2, but not smarter than boy 1, then
    comes girl 4 who's smarter than boy 1....and so on. 
    
    I do believe there are biological factors and that it is not
    all environment.  My brother, sister and I were raised to believe
    we could do anything we wanted, all equal, the whole bit.  My
    brother and sister excelled at math and sciences.  I hated math
    and science wasn't really a problem, except for chemistry.  If 
    enviornment was the determining factor, one might think that I'd
    do as well as Mike and Judy, but I didn't.  My strenghts were in
    languages and history.  Mike and Judy liked them, but they were
    more difficult subjects for them.  Who knows, I just don't think
    environment is the total answer for the explanations of individual
    difference (note, not men/women, but individual)

    Suzanne,,
    
    I'm sorry I don't have any answers for you.  I don't know when
    any individual hits their limit.  I think there are other factors
    involved, such as interest.  For me, I'm not particularly interested
    in mathmatics.  Have I hit my limit?  I don't think I actually have,
    but the limit of my personal interest to pursue such knowledge has
    certainly been used up.  I have no desire at this stage in my life
    to increase the mathematical knowledge/abilities I presently have.
    And, no I wouldn't say to a child that he/she automatically have
    limits, therefore, you shouldn't try to attain beyond the arbitrary
    limit I have set for you.  I can't think of the words I need to
    describe how I think about this at this point.  All I can say is that
    I don't think capacity for infinite knowledge exists, therefore, there
    are limits.  What they are and exactly how they are determined is still
    a mystery to me.

    RE: .324  Christine
    
    > I agree with the concept that to an extent, many of us are
    > taught in such a way that we do hit walls do to a lack of
    > encouragement in certain areas.  But how do we explain the 
    > levels of capabilities amongst individuals? 
    
    The different patterns have skill sets do appear to have a biological
    component (as the researchers in "Brain Sex" and Scientific American
    have pointed out.)
    
    However, Camilla Benbow ("Brain Sex") described a process of using
    different educational techniques to help close the gaps in skill
    patterns.  We can use the information available from brain research
    to find new ways to help boys and girls to develop the other sex's
    more typical skill sets.
    
    We talked about these educational techniques earlier.
    
    Would these techniques (which are already available) be able to
    make boys and girls exactly the same in skill sets (if all cultural
    influences were eradicated)?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Boys and girls
    may still have different interests, even without cultural influences.
    
    However, it still wouldn't be fair to tell girls that they have
    some sort of "brick wall" in their abilities to excel at non-typical
    skills.  It's unsubstantiated (and possibly downright malicious) to
    use quasi-scientific theories to tell girls/women (once again) that
    they may have absolutely no hope of acquiring higher math reasoning
    skills (to be engineers or whatever) because of an amateur's opinion
    that they have "brick walls" in their heads.

    RE: .325  Christine
    
    > I don't know when
    > any individual hits their limit.  I think there are other factors
    > involved, such as interest.  For me, I'm not particularly interested
    > in mathmatics.  Have I hit my limit?  I don't think I actually have,
    > but the limit of my personal interest to pursue such knowledge has
    > certainly been used up. 
    
    Certainly, no one has the right to tell you that you've reached some
    kind of "brick wall" in your mental capabilities!!!!
    
    The idea of telling an entire class of people (such as women or some
    particular ethnic or racial group) that they have "brick walls" in
    their mental capabilities is downright bigotry.

    re:.321
    
    Christine, that's exactly what I mean (and what I've been saying all
    along).

    Oh, and I see you think that I owe you answers.
    
    Well, being the gentleman that I am, itemize the questions in a reply
    with a pointer back to the original note in 830 where you asked them
    and I will do my best to answer them.
    
    I have, by the way, given up hope that you will answer my questions.

    >women, have and will continue to have the ability to attain higher
    >limit levels in either area, but it is dealing with certain differences
    >on an average.
    
    The problem, as usual, is not in the theory, but in the practice.  What
    does "dealing with certain differences on an average" translate into in
    day to day practical terms?  
    					- Vick

    276 replies!!!!!  What a hot topic!!!  Sensititive subject!!  No wonder
    men and women find it such a challenge trying to get along together if there
    is so much trouble simply acknowledging there are fundamental hard
    wired differences (not better or worse... just different).  And people
    have ALOT of trouble NOT hearing better or worse.  
    
    I have read a number of articles which point out that men and women
    tend to hear things differently, that is men and women exposed to the
    same words TEND to interpret the meaning differently.
    
    For example.  She: 'would you like to go out to dinner tonight dear?'
                       (meaning: lets go out to dinner)
    
                  He:  (Taking her literaly) "Oh I don't know, would you?"
    
                  She: (Getting mad because he didn't HEAR lets go out to
                       dinner but answered her literally). "You NEVER
                       want to go out to dinner!!"
    
                  He: "Geez, all I did was answer your question and your
                      getting mad".
    
    
    Is the above familiar? It is for me.
    
    Jeff
    

    Suzanne, your last few notes are full of more strawmen, about people
    telling others that they've hit their limit, about how you're being
    hounded for answers, about how 1 woman with excellent math skills
    proves the brick wall doesn't exist for the other millions of women.
    
    And you still think that you should be able to make a claim, and then
    say "prove it false" to others.
    
    That attitude is simply remarkable.

    
    	It seems that most species in the animal kingdom are differentiated
    physiologically and behaviorally for male and female. The debate about
    nature versus nurture rages on only at the human level. How much social
    engineering is called for to bring male and female skill sets to the
    same level? We hear that certain educational techniques can be used to
    bring about more symmetry in skill sets among each gender. If there is
    an innate predisposition (i.e. interest) for certain skill sets, do we
    then set about finding ways to shifting interest levels amongst the
    genders as well? And how then do we justify this?
    
    Regards,
    
    	Jim K
             

    re: vick-about fine in theory, but day to day practice...
    
    I don't believe that stating/recognizing there are differences
    beteen men and women translate into superior/inferior or good/bad scenarios.
    What is wrong with acknowledging that such differences exist?  It
    seems that you are afraid that acknowledging that there are differences
    because such differences may be used against the class which can be
    percieved as inferior as a result of this premise.  My belief is that
    this does not have to be true.  Instead, the acknowledgement could lead
    to greater enlightenment for all in terms of the learning techniques
    previously mentioned by Suzanne.  All folks use information
    differently, some to support a theory and others to debate it.  I don't
    think there is anything you can do about that, it's human nature, but
    I don't always feel that those who use knowledge to debate have 
    discrimination as their main agenda either.

    RE: .329  Mike Z.
    
    > ...about how 1 woman with excellent math skills proves the brick wall 
    > doesn't exist for the other millions of women.
    
    Out of 5 billion or so people, surely you didn't mean to imply that
    there is only one woman with excellent math skills, Mike.
    
    > And you still think that you should be able to make a claim, and then
    > say "prove it false" to others.
    
    Not at all.  I've not been persistently promoting the idea that the
    levels of men and women with spatial and math skills could be exactly
    and precisely equal.  I've stated that the levels may not be precisely
    equal, in fact.
    
    If you're going to persist in claiming that women have special "brick
    walls" in their heads, you do need proof for this (in and of itself)
    regardless of anything I've stated.
    
    > That attitude is simply remarkable.
    
    Your sense of humor is still in tact, I see.  Meanwhile, you still
    haven't given up on your totally unsubstantiated claims about "brick
    walls."  Amazing.

    RE: .333  Jim K.
    
    > How much social engineering is called for to bring male and female 
    > skill sets to the same level? 
    
    Boys are already being socially engineered to overcome their reading
    and language difficulties (and have been for many years): ("Brain Sex")
    
       "After all, we have proof that children can overcome an initial
       handicap; boys suffer, at first, from an education unconsciously
       biased to the female, yet eventually learn to read and write and
       speak fluently, because their parents insist that they do so, and
       worry if these skills are not acquired by an early age.  But 'no
       such insistence induces the female to learn about spacial-mechanical
       relationships; thus the male overcomes his initial handicap at 
       school, but by the time certain spatial skills are required by the
       curriculum, the female may be too old to acquire them.'"
    
    > We hear that certain educational techniques can be used to
    > bring about more symmetry in skill sets among each gender. If there is
    > an innate predisposition (i.e. interest) for certain skill sets, do we
    > then set about finding ways to shifting interest levels amongst the
    > genders as well? And how then do we justify this?
    
    We help children (boys and girls, not just boys) to have non-typical
    skill sets so that they can grow up to make their own choices (based
    on their interest levels as adults.)
    
    Giving children the tools to make their adult lives better is not
    a new concept.

    RE: .330  Mike Z.
    
    > Oh, and I see you think that I owe you answers.
    
    If you don't owe me answers, then I most definitely never owed them 
    to you.
    
    > Well, being the gentleman that I am, itemize the questions in a reply
    > with a pointer back to the original note in 830 where you asked them
    > and I will do my best to answer them.
    
    You've changed your interrogation tactics slightly, I see (with a 
    different type of request/demand.)  Ho hum.
    
    > I have, by the way, given up hope that you will answer my questions.
    
    When you ask for the name of a book, I'm only too happy to comply.
    It's a reasonable request.  Your repetitious interrogations (after
    not receiving the answers you wanted) are a different matter.

    
    I attended a vocational high school.
    
    I had to go through all the major shops (all 28) during my freshman
    year - all freshmen were - young men and young women, including
    plumbing, HVAC, automotive, child care, nursing, cosmetology,
    electronics, etc.
    
    In some of the shops, I found myself being subtly or outright
    discouraged from fully participating in the shop because I was female.  
    
    Wouldn't it be great if all young people could experiment with all
    available trades, and be permitted to choose which one they wished to
    participate in and thrive in, then exhorted to excel?
    
    -Jody
    

>    I don't believe that stating/recognizing there are differences
>    beteen men and women translate into superior/inferior or good/bad scenarios.
    
    Seems to depends on who states it.  There are those whose motives I
    trust and those whose motives I don't trust.  After all, I've stated
    and recognized that differences exist, as has Suzanne.  There are
    people here who either believe that the differences prove women
    inferior, or else they want us to believe that they believe that
    (because they like infinite chain pulling or whatever).  In either case, 
    I don't trust or understand their motives.
    
>    What is wrong with acknowledging that such differences exist?  It
>    seems that you are afraid that acknowledging that there are differences
>    because such differences may be used against the class which can be
>    percieved as inferior as a result of this premise.  
    
    I'm clearly not afraid to acknowledge the differences, as I have many
    times.  But, yes, others, whether in this notesfile or elsewhere, have
    used these differences as an argument for the inferiority of women.
    Frequently the argument is not direct, but amounts to a hidden agenda.
    You can't always see a hidden agenda, but you can usually smell it.
    
    >My belief is that
>    this does not have to be true.  Instead, the acknowledgement could lead
>    to greater enlightenment for all in terms of the learning techniques
>    previously mentioned by Suzanne.  
    
    Sure, so long as these "learning techniques" are not doled out in a
    discriminatory way.
    
    >All folks use information
    >differently, some to support a theory and others to debate it.  
    
    Frequently "abuse" is the more appropriate word.
    
    >Idon't
>    think there is anything you can do about that, it's human nature, but
>    I don't always feel that those who use knowledge to debate have 
>    discrimination as their main agenda either.

    What was I trying to do about it?  I thought I was part of the debate.
    I wasn't suggesting anyone stop, though frankly I'm a little bored with
    it.  I haven't been able to figure out yet what the motivations are of
    the other side of the debate.
    
    					- Vick

    Vick-
    
    If it's any help, I think the motivations of the other side
    of the debate are to simply point out that the differences
    between men and women are more than meets the eye.  I think
    all they are saying is that men and women are not the same.
    I do not believe any body here is saying that if men and women
    are not the same, then men and women cannot be equal.  If one
    associates samness with equality, I think the premise could be
    troublesome, but I haven't seen anybody here promoting the idea
    that women are inferior to men, just different.  Maybe I'm reading
    a different note, though.

    Vick,
    
    I apologize if you have entered this note and acknowledged that 
    there are reconizable differences between the sexes.  This is a 
    long note and the note of yours I referred to is the first I'm
    aware that you have entered.  I have read all replies here, but
    over a period of days and frankly don't remember that you had
    entered the fray (so to speak) at an earlier time.  For the record,
    I don't believe that these noted differences prove that women are
    inferior to men.

    Let's remember that women are not the only ones who stand to be
    adversely affected if the ideas in "Brain Sex" are taken as
    literally as I've seen some people interpret them here (with
    self-styled 'brick wall' theories, etc.)
    
    If our culture decided that men have symmetrical "brick walls"
    when it comes to relationships, fathers can take their hopes
    of better treatment in custody hearings and kiss them good-bye.
    
    "Different skill patterns" include some pretty grim descriptions
    of male brain wiring as being "aggressive, selfish and domineering"
    (and caring mostly about inanimate objects.)
    
    I'd rather not see EITHER sex stereotyped needlessly in this way
    while scientists acknowledge that such descriptions are not absolute
    (and can be non-typical as well as CHANGED in individuals of both
    sexes.)

re: .336

	I tend to agree that if these tools exist we should provide them to both
sexes with the same amount of enthusiasm. 
	However, the choice should remain at the individual level. We should not
expect certain results just because the tools are available. If interest levels
don't shift then these tools could fall into disuse.
	As far as adults being happy, this could be accomplished if society were
to respect and accept anyone who exhibits atypical skills rather than treat 
them as misfits. The individual could then accept that he or she is an exception
than part of the rule. 
	My original point in .333 is that interest levels should not become the
focus for manipulation by society at large. There is too much danger here with
scientists, the state, etc. deciding what is best for society before society
even has a healthy debate over the issues. 
	The danger we have is that some people may think they understand innate 
versus culturally-driven interests between the sexes. I don't think we do and 
until such time it is better to accept our differences than push people 
into categories that may have a more far-reaching effect on society than 
expected, whether it be good or bad.

Regards,
                                      
	Jim K

    RE: .343  Jim K.
    
    > I tend to agree that if these tools exist we should provide them to both
    > sexes with the same amount of enthusiasm. 
    
    Yes!  In addition, just as boys are expected to learn reading and
    language skills (although these are non-typical skills for males,)
    girls should be expected to learn spatial and math skills while
    they are young.
    
    When 'aptitude' tests are given to youngsters several years later,
    counselors should believe them (more than they seem to do now) when
    some of the children's interests are non-typical.
    
    In my case, the aptitude test I took at age 12 predicted (to an 
    amazing degree) my career as an engineer for the past 10 1/2 years
    at Digital.  When the counselors saw the results of my test, they
    just chuckled (and offered ZERO help or advice in how to develop
    a non-typical interest I'd acquired on my own.)  If I hadn't found
    myself in the position of being a single Mom (knowing I needed a full
    bread-winner's income,) I might never have pushed myself to head
    into a non-typical field.  My initial interest might have simply
    been lost.
    
    After we give children the tools to make choices, we need to let them
    make their choices (without being made to feel wierd or 'non-typical'
    for these choices.)

    re: .345
    
    	I want to qualify what I said in .343 " tend to agree that if these
    tools exist...". I only tend to it as I feel a bit uneasy about this.
    If these tools are made available as part of a great social program to 
    reengineer society, people may feel these are their own choices whereas
    they have really been indoctrinated instead. There is a very fine line 
    between individual choice and indoctrination in how they are presented
    to the individual although the outcomes are much different.         

    RE: .345  Jim K.
    
    > If these tools are made available as part of a great social program to 
    > reengineer society, people may feel these are their own choices whereas
    > they have really been indoctrinated instead.
    
    If the tools are available and our culture refrains from using them,
    it would be a different sort of social engineering (similar to holding
    back freedom from people as a way to keep from burdening them with
    decisions about their lives.)
    
    Give the children (boys and girls) the tools.  If their interests
    are affected by having the tools for 'non-typical' occupations, who
    are we to say that the increased opportunities didn't simply allow
    these children to make choices that would make them happier?

                
    	No matter what tools are available, society should be driven to
    accept differences rather than drive performance among individuals,
    sexes, species, etc. Society dwells too much on the performance rather
    than the acceptance aspect. My younger brother's school days were hell
    for him as teachers expected him to perform at the same levels I did.
    That is until a special teacher realized what was happening and took
    the pressure off him; at this point his performance skyrocketed since
    he now had a natural desire to improve than to compete with teacher's
    expectations.
    	It is more important, in my opinion, to promote acceptance of
    differences within society rather than to drive sameness; in the end
    the results will be better whether the sexes turn out to be more
    different or more similar.
    
    Regards,
    
    	Jim K
                                                          

    RE: .347  Jim K.
    
    Please keep in mind that a big, big part of "accepting differences"
    includes accepting that people may also be different within their
    own 'group' (such as men, like my Dad, who are excellent at nurturing
    children.)  Although my Dad was also career-driven (and very successful)
    and a very dedicated sports fan, etc. - he is the most nurturing person
    (as a parent and grand-parent) I've ever known in my life.  It is a
    natural part of who he is (along with all the other parts of him that
    make this individual who happens to be my Dad.)
    
    If we decide that it's 'natural' for people of one sex to be different
    in one particular set of ways while it's 'natural' for people of the
    other sex to be different in another particular set of ways, we are
    overlooking the 'natural' similarities and differences that exist
    between individuals of both sexes!
    
    Characterizing people according to sex is no better than deciding
    we're all exactly identical.  Let's give the children the tools and
    the opportunities to be themselves (and let's value the similarities
    and differences that each individual carries with others of different
    or the same sexes.)

    
    re: .348
    
    	Obviously I have "kept it in mind" about accepting differences
    within people of the same group since I related my brother's experience
    at school in .347; my brother and I would be characterized as a very
    small 'group' indeed. 
    	Also in .347 I mentioned accepting people's differences and the
    outcome of any social program without pre-conceived notions and
    expected performance results; it is not about deciding apriori
    characteristics of individuals, sexes, etc.      
    
    Regards,
    
    	Jim K                                   

    RE: .349  Jim K.
    
    Ok, good.  Thanks for the clarification.
    
    As a woman in a so-called 'non-typical field,' I don't want differences
    thrust upon me (or upon women or men in general.)
    
    Humans are smart enough to decide who we are (as individuals) without 
    being labeled and categorized.
    
    The scientists of "Brain Sex" made it clear that they brought forth the
    information about average brain differences (and skill patterns) to help
    the sexes relate to each other better, not to put further divisions
    between us all.

    re:.337
    
    Do you want the answers or not?
    
    I'd still like you to answer my questions.

.333> How much social engineering is called for to bring male and female skill
    
    And, after another 20 years of social engineering, of trying to make
    men more like women and women more like men, if at that point the data
    says that men still outperform women in math and spartial abilities,
    then what excuse will be trumped up to avoid accepting that maybe men
    have more natural talent for math?
    
    It's too bad we can't flex our temporal lobes like our biceps.

    RE: .351  Mike Z.
    
    > Do you want the answers or not?
    > I'd still like you to answer my questions.
    
    Let's forget it.
    
    The authors (and producers) of "Brain Sex" didn't intend for their
    information to put men and women at each others' throats.  They
    intended quite the opposite in fact.  They hoped the information
    could bring us all closer together.
    
    As mentioned earlier, they also stated that men have nothing (in
    the book) that calls for "complacent celebration" about these
    findings.  Men's brains are "wired" to be "aggressive, selfish 
    and domineering" (and far more concerned with inanimate objects
    than people and relationships.)
    
    No, I don't think men are innately aggressive, selfish and domineering
    - but if you buy into the idea that the sexes are innately "wired" to
    have certain traits, you must take "aggressive, selfish and domineering"
    as part of the bargain (along with the other innate tendencies for
    mental illness and violent criminal behavior.)
    
    Let's just agree to disagree (and accept that people of both sexes
    are primarily individuals,) ok?

    RE: .352  Mike Z.
    
.333> How much social engineering is called for to bring male and female skill
    
    > And, after another 20 years of social engineering, of trying to make
    > men more like women and women more like men, if at that point the data
    > says that men still outperform women in math and spartial abilities,
    > then what excuse will be trumped up to avoid accepting that maybe men
    > have more natural talent for math?
    
    After thousands of years of observing the aggressive, selfish, domineer-
    ing, insane (especially schizophrenic) and criminal behavior of men, what 
    excuse will be trumped up to avoid accepting that maybe men have a more 
    natural talent for these problematic behaviors?
    
    If you claim one set of observed behaviors as innately male, you're
    stuck with the negative behaviors as being innately male as well.

    .353 : "Mike, let's not argue."
    .354 : "You men are all scum!"
    
    What did Brain Sex have to say about multiple personality disorders?

    RE: .355  Mike Z.
    
    .353 : "Mike, let's not argue."
    
    .354 : "You men are all scum!"
    
    Mike, I just used material that came directly from the "Brain Sex"
    book (and I've already provided you with all the quotes with their
    page numbers.)
    
    You don't seem to like it much when you are asked to accept "innate"
    male traits or behaviors (from "Brain Sex") that don't appeal to you.
    
    I wonder if you thought that (as a member of the aggressive, selfish,
    domineering sex, per "Brain Sex,") you could claim nothing but good
    "innate" traits for men while foisting all the not-so-good "innate"
    traits onto women against our wills.

    Now shall we let it rest, Mike Z.?
    
    "Brain Sex" did not intend for men and women to use the material
    in the book/program to push the sexes further apart.
    
    There's absolutely no need for it.
    

    By the way, Mike Z., it's funny that you felt free to interpret the
    material I've quoted from "Brain Sex" as "You men are all scum!" while
    denying vigorously that the 'brick wall' assumptions (after reading 
    quotes from "Brain Sex") sounded like claims that women are inferior.
    
    Is this another example of "Brain Sex"'s description of male brain
    "wiring"?
    
    If you insist on claiming that males and females have "innate"
    behaviors, you must take the 'bad' (listed by "Brain Sex" as 
    "aggressive, selfish, domineering" wiring, schizophrenic and violent
    criminal acitivities) along with the 'good.'
    
    You can't keep ignoring the 'bad' if you're going to spend dozens of 
    notes insisting on accepting the 'good.'

CSC32::WSC641::CONLON                                26 lines  28-SEP-1992 18:35
CSC32::WSC641::CONLON                                17 lines  28-SEP-1992 18:39
CSC32::WSC641::CONLON                                17 lines  28-SEP-1992 19:00
CSC32::WSC641::CONLON                                15 lines  28-SEP-1992 19:11
CSC32::WSC641::CONLON                                15 lines  28-SEP-1992 19:22
CSC32::WSC641::CONLON                                 7 lines  28-SEP-1992 19:13
    
    Ms Conlon, are you hounding me?

    RE: .359  Mike Z.
    
    > Ms Conlon, are you hounding me?
    
    Your game is finished.
    
    Now shall we let it rest?
    

    This question is not addressed to Ms Conlon.
    
    
    So, what happens after another 20 years of social engineering, if
    men still outperform women at math and spatial skills?
    
    Do we look for more excuses or what?

    To whom it may concern:
    
    If dominance in math is an indication that males are innately
    math-talented, then a dominance in mental illness and violent
    crimes are indications that males are innately schizophrenia-,
    rape-, murder- and assault-talented.
    
    You can't accept the 'good' without the 'bad' (when it comes to
    "innate" male behavior.)
    
    As for me, I don't accept either.

    Geting back to the idea of social engineering as part of our educational
    system...
    
    Schools are already involved in the business of social engineering
    (as they take wild, unruly pre-school children and slowly train them
    to conform to educational and behavioral standards in the classroom.)
    
    Boys are also engineered to read and write (despite their lack of
    so-called innate talent in this area.)  Girls can be engineered to
    learn more spatial and math skills (to give both boys and girls more
    choices when they're old enough to develop interests worth pursuing.)

re: .352
     
 >   And, after another 20 years of social engineering, of trying to make
 >   men more like women and women more like men, if at that point the data
 >   says that men still outperform women in math and spartial abilities,
 >   then what excuse will be trumped up to avoid accepting that maybe men
 >   have more natural talent for math?
    
    
    Wouldn't it be cool spending the next 20 years removing everyone's
    societally-placed obstacles to their own intellectual, emotional,
    physical, and spiritual achievement and finding out just HOW #UCKING
    FAR WE CAN ALL REALLY GO?
    
    At that point, with no obstacles, who the #ell cares who winds up two
    percentage points farther down the ability to mentally estimate the
    volume of a rotating area.
    
    -Jody
 

Forwarded from the net....

>CC:	
>Subj:	Mattel and math avoidance in girls.
>
>     According to the Wall Street Journal this morning, Mattel is selling
>     a product called "Teen Talk Barbie" which says 4 phrases.  One of the 
>     phrases is "Math class is hard".  I can't imagine a product better
>     designed to program math avoidance into little girls.  We've all heard
>     many times how math avoidance limits women's educational opportunities
>     and career choices.  Mattel justifies this product by saying something
>     like they aren't saying the other classes are easy, and that they have
>     a doll availble that says "I want to be a doctor".  I'm sure we all
>     wish Barbie good luck on achieving her goal of becoming a doctor
>     without any math skills.  
    
    

    
    One angle that has not been brought up so far is what I call the
    "sugar & spice" factor.  Probably because most of the women that
    note here are more self-motivated than the average teenager.
    
    One major problem that I see in schools is not that girls are denied 
    the opportunity to do certain things, but that girls are allowed to 
    whimper and whine and get out of "hard" subjects much more readily than
    boys are.  
    
    For those that think I am not concerned about "women's rights",
    I have two daughters.  One 18 will graduate this year, and the
    other 12 is just entering junior high.  The oldest is in her
    second year of Algebra.  Not because she was all that interested
    in math, (in fact you should have heard the wailing and gnashing
    of teeth and how she just wasn't up to it) but because papa told 
    her that if she was planning to go to college (and in this day and 
    age she'd d%$n well better be planning on going to college) then 
    she'd d%$n well better _get_ serious about some of the math and 
    science courses.  The second daughter I'm still working on, but
    she's just entering the "get serious about education" stage and
    it looks like I'm making a little progress. 
    
    fred();

    
    re: .361
    
    	As I've stated before, assuming equal opportunities in education
    exist, we should accept the outcome versus expecting certain results.
    	If humans were to experiment with minds as they do with the
    environment I would be very disturbed. The environment is analogous as
    we expect certain performance and characteristics from the environment
    and other species; now after the damage has been done we now realize just 
    how little we really understand.
             
    Regards,
    
    	Jim K

    
    
    often young girls are taught that being cute is desirable.  This cute-
    ness often gets them things they want - sometimes people just *don't*
    want to study or do work - but this can lose them educational lessons
    they may need later in life.
    
    I have a close friend who has worked hard to ensure his daughter
    *unlearns* the lesson that cute will get her somewhere in life.
    
    I had several male teachers and professors encourage me *not* to do
    what the boys/men in the class were doing, or "not to strain".  I also had
    several male teachers and professors make me work *harder* than the
    boys/men in the class.
    
    Both ends of the spectrum were unpleasant, and should not occur.
    
    Each student should work equally hard.  The same degree of work,
    alertness, responsiveness during class discussions, and detailed
    attention to labs, homework and exams should be expected from BOTH
    genders.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    re: .363
    
    	As to social engineering in schools I was introduced to this not
    too long ago. My son, whose birthdate is in October, just missed the
    cutoff date for kindergarten; he'll be almost six when he starts. At
    the time teachers and others told us that this would be good as boys
    are too aggressive at this age and that it would be much better a year
    later. I found this to be total bunk. Even if most boys are more
    aggressive and lack the social graces of girls, this will be true for
    most of their life. There is no test that measures maturity for 
    preschoolers to my knowledge. I decided not to press the issue for
    other reasons; namely just to let him be a kid a while longer.
    	
    Regards,
    
    	Jim K 

re: .364

	And how do we distinguish obstacles which we as individuals or as a 
society impose upon ourselves that are innate versus culturally-driven? And how
do we go about assessing the worth of human beings today and in the future? Who
is to determine the point at which we cross over from providing individual 
choice to tampering?
	Before we go on another rampage I think it would be cooler to reflect on
what we have done, why we have done it and where we want to go.

Regards,

	Jim K

    RE: .370  Jim
    
    > And how do we distinguish obstacles which we as individuals or as a 
    > society impose upon ourselves that are innate versus culturally-driven?
    
    How about if we don't impose obstacles upon ourselves in the first place?
    
    > And how do we go about assessing the worth of human beings today and 
    > in the future?
    
    What are you talking about?  (What method do you think is currently
    being used to "assess the worth of human beings" and what do you
    mean by "worth"?)
    
    > Who is to determine the point at which we cross over from providing 
    > individual choice to tampering?
    
    If we have the means for people (of all sexes and races) to go as far
    as they can go, it would be 'tampering' to hold some people back (by
    maintaining the status quo in the interests of not 'tampering' with
    it.)
    
    > Before we go on another rampage I think it would be cooler to reflect on
    > what we have done, why we have done it and where we want to go.
    
    It's also another way to maintain the 'status quo' (sorry.)
    
    It's always easier to do nothing and ponder the situation for another
    few decades (which is probably what will end up happening.)

    Jim,
    
    your assumption would be one more easy to live with if your first
    assumption were true.
    
    unfortunately, our public schools have a long way to go before truly
    representing environments where everyone is considered of equal skill
    from the beginning.
    
    the experience that Jody relates about women and math is not uncommon. 
    I distinctly remember one of my classmates in high school who wanted to
    be an engineer.  the math teacher in the 7th grade whose recommendation
    was required to get into 8th grade algebra was notoriously anti-female,
    so she was in the regular math track.  around tenth grade she decided
    to double up her algebra 2 and trig in order to take calculus her
    senior year.  she literally had to fight with her guidance counselor to
    get permission to take on so much "extra stress"
    
    schools do not universally reward boys and girls the same way for
    excellence in the same fields.
    
    
    Daniel

    
    re: .372
    
    	I agree and that is why I said "assume". I personally don't assume
    it to be true today.
    
    Regards,
    
    	Jim K

    
    	I heard a disturbing poll today on BZ radio. Men and women were
    asked if they would approve gene therapy and other techniques which
    would enable them to improve characteristics such as intelligence, to
    help treat disorders, etc. About 40% said they would approve; I am
    surprised that so many would be willing to go along with this. I don't
    know the details around the poll and I might have missed something here
    but it shows that people are still hung up around performance rather
    than accepting people for what they are.
    
    - Jim K

    RE: .371
    
    > And how do we distinguish obstacles which we as individuals or as a 
    > society impose upon ourselves that are innate versus culturally-driven?
    
    How about if we don't impose obstacles upon ourselves in the first place?

	>> If these are innate then it will be not be so easily done as said.
    
    > And how do we go about assessing the worth of human beings today and 
    > in the future?
    
    What are you talking about?  (What method do you think is currently
    being used to "assess the worth of human beings" and what do you
    mean by "worth"?)

	>> Today we have IQ tests, SAT scores, beauty pageants, etc. These
	   are used to assess the worth of human beings to some extent. This
	   string has discussed math, spatial, reasoning, reading, etc. 
	   abilities as if they could indicate the true worth of a person. We
	   may be placing too much emphasis in these areas and overlooking 
	   something else equally or more important.
    
    > Who is to determine the point at which we cross over from providing 
    > individual choice to tampering?
    
    If we have the means for people (of all sexes and races) to go as far
    as they can go, it would be 'tampering' to hold some people back (by
    maintaining the status quo in the interests of not 'tampering' with
    it.)
    
    > Before we go on another rampage I think it would be cooler to reflect on
    > what we have done, why we have done it and where we want to go.
    
    It's also another way to maintain the 'status quo' (sorry.)
    
    It's always easier to do nothing and ponder the situation for another
    few decades (which is probably what will end up happening.)

	>> With the technologies which will be available we will be able to do
	   to the mind what we have done to the environment in the very near 
	   future. This isn't an issue about men losing ground or women gaining
	   it or maintaining the status quo but about the shape of future
	   society. 
	
	   On the contrary it is many times easier to forge ahead and use 20/20 
	   hindsight, until you find out your mistakes - then it is usually 
	   more difficult to undo what's been done. There are certain areas
    	   which require more foresight than others.

    RE: .375  Jim K.
    
    >>How about if we don't impose obstacles upon ourselves in the first place?

    > If these are innate then it will be not be so easily done as said.
    
    If they are innate, then we don't need to impose them.  If we impose
    obstacles upon ourselves because we BELIEVE there are innate obstacles,
    we've done so needlessly.
    
    If others attempt to impose obstacles upon us because THEY believe
    (or they want us to believe) we have innate obstacles, it's needlessly
    harmful.
    
    >> What are you talking about?  (What method do you think is currently
    >> being used to "assess the worth of human beings" and what do you
    >> mean by "worth"?)

    > Today we have IQ tests, SAT scores, beauty pageants, etc. These
    > are used to assess the worth of human beings to some extent.
    
    OH - so the person who scored 10 points higher than you on his/her
    SAT's is an inherently more valuable human being than you are?  Do
    you really think this is true?
    
    > This string has discussed math, spatial, reasoning, reading, etc. 
    > abilities as if they could indicate the true worth of a person.
    
    In other words, if men score higher (on average) than women in higher
    math skills, men are inherently more valuable (as human beings) than 
    women??  Do you believe that this is why the higher averages in math
    skills have been shoved down women's throats dozens of times here?
    Are women being told we are less valuable (or perhaps sub-human)?
    
    > We may be placing too much emphasis in these areas and overlooking 
    > something else equally or more important.
  
    Speak for yourself (or society, if you wish.)  I don't happen to agree
    that such measures can make one group of people (or some individuals)
    more valuable than others.  (I do know of a former government in Germany 
    that built an entire regime on this notion, though.)
    
    As for me, I believe all human beings have equal value (as human
    beings.)
    
    > With the technologies which will be available we will be able to do
    > to the mind what we have done to the environment in the very near 
    > future. This isn't an issue about men losing ground or women gaining
    > it or maintaining the status quo but about the shape of future
    > society. 
    
    If the present society holds different sexes (and individuals) to
    have different personal human worth (based on their "ground" within 
    the society,) we're in worse shape than I thought.
    
    I hope your words are a simple miscommunication.

    RE: .376
	    
    >> What are you talking about?  (What method do you think is currently
    >> being used to "assess the worth of human beings" and what do you
    >> mean by "worth"?)

    > Today we have IQ tests, SAT scores, beauty pageants, etc. These
    > are used to assess the worth of human beings to some extent.
    
    OH - so the person who scored 10 points higher than you on his/her
    SAT's is an inherently more valuable human being than you are?  Do
    you really think this is true?
	
    >>> You asked what I thought was being used to assess worth. I listed a
	few things such as IQ tests, etc. Where did you get the idea that I
	personally felt this way? I've said that I feel we've been overlooking
	something here.
	
    > This string has discussed math, spatial, reasoning, reading, etc. 
    > abilities as if they could indicate the true worth of a person.
    
    In other words, if men score higher (on average) than women in higher
    math skills, men are inherently more valuable (as human beings) than 
    women??  Do you believe that this is why the higher averages in math
    skills have been shoved down women's throats dozens of times here?
    Are women being told we are less valuable (or perhaps sub-human)?
    
    >>> Again, I can't understand how you interpreted this as my own personal
	feelings.

    > We may be placing too much emphasis in these areas and overlooking 
    > something else equally or more important.
  
    Speak for yourself (or society, if you wish.)  I don't happen to agree
    that such measures can make one group of people (or some individuals)
    more valuable than others.  (I do know of a former government in Germany 
    that built an entire regime on this notion, though.)

	>>> I do speak for myself, who do you speak for?
    
    As for me, I believe all human beings have equal value (as human
    beings.)

	>>> So do I in principle (as I can't deny my prejudices). That was one 
	    reason I was so surprised about the poll results I discussed in 
	    .374. If we really do value everyone equally, why are so many 
	    willing to cull for certain traits such as intelligence?
    
    I hope your words are a simple miscommunication.
	
	>>> I don't expect perfect communication and understanding with a topic
	    like this.

    RE: .377  Jim K.
    
    > You asked what I thought was being used to assess worth. I listed a
    > few things such as IQ tests, etc. Where did you get the idea that I
    > personally felt this way? I've said that I feel we've been overlooking
    > something here.
    
    You brought up the concept of human beings having different "worth":
    
    	"And how do we go about assessing the worth of human beings today
    	and in the future?"
    
    I asked what you meant by worth (since it hadn't been discussed directly
    in this topic before you mentioned it.)  If you're protesting the
    practice of assigning human "worth" to others (based on things like
    math skills, etc.,) it hasn't been clear to me so far.
    
    When you say you feel "we've been overlooking something here," what
    do you mean?
    
    >> As for me, I believe all human beings have equal value (as human
    >> beings.)

    > So do I in principle (as I can't deny my prejudices). That was one 
    > reason I was so surprised about the poll results I discussed in 
    > .374. If we really do value everyone equally, why are so many 
    > willing to cull for certain traits such as intelligence?
    
    All human beings have the same inherent worth (as human beings) in
    my opinion, but individuals do have a tremendous variety of aspirations.  
    The way you describe "accepting difference," it almost sounds like 
    "Don't reach, don't aspire to something else, don't grow.  Accept your 
    present state and do nothing beyond it."
    
    Many/most people spend much of their lives reaching and growing.  It's
    not a matter of non-acceptance of oneself (nor is it always a matter of
    believing that some individuals have more inherent worth as human beings
    than others.)
    
    People often set personal goals for themselves.  If they want to use
    gene therapy to be healthier or smarter, it's just another goal.

    RE: .378 
    
    You brought up the concept of human beings having different "worth":
    
    	"And how do we go about assessing the worth of human beings today
    	and in the future?"
	    
    I asked what you meant by worth (since it hadn't been discussed directly
    in this topic before you mentioned it.)  If you're protesting the
    practice of assigning human "worth" to others (based on things like
    math skills, etc.,) it hasn't been clear to me so far.
    
    When you say you feel "we've been overlooking something here," what
    do you mean?

	* Yes I brought up the term "worth" as I felt it was being used here
	  in this note. I'll drop it here but will come back to it in a minute.
    
    All human beings have the same inherent worth (as human beings) in
    my opinion, but individuals do have a tremendous variety of aspirations.  
    The way you describe "accepting difference," it almost sounds like 
    "Don't reach, don't aspire to something else, don't grow.  Accept your 
    present state and do nothing beyond it."

	* I believe in free will over indoctrination. People may believe they
	  are attaining a goal set by themselves but I believe this to be 
	  false in more cases than we would like to admit.
    
    People often set personal goals for themselves.  If they want to use
    gene therapy to be healthier or smarter, it's just another goal.

	* This attitude is too cavalier for me to subscribe to. Let's go back
	  to the poll for a moment. About 40% of the people felt they would
	  participate in gene therapy for certain characteristics, illnesses,
	  etc. This was not just for themselves but their born or unborn 
	  children as well, I believe. 

	  Now if this option were available and effective what would happen to
	  1/2 of the population which declined such therapy? Would their lineage
	  survive or would they be forced to make their individual "choice"
	  in order to ensure success?
	
	  Here we could actually have a case which starts out not as some 
	  diabolical scheme for a superhuman race but which could attain
	  similar results. Half "choose", the other half doesn't. Half of the 
	  population chooses not to risk the chance of having children with 
	  cerebral palsy, epilepsy, etc. while the other half choose to have 
	  the risk. The same goes for intelligence. And beauty. And the 
	  catalog continues to grow.

	  I believe in personal growth and goals but not ones set by the 
	  tinkerers. 

	  Gene therapy will be only one of many techniques to improve the
	  "quality" of our lives.

	  Oh, there is no doubt in my mind that we will all be happy then as 
	  we will have programmed ourselves and our children for the very best.
	  Sure we will.

    RE: .379  Jim K.
    
    > I believe in free will over indoctrination. People may believe they
    > are attaining a goal set by themselves but I believe this to be 
    > false in more cases than we would like to admit.
    
    Is it indoctrination when people try to instill values in their
    children (and/or encourage them to try their best in school, get
    a college education, etc.)?
    
    > Half "choose", the other half doesn't. Half of the population chooses 
    > not to risk the chance of having children with cerebral palsy, epilepsy, 
    > etc. while the other half choose to have the risk.
    
    Of the half that chooses to risk having children with these illnesses,
    only a very, very small percentage of these individuals will actually
    have children with these illnesses.  Further, in time we will develop
    preventative measures and/or cures for such illnesses so that they will
    be eradicated (along with other childhood and adult diseases that have
    already been virtually wiped out this century.)
    
    > Here we could actually have a case which starts out not as some 
    > diabolical scheme for a superhuman race but which could attain
    > similar results.
    
    The human race is already living much, much longer than humans were
    first able to survive (on average.)  Medical advances and sanitation
    standards have changed our (species-wide) life expectancy.  So far,
    we haven't become superhuman yet, although our ancient ancestors might
    just see us this way (if they could.)
    
    > The same goes for intelligence. And beauty. And the catalog continues 
    > to grow.
    
    If the average intelligence for our species were to grow, would it be
    a problem?  Well, the world is in an amazing amount of trouble with
    our average intelligence as it is.  Maybe an increase would help.
    
    > Gene therapy will be only one of many techniques to improve the
    > "quality" of our lives.
    
    If medical research finds a cure for cancer, AIDS, etc., it will
    improve the quality of many people's lives.  I'm looking forward
    to this particular technique for improvement.

    
    
    
    re: .380
    
    	Everything you mention sounds very good. Problem is that longer
    life, freedom from illness, lack of any physical or functional
    abnormality, greater intelligence, etc. are very elusive goals. As such
    I don't believe they are the keys to happiness but rather performance 
    enhancements. And then there is the question as to how they will be 
    administered. 
    	I am a strong believer in individual free will above all else and I 
    see a danger here that could force us into a collective will where
    every individual believes they are free but instead is just a replicate
    of every other individual will on the planet. 
    	This is the time to think about the consequences. The human genome 
    mapping project is well underway, gene therapy is available, and all of
    the advances today around the brain are just the beginning. I just wish
    there were more people on this planet dedicated to thinking about these
    issues for society. We have seen what we are capable of doing to the
    environment and other lifeforms, we have seen what we are capable of
    doing with nuclear energy and with just a bit more intelligence and
    experience we can screw with our brains and gene pool.   

    re: .380
    
    Is it indoctrination when people try to instill values in their
    children (and/or encourage them to try their best in school, get
    a college education, etc.)?

	* School, college, etc. education in general is a form of 
	  indoctrination.

    Of the half that chooses to risk having children with these illnesses,
    only a very, very small percentage of these individuals will actually
    have children with these illnesses.  Further, in time we will develop
    preventative measures and/or cures for such illnesses so that they will
    be eradicated (along with other childhood and adult diseases that have
    already been virtually wiped out this century.)

	* Actually, I mentioned disorders as examples. Just the same who will
          decide which disorders and illnesses are detrimental to society? And
	  if for some reason there is no way to prevent it or eradicate it let's
	  be sure to value the individual with the disorder or illness. This is
	  more important to me.

	* While it may be true that only a very small percentage of individuals
	  will have children with any one particular illness or disorder
	  consider the sum total of all disorders and illnesses present in one
	  half versus the other half of the population. Also consider single
	  characteristics; let's say there was an option available to have a 
	  child with an IQ over 140. Now consider each half of the population,
	  one half with very few children with an IQ over 140 and the other
	  half with many. Now what happens to each half?  
   
    If the average intelligence for our species were to grow, would it be
    a problem?  Well, the world is in an amazing amount of trouble with
    our average intelligence as it is.  Maybe an increase would help.

	* This one is just too baffling to comment on.
    

.364> Wouldn't it be cool spending the next 20 years removing everyone's
.364> societally-placed obstacles to their own intellectual, emotional,
.364> physical, and spiritual achievement and finding out just HOW #UCKING
.364> FAR WE CAN ALL REALLY GO?
    
    Yeah, it would.  So what have we been doing for the last 2 decades?
    
    We've been race-norming and gender-norming test scores for college
    admissions, we've been setting and enforcing employment quotas for
    every definable minority, and we've been lowering physical standards
    for women so they can adequately compete for jobs that require strength,
    like fire fighter and police officer.
    
    Heck, we just had a tennis match where the woman played by different,
    easier rules (and still lost).
    
    So, what do we do in the year 2112, if, after another 2 decades of
    massaging tests and rewording questions and new tricks to learn math,
    what do we do if it doesn't change anything?
    
    Shall we then make another excuse and dedicate another 20 years to
    smoothing out what scientists are coming to call a natural, biological
    difference between men and women?

.372> your assumption would be one more easy to live with if your first
.372> assumption were true.
    
    Ever notice how daniel spelled sideways is denial?

    cute -- cheap shot, but really cute.
    
    tell you what, Mike, please demonstrate to me the studies that indicate
    how our school system is truly "even ground"
    
    I can demonstrate one that tells the opposite right off the bat:
    
    Young grade school students are frequently put into tracked groups
    based upon standardized testing.  This is a widespread practice and our
    schools are generally constructed around the tracking format.  A group
    of sociologists took two groups of students whose test scores were
    nearly identical and placed them in two different classrooms.  The
    first teacher was informed that the students had exceptional scores,
    were highly motivated and demonstrated great potential.  The other
    teacher was told that the second group of students had mediocre scores
    and poor motivation.
    
    The experiment had to be stopped before the first half of the year was
    up because the two groups started to diverge wildly in their
    performance.  In order to prevent permanent damage, the school
    officials who had cooperated with the study, pulled the plug.
    
    The experiment demonstrated an enormous expectancy factor.  The
    teachers did not consciously alter their teaching styles, but the
    expectancy that the second group would not achieve became reality and
    these results are duplicated every day in schools everywhere because
    ASSUMPTIONS MATTER.  It isn't a conscious conspiracy, but the net
    results are similar.
    
    We need to train teachers better to eliminate this in the schools. 
    Schools should also be aware of and take measures to counter the
    implicit messages of the media that have similar effect.  If that can
    happen and if schools really become level grounds and the same results
    you keep harping result, then maybe you'll have a more stable point. 
    Until then, there are too many variables that you conveniently ignore.
    
    Daniel
    
    Daniel

    RE: .385  Daniel
    
    > tell you what, Mike, please demonstrate to me the studies that indicate
    > how our school system is truly "even ground"
    
    In fact, the most recent studies on the difference in treatment for
    boys and girls in school (the study released several months ago)
    shows that boys are given far more attention.  The studies showed
    quite clearly that our schools are not yet on "even ground."
    

    As far as the judging the worth of a human being, wouldn't it depend on
    what criteria was used?  What makes one human being have more value or
    worth than another?  Should the worth of a human being be judged by how
    much money they make?  By their SAT scores?  By their IQ?  By how many
    friends they have?  By how willing they are to help others?  By how
    many people would like to have sex with them?  By how many people will
    miss them when they die?  
    
    It occurs to me that how much worth a human being has could be judged
    very differently depending on the criteria used.
    
    This is just a thought.  Sorry if it's off the topic.  I really hate
    discussions about what makes certain people have more worth than
    others?  More worth to *who*?  It reminds me of the old quote,
    "Comparisons are odious."
    
    
    Lorna
    

    Mike Zarlenga...
    
    The show and book "Brain Sex" makes quite a few interesting (helpful)
    points about the behavioral/performance/skills differences between
    the sexes.  They make it abundantly clear that this was not intended
    to be used as ammunition for a new, more escalated war between the
    sexes.  In fact, neither sex has anything to celebrate.
    
    Further, both Scientific American and "Brain Sex" make it clear that
    they do not really know how the brain functions, so they only make
    note of behavioral, etc. differences without knowing why they occur.
    
    Your stance in this topic has been to attempt to prove that there are
    innate differences (especially in the areas involving superior spatial
    and higher math reasoning skills for men.)  You seem reluctant to face
    that schizophrenic and violent crime stats can ALSO be used to describe
    "innate" male traits in precisely the same way.  I have openly rejected
    that any of these behavioral patterns can be called "innately male,"
    please note.
    
    Before you continue your ongoing characterizations of the mental
    limitations you believe exist in people of a different sex or race
    (it doesn't matter, after all, whether you make such charges about
    women or a different ethnic group) - please keep in mind that it is
    against corporate policy to do this.
    
    As human beings, people of each sex overlap (more than they differ)
    in behavior.  While some men are terrible at math, many women are
    very good at it (including spatial skills and higher math reasoning.)
    While most men would never use physical violence against anyone, it
    is true that a small percentage of murders and assaults are committed
    by women.  Men and women belong to the same species.
    
    Scientists have proven that men and women share the same intelligence.
    Neither sex is inferior or superior to the other.  Your insinuations
    to the contrary are noted.  Now please stop making them at a place
    where men and women are co-workers and peers.  Desparaging remarks
    about the mental capabilities of another group are inappropriate at
    our workplace.

    RE: .383  Mike Z.
    
    .364> physical, and spiritual achievement and finding out just HOW #UCKING
    .364> FAR WE CAN ALL REALLY GO?
    
    > Yeah, it would.  So what have we been doing for the last 2 decades?
    
    What this culture has been doing is continuing to promote sexism
    and racism in every possible way (including using scientific data to 
    attempt to prove assumptions about racial and sexual inferiority.)
    
    If this bigotry stopped, we could move on with our lives (and put this
    racial/sexual war to rest once and for all.)
    
    Maybe in another thousands years or so, perhaps.

    re:.385
    
    They're not even ground.
    
    They've been twisted and bent and shaped for the last 20 years to try
    to correct-out the inadequacies that are ASSUMED to exist because white
    men do better than others in some areas.
    
    The SATs have been tinkered with for at least 12 years, to reword some
    questions, to use different examples, to include some concepts and
    exclude others, all in the name of making the tests "more fair."
    
    You know what?  Men still do better on the math than women. Lower
    expectations?  Gee, do ya think the computers that grade the tests 
    know who the men are and scale the #s?

.387> It occurs to me that how much worth a human being has could be judged
.387> very differently depending on the criteria used.
    
    Amen to that.
    
    I've said it twice now, then went and pointed it out, but it's still
    gone right over the heads of some people.
    
    Maybe they'll listen to you ...

    RE: .390  Mike Z.
    
    > You know what?  Men still do better on the math than women. 
    
    Some men do, yes.  Some women get very high SAT scores in math
    and some men can't do math to save their lives (like some women.)
    
    Math is not a universal skill for men, nor is it a universal
    impossibility for women.  Skill patterns lean towards males
    in higher math reasoning, but educational techniques can be
    used to give females better performance in spatial and math
    reasoning skills.

    By the way, did someone say (aways back) that women who do well in
    math have "male brains"?  If so, then does the converse also apply
    (that men who do *not* do well in math have "female brains"?)
    
    Also - since the behavior patterns for schizophrenia and violent
    crime could also be used to describe these as "male traits" (the
    same way behavior patterns are used to call math a male trait,)
    then would a woman who has schizophrenia or who commits murder
    also be described as having a "male brain"?  (And, also, do men
    who refrain from being schizophrenic or committing rape/murder/
    assault have "female brains"???)
    
    The differences in male and female brains only involve patterns,
    not absolutes.

    How about the flip side.  Don't women get better verbal scores?
    Or is that just my perception?
    
    ed

>>    How about the flip side.  Don't women get better verbal scores?
>>    Or is that just my perception?

	Yup, we talk real good.

    re:.395
    
    Yup, that's the truth.
    
    By the way, when's the last time you heard men complaining that the
    higher verbal scores are an illusion or because GI Joe says "Wow...
    English is tough." ... ?

    re: .397
    
    I'd love to hear men say they feel they lost opportunities or did not
    achieve full fruition of their career skills because they didn't score
    highly enough on the verbal SATs....
    
    -Jody
    

    Off hand, I would say that most guys wouldn't spend much time whining
    about it at all.  They would either find something else to do with
    their lives, or try to improve their verbal skills.  Either that or
    drift off into chronic paranoid-schizophrenia, or something.
    
    Mike

    RE: .399  Mike Smith
    
    > Off hand, I would say that most guys wouldn't spend much time whining
    > about it at all.  They would either find something else to do with
    > their lives, or try to improve their verbal skills. 
    
    They'd probably blame it on reverse-discrimination.
    
    > Either that or
    > drift off into chronic paranoid-schizophrenia, or something.
 
    No, this happens if they find they're good at verbal skills and
    start worrying about having a "female brain."  ("OH NOOOOOO!!!")  :>

    re:.398
    
    I'd like to accomodate you, Jody, but I scored a 760.

    
    .399> Either that or
    .399> drift off into chronic paranoid-schizophrenia, or something.
 
    .400> No, this happens if they find they're good at verbal skills and
    .400> start worrying about having a "female brain."  ("OH NOOOOOO!!!")  :>
    
    .401><<< Note 830.401 by HDLITE::ZARLENGA "Michael Zarlenga, Alpha P/PEG" >
    .401>       I'd like to accomodate you, Jody, but I scored a 760.
    
    Ooops.  Heh heh. <Gulp!>

    re:.401
    And a 780 in Math.
    
    re:.402
    Suzanne Conlon, your endless insinuations are bordering on harassment.

    RE: .403  Mike Z.
    
    > Suzanne Conlon, your endless insinuations are bordering on harassment.
    
    Just when I thought you'd lost your sense of humor, you accuse *me*
    of endless insinuations!
    
    I guess there's hope for you after all.  :>
    
    Lighten up a bit more, though.  Both the "Brain Sex" book and TV
    program did not intend to heighten the escalation of the war between
    the sexes.  They intended to bring us closer together (with nothing
    to cause celebration or defensiveness for people of either sex.)

    They were intended to bring us closer together?  If the discussion in
    the Mennotes conference is any indication, off hand I'd say they failed
    miserably!
    
    Mike

    RE: .405  Mike Smith
    
    > They were intended to bring us closer together?  If the discussion in
    > the Mennotes conference is any indication, off hand I'd say they failed
    > miserably!
    
    It was predicted (early in the book) that the information might cause
    *some* problems:
    
    	"Men, on the other hand, should find no cause for complacent
    	celebration, although some will inevitably find ammunition for
    	their bar-room prejudices; it is, for instance, true that most
    	women cannot read a map as well as a man.  But women can read
    	a character better.  And people are more important than maps.
    	(The male mind, at this point, will immediately think of
    	exceptions to this.)"
    
    							Brain Sex
    							  p. 7

                      
    	While the sniping continues on both sides, scientists have completely
    mapped the two smallest chromosomes in the human as part of the genome 
    mapping project. 
    	One of them was the Y chromosome. Things are moving fast, people, so
    you may get your answers sooner than you think or want. I'll post more
    info from the article next week.
    
    - Jim K                    

    RE: .407  Jim
    
    > One of them was the Y chromosome. Things are moving fast, people, so
    > you may get your answers sooner than you think or want. I'll post more
    > info from the article next week.
    
    I'm looking forward to seeing the answers (when they are available.)
    
    I also realize that some in our culture will have a tendency to distort
    the results to become yet another promotion of racial or sexual inferiority
    (especially as it relates to intellectual and/or employment capabilities.)
    
    We'll just have to address these attempts as they come up.

    re:.407
    
    If history has taught us anything, it's that there will still be some
    people who refuse to accept the reality of the situation.

    RE: .409  Mike Z.
    
    > If history has taught us anything, it's that there will still be some
    > people who refuse to accept the reality of the situation.
    
    The same (or more) people will refuse to accept distortions of reality
    as "the truth" (no matter who tries to sell it.)
    

    I bet they find the nagnagnag gene on the X chromosome.

    RE: .411  Mike Z.
    
    > I bet they find the nagnagnag gene on the X chromosome.
    
    It's probably only found on the X chromosome when paired with a Y. :>
    

.412> It's probably only found on the X chromosome when paired with a Y. :>
    
    You apparently don't understand genetics.
    
    Just say you were kidding, that'll cover up the gaffe.

    RE: .413  Mike Z.
    
    >> ...  :>
    
    > You apparently don't understand genetics.
    > Just say you were kidding, that'll cover up the gaffe.
    
    Oh, dear.  Were you attempting to engage in a serious (scientific)
    discussion of genetics when you brought up a so-called 'nagnagnag
    gene'???
    
    Or is this coming from your gamesgamesgames gene?

.413> Just say you were kidding, that'll cover up the gaffe.
    
.414> Were you attempting to engage in a serious (scientific) discussion
    
    Too funny.
    
    Can I call 'em or what?

    RE: .415  Mike Z.
    
    .414> Or is this coming from your gamesgamesgames gene?
    
    I'd call .415 a BIG YES to this question...