cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/04/85)
I haven't been accused of sexism yet (just racism), so I figure it's time to give some of reason to hate me even more. There has been a lot of discussion of disparities in income between men and women lately; there has been quite a bit of discussion in net.women of why there are so few women in engineering, with the clear presumption that this must be because of societal pressures to keep women away from "man's work". I was reading an article in the paper today which, while hardly conclusive, might want to give all of us some reason to wonder if this presumption is correct. The article was one of those rather chatty newspaper articles under the category "Science", where science has been simplified (and perhaps bastardized) in the pursuit of a wide audience. Let me therefore state that it is possible the newspaper reporter got something garbled --- then again, maybe this is an accurate statement of fact. The article is titled "What Einstein's brain teaches us", and along with an interesting description of recent research into brain function, the article says that Professor Marian Diamond and her husband, UCLA psychiatrist Arnold Scheibel, while teaching a course at UC Irvine Extension, indicated that "studies of brain tissue continue to bear out the notion that men and women do think fundamentally differently". In more detail, "Male and female minds really are different. Men typically have more highly developed cells in the right half of the brain controlling visual and spatial function, while such dominance isn't marked in women. 'This isn't to say that either is better,' Diamond says. 'By studying the brain, I've been able to understand men better.'" [end of quotations, opinion on] ******************************************************************* Unfortunately, the article doesn't say if this difference is acquired, or in-born, or if that subject has been studied. (What do you expect, it's a *feature* article.) Still, before we get too carried away assuming that engineering's shortage of women is the result of discrimination, let's consider the possibility that there might, in fact, be a difference in brain characteristics. After all, it is traditionally believed that ability with spatial relationships are related to engineering and "hard" sciences abilities. Note that I am *not* saying that all women are lacking this ability, and all men have more of this ability. Nonetheless, if there was a *on average* difference in built-in capabilities here, it might explain the disproportionate maleness of engineering and "hard" sciences. While everyone is busy looking for charcoal (for flaming), let me play amateur anthropologist and suggest a possible cause of the *possible* difference. For a long time, or at least for a few million years, it appears that hunting and war has been a primarily male function, and food gathering/preparation/child-rearing have been primarily female functions. The biological advantages of spatial ability for hunting are obvious, since you miss where your spear or rock goes, and you either go hungry, or get gored by a boar. It is not implausible to me that over a few thousands generations, the requirements of hunting might have selected disproportionately towards males with higher spatial reasoning, over females with higher spatial reasoning. ****FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T READ CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU LIGHT THE CHARCOAL, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN: THIS DOES ****NOT***** MEAN THAT NO WOMAN HAS THESE ABILITIES, OR THAT ALL MEN ARE SUPERIOR IN THIS AREA. WE ARE DISCUSSING AVERAGES --- JUST LIKE EVERYONE DISCUSSES AVERAGES WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT DIFFERENCES IN INCOME, AND THE SMALL NUMBER OF WOMEN IN ENGINEERING. READ BEFORE YOU FLAME! **** I'm not going to claim that the remarks of Professor Diamond are absolute truth, or that my suppositions are necessarily correct --- but think about it before assuming bias, unfairness, and societal pressure, or at least consider that there may be a intrinsic biological difference causing *part* of the disparities. You can't flame me worse than I've already been --- any more heat, and all my 5.56mm will go off.
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (07/06/85)
>article says that Professor Marian Diamond and her husband, UCLA >psychiatrist Arnold Scheibel, while teaching a course at UC Irvine >Extension, indicated that "studies of brain tissue continue to bear >out the notion that men and women do think fundamentally differently". >In more detail, "Male and female minds really are different. Men >typically have more highly developed cells in the right half of the >brain controlling visual and spatial function, while such dominance >isn't marked in women. 'This isn't to say that either is better,' If you read _Science_ or _Nature_ regularly, Mr. Clayton, you would know already that more recent studies of brain function do not bear out the by-now popular way of associating the left brain with intuitive functions and the right brain with analytical functions. (I wonder where the asymptotic expansions go?). Furthermore, you would know that brain cells have been found to be far more flexible in their function and capacity for growth beyond early childhood. This means that people really do think, and can train themselves to actually be hardwired for whatever function they find that they have to do the most of. So your little triumph in finding a little newspaper article that finds "scientific proof that most women are unfit to do complex analytical and spatial tasks (i.e tasks that pay lots of money)" is just a bunch of hogwash, and very closely akin to the "science" of eugenics that Hitler used to justify his little experiments. Far be it from me to call you a NAZI, Mr. Cramer. Cheryl Stewart --
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (07/08/85)
In article <327@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: (from some popular-press feature article...) >Extension, indicated t...."studies of brain tissue continue to bear >out the notion that men and women do think fundamentally differently". >In more detail, "Male and female minds really are different. Men >typically have more highly developed cells in the right half of the >brain controlling visual and spatial function, while such dominance >isn't marked in women...." > >[end of quotations, opinion on] >******************************************************************* > >Unfortunately, the article doesn't say if this difference is acquired, >or in-born, or if that subject has been studied.... > Rather than postulating that the difference was a genetic trait, as the quoted poster later does, I find a different explanation more likely. Recall that a piano student, who starts young and diligently does the usual exercises every day for years, will develop finger bone structures which are noticeably different (using X-rays) from those of the normal human. It is likely, in my uninformed opinion, that the above mentioned differences in brain center dominance are caused by differences in experience, and that the brain develops most highly those areas which are most used. As a test, one could study the exact nature of the differences between the brain center dominances between men and women, and then see if the same dominances hold among (1) infants, (2) ghetto inhabitants, who probably do not know much higher math, (3) engineers of each sex, and (4) peoples of radically different cultures, with widely disparate knowledge of mathematics. I claim without proof that in each case, the dominance of analytical and spatial centers in the brain will be directly related to the actual use of these centers by the individual. This cannot be explained away by saying that the people with such dominance decided to take up mathematics, (Femal engineers would, infants and Bushpeople [sic.] would not.) because not everyone with these dominant brain centers would necessarily enter a mathematical field, and so there would be some individuals with the dominant "analytical" centers who had never heard of geometry, if the traits were actually inherited. If they were developed, as I claim, there would be very few such people with high spatial ability but no experience. If my claim turns out to be true, then it is vital for all parents to make sure their daughters learn geometry & so forth, because the study would actually indicate that girls (= immature female people) tend not to learn math as often and as well as boys. I also claim without proof that the reason for this difference is cultural. --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: (still) mccolm@UCLA-CS.ARPA (someday) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Quotes on the Nature of Existence: "To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare) "I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes "<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)
sakthi@ut-sally.UUCP (Sakthi Subramanian) (07/08/85)
In article <837@oddjob.UUCP> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes: >that they have to do the most of. So your little triumph in finding a >little newspaper article that finds "scientific proof that most women >are unfit to do complex analytical and spatial tasks (i.e tasks that pay >lots of money)" is just a bunch of hogwash, and very closely akin to >the "science" of eugenics that Hitler used to justify his little experiments. > >Far be it from me to call you a NAZI, Mr. Cramer. > > Cheryl Stewart I am referring to the words "little triumph" right on the first line. It is one thing to fight for women's rights but entirely quite another to pick on everything done by men and analyze them for sexist content. Mr. Cramer in this case was probably merely trying to point out another aspect of the problem, so he presented an article that he had seen. To conclude that he considered that a "little triumph" is to allow feminism to upset one's sense of judgement. sakthi
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (07/10/85)
From: sakthi@ut-sally.UUCP (Sakthi Subramanian) Message-ID: <2296@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 12:24:06 CDT > In article <837@oddjob.UUCP> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes: > >that they have to do the most of. So your little triumph in finding a > >little newspaper article that finds "scientific proof that most women > >are unfit to do complex analytical and spatial tasks (i.e tasks that pay > >lots of money)" is just a bunch of hogwash, and very closely akin to > >the "science" of eugenics that Hitler used to justify his little experiments. > > > >Far be it from me to call you a NAZI, Mr. Cramer. > > > > Cheryl Stewart > > > I am referring to the words "little triumph" right on the first line. > It is one thing to fight for women's rights but entirely quite > another to pick on everything done by men and analyze them for > sexist content. Mr. Cramer in this case was probably merely trying > to point out another aspect of the problem, so he presented an article > that he had seen. To conclude that he considered that a "little triumph" > is to allow feminism to upset one's sense of judgement. > > sakthi > > May I suggest that S.S. may be overlooking the history behind this exchange? That is, Cramer has been quite prolific in this newsgroup, and Stewart's view of his item was presumably based not on that one posting alone but also on a familiarity with the stands Cramer has been taking all along. It's fair to use this background as the basis for reading between the lines and making a supposition about his underlying point in posting that clipping. -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
friedman@h-sc1.UUCP (dawn friedman) (07/11/85)
> I haven't been accused of sexism yet (just racism), so I figure it's > time to give some of reason to hate me even more. > O.K. I like to start off on a defensive note myself. > The article is titled "What Einstein's brain teaches us", and along with > an interesting description of recent research into brain function, the > article says that Professor Marian Diamond and her husband, UCLA > psychiatrist Arnold Scheibel, while teaching a course at UC Irvine > Extension, indicated that "studies of brain tissue continue to bear > out the notion that men and women do think fundamentally differently". > In more detail, "Male and female minds really are different. Men > typically have more highly developed cells in the right half of the > brain controlling visual and spatial function, while such dominance > isn't marked in women. 'This isn't to say that either is better,' > Diamond says. 'By studying the brain, I've been able to understand > men better.'" > > [end of quotations, opinion on] > ******************************************************************* > > Unfortunately, the article doesn't say if this difference is acquired, > or in-born, or if that subject has been studied. (What do you expect, > it's a *feature* article.) Still, before we get too carried away > assuming that engineering's shortage of women is the result of > discrimination, let's consider the possibility that there might, in > fact, be a difference in brain characteristics. After all, it is > traditionally believed that ability with spatial relationships are > related to engineering and "hard" sciences abilities. > > (various sensible qualifications on broadness of statement follow) (and now the usual "amateur anthropologist"'s explanation of this often surmised difference: need for extra ability with spatial relations in male hunters/warriors (( compared with the lesser need for such in mere berry-picking, or perhaps just the less serious disadvantages of missing a whole gnu as opposed to just one banana? :-) )) ) (and here I thought I would be more concise! Sorry!) (and a final bout of flame-retardant spraying, and that's all) All right, down to business. I'm not a flamer anyway. In fact, what I want to say might be interpreted as an attempt to hold down the heat. Or maybe not. In any case, I recommend caution. Let's not be in a great big hurry to deal with this study and its conclusions. First of all, I disagree with the chain of reasoning so lightly linked by the researchers. 1) Is it clear that spatial relations are the function of the cells or cell groups mentioned? I doubt that we have so good a map of such high level functions: we have a decent idea of where tastes are processed, and we know a good bit about heartbeat, but what can we say about something like memory, which seems to be all over the place? 2) The extent of differences between the hemispheres in general is just at the beginning of what looks to be a long debate. A lot of simplistic conclusions based on preliminary studies (the severed corpus callosum, of course) are being challenged, either with regard to their own conclusions about the subjects or (especially) about their application to people in whom the connection between the hemispheres is healthy and operative. It is certainly known that the hemispheres can and will take over for each other if one is damaged -- although perhaps not in all cases or functions. MORE DATA IS NEEDED! 3) In fact, how much do we know about the relationship of relative (let's not even think about absolute) differences in size OR number of brain cells to differing powers or functions? It's not my area, but I think we're a long way from quantitative analysis here. 4) Do we (or at least males) have better spatial abilities than our cousins who still eat (mostly) fruit? Are our spatial relations cells (if such things really exist) larger? What about our possible REDUCTION in need for (3D) spatial relations abilities since giving up the trees? (These last points apply to the "anthropologist" argument, but it is such a familiar argument that it might as well be addressed here.) I think I'll give it a rest around here, though I could certainly continue, and end by mentioning what I think may be the most important point in regard to this and other studies which purport to find a social/political/psychological conjecture verified by biology: Science is done by human beings. Human beings have hopes, fears, and beliefs which are very important to them. And all scientific data must pass at least once through a human mind. I am NOT making any accusations, criticisms or complaints about the people who did this particular study. I'm certainly no more objective than anyone else picked at random. But it is simply amazing what the ideas in someone's mind can do to the data that pass through it. I've seen it in my own field (theoretical chemistry) and in my own mind, but an example that may be more relevant here (as being from anthropology as well) is the way that scientists who wanted to believe in Piltdown Man managed to see things that weren't there to make it more plausible. Brilliant and respected men saw human characteristics in the jaw later proved to be an orangutan's, and described the skull as 'the most simian in character ever seen' when it was a perfectly modern human skull (how insulting to the ex-owner!) I'm following Stephen Jay Gould's discussion for this one (I think it's in _Ever Since Darwin_). So, anyway, let's not get all het up until a LOT more is known about some of the aspects of brain structure, the human mind, and human evolution that I've mentioned? It's not worth the trouble. dsf (Dina Ansieri, the Long-Winded) p.s. All right, ONE more point: how important is some indefinite difference which may exist between the average (or median, better) male and the median female? I'm against any censorship of scientific research, but who needs to know? No one is going to hire the median female for some job; all you need to know is whether that PERSON is qualified. As for the argument that this difference may explain differences in employment in engineering, etc. : get serious! There are only about ten factors which have already been implicated, every one of them on the basis of stronger and more plentiful data. I'll worry about a differential average ability in spatial relations when those have been eliminated, and the lag time run as well -- about 50 to 100 years from now, with hard work and good luck! dsf (Shacharah, the Only Flamer)
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (07/17/85)
> > > The article is titled "What Einstein's brain teaches us", and along with > > psychiatrist Arnold Scheibel, while teaching a course at UC Irvine > > Extension, indicated that "studies of brain tissue continue to bear > > out the notion that men and women do think fundamentally differently". > > In more detail, "Male and female minds really are different. Men > > typically have more highly developed cells in the right half of the > > brain controlling visual and spatial function, while such dominance > > isn't marked in women. 'This isn't to say that either is better,' > > Diamond says. 'By studying the brain, I've been able to understand > > men better.'" Anyone who takes a NEUROBIOLOGIST studying human beings seriously is not familiar with the promising but still PRIMITIVE nature of neurtobiology as applied to animals -- ____________________ Michael Lonetto Public Health Research Institute, 455 1st Ave, NY, NY 10016 (allegra!phri!lonetto) "BUY ART, NOT COCAINE"
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/17/85)
> >article says that Professor Marian Diamond and her husband, UCLA > >psychiatrist Arnold Scheibel, while teaching a course at UC Irvine > >Extension, indicated that "studies of brain tissue continue to bear > >out the notion that men and women do think fundamentally differently". > >In more detail, "Male and female minds really are different. Men > >typically have more highly developed cells in the right half of the > >brain controlling visual and spatial function, while such dominance > >isn't marked in women. 'This isn't to say that either is better,' > > If you read _Science_ or _Nature_ regularly, Mr. Clayton, you would know > already that more recent studies of brain function do not bear out the > by-now popular way of associating the left brain with intuitive functions > and the right brain with analytical functions. (I wonder where the asymptotic > expansions go?). Furthermore, you would know that brain cells have been > found to be far more flexible in their function and capacity for growth > beyond early childhood. This means that people really do think, and can > train themselves to actually be hardwired for whatever function they find > that they have to do the most of. So your little triumph in finding a > little newspaper article that finds "scientific proof that most women > are unfit to do complex analytical and spatial tasks (i.e tasks that pay > lots of money)" is just a bunch of hogwash, and very closely akin to > the "science" of eugenics that Hitler used to justify his little experiments. > My entire posting made it clear that I was raising the issue without asserting that it was certain. I raised the issue because it is apparently not a clear-cut issue. Also, your quote marks around "scientific proof.." suggest I said this. I did not. In addition, I did not suggest that ANY action is necessary, or even appropriate. > Far be it from me to call you a NAZI, Mr. Cramer. > > Cheryl Stewart > -- Your anger and hatred is overwhelming. I really wish you would try to resolve your emotional problems; you seem unable to have a calm discussion on this topic.