chabot@amber.DEC (Lisa Chabot) (06/21/84)
Many of us have said individual differences matter more than general or possible genetic or environmental differences, but, folks, I'm gonna call us on the carpet about this, because it isn't enough. It's a tricky point. The reason it's not enough is that it doesn't address the point of whether or not there are differences and what held to be true about them: if an individual excels at something generally held to be beyond the interests of or capabilities of that person's race, religion, sex, social class, or national origin, then it is all too easy to explain the excellence as Anomaly-- either an anomaly in that this person is a biological sport (or something) or that this person really doesn't _belong_ to their category: she has a lot of other masculine characteristics he has a lot of white blood / he grew up in a white neighborhood the family's poor, but on the mother's side there are ancestors that came over on the Mayflower (or decended from dukes or whatever) This message was brought to you by those who want you to remember to look and see if you've really cleaned out those old prejudices, and are not just a liberal "passing". :-) Lisa "Series" Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 I_earn Way, Marlborough, MA 01752 "Let's call a trey of swords a trey of swords."
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter F. Barbee) (06/26/84)
Lisa,
Anytime a person really excells at something it's an anomaly (see Webster).
The question of possible genetic influences is valid if only because
we can't prove it's invalidity. This doesn't mean that our genes (jeans |-))
determine behavior but that they can influence it.
Peter Barbee
decvax-+-uw-beaver-+
ihnp4--+ allegra-+
ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron
sun-+
ssc-vax-+