flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (05/21/84)
William Hughes said that there is insufficient evidence for the conclusion that environment is the sole cause of observed sex differences in math aptitude. I disagree. Based on our knowledge of brain function, we have extremely good reason to doubt the existence of any sex-linked genetic cause of such differences. The brain is highly adaptive, in short. Although some abilities may be "built-in", most must be learned. Consider this in the light of evolutionary theory. If there are sex differences in math ability, some evolutionary explanation is called for. But in most of the history of human evolution, there was little need for specifically mathematical ability at all, much less any survival value to sex differences in math ability. The ability to do math is a very specific form of behavior which receives no direct influence from evolutionary pressures. The only feasible way to provide for such ability genetically was to have a highly adaptible brain. Thus, we have good theoretical reasons to doubt that there are genetic differences between the sexes in mathematical ability, or any other particular area of intelligence. The aspiring iconoclast is back! --Paul Torek, ..umcp-cs!flink
martillo@ihuxj.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo) (05/21/84)
The math difference may be caused by different abilities to perceive spatial relationships. I could think of several reasons for such an ability to be related to sexual differences especially if humans have hunter-gatherer ancestry. By the way, if one believes Kuhn, science does not progress by building on current paradigms but rather by overthrowing them. Lack of evidence is hardly a reason not to pursue research in a given area especially if funding is available.
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (05/21/84)
Paul Torek argues that, as there is no clear reason to believe in
an evolutionary mechanism that would tend to produce sex diferrentiation
in mathematical ability, one can establish the theory that
all such differences are due to enviornmental factors. The argument
is certainly plausible, and does lend some weight to the enviornmental
hypothesis. However it can hardly be said to establish this hypothesis.
1: We can concieve of evolutionary mechanisms which would cause
sexual differentiation in the brain. (In fact there is some
evidence that male and female brains do differ structurally)
As we do not have any knowledge of what changes in brain
structure might be related to mathematical ability we cannot
rule out the possibility that structural differences may be
present and may affect mathematical ability. (Perhaps males
may have hunted to a greater extent, improving spacial
perception which turns out to be related to math ability. I
do not provide this as a plausible argument but as an example
of evelutionary mechanisms which migh produce sexual
differentiation.)
2: As yet evolutionary mechanisms are only partially understood
3: Pure accident cannot be ruled out
I can come up with a plausible argument that a ten pound rock falls
ten times as fast as a one pound rock. Strong evidence can only
come from observation and experimentation.
William Hughesjeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/25/84)
You bet the brain is adaptible. But what makes you think that male and female brains adapt the same way? After all, their chemical environment must surely be different, on the average. I would guess that we don't know nearly enough about brain function to say, for instance, that the way we learn mathematics is totally independent from systems that are affected by sex and heredity (such as those which determine height). Even small effects are not non-effects. Jeff Winslow