"Dani" <coma56 at popstar.com> skrev i melding
news:B763EABC.26F5%coma56 at popstar.com...
> >> What does "guass-wise" mean?
> > Gauss-wise, not guass.
>> Isn't that what I wrote?
> > Anyway, what I meant was that intelligence is distributed NOT equally,
> > bunched around 100 points (middle reference) with 'tails' that tells
> > are
> > fewer idiots or geniouses than average joe's and jane's.
> > You should read "The Bell Curve" and it is not to much for you as the
> > portion
> > of interest is covered to page 552, the rest is references and
>> I'll check that book out next time I visit the library.
If I weren't living in Oslo, Norway; I'd send you my copy.
> > I covered this in my later replies as I said that intelligence should
> > read
> > as a one-dimensional score, but as a two-dimensional score;verbal and
> > spatial.
> > The difference between these two 'skills' are somewhat related to each
> > other, but for better measurement; the psychometricians should develope
> > better model than what we have now.
>> That's what I figured you meant. But why stop at two dimensions? I think
> there's probably dozens of facets that should be accounted for if we want
> tests that actually tell us anything about what a person is capable of.
Well, as I noted; Arthur.Jensen would be the better judge on this.
> > There was one neuroscientist here that told about the experiment they
> > performed
> > on rats and they measured the rats performance with enhanced
> > They used corticosterone.
> > The test was never completed as the mortality-rate was high (and I'll
> > adresse this
> > later), and the work was done sloppy (his words, not mine).
>> I read that. Interestingly, I read somewhere (can't remember where) that
> high levels of corticosteroids interfere with testosterone, lower T
> I'm not sure if such a thing is true, perhaps someone knowladgeable in
> area could comment.
I'd also appreciate some comments here.
> > What I think; and most would agree with me here I think; is that the
> > growth is pretty much controlled by the genes (at least 80%), unless
> > underfed or something unatural occured.
>> I agree with that.
> > Of course it is the developement of the brain !!!
> > What difference do YOU think there is between male and female brains ?
>> I don't know for certain. Nobody does. I think there are in fact
> between male and female brains, perhaps only very minor differences, but I
> also think many neuroscientists tend to exaggerate sex dimorphism and what
> effects they have on gender differences. I made a webpage containing
> everything that I've learned about brain sex dimorphism:
Thank you for the link.
I read through it and as you say later there are some uncertainties of the
corpus callosum, you more or less confirmed it (unintentionally) by also
saying that the female uses BOTH hemispheres (hence better communication ?)
,while males are using the hemispheres 'lateralized' (your words, not mine)
> > One; there have been discovered structural differences between male and
> > female neurons in certain segments of the brain.
>> Yes. The INAH-3 hypotalamic nuclei for instance.
>> > Two,the corpus callosum is better developed in females.
>> That's not known yet with certainty. As I stated in my first letter in
> thread, most studies performed in the last 15 years on sex dimorphism of
> corpus callosum have failed to find a difference. I guess it depends upon
> which study you want to look at.
Any flaw stems from to little data.
What do we know of the differences in the corpus callosum ?
When we say smaller or bigger, then the question arises 'by how much ?'.
> > Are you bullshitting me ????
>> Absolutely not.
Thank you :)
I was hoping you wouldn't.
> > I've read about the XXY's and the YY's, but in no way is sex a social
> > construct.
>> That's what I used to think until I learned about intersex people and the
> process of the sexing of the physical body. Then my ignorance began to
> dissolve :-)
What we're discussing are those outside the boundary we call 'normal'.
But any study will dissolve ignorance, I agree.
> > That is a PC-doctrine which is flawed.
>> I can understand why you might believe such a thing, given the drivel that
> has come from certain feminist philosophers. But it is a fact that "sex"
> to a *certain degree* a social construct.
No more than 20% I'd say.
The rest is genetic.
Maybe that's enough to give the genders enough 'slack' so they won't feel
> > IF a baby developes naturally for a periode; the brain developes with
> > body; and
> > the hormones changes drastically; then the body (and brain) might
> > male
> > or female characteristics that would override the genetic programming.
>> I'm not entirely sure what point you're making in this passage.
I was in a crude way trying to describe what you excellently did below.
But what I lacked was the AIS........
> The development of physical sex is quite complex, there are many
> for "mistakes". Consider, for example, a baby "boy" (with XY chromosomes)
> who has AIS (androgen insensitivity syndrome). "He" can be born with
> genitalia that is feminized to such an extent that the doctor who delivers
> "him" doesn't realize that the baby is anything other than a healthy girl.
> Then, because of the AIS, this person grows up to become a female, a woman
> in every respect (socially, gender-wise, physically, secondary sex
> charactieristics, etc.) except that they're missing the female gonads
> (hence, infertile). This has happened to many people in the real world.
> of them didn't learn that they were intersexed until well into adulthood,
> when they discovered it by accident because of a gene test or something.
>> Now is this AIS person a man or a woman?
In mind this person is a male, while an unfertile female externally.
Was this a trick-question ? LOL ;)
> > And since humans are animals as the rats and monkeys are, why should we
> > much
> > more different than them ?
>> The process *probably* is very similar in fact. But it is not yet with
> cetainty. The scientists and researchers still have some work to do.
The chemical and biological *functions* are pretty much the same.
Humans didn't evolve from scratch, but was an adation by nature.
So that's why I say that the difference is small.
The Genome-project revealed that the amount of ACGT in all species
are very much alike.
The difference is in the composition of these genetic letters.
Even a slight change from AGCAGTCGAT to GTAGACTAGC will
produce very different results even though the AMOUNT IS THE SAME.
That's what the public doesn't seem to understand.
> > I support that theory, it seems much more coherent than the social
> > construct-thing you
> > came with earlier.
>> First, I am *NOT* a "social constructivist". I do *NOT* believe that
> is formed solely by childhood environment. (I think it's a minor factor).
Neither do I.
It's in our genes.
> Second, you are confusing two things: sex and gender. Sex is the physical
> body, genitalia. Gender is the subjective sense of being either male or
> female (or perhaps somewhere in between the two, reality is rarely a
> affair :-> ). It is possible in theory for sex and gender to develop
> independently from each other. This is one of the putative etiologies of
> transsexualism or transgenderism. If a baby boy's brain is not exposed to
> the "proper" levels of androgens during the critical period of brain
> masculinization, then he might end up female gendered, i.e., feel like a
> woman trapped in a boy's body. A boy with a girl's brain/mind: A
> or a transgender. But this is, as I said, theory.
Well, I agree this is things that can happen.
I read it somewhere else and it made sense.
And I think it is more than a theory.
I read your webpage, and I realised that I unadvernantly might have stepped
on somebodies toes.............if so I'm sorry.