Peter Douglas Zohrab wrote:
> What I am leading up to here is that the above webpage tries to ignore size
> and concentrate on structure, for the simple reason that the two authors are
> both female,
ah no. it's because you compare apples to apples not to oranges.
> and we all know that the average female brain is smaller than
> the average male brain. If the female brain is smaller than the male brain,
> then this must be either because all of its parts are scaled-down versions
> of the equivalent parts of the male brain, or because there are
> size-differences of various sorts between the various parts of the two types
> of brains (including even the absence of one or more parts of the brain in
> the male or the female brain), such that these differences, in toto, result
> in a female brain that is smaller than its male equivalent.
and the relevance to function is?
>> If the fact that one part of Einstein's brain is 15 % larger than the mean
> for a sample of brains that output a mean IQ of 116 is causally connected to
> his "genius" (or whatever word you want to use), then there is a prima facie
> case to investigate, as regards the size-difference between male and female
> brains. In other words, if size mattered for Einstein versus the rest of
> us, we would not be wasting our time following up the idea that it might
> matter for male brains vs female brains.
do you know of an easy way for a male's brain to become female? or vice
versa?
> I gather from the radio interview
> I heard that big men don't have bigger brains than small men, and big women
> don't have bigger brains than small women -- so it's not a question of
> body-size that's at issue here.
>> Now, it may well be that women's mean IQ is found to be the same as men's
> mean IQ, but, in view of the above discussion, that result would have to be
> a bit suspect. I have plenty of experience of academics preferring to state
> what is politically correct than what is true.
well, you can look into the empirical data--there is no significant
difference.
> In fact, many academics
> consider it to be the height of naivety to state something that is merely
> true, when the opposite is widely known to be politically correct !
and it's pretty stupid to ignore empirical evidence so that you can
focus on your own biases.
>> See also: http://members.tripod.com/peterzohrab/dumbfemi.html
i did and it's garbage
>> Peter Zohrab
--
====================================================
"How do you do Nothing?" asked Pooh. "Well, it's when people call out
at you just as you're going off to do it, `What are you going to do,
Christopher Robin?' and you say, `Oh, nothing' and then you go and do
it. It means just going along, listening to all the things you can't
hear, and not bothering."
http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
remove peterhood69 for mail
