In article <hopems-1207022009450001 at cs6625171-151.austin.rr.com> hopems at mail.utexas.edu (Hope Munro Smith) writes:
<
<In article <3d2f507c.20059553 at news.freeserve.net>,
<angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk (Angilion) wrote:
<
<> [several groups cut to avoid excessive crossposting]
<>
<> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:19:57 -0500, "Shadow Dancer"
<> <insomniac at winterslight.org> wrote:
<>
<> [..]
<>
<> >http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thompson/psychsex.htm
<> >
<> >To Quote:
<> >
<> >"The most important single contribution to our knowledge of the facts of the
<> >case is to be found in Dr. Franklin P. Mall's paper 'On Several Anatomical
<> >Characters of the Human Brain Said to Vary According to Race and Sex, with
<> >Especial Reference to the Weight of the Frontal Lobe' (Am. J. of Anat., IX.,
<> >p. 1, 1909). Dr. Mall's general conclusion is that there is as yet no
<> >reliable evidence for the variation of anatomical characters with either
<> >race or sex. The belief that the brains of females differ from those of
<> >males has been widely accepted, and has been thought to be conclusive
<> >evidence of the permanent inferiority of the female mind.
<>
<> That's obviously out of date - the general belief nowdays is that women
<> are *more* intellectually capable than men. Try reading the posts
<> John Knight was replying to, for example. Are you going to
<> counter those, or are you one of the many who think that female
<> people are innately superior to male people?
<>
<> You are going back to 1910 for that paper. Do you think that's
<> actually relevant to today, especially in her conclusions about
<> the prevailing belief concerning which sex is mentally superior?
<
<Really, use of such dated material is quite puzzling.
<
<>
<> As an aside, I have seen it hypothesised that brain mass correlates with
<> height. That would neatly explain the average difference in brain
<> mass between men and women (as an artefact of the average
<> difference in height) and the hypothesis sounds plausible. However,
<> I haven't seen any evidence for it. Do you have any?
<>
<
<I'd be interested in hearing it as well. It would make
<sense that a larger body would need a larger brain to work
<its various systems, which again would prove that brain size
<says nothing about intelligence.
That's quite standard in biology: neurological comparisons
are always made on a brain/body mass basis, never on absolute
brain size. (what's the smartest blue whale you've ever met?)
-- cary
