i read the page at Washington U.
basically, i find the net 'interesting, and helpful in terms of coming
across things to look-up, but i do my reading in the Library, because i
respect the peer-review process. (even though everything i've submitted to
it has been 'rejected' :-)
what it comes down to is folks who put-it-on-the-line, by signing their name
to their work, all in a Verifiable way.
unfortunately, it's just not the same on the net. folks use 'pseudonyms' to
post via 'identy-obscuring' mechanisms, and there's a lot of stuff posted
that's not been agreed upon by anyone except the one who posts it. there's
worth in such, same as any coffee-house discussion, but it's not the
most-direct route to getting to the 'heart' of anything.
so i do it the 'hard' way, in the Library.
no 'offense' intended.
k. p. collins [ken]
Shadow Dancer wrote in message ...
>And what I did supply wasn't good enough? Did you even look at the
>material?
>>"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:MyNX8.25245$Iu6.1365299 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...>> i was hoping you'd supply peer-reviewed refs. standard Journal articles,
>> mostly with respect to your claims re. gender-differential 'randomness'.
>>>> that'd be 'interesting'.
>>>> k. p. collins
>>>> Shadow Dancer wrote in message ...
>> >Here are some I just dug up:
>> >
>> >http://www.brainplace.com/bp/malefemaledif/default.asp>> >
>> >For some really scientific stuff:
>> >http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~kc/Hemi/CogNeuro97.html>> >
>> >Here is some stuff on brain shrinkage with age - looks like the male has
>a
>> >disadvantage:
>>>>http://www.docguide.com/dg.nsf/PrintPrint/30F67BF5DA97292E852565AA0054575D>> >
>> >Here is a Google cached page with some very interesting data on it:
>>>>http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:Gv6JWusC0bgC:www.epub.org.br/cm/n11/me
>> n
>> >te/eisntein/cerebro-homens.html+male,+female,+brain&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
>> >
>> >And here is a scientific paper which clearly refutes any notion that the
>> >female brain is inferior to the male's:
>> >http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Thompson/psychsex.htm>> >
>> >And yet another:
>> >http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/heshe.html>> >
>> >My terminology was wrong, I meant the corpus callosum. Either way,
women
>> >use their entire brains more efficiently than men do and, once again,
>size
>> >does NOT matter :P
>> >
>> >
>> >"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:DRuX8.94644$UT.6252873 at bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...>> >> i'd like to take a peek. please direct me to the data to which your
>> >> statements refer [by as direct a route as possible, please].
>> >>
>> >> k. p. collins
>> >>
>> >> Shadow Dancer wrote in message ...
>> >> >Chive doesn't have to.
>> >> >
>> >> >If you know anything about the "wiring" of male versus female brains,
>> >then
>> >> >you would know that women use their brains far more efficiently than
>men
>> >> do.
>> >> >
>> >> >The cerebral cortex of a man's brain behaves as though damaged,
>allowing
>> >> >only the random signal to travel from one side to another. Other
than
>> >> that,
>> >> >most neural firing is confined to either one side, or the other.
>> >> >
>> >> >Women, however, have a f, lly-functioning cerebral cortex and neural
>> >firing
>> >> >is nearly constant across this 'bridge', using the brain far more
>> >> >efficiently.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bwah.
>> >> >[...]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>>>>>
