Thalamus wrote:
>> "Jet" <thatjetnospam at yahoo.com> skrev i melding
> news:3D35DC1F.183C0D at yahoo.com...> > John Knight 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 That's obviously out of date - the general belief nowdays is that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
> > >
> > > Which may be why so many Americans are so misled about the relationship
> > > between intelligence and brain size.
> > >
> > > It's absurd to infer that an 18% increase in body mass requires an 18%
> > > increase in brain cells. It takes *precisely* the same set of
> instructions
> > > and *precisely* the same compute power and *precisely* the same amount
> of
> > > memory or storage, to control a 12 year old girl's body as it does to
> > > control Akebono's body. Making the body bigger doesn't drain any
> resources
> > > at all away from the brain.
> > >
> > > We're talking about averages here, and IF [note big "if"] it's true that
> > > brain size and height are correlated, then it's a *given* that height
> and
> > > intelligence are correlated.
> > >
> >
> > I really have to wonder if you are having us on...
>> Nigger.
Now there's a good argument.
> The only thing you're wondering about, is how to keep those welfare-checks
> coming.
I'm a sysadmin (do you know what that is?), what do you do?
BTW, more whites than blacks are on welfare.
> Stats are below, don't cry to much now, <sarcasm> dear <sarcasm off> LMWAO
> !!!!!
Cry? I'm too busy yawning.
J
