EXCERPTS FROM BRAIN SEX
Philip Lewis
EXCERPTS FROM BRAIN SEX
BRAIN SEX: The real difference between men and women
by Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel.
Dell Publishing (paperback), New York, 1992.
Source http://www.home.aone.net.au/think/brainsx.html
Men are different from women. They are equal only in their common membership
of the same species, humankind. To maintain that they are the same in
aptitude, skill or behaviour is to build a society based on a biological and
scientific lie.
The sexes are different because their brains are different. The brain, the
chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently contructed
in men and in women; it processes information in a different way, which
results in different perceptions, priorities and behaviour.
In the past ten years there has been an explosion of scientific research
into what makes the sexes different. Doctors, scientists, psychologists and
sociologists, working apart, have produced a body of findings which, taken
together, paints a remarkably consistent picture. And the picture is one of
startling sexual asymmetry.
Some researchers have been frankly dismayed at what they have discovered.
Some of their findings have been, if not suppressed, at least quietly
shelved because of their potential social impact. But it is usually better
to act on the basis of what is true, rather than to maintain, with the best
will in the world, that what is true has no right to be so.
A hundred years ago, the observation that men were different from women, in
a whole range of aptitudes, skills, and abilities, would have been a leaden
truism, a statement of the yawningly obvious. Such a remark, uttered today,
would evoke very different reactions. Said by a man, it would suggest a
certain social ineptitude, a naivete in matters of sexual politics, a sad
deficiency in conventional wisdom, or a clumsy attempt to be provacative. A
woman venturing such an opinion would be scorned as a traitor to her sex,
betraying the hard-fought "victories" of recent decades as women have sought
equality of status, opportunity and respect.
Yet the truth is that virtually every professional scientist and researcher
into the subject has concluded that the brains of men and women are
different. There has seldom been a greater divide between what intelligent,
enlightened opinion presumes - that men and women have the same brain - and
what science knows - that they do not.
Recent decades have witnessed two contradictory processes: the development
of scientific research into the differences between the sexes, and the
political denial that such differences exist. These two intellectual
currents are, understandably, not on speaking terms. Science knows it
dabbles in matters of sexual difference at its risk: at least one researcher
into the field of gender differences was refused a grant on the grounds that
"this work ought not be done".
At a few hours old girls are more sensitive than boys to touch. Tests
between the sexes of tactile sensitivity in the hands and fingers produce
differences so striking that sometimes male and female scores do not even
overlap, the most sensitive boy feeling less than the least sensitive girl.
When it comes to sound, infant females are much less tolerant - one
researcher believes that they may "hear" noises as being twice as loud as do
males. Baby girls become irritated and anxious about noise, pain or
discomfort more readily that baby boys.
Baby girls are more easily comforted by soothing words and singing. Even
before they can understand language, girls seem to be better than boys at
identifying the emotional content of speech. From the outset of life, girl
babies show a greater interest in communicating with other people. One study
involves babies of only 2-4 days old. It shows that girls spend almost twice
as long maintaining eye contact with a silent adult, and girls also look
longer than boys when the adult is talking. The boys' attention span was the
same, whether the adult was talking or not - showing a relative bias towards
what they could see, rather than what they could hear. From the cradle, baby
girls like to gurgle at humans. Most boys are just as talkative, but are
equally happy to jabber away at cot toys or looking at abstract geometric
designs. Boys are more active and wakeful than girls - the male-wired brain
of activity at work.
The female bias towards the personal shows itself in other ways. At four
months, most baby girls can distinguish photographs of people they know from
photographs of strangers; baby boys cannot."
The brain biases persist and strengthen as children grow up, "seeing" life
through that particular filter of the brain which they find easier, and more
natural, to use. That bias in girls towards the personal, for instance,
shows up in experiments. A group of children was given a rather special sort
of sight test. They looked through a contraption rather like a pair of
binoculars, which showed the left and right eye two different images at the
same time. One was of an object, the other of a person. The children had
been shown exactly the same images, but when asked what they had seen gave
different replies. Boys reported seeing significantly more things than
people, and girls more people than things.
As the months go by, and the child stands upright, the boys tend to show a
greater interest than the girls in exploring the corners of their small
world. Their greater muscle-mass helps them explore and range further than
their sisters, and they make fewer journeys back to the reassuring base-camp
of mother. Scientists have devised a test where a barrier is strung across
the playroom, separating mother and child. The girls tended to stand at the
centre of the barrier and cry; the boys made little safaris to the edge of
the obstacle to see if there was a way round it.
[Under the heading "Pre-School"]
The infant sexes differ in the way they play. According to one English
study, having said goodbye to their mothers at the school gates (taking an
average 92.5 seconds for girls, 36 seconds for boys), boys will wheel off
into the playground. There, they will play more vigorously, and occupy a
much larger play-space than the girls. In the playschool classroom, the boys
will be much more interested in building structures out of blocks, playing
with any kind of vehicle - indeed with anything which does something, be it
a door handle or an electric switch. Girls will opt for more sedentrary
games, and, if they build, will tend to build long, low structures while
boys go for toppling height in their creations.
A newcomer to the playgroup - of either sex - will tend to be greeted with
friendship and curiosity by the girls; with indifference by the boys. There
is irritation if the newcomer follows the boys about; girls will tend to
welcome the stranger into their group. By the age of four, boys and girls
usually play apart, having instituted their own form of infant sexual
segregation. Boys tend not to bother about whether or not they like any
particular member of the gang - he's included if he's useful; girls exclude
other girls because "they're not nice". Girls accept younger children into
the group; boys tend to try to join groups of older children. Girls know and
remember the names of their playmates; boys often don't.
Boys will make up stories of zap, pow and villainy. Girls' narratives focus
on home, friendship, emotions; the boy will tell the story of the robber,
while the girls tell the same tale from the point of view of the victim.
--
Phil
(Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It)
which...@my-deja.com
"Philip Lewis" <phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> EXCERPTS FROM BRAIN SEX
> BRAIN SEX: The real difference between men and women
> by Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel.
> Dell Publishing (paperback), New York, 1992.
>
> Source http://www.home.aone.net.au/think/brainsx.html
>
> of the same species, humankind.
Isn't that enough, except for doctors to treat patients?
Bill Hunter
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
which...@my-deja.com
> BRAIN SEX: The real difference between men and women
> by Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel.
> Dell Publishing (paperback), New York, 1992.
>
> Source http://www.home.aone.net.au/think/brainsx.html
>
> Men are different from women. They are equal only in their common
membership
> of the same species, humankind.
Phil, let us suppose that 3 hundred years ago, there was a great
ecological disaster, and somehow half of the human race has 3 eyes and
those that escaped the disaster, the other half of the human race, have
only two eyes. Now, the 3-eyed people process their thoughts
differently, because they have 3 informational inputs, whereas the 2-
eyed people only have 2 inputs. Does not fundamental fairness and basic
justice require you accomodate both types to the maximum extent humanly
possible? What I am trying to get across is that feminism is a moral
and ethical dilemma, not a scientific question. At our local community
college, sexual harassment is discussed in Ethics class, not biology
class. Get a grip, Phil.
Bob
> Phil, let us suppose that 3 hundred years ago, there was a great
> ecological disaster, and somehow half of the human race has 3 eyes and
> those that escaped the disaster, the other half of the human race, have
> only two eyes. Now, the 3-eyed people process their thoughts
> differently, because they have 3 informational inputs, whereas the 2-
> eyed people only have 2 inputs. Does not fundamental fairness and basic
> justice require you accomodate both types to the maximum extent humanly
> possible?
Up to the point that "fundamental fairness and basic
justice"
causes a negative impact on society. If it is found that a
3-eyed police officer makes a better police officer than a
2-eyed officer. I want as many 3-eyed police officers as
possibble in the police department. If the presence of
those
3-eyed officers causes the qualifiers for applications to
be
raised; so be it. If a 2-eyed applicant can meet those same
qualifications, fine. If not, he or she can do something
that he or she is better suited at.
Every society has a right to encourage the best people it
can
find in order to further the interests of that society or
to
service it.
> What I am trying to get across is that feminism is a moral
> and ethical dilemma, not a scientific question. At our local community
> college, sexual harassment is discussed in Ethics class, not biology
> class. Get a grip, Phil.
You obviously lack the confidence that a woeman can compete
on
an equal level with a male. They both have the same number
of
eyes. The same number of legs. The same number of hands,
etc.
which...@my-deja.com
You ASSUME that 3-eyed is better. You feel utterly no need to prove it
beyond a reasonable doubt. I was born with 6 fingers on my right hand.
YOU assume that makes me a better piano player. As it turned out, the
fifth and the sixth finger were attached to the same knuckle, and the
sixth finger was useless except as as a double fifth finger. It was
surgically removed at age 3 months. True story.
>
> Every society has a right to encourage the best people it
> can
> find in order to further the interests of that society or
> to
> service it.
Again, you feel no burden to define what is best and then prove it.
>
> > What I am trying to get across is that feminism is a moral
> > and ethical dilemma, not a scientific question. At our local
community
> > college, sexual harassment is discussed in Ethics class, not biology
> > class. Get a grip, Phil.
>
> You obviously lack the confidence that a woeman can compete
> on
> an equal level with a male. They both have the same number
> of
> eyes. The same number of legs. The same number of hands,
> etc.
>
I lack confidence in YOUR ability to choose wisely, fairly, or
even "best" for the society at large. For example, community policing
is now the rage in the U.S., as it has been for a longer time in other
countries. Community policing is not nearly so body-centered as
previous "techniques".
Bill Hunter read my posting history
fried
<phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>EXCERPTS FROM BRAIN SEX
>BRAIN SEX: The real difference between men and women
>by Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel.
>Dell Publishing (paperback), New York, 1992.
>
> Source http://www.home.aone.net.au/think/brainsx.html
>
>
>Men are different from women. They are equal only in their common membership
>of the same species, humankind. To maintain that they are the same in
>aptitude, skill or behaviour is to build a society based on a biological and
>scientific lie.
>The sexes are different because their brains are different. The brain, the
>chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently contructed
>in men and in women; it processes information in a different way, which
>results in different perceptions, priorities and behaviour.
A terrifically bad start. Pygmies are different from Norwegians. Maybe their
brains are different. It's not because their brains are different that they
are different. Let's have a look at the rest, prefer for tedium <grimace>
>
>In the past ten years there has been an explosion of scientific research
>into what makes the sexes different. Doctors, scientists, psychologists and
>sociologists, working apart, have produced a body of findings which, taken
>together, paints a remarkably consistent picture. And the picture is one of
>startling sexual asymmetry.
>
>
>
>
>
>Some researchers have been frankly dismayed at what they have discovered.
>Some of their findings have been, if not suppressed, at least quietly
>shelved because of their potential social impact. But it is usually better
>to act on the basis of what is true, rather than to maintain, with the best
>will in the world, that what is true has no right to be so.
Right, the customary position statement with no evidence. Most of these
normally don't give any evidential argumentation before about two thirds of
the way down. Let's see if this one fits the same pattern ...
>
>
>
>
>
>A hundred years ago, the observation that men were different from women, in
>a whole range of aptitudes, skills, and abilities, would have been a leaden
>truism, a statement of the yawningly obvious. Such a remark, uttered today,
>would evoke very different reactions. Said by a man, it would suggest a
>certain social ineptitude, a naivete in matters of sexual politics, a sad
>deficiency in conventional wisdom, or a clumsy attempt to be provacative. A
>woman venturing such an opinion would be scorned as a traitor to her sex,
>betraying the hard-fought "victories" of recent decades as women have sought
>equality of status, opportunity and respect.
>
>Yet the truth is that virtually every professional scientist and researcher
>into the subject has concluded that the brains of men and women are
>different. There has seldom been a greater divide between what intelligent,
>enlightened opinion presumes - that men and women have the same brain - and
>what science knows - that they do not.
>
>
None so far, just a load of bull.
>
>
>
>Recent decades have witnessed two contradictory processes: the development
>of scientific research into the differences between the sexes, and the
>political denial that such differences exist. These two intellectual
>currents are, understandably, not on speaking terms. Science knows it
>dabbles in matters of sexual difference at its risk: at least one researcher
>into the field of gender differences was refused a grant on the grounds that
>"this work ought not be done".
>
Fair point - or would be - except that scientists who work in this field kow
that this is one of the areas where they can get money, so it is in fact
built on falsehood ... not a good sign.
>
>
>
>
>At a few hours old girls are more sensitive than boys to touch. Tests
>between the sexes of tactile sensitivity in the hands and fingers produce
>differences so striking that sometimes male and female scores do not even
>overlap, the most sensitive boy feeling less than the least sensitive girl.
>When it comes to sound, infant females are much less tolerant - one
>researcher believes that they may "hear" noises as being twice as loud as do
>males. Baby girls become irritated and anxious about noise, pain or
>discomfort more readily that baby boys.
Same as before. Touch and sound at a few hours old. Seems solid enough, but
then we have the misrepresentation of how easy it is to get research grants
and for what above ....
>Baby girls are more easily comforted by soothing words and singing. Even
>before they can understand language, girls seem to be better than boys at
>identifying the emotional content of speech. From the outset of life, girl
>babies show a greater interest in communicating with other people. One study
>involves babies of only 2-4 days old. It shows that girls spend almost twice
>as long maintaining eye contact with a silent adult, and girls also look
>longer than boys when the adult is talking. The boys' attention span was the
>same, whether the adult was talking or not - showing a relative bias towards
>what they could see, rather than what they could hear. From the cradle, baby
>girls like to gurgle at humans. Most boys are just as talkative, but are
>equally happy to jabber away at cot toys or looking at abstract geometric
>designs. Boys are more active and wakeful than girls - the male-wired brain
>of activity at work.
Same as before - recycled - and this time it deals with babies who have had
time to interact with their parents and others. It also centres on
communication skills, the latest fad concerning gender differences...
>The female bias towards the personal shows itself in other ways. At four
>months, most baby girls can distinguish photographs of people they know from
>photographs of strangers; baby boys cannot."
>
>
>
>
>
>The brain biases persist and strengthen as children grow up, "seeing" life
>through that particular filter of the brain which they find easier, and more
>natural, to use. That bias in girls towards the personal, for instance,
>shows up in experiments. A group of children was given a rather special sort
>of sight test. They looked through a contraption rather like a pair of
>binoculars, which showed the left and right eye two different images at the
>same time. One was of an object, the other of a person. The children had
>been shown exactly the same images, but when asked what they had seen gave
>different replies. Boys reported seeing significantly more things than
>people, and girls more people than things.
More recycled stuff. It appears designed to demonstrate that there are
"real" differences between boys and girld because they are "mental" not
physical. It ignores discussion of cultural conditioning factors. We are now
talking about children already conditioned.
Cut rest of recycled propaganda.
The only noteworthy stuff in this is the stuff about very young children.
As the question of acculturation versus inbuilt simply isn't dealt with,
none of the rest is worth the computer it's appearing on.
Julian
Scott
> More recycled stuff. It appears designed to demonstrate that there are
> "real" differences between boys and girld because they are "mental" not
> physical. It ignores discussion of cultural conditioning factors. We are
now
> talking about children already conditioned.
>
> Cut rest of recycled propaganda.
>
> The only noteworthy stuff in this is the stuff about very young children.
>
> As the question of acculturation versus inbuilt simply isn't dealt with,
> none of the rest is worth the computer it's appearing on.
>
> Julian
OK, let me give you an "inbuilt":
First lets use a paradigm that over the last 4 million years of human
history we evolved into hunter gatherers. I think most anthropologist
believe this to be true.
Question: Does this evolutionary history show up not only in our behavior
but also in our biology?
How about eyesight, is there a difference between women and men? Do hunters
need eyesight different from gatherers? Turns out that there is differences,
and this shows up in the light receptive nerves (rods and cones) in the back
of the eyes. Women have better peripheral vision, see more shades of red,
and have better night-vision than men. "They literally take in the whole
picture" Ann Moir. Also in research test it appears women can take in twice
as much visual information per second than men can. Example: researchers
have set up experiments were they have a college student set in a small
office for about 5 minutes before going into another office for a
questioner. The student doesn't know it but the experiment is to find out
what he/she will notice in the first office. Females do a much better job of
recalling what was in the first office, right down to noticing were the
pound puppy is, that the electric sharpener needed emptying to the worn
carpet in the corner of the room, etc., etc., etc....etc. The males on the
other hand (as compared to females) don't hardly remember (excuse my french)
shit about the first office.
Obviously nurture doesn't control how the eye itself develops differently
between men and women (only a moron straining to make nurture the reason for
everything about human behavior differences would argue that it does). But
why do females notice everything in the office experiment and men do not?
The nurture *paradigm* might argue that because *culture and society* insist
that girls/women must be neat they tend to notice things that are out of
place while no *pressure* is put on men to do like wise so they don't notice
the objects in the office. (My wife sure pressures me to be neater around
the house.. however ;))
[Nature, however, tends to be energy efficient when it comes to survival
needs (exceptions are some courtship ornamental in males). Male lions, for
example, don't lay around and make the females do all of the hunting because
they're lazy and rule the pride.The males conserve there energy for mating
and battles to fend of rival males who will kill the cubs if they take over
the pride and thereby causing the females to come into heat sooner. And male
lions' biology reflect this role in life. They are larger than females which
also means they would require a lot more calories just to survive if they
hunted as much as the females and have large furry manes to protect them in
battles against rival males]
Is there an evolutionary *paradigm* that might explain these eyesight
differences? The way it was put to me was if you're a gatherer out gathering
you need to be able to notice a lot of different things in your environment.
You need to be able to take in the whole picture. You're not looking for
anything in particular but you're noticing food stuffs that are ripe and in
season (usually varying shades of red?). IOW It isn't energy efficient to be
harvesting a lot of unripe food stuffs. As a gatherer you're probably
sampling different things. Not just tasting but touching to feel the
textures (women's sense of touch is better than men's). And you don't need
eye sight geared to following moving objects ( men are better at following
moving targets with their eyes). Point is how does this relate to modern
humans? Men, have you ever been shopping with a woman? And what is it with
all these different shades of lip stick? My 9 yr old daughter noticed that
my wife has 33 different shades of fingernail polish!! I had no idea. (I
just accept my wife's behavior without trying to change her.)
OK, what about male eyesight and its related behavior? Men's eyes, as
compared to women, have mild tunnel vision but have better depth perception
and perspective. They see more shades of blue and see better in bright light
conditions. They are better at tracking moving objects and have better
hand-eye coordination than women. Hunting animals' eyesights are more geared
to seeing and following moving objects. The trade off is they tend to be
less aware of stationary objects. Prey animals know this so they freeze.
They also need to be able to focus their attention on what they're stalking
without being easily distracted by other things in the environment (research
indicates that men can focus their attention about twice a deeply on a
subject as women). So men have you ever gone into a shop building looking
for a hammer and couldn't see it. But after 30 minutes of looking and being
thoroughly pissed off because you knew it was in there you finally found the
SOB laying right out in the open? Or women have you ever gotten pissed off
at your man because he could find something in the refrigerator? Or how
about when he is "stalking" the TV and you ask him a question or two and he
doesn't acknowledge you!? He's ignoring you right? The problem with ignoring
you is that he first must have heard and *comprehended* what you said and
then actively choose not to respond back. If he's like me he doesn't
actively choose to turn everything else out, it just happens. A
neuro-psychologist put it this way: "You are a slave to your limbic system."
Why are men better at some maths? It may have something to do with
eyesight:http: file://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/bbs.geary.html
What I did is give a different paradigm (the evolutionary paragigm) for
looking at just one aspect (eyesight) of male-female behavior differences.
There are others. Language for example. Women who where believed to be
gatherers work mostly together in groups so cooperation should be more
important to them. And personnel management research indicates that they do
work better together than men do. Communication skills should be more
important for women as well. Women are more aware of facial expression and
emotional tones of voice. It's more typical for a women to say "what look is
that on your face and don't talk in that tone of voice." Girls learn to talk
a year earlier than boys. And they have much fewer speech problems than
boys. Any grade school teacher will tell you that girls pronounce their
words better than boys. 80% of stuttering speech is by males. Very young
girls may stutter as often as boys but girls out grow it. When was the last
time you talk to a woman that stuttered like M-M-Mell T-Tillis? How is that
socialized/nurtured? Why do we socialize men and not women to stutter? If
male hormons control how a fetal brain developes from what would've been a
female brain to a male brain why should males loose out when it comes to
speach development? Because nature is energy efficent. What males give up in
speach production those neurons could be used for other activeties. (That's
as likely as anything I've heard from the nurture arguements;))
Is the correct paradigm nature, nurture or a combination of both? Take your
pick.
Society
which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7l9lu3$6of$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> BRAIN SEX: The real difference between men and women
>> by Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel.
>> Dell Publishing (paperback), New York, 1992.
>>
>> Source http://www.home.aone.net.au/think/brainsx.html
>>
>> Men are different from women. They are equal only
>> in their common membership of the same species,
>> humankind.
>
>require you accomodate both types to the maximum
>extent humanly possible?
No. "Maximum extent humanly possible" is an unrealistic
goal. Human beings differ in many ways, trying to
"accomodate" everyone as if they were identical is
worse than an impractical Procrustean project:
To reduce the inequality of condition, the state must
impose greater and greater uniformity. Perhaps that
is as close to an immutable law as political science
permits. In T.H. White's version of the Arthurian legend,
_The Once and Future King_, Merlyn transforms
young Arthur into an ant as part of his education in
governance. In this guise, Arthur approaches the
entrance to the ant colony, where over the entrance
are written the words, EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN
IS COMPULSORY. Such, in our view, is where the
logic of the egalitarian ideal ultimately leads. It is
appropriate in the ant colony or the beehive but not
for human beings. Egalitarian tyrannies, whether of
the Jacobite or Leninist variety, are worse than inhumane.
They are inhuman.
Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray,
_The Bell Curve_, New York: The Free Press, 1994,
pages 532-3.
>What I am trying to get across is that feminism is a moral
>and ethical dilemma, not a scientific question.
Nice try, but you are blanking out a great deal of feminist
dogma to make your assertion -- feminists have long
claimed that science supported their unisexist agenda.
>At our local community college, sexual harassment
>is discussed in Ethics class, not biology class.
>Get a grip, Phil.
Phil is the person illustrating the difference between
political equality and being biological clones -- you, OTOH,
blank it out and try to pretend that men and women should
be treated as if identical (unless it benefits women to be
treated otherwise) beyond the slice of human culture that
is the political. Too bad you had to quibble about Phil's
statement about "common membership of the same
species, humankind" -- that was an affirmation of the
wellspring of human rights, by quibbling and gainsaying
you gave away the feminist agenda isn't about equal
political human rights at all.
---
All excuses for feminism depend on censorship of
information to appear plausible.
Bob
>
> In article <37787411...@earthlink.net>,
> Bob <bob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > which...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
was a great
> ecological disaster, and somehow half of the human
race has 3 eyes
> and those that escaped the disaster, the other half of
the human race,
> have only two eyes. Now, the 3-eyed people process
their thoughts
> differently, because they have 3 informational inputs,
whereas the
fairness and
> basic justice require you accomodate both types to the
maximum extent
> humanly possible?
> >
basic
> > justice" causes a negative impact on society.
If it is found that a
> > 3-eyed police officer makes a better police
officer than a
officers as
> > possibble in the police department. If the
presence of
> > those 3-eyed officers causes the qualifiers for
applications to
> > be raised; so be it. If a 2-eyed applicant can
meet those same
> > qualifications, fine. If not, he or she can do
something
> > that he or she is better suited at.
>
need to prove it
> beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, I don't assume the 3-eyed is better. I said "if it is
found that a
3-eyed police officer makes a better police officer than a
2-eyed
police officer." My philosophy would be the same if the
opposite were
true.
SFB> I was born with 6 fingers on my right hand.
> YOU assume that makes me a better piano player.
No, I don't. I believe you have as much right any anyone
else to
qualify for a position in a philharmonic orchestra. If you
can't
qualify, I don't feel society owes you a position.
Bob> > Every society has a right to encourage the best
people it
> > can find in order to further the interests of
that society or
> > to service it.
>
SFB> Again, you feel no burden to define what is best and
then prove it.
That's right, I feel no burden to define what is best. We
are
speaking in general terms and I am responding to examples
you
have given involving 3-eyed and 6-fingered human beings.
SFB> I lack confidence in YOUR ability to choose wisely,
fairly, or
> even "best" for the society at large. For example,
community policing
> is now the rage in the U.S., as it has been for a
longer time in other
> countries. Community policing is not nearly so
body-centered as
> previous "techniques".
Community policing has been around, off and on, for years.
Law enforcement personnel encourage it; but few are
actively
involved in it; and it hasn't lessened the need for sworn
personnel.
Bob
> My vote of "no confidence" in your ability to judge merit is a
> permanent part of the Dejanews record. I do not retract it.
...as your admission to membership in n.o.w. and support
of the bigotry and discrimination it encourages leads
be to question your ability.
Society
"Bill Hunter" which...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<7la4c8$bof$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>Bob explained...
>>
>> > [L]et us suppose [...] somehow half of the human race
>> > has 3 eyes and [...] the other half of the human race,
>> > have only two eyes. Now, the 3-eyed people process
>> > their thoughts differently, because they have 3
>> > have 2 inputs. Does not fundamental fairness and basic
>> > justice require you accomodate both types to the
>> > maximum extent humanly possible?
>>
>> justice" causes a negative impact on society. If it is
>> found that a 3-eyed police officer makes a better police
>> police officers as possible in the police department.
>
>You ASSUME that 3-eyed is better.
You have trouble with the English language, Bill. What
is it about "if" you didn't understand?
The assumption that 3-eyed is better for a job requiring
vigilance, all other things being equal, isn't unreasonable.
If you wanted *your* scenario to include functional limitations
on that third eye *you* hypothesized, then you should have
said so.
which...@my-deja.com
Bob <bob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> which...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <37787411...@earthlink.net>,
> > Bob <bob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > which...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> SFB > Phil, let us suppose that 3 hundred years ago, there
> was a great
> race has 3 eyes
> > and those that escaped the disaster, the other half of
> the human race,
> > have only two eyes. Now, the 3-eyed people process
> their thoughts
> > differently, because they have 3 informational inputs,
> whereas the
> fairness and
> > basic justice require you accomodate both types to the
> maximum extent
> > humanly possible?
> > >
> basic
> > > justice" causes a negative impact on society.
> If it is found that a
> > > 3-eyed police officer makes a better police
> officer than a
> officers as
> > > possibble in the police department. If the
> presence of
> > > those 3-eyed officers causes the qualifiers for
> applications to
> > > be raised; so be it. If a 2-eyed applicant can
> meet those same
> > > qualifications, fine. If not, he or she can do
> something
> > > that he or she is better suited at.
> >
> SFB > You ASSUME that 3-eyed is better. You feel utterly no
> need to prove it
> > beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> found that a
> 3-eyed police officer makes a better police officer than a
> 2-eyed
permanent part of the Dejanews record. I do not retract it.
Bill Hunter
fried
>
>> More recycled stuff. It appears designed to demonstrate that there are
>> "real" differences between boys and girld because they are "mental" not
>> physical. It ignores discussion of cultural conditioning factors. We are
>now talking about children already conditioned.
>>
>> Cut rest of recycled propaganda.
>>
>> The only noteworthy stuff in this is the stuff about very young children.
>>
>> As the question of acculturation versus inbuilt simply isn't dealt with,
>> none of the rest is worth the computer it's appearing on.
>>
>> Julian
>
>OK, let me give you an "inbuilt":
>
>
>First lets use a paradigm that over the last 4 million years of human
>history we evolved into hunter gatherers. I think most anthropologist
>believe this to be true.
>
>
>Question: Does this evolutionary history show up not only in our behavior
>but also in our biology?
>
>
>How about eyesight, is there a difference between women and men? Do hunters
>need eyesight different from gatherers? Turns out that there is differences,
>and this shows up in the light receptive nerves (rods and cones) in the back
>of the eyes. Women have better peripheral vision, see more shades of red,
>and have better night-vision than men. "They literally take in the whole
>picture" Ann Moir.
This sounds interesting in terms of rods and cones.
>Also in research test it appears women can take in twice
>as much visual information per second than men can. Example: researchers
>have set up experiments were they have a college student set in a small
>office for about 5 minutes before going into another office for a
>questioner. The student doesn't know it but the experiment is to find out
>what he/she will notice in the first office. Females do a much better job of
>recalling what was in the first office, right down to noticing were the
>pound puppy is, that the electric sharpener needed emptying to the worn
>carpet in the corner of the room, etc., etc., etc....etc. The males on the
>other hand (as compared to females) don't hardly remember (excuse my french)
>shit about the first office.
This doesn't prove anything about inbuilt.
>Obviously nurture doesn't control how the eye itself develops differently
>between men and women (only a moron straining to make nurture the reason for
>everything about human behavior differences would argue that it does). But
>why do females notice everything in the office experiment and men do not?
>The nurture *paradigm* might argue that because *culture and society* insist
>that girls/women must be neat they tend to notice things that are out of
>place while no *pressure* is put on men to do like wise so they don't notice
>the objects in the office. (My wife sure pressures me to be neater around
>the house.. however ;))
Yes, and "round the house" ie in a room is significant to the experiment.
>[Nature, however, tends to be energy efficient when it comes to survival
>needs (exceptions are some courtship ornamental in males). Male lions, for
>example, don't lay around and make the females do all of the hunting because
>they're lazy and rule the pride.The males conserve there energy for mating
>and battles to fend of rival males who will kill the cubs if they take over
>the pride and thereby causing the females to come into heat sooner. And male
>lions' biology reflect this role in life. They are larger than females which
>also means they would require a lot more calories just to survive if they
>hunted as much as the females and have large furry manes to protect them in
>battles against rival males]
I don't think that the large furry manes have a lot to do with protection
against other males - where did you get this from?
>Is there an evolutionary *paradigm* that might explain these eyesight
>differences? The way it was put to me was if you're a gatherer out gathering
>you need to be able to notice a lot of different things in your environment.
>You need to be able to take in the whole picture. You're not looking for
>anything in particular but you're noticing food stuffs that are ripe and in
>season (usually varying shades of red?). IOW It isn't energy efficient to be
>harvesting a lot of unripe food stuffs. As a gatherer you're probably
>sampling different things. Not just tasting but touching to feel the
>textures (women's sense of touch is better than men's).
Is it?
> And you don't need
>eye sight geared to following moving objects ( men are better at following
>moving targets with their eyes). Point is how does this relate to modern
>humans? Men, have you ever been shopping with a woman? And what is it with
>all these different shades of lip stick? My 9 yr old daughter noticed that
>my wife has 33 different shades of fingernail polish!! I had no idea. (I
>just accept my wife's behavior without trying to change her.)
I follow the reasoning. Diana the Huntress is an interesting Goddess to have
in this light. If your examples are correct and the statistical variation is
significant, this is a relevant point.
>OK, what about male eyesight and its related behavior? Men's eyes, as
>compared to women, have mild tunnel vision but have better depth perception
>and perspective. They see more shades of blue and see better in bright light
>conditions. They are better at tracking moving objects and have better
>hand-eye coordination than women. Hunting animals' eyesights are more geared
>to seeing and following moving objects. The trade off is they tend to be
>less aware of stationary objects. Prey animals know this so they freeze.
>They also need to be able to focus their attention on what they're stalking
>without being easily distracted by other things in the environment (research
>indicates that men can focus their attention about twice a deeply on a
>subject as women). So men have you ever gone into a shop building looking
>for a hammer and couldn't see it. But after 30 minutes of looking and being
>thoroughly pissed off because you knew it was in there you finally found the
>SOB laying right out in the open? Or women have you ever gotten pissed off
>at your man because he could find something in the refrigerator? Or how
>about when he is "stalking" the TV and you ask him a question or two and he
>doesn't acknowledge you!? He's ignoring you right? The problem with ignoring
>you is that he first must have heard and *comprehended* what you said and
>then actively choose not to respond back. If he's like me he doesn't
>actively choose to turn everything else out, it just happens. A
>neuro-psychologist put it this way: "You are a slave to your limbic system."
>Why are men better at some maths? It may have something to do with
>eyesight:http: file://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/bbs.geary.html
Quote from page:
Sherman (1980, 1981), in contrast, presented evidence suggesting that the
sex difference in mathematics was primarily related to the greater
mathematical confidence of boys than girls. On this view, the greater
mathematical confidence of boys results in a sex difference in mathematical
activities (e.g., course taking), favoring boys, and ultimately a male
advantage in mathematical performance. In fact, the emergence of any complex
cognitive skill almost certainly reflects an interaction between
biologically based differences in the types of activities that boys and
girls prefer to engage in and the environments made available to them by
parents and by peers (McGuinness & Pribram 1979; Scarr & McCarthy 1983).
Another excerpt:
One potential ultimate source of sex differences in social behavior and
cognition is sexual selection (Darwin 1859, 1871; Buss 1995; Gaulin 1992).
For most mammalian species, sexual selection is thought to operate through
intramale competition and female choice of mating partners. For the present
argument, sexual selection is broadly defined to include characteristics
that directly influence the outcome intramale competition, such as physical
strength, as well as less direct influences on the outcome of any such
competition.
And another:
None of this should be taken to mean that the sex difference in competitive
and aggressive behavior is not influenced by child- rearing or other
sociocultural practices. In fact, the expression of many, if not all,
biologically based sex differences are likely to be facultatively influenced
by developmental experiences and contextual factors (Hall 1992). Indeed, the
magnitude of the sex difference in the level of aggression varies across
cohorts, age, context, and culture (Eagly & Steffen 1986; Eibl-Eibesfeldt
1989; Hyde 1984). Sex differences in the level of aggression are rather
small and unimportant in many contexts, such as laboratory settings (Eagly &
Steffen 1986). However, sex differences in competitive and aggressive
behavior are often very large under conditions that represent a threat to
the male's status, or might directly influence reproduction, e.g., sexual
jealousy (Daly & Wilson 1988; Wilson & Daly 1985). The point is, in terms of
mean differences and the ratio of extremely aggressive males to females, sex
differences are expected to be largest in evolutionarily significant
contexts, such as a threat to status, and much smaller in other areas.
Nevertheless, these differences might influence how boys and girls respond
to competitive, as contrasted with cooperative, classroom environments.
and the last:
This position should not be taken to mean that psychological factors, such
as sex-roles, cannot influence performance on spatial tests (e.g., Antill &
Cunningham 1982). Baenninger and Newcombe (in press) have recently argued
that the just described sex differences in spatial abilities, and the later
described sex differences in certain mathematical domains, reflects, at
least in part, the differential experiences of boys and girls. They argue
that the sex difference in early experiences is driven, in part, by
sociocultural influences such as sex role stereotypes, patterns of parental
expectations and encouragement, etc. In fact, the emergence of the just
described sex differences likely represent an interaction between biological
biases and cultural influences. The position here is that at least a portion
of the sex difference in spatial abilities appears to reflect biological
influences that have been shaped by sexual selection. The proximate
mechanisms governing the emergence of these sex differences include sex
hormones and a biological bias in the spatial-related activities of boys and
girls, a bias that is also likely to be influenced by sociocultural factors.
>
>What I did is give a different paradigm (the evolutionary paragigm) for
>looking at just one aspect (eyesight) of male-female behavior differences.
Yup, it's a valid type of example.
>There are others. Language for example. Women who where believed to be
>gatherers work mostly together in groups so cooperation should be more
>important to them.
No. Probably more important for hunters actually.
>And personnel management research indicates that they do
>work better together than men do. Communication skills should be more
>important for women as well. Women are more aware of facial expression and
>emotional tones of voice. It's more typical for a women to say "what look is
>that on your face and don't talk in that tone of voice." Girls learn to talk
>a year earlier than boys. And they have much fewer speech problems than
>boys. Any grade school teacher will tell you that girls pronounce their
>words better than boys. 80% of stuttering speech is by males. Very young
>girls may stutter as often as boys but girls out grow it. When was the last
>time you talk to a woman that stuttered like M-M-Mell T-Tillis? How is that
>socialized/nurtured?
Sociolinguistic studies show that women normally speak more correctly, they
speak a more snooty type of language than men. It is very much a socially
conditioned thing. However, we are social animals, so the fact that it is
socially conditioned does not rule out innate propensities, in fact it makes
them more likely root causes.
WHAT IT DOES NOT DO IS ..... prove innate differences, show cause and effect
links, demonstrate that this has anything to do with basic brain structure
or abilities, etc.
What I dislike so much about the tenor of debate about these things is that
gross, unsubstantiated assertions about these things are constantly being
made.
>Why do we socialize men and not women to stutter? If
>male hormons control how a fetal brain developes from what would've been a
>female brain to a male brain why should males loose out when it comes to
>speach development? Because nature is energy efficent. What males give up in
>speach production those neurons could be used for other activeties. (That's
>as likely as anything I've heard from the nurture arguements;))
Your arguments about language, sociability and communication I disagree
with, at least in terms of cause and effect. However, there are clearly
hormonal differences between men and women, and these will tend to encourage
different behaviour patterns in social situations.
The fact that we perceive the stratagems identified with fdemale behaviour
at this particular juncture in history as being more socially skilfull
merely reflects on the relative status of male and female traits in our
society, IMO.
Thanks very much for the info., I haven't worked my way through the whole
paper yet.
Julian
which...@my-deja.com
> of the bigotry and discrimination it encourages leads
> be to question your ability.
>
evidence and everything. See you in court.
which...@my-deja.com
"Society" <mid...@jps.nex> wrote:
>
> "Bill Hunter" which...@my-deja.com wrote in message
> <7la4c8$bof$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >Bob explained...
> >>
> >> > has 3 eyes and [...] the other half of the human race,
> >> > have only two eyes. Now, the 3-eyed people process
> >> > their thoughts differently, because they have 3
> >> > have 2 inputs. Does not fundamental fairness and basic
> >> > justice require you accomodate both types to the
> >> > maximum extent humanly possible?
> >>
> >> justice" causes a negative impact on society. If it is
> >> found that a 3-eyed police officer makes a better police
> >> police officers as possible in the police department.
> >
>
> is it about "if" you didn't understand?
I have a problem with the postulate that it is at any time possible for
an average group characteristic to take precedence over an individual
characteristic. I think it highly unlikely that all 3-eyed (or all 2-
eyed) are "better" (whatever that means. too vague) than their
opposites at all times. Phil Lewis has chastised me on another thread
for not giving credit for posters to know this, but Bob's argument, as
I understand it in context (police officers, the rest find what they
are suited for) goes right ahead and does what even Mr. Lewis will not
do.
>
> The assumption that 3-eyed is better for a job requiring
> vigilance, all other things being equal, isn't unreasonable.
> If you wanted *your* scenario to include functional limitations
> on that third eye *you* hypothesized, then you should have
> said so.
>
> ---
> All excuses for feminism depend on censorship of
> information to appear plausible.
>
That refrain about censorship is getting old. It sounds like the
feminist ranks are populated by hostages. Nobody took me prisoner and
indoctrinated me. Feminists are no more and no less likely to be
freethinkers than anti-feminists. Get a new broken record. This one is
getting scratchy.
which...@my-deja.com
"Society" <mid...@jps.nex> wrote:
>
> "Bill Hunter" which...@my-deja.com wrote in message
> <7la4c8$bof$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >Bob explained...
> >>
> >> > [L]et us suppose [...] somehow half of the human race
> >> > has 3 eyes and [...] the other half of the human race,
> >> > have only two eyes. Now, the 3-eyed people process
> >> > their thoughts differently, because they have 3
> >> > informational inputs, whereas the -2- eyed people only
> >> > have 2 inputs. Does not fundamental fairness and basic
> >> > justice require you accomodate both types to the
> >> > maximum extent humanly possible?
> >>
> >> Up to the point that "fundamental fairness and basic
> >> justice" causes a negative impact on society. If it is
> >> found that a 3-eyed police officer makes a better police
> >> officer than a 2-eyed officer, I want as many 3-eyed
> >> police officers as possible in the police department.
> >
> >You ASSUME that 3-eyed is better.
>
> You have trouble with the English language, Bill. What
> is it about "if" you didn't understand?
I have a problem with "if (fill in the blank with a group
characteristic) is "better" (too vague). See Dan Winter's post.
>
> The assumption that 3-eyed is better for a job requiring
> vigilance, all other things being equal, isn't unreasonable.
> If you wanted *your* scenario to include functional limitations
> on that third eye *you* hypothesized, then you should have
> said so.
>
> ---
> All excuses for feminism depend on censorship of
> information to appear plausible.
>
Feminists are no more and no less likely to be freethinkers than anti-
feminists. Your constant driveling about censhorship and propaganda
makes you look stupid. Get a make-over.
Scott
much of male/female behavior differences are due to biology or culture:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/bbs.campbell.html
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/bbs.fitch.html
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/bbs.mazur.html
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/bbs.mealey.html
or you can do your own search:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/
fried <fr...@aesops.force9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37795b0b...@usenet.force9.net...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 13:13:22 -0500, "Scott" <sfe...@nortexinfo.net>
wrote:
<snipped>
> >[Nature, however, tends to be energy efficient when it comes to survival
> >needs (exceptions are some courtship ornamental in males). Male lions,
for
> >example, don't lay around and make the females do all of the hunting
because
> >they're lazy and rule the pride.The males conserve there energy for
mating
> >and battles to fend of rival males who will kill the cubs if they take
over
> >the pride and thereby causing the females to come into heat sooner. And
male
> >lions' biology reflect this role in life. They are larger than females
which
> >also means they would require a lot more calories just to survive if they
> >hunted as much as the females and have large furry manes to protect them
in
> >battles against rival males]
>
> I don't think that the large furry manes have a lot to do with protection
> against other males - where did you get this from?
If you have two 400 pound male lions slashing at each other with their
strength and power behind those sharp claws it helps to have a thick mane to
protect the blood vessels in the neck. Don't you think?
<snipped>
To quote from http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/bbs.geary.html:
The underscores are mine
Finally, in closing, even though I have argued that biological sex
differences are an important source, though not the only source, of the sex
differences that emerge for some biologically-secondary mathematical
domains, this should not be taken to mean that the mathematical development
of girls cannot be improved. In fact, there are a number of steps that can
be taken to improve the mathematical development of girls. First, stressing
the utility of mathematics for future career options increases girl's
mathematics course taking (Fennema et al. 1981). Second, even though girls
do not appear to spontaneously use spatial representations in
problem-solving situations as frequently as boys do, __they can be taught to
do so___ (Lewis 1989; Johnson 1984). Teaching girls to use diagrams during
mathematical problem solving significantly improves their performance,
___but the male advantage does not disappear__ (Johnson 1984). Third, highly
competitive classroom environments should be avoided; highly cooperative
environments should be avoided as well, since the achievement of boys
appears to drop in these environments. ___Classroom teaching styles should
either be gender neutral, or boys and girls should be educated in separate
classrooms___. Finally, relative to international standards, the
mathematical development of American children, boys and girls, is very poor.
As noted earlier, with improved mathematical instruction, American girls
should be able to develop a level of mathematical skill that far exceeds the
current level of their male peers. At the same time, a greater emphasis on
mathematical instruction in the United States will not likely result in
disappearing sex differences. In fact, based on cross-national studies, sex
differences in mathematics are likely to increase, as the level of
mathematical achievement increases
>
> >There are others. Language for example. Women who where believed to be
> >gatherers work mostly together in groups so cooperation should be more
> >important to them.
>
> No. Probably more important for hunters actually.
Really! why do you think so? Because of the planning involved? Would you
care to explain (pan cultural) why research shows that women speak on
average 7000 words per day while men only speack 2000? Hunting requires
stealth. Gathering does not.
>
>
> >And personnel management research indicates that they do
> >work better together than men do. Communication skills should be more
> >important for women as well. Women are more aware of facial expression
and
> >emotional tones of voice. It's more typical for a women to say "what look
is
> >that on your face and don't talk in that tone of voice." Girls learn to
talk
> >a year earlier than boys. And they have much fewer speech problems than
> >boys. Any grade school teacher will tell you that girls pronounce their
> >words better than boys. 80% of stuttering speech is by males. Very young
> >girls may stutter as often as boys but girls out grow it. When was the
last
> >time you talk to a woman that stuttered like M-M-Mell T-Tillis? How is
that
> >socialized/nurtured?
>
> Sociolinguistic studies show that women normally speak more correctly,
they
> speak a more snooty type of language than men. It is very much a socially
> conditioned thing.
Is it really? Read the link above on intra-sexual agression in females.
However, we are social animals, so the fact that it is
> socially conditioned does not rule out innate propensities, in fact it
makes
> them more likely root causes.
>
Exactly
> WHAT IT DOES NOT DO IS ..... prove innate differences, show cause and
effect
> links, demonstrate that this has anything to do with basic brain structure
> or abilities, etc.
>
Nor does the *popular* cultural explainations (the feminist like so well)
show demonstrate definate cause and effect links. It can become an
agruement between paradigms. Which paridigm give the best explaination for
these differences? Obviously it is some combination of both.
> What I dislike so much about the tenor of debate about these things is
that
> gross, unsubstantiated assertions about these things are constantly being
> made.
>
Don't forget the sociologist who want to explain that everthing in gender
behavior differences are due to role expectations. I grew up in the 60's and
70's being told and believing that one. The hunter gatherer paradigm makes
more sense to me these days. I think more and more peole are also leaning in
this direction . A few weeks ago I went to Rob Becker's Defending the
Caveman act http://www.cavemania.com/ here in Dallas. What I noticed was all
the women in the audience who were there without male partners.
Traditionally men were more likely to believe that the differences were
innate while women believe they were socialized. I wonder if more women are
starting to lean in this (innate) direction as well? Just a thought. Try a
search under "Rob Becker" you'll get a lot of reviews.
>
> >Why do we socialize men and not women to stutter? If
> >male hormons control how a fetal brain developes from what would've been
a
> >female brain to a male brain why should males loose out when it comes to
> >speach development? Because nature is energy efficent. What males give up
in
> >speach production those neurons could be used for other activeties.
(That's
> >as likely as anything I've heard from the nurture arguements;))
>
> Your arguments about language, sociability and communication I disagree
> with, at least in terms of cause and effect.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic.
However, there are clearly
> hormonal differences between men and women, and these will tend to
encourage
> different behaviour patterns in social situations.
>
> The fact that we perceive the stratagems identified with fdemale behaviour
> at this particular juncture in history as being more socially skilfull
> merely reflects on the relative status of male and female traits in our
> society, IMO.
It also has to do with the fact that children relied more from
female/mothers for survival more than they did from males/fathers. Read the
link above for female intra-sexual aggression.
> Thanks very much for the info., I haven't worked my way through the whole
> paper yet.
>
Your welcome. Hope you like the others as well.
Scott
> Julian
Philip Lewis
which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7l9gt7$5a7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|In article <7l99nd$nos$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
| "Philip Lewis" <phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
|>
|> EXCERPTS FROM BRAIN SEX
|> BRAIN SEX: The real difference between men and women
|> by Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel.
|> Dell Publishing (paperback), New York, 1992.
|>
|> Source http://www.home.aone.net.au/think/brainsx.html
|>
|> They are equal only in their common membership
|> of the same species, humankind.
|
|Isn't that enough,
For WHAT?
| except for doctors to treat patients?
Well if you are still confused perhaps you should read the rest of the
article instead of asking me stupid questions - pay attention - or were you
just pretending ignorance again?
--
Phil
(Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It)
|
Scott
Scott <sfe...@nortexinfo.net> wrote in message
news:9fte3.1479$gr5.2...@feed.centuryinter.net...
> > >There are others. Language for example. Women who where believed to be
> > >gatherers work mostly together in groups so cooperation should be more
> > >important to them.
> >
> > No. Probably more important for hunters actually.
>
> Really! why do you think so? Because of the planning involved? Would you
> care to explain (pan cultural) why research shows that women speak on
> average 7000 words per day while men only speack 2000? Hunting requires
> stealth. Gathering does not.
>
BTW I wanted to inject this in as well. In tribal societies adolescence
males will start compiling information about the animals they will be
hunting. You know stats about the animals' habbits like what they eat, where
and when they sleep, their sense of smell, sight, and hearing, what habitats
they favore. Kind of reminds yea of young males collecting baseball cards on
their favorite sports heros doesn't it? Roll expectations or innateness?
> Scott
>
> > Julian
>
>
which...@my-deja.com
"Philip Lewis" <phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>
> which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7l9gt7$5a7
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> |In article <7l99nd$nos$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
> | "Philip Lewis" <phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> |>
> |> BRAIN SEX: The real difference between men and women
> |> by Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel.
> |> Dell Publishing (paperback), New York, 1992.
> |>
> |> Source http://www.home.aone.net.au/think/brainsx.html
> |>
> |> of the same species, humankind.
> |
>
> For WHAT?
>
> | except for doctors to treat patients?
>
> Well if you are still confused perhaps you should read the rest of the
> article instead of asking me stupid questions - pay attention - or
were you
> just pretending ignorance again?
>
are not the only one I read. You are trying to prove that differences
in aptitudes are due to biology. I am wondering "does the men's
movement want to go down that road?". I know I am not. While you are
trying to rationalize the results of test scores, the professional
testers are going down another road. For example, they are exploring
computerized testing. I know precious little about that, but I have
read the claim that such testing produces more equal results. Also,
read "Scott" on this thread. His posts read like a professional, as
compared with your rants.
fried
>BTW I wanted to inject this in as well. In tribal societies adolescence
>males will start compiling information about the animals they will be
>hunting. You know stats about the animals' habbits like what they eat, where
>and when they sleep, their sense of smell, sight, and hearing, what habitats
>they favore. Kind of reminds yea of young males collecting baseball cards on
>their favorite sports heros doesn't it? Roll expectations or innateness?
I like your idea of men hunting habbits - rabbits surely ;-0). We call that
male trait "train spotting" in England, from the rabbit of men in dirty macs
on the end of platforms waiting to see a loco number aand write it in their
book.
As a comparator, take witches and their skills in identifying herbs and
potions - and the way they were ostracised for so doing.
In my experience as a parent, I have found that the constant interruptions
require a different, less tunnel visioned approach to subjects and time
management. Both males and females can easily adapt to this.
It would not surprise me if these particular behaviour traits were not
almost entirely socially conditioned and learnable by any human.
Julian
fried
>Hay you like to read too. Here are some more on this related subject of how
>much of male/female behavior differences are due to biology or culture:
Thanks, I will definitely have a look - the last one was informative.
>> I don't think that the large furry manes have a lot to do with protection
>> against other males - where did you get this from?
>
>If you have two 400 pound male lions slashing at each other with their
>strength and power behind those sharp claws it helps to have a thick mane to
>protect the blood vessels in the neck. Don't you think?
No. You are indeed correct, they have big sharp claws and a mane definitely
won't stop them - claws are too long. The mane is for intimidatory presence
in this context.
>
><snipped>
>
>To quote from http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/bbs/Archive/bbs.geary.html:
>The underscores are mine
>
>Finally, in closing, even though I have argued that biological sex
>differences are an important source, though not the only source, of the sex
>differences that emerge for some biologically-secondary mathematical
>domains, this should not be taken to mean that the mathematical development
>of girls cannot be improved. In fact, there are a number of steps that can
>be taken to improve the mathematical development of girls. First, stressing
>the utility of mathematics for future career options increases girl's
>mathematics course taking (Fennema et al. 1981). Second, even though girls
>do not appear to spontaneously use spatial representations in
>problem-solving situations as frequently as boys do, __they can be taught to
>do so___ (Lewis 1989; Johnson 1984). Teaching girls to use diagrams during
>mathematical problem solving significantly improves their performance,
>___but the male advantage does not disappear__ (Johnson 1984).
From reading the first url you gave me, I would be very wary of accepting
arguments which appear quite tentative about these above discrepancies.
> Third, highly
>competitive classroom environments should be avoided; highly cooperative
>environments should be avoided as well, since the achievement of boys
>appears to drop in these environments. ___Classroom teaching styles should
>either be gender neutral, or boys and girls should be educated in separate
>classrooms___.
I am interested in this social aspect - hormones seemed to me intuitively to
be fairly key in much of this, and hormonal disparities between male and
female humans are undeniably there, although they are not necessarily the
ones we think they are nor do they necessarily do what we think they do.
At the same time there exists a false dichotomy in many minds between
cogitation and emotions - I went to a lecture which I found convincing on
this subject recently. The complexity this introduces is frightening.
>Finally, relative to international standards, the
>mathematical development of American children, boys and girls, is very poor.
>As noted earlier, with improved mathematical instruction, American girls
>should be able to develop a level of mathematical skill that far exceeds the
>current level of their male peers. At the same time, a greater emphasis on
>mathematical instruction in the United States will not likely result in
>disappearing sex differences. In fact, based on cross-national studies, sex
>differences in mathematics are likely to increase, as the level of
>mathematical achievement increases
This is another key and fascinating element - competition and competition
stress. Competition has such a grip on our political outlook and private
belief systems that we tend to forget that most normal living entities are
designed to operate normally well within their capacities and not at
constant maximum stretch.
>> >There are others. Language for example. Women who where believed to be
>> >gatherers work mostly together in groups so cooperation should be more
>> >important to them.
>>
>> No. Probably more important for hunters actually.
>
>Really! why do you think so? Because of the planning involved? Would you
>care to explain (pan cultural) why research shows that women speak on
>average 7000 words per day while men only speack 2000? Hunting requires
>stealth. Gathering does not.
OK ;-)) it is the difference between babble and functionally communicative
speech. Speech is often a means of verbal grooming. Even on a newsgroup,
having somebody responding to your post is gratifying ;-)).
Liaison between groups of hunters (humans mostly hunt in groups) is
critical, it is critical even if alone to identify others. Many social
hunters develop communicative sounds (not used in normal social concourse) -
cf. lionesses.
So ... probably more important for hunters. A hunting frame of mind makes
each word count...
>> Sociolinguistic studies show that women normally speak more correctly,
>they
>> speak a more snooty type of language than men. It is very much a socially
>> conditioned thing.
>
>Is it really? Read the link above on intra-sexual agression in females.
I will, but this is a subject I know well and it is easier to find controls
to test it, so my statements seem pretty clear-cut to me.
>However, we are social animals, so the fact that it is
>> socially conditioned does not rule out innate propensities, in fact it
>makes them more likely root causes.
>>
>Exactly
>
>> WHAT IT DOES NOT DO IS ..... prove innate differences, show cause and
>effect
>> links, demonstrate that this has anything to do with basic brain structure
>> or abilities, etc.
>>
>
>Nor does the *popular* cultural explainations (the feminist like so well)
>show demonstrate definate cause and effect links. It can become an
>agruement between paradigms. Which paridigm give the best explaination for
>these differences? Obviously it is some combination of both.
Ooh I don't know whether it matters if it is a combination of both, the
science is getting more exciting in this area now and we may well find
uncomfortable, scientifically demonstrable truths on this springing up more
and more frequently.
The point where these things do become an issue is in our choice of how we
mould ourselves - which is part and parcel of what, for the sake of
argument, we could call feminist rationales. Feminism could in this way be
likened to artificialism - a social take on nature - and in this it is more
appropriate to the modern un-tamper-proof world than doctrines of original
immutability. That is why I am asserting that interaction between the sexes
should be the new and increasingly attainable object of study.
>
>> What I dislike so much about the tenor of debate about these things is
>that
>> gross, unsubstantiated assertions about these things are constantly being
>> made.
>>
>
>Don't forget the sociologist who want to explain that everthing in gender
>behavior differences are due to role expectations.
A lot of them defintely are. For instance both my parents were artists, so
your example of colour awareness was something I can cross reference quite
extensively - my sister did a dissertation on Piero della Francesca who was
one of the first rationalisers of quality of light and its subtlety in terms
of colour ...
> I grew up in the 60's and
>70's being told and believing that one. The hunter gatherer paradigm makes
>more sense to me these days. I think more and more peole are also leaning in
>this direction . A few weeks ago I went to Rob Becker's Defending the
>Caveman act http://www.cavemania.com/ here in Dallas. What I noticed was all
>the women in the audience who were there without male partners.
>Traditionally men were more likely to believe that the differences were
>innate while women believe they were socialized. I wonder if more women are
>starting to lean in this (innate) direction as well? Just a thought. Try a
>search under "Rob Becker" you'll get a lot of reviews.
Not good on searches (for some goodish reasons) but appreciate very much
being spoon fed ;-)). The business of socialisation versus innate has
completely flipped in the UK, more women will be inclined to believe in
innate as the centre of preoccupation has now definitevely shifted to
questions of power in the family and the main plank of female supremacy is
assertion of innate mother-child non-subdivision, etc., etc., blah, blah.
This has little to do with science and much to do with group interest.
>> >Why do we socialize men and not women to stutter? If
>> >male hormons control how a fetal brain developes from what would've been
>a
>> >female brain to a male brain why should males loose out when it comes to
>> >speach development? Because nature is energy efficent. What males give up
>in
>> >speach production those neurons could be used for other activeties.
>(That's
>> >as likely as anything I've heard from the nurture arguements;))
>>
>> Your arguments about language, sociability and communication I disagree
>> with, at least in terms of cause and effect.
>
>Sorry, I was being sarcastic.
You mean you are not American? And i was learning to forget that sarcasm
exists...
>
>However, there are clearly
>> hormonal differences between men and women, and these will tend to
>encourage
>> different behaviour patterns in social situations.
>>
>> The fact that we perceive the stratagems identified with fdemale behaviour
>> at this particular juncture in history as being more socially skilfull
>> merely reflects on the relative status of male and female traits in our
>> society, IMO.
>
>It also has to do with the fact that children relied more from
>female/mothers for survival more than they did from males/fathers. Read the
>link above for female intra-sexual aggression.
I will I will, I don't agree with your statement still.
>
>> Thanks very much for the info., I haven't worked my way through the whole
>> paper yet.
>>
>
>Your welcome. Hope you like the others as well.
Get around to them tomorrow
Julian
>
>Scott
>
>> Julian
>
>
Samhain
which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lbpp8$bk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>My vote of "no confidence" in your ability to judge merit is a
>permanent part of the Dejanews record. I do not retract it.
>
Why do you quote the whole message just to add a pathetic liitle comment?
Have you not mastered the ability to work a newsreader yet?
Is this all your clouded mind can come up with?
--
(__)
(oo) Black Helicopter Repair Crew
/--------\/ We used to build civilisations
/ | || now we build shopping malls.
* ||------|| samhain@[loseMe].earthling[loseMe].net
^^ ^^
LidlAmazon
of activity at work.>>
After paragraphs of telling us that girls recognize others and are sensitive to
touch and on and on while boys sit there like boobs, we have this....science
for boos - Nazi science from a Nazi.
Lan
><<Boys are more active and wakeful than girls - the male-wired brain
>of activity at work.>>
>After paragraphs of telling us that girls recognize others and are sensitive to
>touch and on and on while boys sit there like boobs, we have this....science
>for boos - Nazi science from a Nazi.
Man you are one fucked up piece of shit. Besides you got that all wrong, your
just showing your own fucked up evil thoughts, not what that post said.
(not that i agree with it)
--
http://falcon.nji.com/~vera interesting site by someone else.
That Feminism could mean equality is a lie. The support of feminism
is about the destruction of reality itself. An insult to reason and
to stamp out all that is good. Its path will not stop until it has
destroyed itself and anything else around it. Luckily for most people
feminists are also stupid and uncreative. ICQ: 26027485
alan
>
>which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lbpp8$bk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>My vote of "no confidence" in your ability to judge merit is a
>>permanent part of the Dejanews record. I do not retract it.
>>
>>Bill Hunter
>
>
>Why do you quote the whole message just to add a pathetic liitle comment?
>Have you not mastered the ability to work a newsreader yet?
>Is this all your clouded mind can come up with?
perhaps for the same reason that sammy snipped it,
because it has bearing...?
--
support c4m
let our men walk again...!
which...@my-deja.com
lidla...@aol.com (LidlAmazon) wrote:
> <<Boys are more active and wakeful than girls - the male-wired brain
> of activity at work.>>
>
> After paragraphs of telling us that girls recognize others and are
sensitive to
> touch and on and on while boys sit there like boobs, we have
this....science
> for boos - Nazi science from a Nazi.
>
wit, women are more naturally cooperative, but when the subject is
domestic violence, THEN women are (in his mind) just as violent (at
least almost) as men. If you really want to see Phil for what he really
is, I suggest a device I have already used. I went to the biggest book
store I could find. Not only did I buy his precious _Brain Sex_ book, I
also bought every book that had the word "brain" in the title. I'm only
one day into this project, but I already know, for example, that
ALCOHOL, of all things, can change the genes in one generation. If Phil
wants to "go" with genetics, he is going to have to take the whole
thing, not just the part he likes. Furthermore, whatever Phil says that
later accidently turns out to be valid, what about gene therapy?
which...@my-deja.com
which...@my-deja.com
"Samhain" <@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lbpp8
$bk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >My vote of "no confidence" in your ability to judge merit is a
> >permanent part of the Dejanews record. I do not retract it.
> >
> >Bill Hunter
>
> Why do you quote the whole message just to add a pathetic liitle
comment?
> Have you not mastered the ability to work a newsreader yet?
> Is this all your clouded mind can come up with?
>
_Inside The Brain_, by Ronald Kotulak. The central theme of the book is
that the central feature of the human brain is "plasticity", or
flexibility. I quote, from the introduction, "This tremendous
flexibility, which enables the brain to constantly undergo physical and
chemical changes as it responds to the environment is called
plasticity. It is a startling departure from the old concept of the
brain as a self-contained, hard-wired unit that learns from a preset,
unchangeable set of rules." Every sight, sound, or smell (etc.) that
your brain experiences either creates a new connection in the brain, or
reinforces a connection already in place. It's not that hormones DON'T
count. It's that EVERYTHING counts. Tobacco, alcohol, stress, the smell
of fresh-cut grass, and everything else you experience is literally re-
manufactured (or duplicated) with a newly-created circuit in the brain.
The brain literally takes in the world and stores it by redesigning
itself on the spot. Another quote: (page 132) "Estrogen was once
thought to be solely a female sex hormone involved in reproduction. But
the hormone, a small, almost indestructible molecule with a passport to
enter most cells, is turning out to be an important rejuvenator of
female AND MALE (capitalization mine) brains." Also, page 150, "This
organ that seemed so inaccessible, that seemed as if it couldn't be
repaired just a few short years ago, now appears to be MONUMENTALLY
(capitalization mine)plastic, and we are beginning to take advantage of
it's healing powers." Also,page 24, "using high-tech imaging devices
that can 'see' the living brain processing thoughts, scientists at the
University of California at Los Angeles showed for the first time that
behavior therapy produced the same kinds of physical changes in the
brain as psychoactive drugs." It seems as though the book _Brain Sex_
left a few things out. But you don't have to take my word for it.
Philip Lewis
which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lhtjd$6i1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|In article <GEMe3.1234$C4....@news.indigo.ie>,
| "Samhain" <@127.0.0.1> wrote:
|>
|> which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lbpp8
|$bk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|> >My vote of "no confidence" in your ability to judge merit is a
|> >permanent part of the Dejanews record. I do not retract it.
|> >
|> >Bill Hunter
|>
|> Why do you quote the whole message just to add a pathetic liitle
|comment?
|> Have you not mastered the ability to work a newsreader yet?
|> Is this all your clouded mind can come up with?
|>
|Actually, I can come up with a few things. I am currently reading
|_Inside The Brain_, by Ronald Kotulak. The central theme of the book is
|that the central feature of the human brain is "plasticity", or
|flexibility. I quote, from the introduction, "This tremendous
|flexibility, which enables the brain to constantly undergo physical and
|chemical changes as it responds to the environment is called
|plasticity.
This is also called "feedback" and it has been long known that such feedback
exists - it is just that this feed back is being measured from the brains
perspective.
It is a startling departure from the old concept of the
|brain as a self-contained, hard-wired unit that learns from a preset,
|unchangeable set of rules.
Yes that is an OLD concept and it is not one that has been entertained by
biological scientists for a LONG time now - so there is nothing new in such
an observation.
" Every sight, sound, or smell (etc.) that
|your brain experiences either creates a new connection in the brain, or
|reinforces a connection already in place. It's not that hormones DON'T
|count. It's that EVERYTHING counts. Tobacco, alcohol, stress, the smell
|of fresh-cut grass, and everything else you experience is literally re-
|manufactured (or duplicated) with a newly-created circuit in the brain.
|The brain literally takes in the world and stores it by redesigning
|itself on the spot.
Thats organic computers for you.
|Another quote: (page 132) "Estrogen was once
|thought to be solely a female sex hormone involved in reproduction. But
|the hormone, a small, almost indestructible molecule with a passport to
|enter most cells, is turning out to be an important rejuvenator of
|female AND MALE (capitalization mine) brains." Also, page 150, "This
|organ that seemed so inaccessible, that seemed as if it couldn't be
|repaired just a few short years ago, now appears to be MONUMENTALLY
|(capitalization mine)plastic, and we are beginning to take advantage of
|it's healing powers." Also,page 24, "using high-tech imaging devices
|that can 'see' the living brain processing thoughts, scientists at the
|University of California at Los Angeles showed for the first time that
|behavior therapy produced the same kinds of physical changes in the
|brain as psychoactive drugs." It seems as though the book _Brain Sex_
|left a few things out. But you don't have to take my word for it.
Of course "Brain Sex" may have "left a few things out" - but so does your
account above because despit the "plasticity" you referr to there are still
PERMANENT effects that are set pre-natally and perhaps the most important
one is the extra fetal exposure to testosterone which in the vast majority
of cases is repsonsible for masculinsing the fetal brain PERMANENTLY.
|
|Bill Hunter
which...@my-deja.com
"Philip Lewis" <phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>
> which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lhtjd$6i1
deals with the causes of violence, as related to brain chemistry.
point 1. The same gene that causes aggression in males also causes
aggression in females. Aggression amongst females is on the rise.
point 2. violence is directy related to the levels of noradrenaline and
serotonin. No mention of testosterone there.
point 3. The only mention of testosterone (and even then, other
hormones are involved) in the entire book is in the treatment and
prevention of Alzheimer's and other old-age problems. The only benefit
listed for testosterone is improvement of "spatial
cognition".
Logical conclusion: Testosterone does not trump all.
Bill Hunter Scotty, beam me up
which...@my-deja.com
Samhain
>_Inside The Brain_, by Ronald Kotulak. The central theme of the book is
>that the central feature of the human brain is "plasticity", or
>flexibility. I quote, from the introduction, "This tremendous
>flexibility, which enables the brain to constantly undergo physical and
[snip]
>University of California at Los Angeles showed for the first time that
>behavior therapy produced the same kinds of physical changes in the
>brain as psychoactive drugs." It seems as though the book _Brain Sex_
>left a few things out. But you don't have to take my word for it.
All this shows me is that you have a particular agenda and everything
you read goes to bolster that particular set of theories.
All else is blindness.
You are the perfect example of everything that scientific research is not.
Indeed it is people like you who destroy scientific research simply
because you approach the subject with a fixed and predetermined agenda.
So when I read your posts on the subject I know that the particular book
may say a lot however if there is one paragraph that agrees with your
preconceived ideas you say "Eureka look the bit there on page 321 agrees
with
me"
Scott
<which...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7lhtjd$6i1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <GEMe3.1234$C4....@news.indigo.ie>,
> "Samhain" <@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >
> > which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lbpp8
> $bk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > >My vote of "no confidence" in your ability to judge merit is a
> > >permanent part of the Dejanews record. I do not retract it.
> > >
> > >Bill Hunter
> >
> > Why do you quote the whole message just to add a pathetic liitle
> comment?
> > Have you not mastered the ability to work a newsreader yet?
> > Is this all your clouded mind can come up with?
> >
> _Inside The Brain_, by Ronald Kotulak. The central theme of the book is
> that the central feature of the human brain is "plasticity", or
> flexibility. I quote, from the introduction, "This tremendous
> flexibility, which enables the brain to constantly undergo physical and
> brain as a self-contained, hard-wired unit that learns from a preset,
> your brain experiences either creates a new connection in the brain, or
> reinforces a connection already in place. It's not that hormones DON'T
> count. It's that EVERYTHING counts. Tobacco, alcohol, stress, the smell
> of fresh-cut grass, and everything else you experience is literally re-
> manufactured (or duplicated) with a newly-created circuit in the brain.
> The brain literally takes in the world and stores it by redesigning
> itself on the spot.
<snipped>
If your goal of reading of Brain Sex is an attempt to shoot holes in the
authors' agruements and thereby using those well aimed bullets to argue for
discrediting the intire book. Im sure you will find those areas of broad
generalization by the authors to fit your purpose. However, keep in mind
while you read Brain Sex that the author's opinions are based on extinsive
References (what is it 30 pages of a 200 page book) to the research papers
that allow you to cross check where they got *their* opinions from. The book
IMO is somewhat out dated as it was written about 10 years ago but there are
other books like it.
A few :
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/generic-quicksearch-query/002-4094143-5281
222
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140263489/o/qid=930944335/sr=2-1/002
-4094143-5281222
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679430288/ref=sim_books/002-4094143-
5281222
The is no nero-researcher going to tell you that the brain does not have a
degree of "plasticity". The question is just how plastic is it? __How
plastic is a lizard's brain?__
If mammals are raised in captivity and then put into their natural habitat
they usually don't do very well at surviving unless they've been first
trained. And the more advanced the animal the more training they seem to
require. Orangutans require a lot of training. But no one argues that apes
don't have an innate, sexist behavior about them. You are implying that the
human brain is so plastic we can rewire it by the very desire of our *Free
Will* to do so. (And isn't that what these debates are really all about?
Just how much Free Will do we have?)
If you believe that our brains' are so flexible and that it is easy to
rewire it by the very act of Will, I have a challenge for you. Figure out a
way for would-be dieters to permanently maintain *their desired* weight
(behavior) by reformatting the wiring in their brain so that they don't have
to consciously think about what and how much they are eating most of the
time. If you can do that you will have millions of dieters spending $$$$$$
to beat a path to your door. It is easier to control your weight than it is
to rewire gender behavior; at least I think that. Do you believe the brain
is so plastic that we could put a group of boys on one island and a group of
girls on another island, not let them have any outside influence, and then
raise them as the opposite, traditional gender-stereotype? For example, have
the boys wear dresses, fix their hair like traditional girls, use
fingernail polish and lipstick, __play with dolls to encourage nurturing
behavior__, etc. And at the end of this experiment would these boys behave
for all the world like traditional girls have been *socialize* by some
patriarchal culture? If you believe that (and I hope you don't) I'd like to
sell yea some ocean beach front in Arizona. Dirt cheep too. Do you think
these kids would be any happier if they could be raised as the opposite
gender or a neutral gender? To borrow from post-modernism: will it *feel*
right to them?
The problem is that although the larger brains of mammals (and especially
humans) is very plastic, we also have a lizard living inside our heads. This
lizard controls things like your eating habits---your metabolism. It doesn't
understand modern societal living. Most dieters either try to fight this
lizard by cutting way back on calories or tricking it into thinking it's
being fed well. If you try to loose weight by cutting out a meal or two per
day this lizard thinks it's living in an environment of scarce resources and
will try to conserve energy by slowing down its/your metabolism. You may not
even realize it but you won't move around as much. Other dieters try to
trick this lizard by going on the once again popular high protein low carb
diets. On these your body will burn fat down to ketones which your brain can
use for fuel (as opposed to the preferred glucose). The problem with these
diets is that while the brain/lizard thinks everything is fine, the body is
severally starved. There are chemical reaction in the body that must have
glucose for fuel and since there isn't enough being supplied by carbs in
the diet and you can't make it from fat, your body will start breaking down
protein to get it. Not only the protein in the diet but the protein in your
muscles will be used.
Nutritionist say you should eat about 6 smaller meal per day because it
better keeps the metabolism up.
This lizard also responds to things like lighting. It doesn't understand
artificial lighting. Tribal people all around the world sleep on average of
9 1/2 hours per night. Modern people sleep less. It's believed that
artificial lighting messes up our biological clocks. If that's true I think
staring into a computer screen late at night can mess up your biological
clock and keep you from getting sleepy. Instead of keeping the light bright
in the house at night, dim them way down and see if you don't get sleepy
sooner, especially your kids. It works.
This lizard also controls your hormones. Put a bunch of women in a dorm and
guess what happens after a period of months to their menstrual cycles. They
start getting very close to each other. Women first noticed that their
cycles were the same number of days as the cycle of the moon and invented
calendars. I've heard there's some evidence that artificial lighting can
also mess up a woman' s cycle. I still wonder if that's what happened to my
wife after she went to working the night shift and there didn't seem to be a
direct physical cause for her problems.
This lizard also controls our sexual preferences. Politically, I find this
interesting. Feminist who argue that the brain is _very flexible_ and sexist
stereotyping is the cause for differences in male/female behavior will also
argue the sexual preferences are in-born. You don't suppose that it has
anything to do with similar political agendas for preferential treatment do
you? And that many lesbians are also feminist? Nah.
Point is, this lizard, as well as your cortex, is also at the root cause of
much of your behavior. Including (emotional) differences in gender
behaviors: male aggression, female nurturing, sexual attraction, human
pheromones that affect our sexual moods, males zeroing into the TV?, young
female's (including young female chimps - a close relative) attraction to
babies while young males are comparatively not as interested?, women's
gathering/shopping habits?, etc. (I guess Science will debate the
objectivity of much of these gender behaviors as being due to nature or
nurture for along time. I follow my instincts. How's that for post
modernism? ;))
This lizard is called your Limbic System. It is the part of the brain that
is said to be no more evolved than that of a lizard's. And as a
neuroscientist wrote: "You are a slave to your limbic system."
Scott
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:23:14 -0500, "Scott" <sfe...@nortexinfo.net>
wrote:
>
> >BTW I wanted to inject this in as well. In tribal societies adolescence
> >males will start compiling information about the animals they will be
> >hunting. You know stats about the animals' habbits like what they eat,
where
> >and when they sleep, their sense of smell, sight, and hearing, what
habitats
> >they favore. Kind of reminds yea of young males collecting baseball cards
on
> >their favorite sports heros doesn't it? Roll expectations or innateness?
>
> I like your idea of men hunting habbits - rabbits surely ;-0). We call
that
> male trait "train spotting" in England, from the rabbit of men in dirty
macs
> on the end of platforms waiting to see a loco number aand write it in
their
> book.
>
Sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday. I've been busy. If you're in
London check out the English version of Defending the Caveman
http://www.stoll-moss.com/caveman.htm I thought Becker could''ve used more
research material in the act (from the radio interviews I heard, he does
knows the territory very well). I think he's saving it for the sitcom ;).
The TV networks have approached him but he won't sign a contract unless he
has full creative control (I think I know why). The more he holds out the
more money they offer him. However, his act is to entertain and to introduce
the hunter/gatherer paradigm than it is to try and calalog all the
differences in an 90 minute show. Whether the differences are nature or
nurture, it is a funny act.
> As a comparator, take witches and their skills in identifying herbs and
> potions - and the way they were ostracised for so doing.
>
I think you're getting into mythology here. I won't argue that culture
doesn't affect, in suttle ways, much of the way we view the world . Here's
one I've wondered about: from Biblical history we get God gave man dominion
over the earth. But in Asia the (Taoist) idea is to harmonize with nature. I
've wonder if that shows up in the way we landscape our properties. In the
West we have long straight rows of squared off hedges. The control of
nature!? While in the East we have the Japanese gardens which try to imitate
nature.
But when I walk into these two gardens, the Western style seems cold and
hard while the Japanese style makes me think "yea this just instinctively
feels right." I wonder why? Maybe, its because instincts speaks to us on a
very deep level...like a working mythology is suppose to do. The famous
mythologist Joseph Campbell argued that human's innate nature is the cause
for the common archetypes of the world's mythologies, including those of the
gods and goddesses.
By you'll, out of here for at least several days.
> Julian
>
Treetop
> In article <GEMe3.1234$C4....@news.indigo.ie>,
> "Samhain" <@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >
> >
> Actually, I can come up with a few things. I am currently reading
> _Inside The Brain_, by Ronald Kotulak. The central theme of the book is
> that the central feature of the human brain is "plasticity", or
> flexibility. I quote, from the introduction, "This tremendous
> flexibility, which enables the brain to constantly undergo physical and
> chemical changes as it responds to the environment is called
> plasticity.
Unfortunately the adult brain is is not very maleable. There is
considerable maleablitity in infants and small children and much that is
genetically pre-determined. By the age of about seven, the basic
personality of each individual is set for life. I'm almost 60 so I can
see this from personal experience.
Psychotherapy is a field which, against it's will, is actually a
testamony for the non-maleability of the brain. People spend many
thousands or dollars and years in therapy trying to make some change or
other, and usually are unsuccessful or sometimes experience some small
margin of success. The results in psychotherapy are so pathetic that
therapists don't even bother about scientific validity when a new hopeful
approach appears on the horizon -- they grab it in the deparate hope that
maybe this is something that will work.
One thing about the brain is maleable anyway -- memory. Elizabeth Loftus
has proved that it is rather easy, through suggestion, to implant false
memories in others. (The Recovered Memory fiasco of pschotherapy was a
process whereby women were being led to believe, by their therapists that
their fathers had raped them when they were two weeks old, or had
suffered "satanic ritual abuse," etc. The patients thought the memories
were real, but they were induced. There have been thousands of such
cases.)
BTW, What kind of scientific research/sources does your book have behind
it?
Treetop
Scott
1.
The Difference between Men and Women:
Let's say a guy named Roger is attracted to a woman named Elaine. He
asks her out to a movie; she accepts; they have a pretty good time. A
few nights later he asks her out to dinner, and again they enjoy
themselves. They continue to see each other regularly, and after a
while neither one of them is seeing anybody else.
And then, one evening when they're driving home, a thought occurs to
Elaine, and, without really thinking, she says it aloud: "Do you
realize that, as of tonight, we've been seeing each other for exactly
six months?"
And then there is silence in the car. To Elaine, it seems like a very
loud silence. She thinks to herself: Geez, I wonder if it bothers him
that I said that. Maybe he's been feeling confined by our
relationship; maybe he thinks I'm trying to push him into some kind of
obligation that he doesn't want, or isn't sure of.
And Roger is thinking: Gosh. Six months.
And Elaine is thinking: But, hey, I'm not so sure I want this kind of
relationship, either. Sometimes I wish I had a little more space, so
I'd have time to think about whether I really want us to keep going
the way we are, moving steadily toward . . . I mean, where are we
going? Are we just going to keep seeing each other at this level of
intimacy? Are we heading toward marriage? Toward children? Toward a
lifetime together? Am I ready for that level of commitment? Do I
really even know this person?
And Roger is thinking: . . . so that means it was . . . let's see
...February when we started going out, which was right after I had the
car at the dealer's, which means . . let me check the odometer
.. . Whoa, I am way overdue for an oil change here!
And Elaine is thinking: He's upset. I can see it on his face. Maybe
I'm reading this completely wrong. Maybe he wants more from our
relationship, more intimacy, more commitment; maybe he has sensed
--even before I sensed it -- that I was feeling some
reservations. Yes, I bet that's it. That's why he's so reluctant to
say anything about his own feelings. He's afraid of being rejected.
And Roger is thinking: And I'm gonna have them look at the
transmission again. I don't care what those morons say, it's still not
shifting right. And they better not try to blame it on the cold
weather this time. What cold weather? It's 87 degrees out, and this
thing is shifting like a goddamn garbage truck, and I paid those
incompetent thieves $600.
And Elaine is thinking: He's angry. And I don't blame him. I'd be
angry, too. God, I feel so guilty, putting him through this, but I
can't help the way I feel. I'm just not sure.
And Roger is thinking: They'll probably say it's only a 90-day
warranty. That's exactly what they're gonna say, the scumballs.
And Elaine is thinking: maybe I'm just too idealistic, waiting for a
knight to come riding up on his white horse, when I'm sitting right
next to a perfectly good person, a person I enjoy being with, a person
I truly do care about, a person who seems to truly care about me. A
person who is in pain because of my self-centered, schoolgirl romantic
fantasy.
And Roger is thinking: Warranty? They want a warranty? I'll give them a
goddamn warranty. I'll take their warranty and stick it right up their
....
"Roger," Elaine says aloud.
"What?" says Roger, startled.
"Please don't torture yourself like this," she says, her eyes
beginning to brim with tears. "Maybe I should never have. . . Oh God,
I feel so......"
(She breaks down, sobbing.)
"What?" says Roger.
"I'm such a fool," Elaine sobs. "I mean, I know there's no knight. I
really know that. It's silly. There's no knight, and there's no horse."
"There's no horse?" says Roger.
"You think I'm a fool, don't you?" Elaine says.
"No!" says Roger, glad to finally know the correct answer.
"It's just that . . . It's that I . . . I need some time," Elaine says.
(There is a 15-second pause while Roger, thinking as fast as he can,
tries to come up with a safe response. Finally he comes up with one
that he thinks might work.)
"Yes," he says.
(Elaine, deeply moved, touches his hand.)
"Oh, Roger, do you really feel that way?" she says.
"What way?" says Roger.
"That way about time," says Elaine.
"Oh," says Roger. "Yes."
(Elaine turns to face him and gazes deeply into his eyes, causing him
to become very nervous about what she might say next, especially if it
involves a horse. At last she speaks.)
"Thank you, Roger," she says.
"Thank you," says Roger.
Then he takes her home, and she lies on her bed, a conflicted,
tortured soul, and weeps until dawn, whereas when Roger gets back to
his place, he opens a bag of Doritos, turns on the TV, and immediately
becomes deeply involved in a rerun of a tennis match between two
Czechoslovakians he never heard of. A tiny voice in the far recesses
of his mind tells him that something major was going on back there in
the car, but he is pretty sure there is no way he would ever
understand what, and so he figures it's better if he doesn't think
about it. (This is also Roger's policy regarding world hunger.)
The next day Elaine will call her closest friend, or perhaps two of
them, and they will talk about this situation for six straight
hours. In painstaking detail, they will analyze everything she said
and everything he said, going over it time and time again, exploring
every word, expression, and gesture for nuances of meaning,
considering every possible ramification. They will continue to discuss
this subject, off and on, for weeks, maybe months, never reaching any
definite conclusions, but never getting bored with it, either.
Meanwhile, Roger, while playing racquetball one day with a mutual
friend of his and Elaine's, will pause just before serving, frown, and
say: "Norm, did Elaine ever own a horse?"
==================
2.
MEN AND WOMEN
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN
One basic truth: Men and women are different.
Now, this may seem a little simplistic, but the fact
is, for a period of about six months in 1973, it was
very fashionable to believe that we were all persons
first, and members of our gender second.
This, of course, was so much hooey.
We are different -- in our habits, and in the way we
react to environmental stimuli and the way we spend our
leisure time; and we are especially different when it
comes to our attitudes regarding relationships.
My personal observations have uncovered many
significant differences between men and women.
RELATIONSHIPS
First of all, a man does not call a relationship. He
refers to it as a romance, or a period of dating, of
going out, or, in some unfortunate circumstances, "that
time when me and Suzie was doing it on a semi-regular
basis."
When a relationship ends, a woman will cry, and pour
her heart out to her girlfriends, and she will write a
poem titled "All Men are Morons." Then she will get on
with her life.
A man has a little more trouble letting go. For six
months, his ex may not hear from him, but then, at
three on Saturday night/Sunday morning, he will call
and say, "I just wanted to let you know you ruined my
life, and I'll never forgive you, and I hate you, and
you're a total bitch. But I want to let you know
there's always a chance for us."
This is known as the "I Hate You/I Love You" drunken
phone call. Ninety-nine percent of all men past the
age of 21 have made this call at least once. Some men
make a career of these calls. There are community
colleges that offer extension courses to help men get
over this need; alas, these classes rarely prove
effective.
SEX
Women prefer 30 to 45 minutes of foreplay. Men prefer
30 to 45 seconds of foreplay, less if at all possible.
For the man, driving back to her place is considered a
part of foreplay.
MATURITY
Women mature at a much faster rate than men. Most 17
year old females can function as adults. Most 17 year
old males are still trading baseball cards and giving
each other wedgies after gym class. This is why high
school romances rarely work.
HATS
Women look good in hats; men look like idiots.
GROCERIES
A woman knows how to shop for groceries. She makes a
list of the things she needs, and then goes to the
store and buys these things. A man does not shop on a
frequent basis. He waits until the only items left in
his refrigerator are an opened can of Schlitz and a
half a lime. Then he goes grocery shopping. A man
buys everything that looks good. By the time a man
reaches the checkout counter, his cart is packed
tighter than the Clampett's car on the Beverly
Hillbillies. Of course, this will not stop him from
going to the 10 items or less lane.
MAGAZINES
Men's magazines often feature pictures of naked ladies.
Women's magazines also feature pictures of naked
ladies. This is because the female body is a beautiful
work of art, while the male body is lumpy and hairy and
should no be seen by the light of day.
Men are turned on at the sight of a naked woman's body.
Naked men elicit laughter from women.
HANDWRITING
To their credit, men do not decorate their penmanship.
They just chickenscratch. Women use scented, colored
stationary, and they dot their "i's" with circles and
hearts. Women use ridiculously large loops in their
"p's" and "g's." It is a royal pain to read a note
from a woman Even when she's dumping you, she'll put a
smiley face at the end of the note.
COMEDY
Let's say a small group of men and women are in a room,
watching television, and an episode of the Three
Stooges comes on. Immediately, the men will get very
excited; they will laugh uproariously, and even try to
imitate the actions of Curly, man's favorite stooge.
The woman will roll their eyes and groan and wait it
out.
BATHROOMS
A man has 6 items in his bathroom: a toothbrush,
toothpaste, shaving cream, a razor, a bar of Dial soap
and a towel from a Holiday Inn. The average number of
items in a typical American women's bathroom is 437. A
man would not be able to identify most of these items.
Most men take only 2-3 minutes to relieve themselves.
Women's Restrooms always have long lines.
GOING OUT
When a man says he is ready to go out, it means he is
ready to go out. When a woman says she is ready to go
out, it means she will be ready, as soon as she finds
her other earring, makes one phone call and finishes
putting on her makeup.
CATS
Women love cats. Men say they love cats, but when
women aren't looking, men kick cats.
SHOES
When preparing for work, a woman will put on a Mondi
wool suit, and then slip in Reebok sneakers. She will
carry her dress shoes in a plastic bag from Saks. When
a woman gets to work, she will put on her dress shoes.
Five minutes later she will kick them off because her
feet are under the desk. A man will wear one pair of
shoes for the entire day.
LEG WARMERS
Leg warmers are sexy. A woman, even if she's walking
the dog or doing the dishes, is allowed to wear leg
warmers. She can wear them any time she wants. A man
can only wear leg warmers if he is auditioning for the
"Gimme the Ball" number in A Chorus Line.
MIRRORS
Men are vain; they will check themselves out in the
mirror. Women are ridiculous; they will check out
their reflections in any shiny surface, mirrors,
spoons, store window, toasters, Joe Garagiola's head.
MENOPAUSE
When a woman reaches menopause, she goes through a
variety of complicated emotional, psychological, and
biological changes. The nature and degree of these
changes varies with the individual. Menopause in a man
provokes a uniform reaction --- he buys aviator
glasses, a snazzy French cap and leather driving
gloves, and goes shopping for a Porsche.
THE TELEPHONE
Men see the telephone as a communication tool. They
use the telephone to send short messages to other
people. A woman can visit her girlfriend for two
weeks, and upon returning home, she will call the same
friend and they will talk for three hours.
OFFSPRING
Ah, children. A woman knows all about her children.
She knows about dentist appointments and soccer games
and romances and best friends and favorite foods and
hopes and dreams.
LOW BLOWS
Let's say a man and a woman are watching a boxing match
on television. One of the figures is felled by a low
blow. The woman says, "Oh gee, that must hurt." The
man doubles over and actually feels the pain.
DIRECTIONS
If a woman is out driving, and she finds herself in
unfamiliar surroundings, she will stop at a gas station
and ask for directions. Men consider this to be a sign
of weakness. Men will never stop and ask for
directions. Men will drive in a circle for hours, all
the while saying things like, "Looks love I've found a
new way to get there." and, "I know I'm in the general
neighborhood. I recognize that White Hen store."
ADMITTING MISTAKES
Women will sometimes admit making a mistake. The last
man who admitted he was wrong was General George
Custer.
RICHARD GERE
Women like Richard Gere because he is sexy in a
dangerous way. Men hate Richard Gere because he
reminds them of that slick guy who works at the health
club and dates only married women.
DRESSING UP
A woman will dress up to: go shopping, water the
plants, empty the garbage, answer the phone, read a
book, get the mail. A man will dress up for:
weddings, funerals.
NICKNAMES
With the exception of female body builders, who call
each other names like "Ultimate Pecs" and "Big Turk,"
women eschew the use of nicknames. If Gloria, Suzanne,
Deborah, and Michelle get together for lunch, they will
call each other Gloria, Suzanne, Deborah, and Michelle.
But if Mike, Dirk, Clint, and Jack go out for a
brewski, they will affectionately refer to one another
as Bullet-Head, Godzilla, Peanut-Brain, and Useless.
TOYS
Little girls love to play with toys. Then when they
reach the age of 11 or 12, they lose interest. Men
never grow out of their obsession with toys. As they
get older, their toys simply become more expensive and
silly and impractical. Examples of men's toys: little
miniature TV's. Car phones. Complicated juicers and
blenders. Graphic equalizers. Small robots that serve
cocktails on command. Video games. Anything that
blinks, beeps, and requires at least 6 "D" batteries to
operate.
PLANTS
A woman asks a man to water her plants while she is on
vacation. The man waters the plants. The woman comes
home five or six days later to an apartment full of
dead plants. No one knows why this happens.
MOUSTACHES
Some men look good with mustaches. Those men are Tom
Selleck and Burt Reynolds. There are no women who look
good with mustaches.
DAVID LETTERMAN
Men think David Letterman is the funniest man on the
face of the Earth. Women think he is a mean, semidorky
guy who always has a bad haircut.
CAMERAS
Men take photography very seriously. They'll shell out
$4000 for state of the art equipment, and build dark
rooms and take photography classes. Women purchase
Kodak Instamatics. Of course women always end up
taking better pictures.
LOCKER ROOMS
In the locker room men talk about three things: money,
football, and women, They exaggerate about money, they
don't know football nearly as well as they think they
do, and they fabricate stories about women. Women talk
about one thing in the locker room -- sex. And not in
abstract terms, either. They are extremely graphic and
technical, and they never lie.
LAUNDRY
Women do the laundry every couple of days. A man will
wear every article of clothing he owns, including his
surgical pants that were really hip about eight years
ago, before he will do the laundry. When he is finally
out of clothes, he will wear a dirty sweatsuit inside
out, rent a U-Haul and take his mountain of dirty
clothes to the Laundromat. Men always expect to meet
beautiful women at the Laundromat, but this is only a
myth perpetuated by old reruns of Love American Style.
POLITICS
Men love to talk politics, but often they forget to do
political things such as voting. Women are very happy
that another generation of Kennedy's is growing up and
getting into politics because they will be able to
campaign for them and cry on election night.
WEDDINGS
When reminiscing about weddings women talk about "the
ceremony." Men talk about "the bachelor party."
CHEERLEADERS
Female cheerleaders are cute, sexy, fresh, and all
American. Male cheerleaders are scary.
SOCKS
Men are sensible about socks. They wear argyle socks
or standard white sweatsocks. Women wear strange
socks. Socks with pictures of clouds on them. Socks
that are cut way below their ankles. socks that have
little fuzzy balls on the back.
GARAGES
Women use garages to park their cars and store their
lawnmowers. Men use garages for many things. They
hang license plates in garages, and they watch TV in
garages, and they build useless lopsided benches in
garages.
MOVIES
For women their favorite movie scene is when Clark
Gable kisses Vivien Leigh for the first time in Gone
With the Wind. For men it's when Jimmy Cagney shoves
grapefruit in may Clark's face in Public Enemy.
NUDITY IN MOVIES
Every actress in the history of movies has had to do a
nude scene. This is because every movie in the history
of movies has been produced by a man. The only actor
who has ever appeared nude in the movies is Richard
Gere. This is another reason why men hate him.
JEWELRY
Women look nice when they wear jewelry. A man can get
away with wearing one ring and that's it. Any more
than that and he will look like a lounge singer named
Vic.
THE MOST IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE OF ALL
Colored underwear. Women are allowed, in fact
encouraged, to wear colored underwear. There is no
reason for a man to ever, ever, wear anything besides
solid white.
==========
3.
Haircuts
Woman's version:
Woman 2: Oh! You got a haircut! That's so cute!
Woman 1: Do you think so? I wasn't sure when she was gave me the
mirror. I mean, you don't think it's too fluffy looking?
Woman 2: Oh God no! No, it's perfect. I'd love to get my hair cut like
that, but I think my face is too wide. I'm pretty much stuck with this
stuff I think.
Woman 1: Are you serious? I think your face is adorable. And you could
easily get one of those layer cuts - that would look so cute I think. I was
actually going to do that except that I was afraid it would accent my long
neck.
Woman 2: Oh - that's funny! I would love to have your neck! Anything to
take attention away from this two-by-four I have for a shoulder line.
Woman 1: Are you kidding? I know girls that would love to have your
shoulders. Everything drapes so well on you. I mean, look at my arms - see
how short they are? If I had your shoulders I could get clothes to fit me
so much easier.
-------------------------------
Men's version:
Man 2: Haircut?
Man 1: Yeah.
=======================
4.
The Dictionary of Dating
ATTRACTION - the act of associating horniness with a particular person.
LOVE AT 1st SIGHT - what occurs when two extremely horny, but not entirely
choosy people meet.
DATING - the process of spending enormous amounts of money, time, and energy
to get better acquainted with a person whom you don't especially like in the
present and will learn to like a lot less in the future.
BIRTH CONTROL - avoiding pregnancy through such tactics as swallowing
special pills, inserting a diaphragm, using a condom, and dating repulsive
men or spending time around children.
EASY - a term used to describe a woman who has the sexual morals of a man.
PRIG - a term used to describe a woman who wants to stay virgin until
married.
EYE CONTACT - a method utilized by a single woman to communicate to a man
that she is interested in him. Despite being advised to do so, many woman
have difficulty looking a man directly in the eyes, not necessarily due to
the shyness, but usually due to the fact that a woman's eyes are not located
in her chest.
FRIEND - a member of the opposite sex in your acquaintance who has some flaw
which makes sleeping with him/her totally unappealing.
INDIFFERENCE - a woman's feeling towards a man, which is interpreted by the
man as "playing hard to get."
INTERESTING - a word a man uses to describe a woman who lets him do all the
talking.
IRRITATING HABIT - what the endearing little qualities that initially
attract two people to each other turn into after a few months together.
LAW OF RELATIVITY - how attractive a given person appears to be is directly
proportional to how unattractive your date is.
NYMPHOMANIAC - a man's term for a woman who wants to have sex more often
than he does.
FRIGID - a man's term for a woman who wants to have sex less often than he
does, or who requires more foreplay than lifting her nightgown.
SOBER - condition in which it is almost impossible to fall in love.
NAG - a man's term for a woman who wants more to her life with him than just
intercourse.
Scott
25 Rules to help Men understand Women
1. Learn to work the toilet seat. If you've managed to lift it up, gravity
is on your side when it comes to putting it back down.
2. Sometimes, we are not thinking about having sex.
3. "I ate it, didn't I?" is not considered praise.
4. Your responsibility for raising children does NOT end at conception.
5. Get rid of your comb-over. It's not different -- it's just as ridiculous
as every other comb over. You're losing your hair -- face it.
6. An order of takeout ribs and a Chris Farley movie is not everybody's idea
of a good time.
7. "Yeah yeah, you look fine" is not a compliment.
8. Yes, I DO tell my best friend everything.
9. You have enough ballcaps.
10. You have too many t-shirts.
11. You're too old to wear a goatee.
12. Every actor we find attractive is not gay. You can stop using this
one -- we've all heard it.
13. A hug is not always a prelude to sex.
14. When we ask "are you listening," we already know you're not.
15. Your best friend is an idiot.
16. Nothing says "I love you" like offering to go to the grocery store.
17. If you can rebuild the carburetor on a '66 Mustang, working the washing
machine should be a snap.
18. Yes and no are sometimes acceptable answers -- grunts and blank stares
are not.
19. A sore back that prevents you from doing household chores for 17 months
is a problem. See a doctor.
20. Underwear is like a car. After five years, it needs to be replaced with
a newer model.
21. A romantic weekend getaway does not involve baiting a hook.
22. Slapping us on the butt and saying "how bout getting me a cold one" is
not foreplay.
23. The missionary position is best left to missionaries.
24. Rolling over and mumbling "I've got to get some sleep" does not produce
an afterglow.
25. If it was really good for me...you wouldn't have to ask.
===========
#6.
Difference Between Men & Women part 101
She/He Definitions
Wants & needs (wontz and nedz) n.
female: The delicate balance of emotional, physical and psychological
longing one seeks to have fulfilled in a relationship.
male: Food, sex and beer.
Thingy (thing-ee) n.
female: Any part under a car's hood.
male: The strapfastener on a woman's bra.
Lesbian (lez-bi-an) n.
female: A woman who makes love to other women.
male: A woman who has sex with other women so men can watch and get really
turned on.
Glass ceiling (glas see-ling) n.
female: The invisible barrier that stops women from rising to the upper
levels in business.
male: What would really be great at work since that hot babe took over the
office one flight up.
Vulnerable (vul-ne-ra-bel) adj.
female: Fully opening up one's self emotionally to another.
male: Playing ball without a cup.
Communication (ko-myoo-ni-kay-shon) n.
female: The open sharing of thoughts and feelings with one's partner.
male: Scratching out a note before suddenly taking off for a weekend with
the guys.
Butt (but) n.
female: The body part that every item of clothing manufactured makes "look
bigger."
male: The organ of mooning (and farting).
Commitment (ko-mit-ment) n.
female: A desire to get married and raise a family.
male: Not trying to pick up other women while out with one's girlfriend.
Entertainment (en-ter-tayn-ment) n.
female: A good movie, concert, play or book.
male: Anything with one ball, two folds, or three stooges.
Flatulence (flach-u-lens) n.
female: An embarrassing byproduct of digestion.
male: An endless source of enterainment, self-expression and male bonding.
Making love (may-king luv) n.
female: The greatest expression of intimacy a couple can achieve.
male: What men have to call "boinking" to get women to boink.
Remote control (ri-moht kon-trohl) n.
female: A device for changing from one TV channel to another.
male: A device for scanning through all 75 channels every 2 1/2 minutes..
Taste (tayst) v.
female: Something you do frequently to whatever you're cooking, to make sure
it's good.
male: Something you must do to anything you think has gone bad, prior to
tossing it out.
=============
7.
Precepts of the Manly Man
1.) The floor is considered an acceptable clothing storage location.
2.) Never ask me to purchase feminine products. Assume that I will come home
with the wrong thing.
3.) When watching TV hugging is always fine because I can still see the
screen. Kissing should only be done during timeouts and commercials.
Questions should also be limited to this period as you stand a much better
chance of getting an immediate response.
4.) When we are watching your show and I change the channels during a
commercial do not hassle me that they are over to change the channel back. I
always know when the timing is right. Also, when we are channel surfing do
not ask me to go back, there was a good reason why I skipped it.
5.) If you need help with the laundry, I am more than willing to carry it
from the bedroom to the washer. In my mind this is half the chore and I am
now free to return to the couch.
6.) If I mention that a male friend of mine is allowed to do something it is
not necessary for you to call his wife/girlfriend to discuss it.
7.) If you don't like the way I am driving close your eyes. And I would
appreciate it if you would refrain from making that reverse inhaling alarmed
noise. I haven't hit anything yet and if I do it will be your fault.
8.) I go clothes shopping to buy, never to look.
9.) Just tell me what you want me to wear before I get dressed. And remember
that this takes me less than ten minutes no matter what the occasion is.
After all I am getting dressed, not getting ready.
10.) Don't ask me if I prefer one outfit over another or if a certain
accessory should be worn or not. I consider this a no win situation and
would rather just wait for you to get dressed while watching TV.
11.) If you want me to put the seat down when I am finished then you should
leave the seat up when you are finished. It's only fair. And stop giving me
a hard time about missing the bowl. What do you expect from an organ that
has a brain of its own.
12.) I will cook anything as long as it is on the BBQ.
13.) Yelling to me across the house sounds exactly like stadium crowd
background noise to me. I am not ignoring you.
============
New College Courses For Men and Women
COURSES FOR WOMEN
The male staff will be offering courses to women of all marital status.
Attendance in at least 10 is mandatory:
101. Avoiding Walking in Front of the TV
102. Doing Housework Without Complaining
103. Shopping: Buying What You Can Afford, Not What You Can Charge
104. Going to The Washroom Alone (formerly Coping Without My Friends)
105. Understanding the Male Response to "Do I Look OK?"
106. Exercise: How it Keeps You from Looking Like Your Mother
107. Sex: Learning How to Initiate
108. How to Apologize When You Are Obviously Wrong
109. Understanding the Male Response to "Am I Fat?"
110. Dishwashers: Rinsing Before Is Not a Must
111. The Toilet Seat: I Can Learn to Put It Down Too
112. Sex Thesaurus: Alternatives to "Make Love"
113. "The Weekend" and "Long Boring Walks" Are Not Synonymous
114. How to Go Shopping With Your Mate and Not Embarrass Him
115. The Remote Control: Don't Touch What You Can't Handle
116. You Too Can Be the One to Hang Up the Phone
117. Honest, You Don't Look Like Kim Bassinger -- But You're Acceptable
118. Hair spray: The Effects On The Ecosystem (formerly One Can Is Enough)
119. Runs In Your Nylons? It's Not the End of the World
120. Fishing: Being Able to Bait Your Own Hook
121. Sex: More Than Just Lying There
122. Learning to Choose What to Wear In Less Than Four Hours
123. Vacations: Doing Without 4 Suitcases
124. Makeup: The Less is More Theory
125. Nagging: Stop the Insanity!
COURSES FOR MEN
Once again, the female staff will be offering courses to men of any marital
status. Class size will be limited to 18 as material may prove to be
difficult.
101. Combating Stupidity
102. You Too Can Do Housework
103. P.M.S. - Learning When To Keep Your Mouth Shut
104. How To Fill An Ice Cube Tray
105. We Do Not Want Sleazy Underthings for Christmas - Give Us Money
106. Understanding the Female Response To You Coming In Drunk At 4 AM
107. Wonderful Laundry Techniques (Formerly Called "Don't Wash My Silks")
108. Parenting - No, It Doesn't End With Conception
109. Get a Life - Learn How To Cook
110. How Not To Act Like a Butthead When You Are Obviously Wrong
111. Spelling - Even You Can Get It Right
112. Understanding Your Financial Incompetence
113. You - The Weaker Sex
114. Reasons To Give Flowers
115. How To Stay Awake After Sex
116. Why It Is Unacceptable To Relieve Yourself Anywhere But the Bathroom
117. Garbage - Getting It To the Curb
118. SEX
118A. - You Can Fall Asleep Without It If You Really Try
118B. - The Morning Dilemma - If It's Awake, Take a Shower
119. The Weekend and Sports Are Not Synonymous
120. How To Put The Toilet Seat Down
121. How To Go Shopping With Your Mate and Not Get Lost
122. The Remote Control - Overcoming Your Dependency
123. Helpful Postural Hints For Couch Potatoes
124. How Not To Act Younger Than Your Children
125. You Too Can Be a Designated Driver
126. Honest, You Don't Look Like Mel Gibson, Especially When Naked
127. Changing Your Underwear - It Really Works
128. The Attainable Goal - Omitting %@#*! From Your Vocabulary
129. Fluffing the Blankets After Farting is NOT Necessary
130. Real Men Ask For Directions
131. How To Take Illness Like a Man
If sufficient interest is shown and qualified instructors can be found, the
course offerings may be expanded.
Philip Lewis
which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7liq3c$gfe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|In article <7lijbc$mh7$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
| "Philip Lewis" <phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
|>
|>
|> which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lhtjd$6i1
|$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|> |In article <GEMe3.1234$C4....@news.indigo.ie>,
|> | "Samhain" <@127.0.0.1> wrote:
|> |>
|> |> which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lbpp8
|> |$bk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
|> |> >My vote of "no confidence" in your ability to judge merit is a
|> |> >permanent part of the Dejanews record. I do not retract it.
|> |> >
|> |> >Bill Hunter
|> |>
|> |> Why do you quote the whole message just to add a pathetic liitle
|> |comment?
|> |> Have you not mastered the ability to work a newsreader yet?
|> |> Is this all your clouded mind can come up with?
|> |>
|> |Actually, I can come up with a few things. I am currently reading
|> |_Inside The Brain_, by Ronald Kotulak. The central theme of the book
|is
|> |that the central feature of the human brain is "plasticity", or
|> |flexibility. I quote, from the introduction, "This tremendous
|> |flexibility, which enables the brain to constantly undergo physical
|and
|> |chemical changes as it responds to the environment is called
|> |plasticity.
|>
|> This is also called "feedback" and it has been long known that such
|feedback
|> exists - it is just that this feed back is being measured from the
|brains
|> perspective.
|>
|> It is a startling departure from the old concept of the
|> |brain as a self-contained, hard-wired unit that learns from a preset,
|> |unchangeable set of rules.
|>
|> Yes that is an OLD concept and it is not one that has been
|entertained by
|> biological scientists for a LONG time now - so there is nothing new
|in such
|> an observation.
|>
|> " Every sight, sound, or smell (etc.) that
|> |your brain experiences either creates a new connection in the brain,
|or
|> |reinforces a connection already in place. It's not that hormones
|DON'T
|> |count. It's that EVERYTHING counts. Tobacco, alcohol, stress, the
|smell
|> |of fresh-cut grass, and everything else you experience is literally
|re-
|> |manufactured (or duplicated) with a newly-created circuit in the
|brain.
|> |The brain literally takes in the world and stores it by redesigning
|> |itself on the spot.
|>
|> Thats organic computers for you.
|>
|> |Another quote: (page 132) "Estrogen was once
|> |thought to be solely a female sex hormone involved in reproduction.
|But
|> |the hormone, a small, almost indestructible molecule with a passport
|to
|> |enter most cells, is turning out to be an important rejuvenator of
|> |female AND MALE (capitalization mine) brains." Also, page 150, "This
|> |organ that seemed so inaccessible, that seemed as if it couldn't be
|> |repaired just a few short years ago, now appears to be MONUMENTALLY
|> |(capitalization mine)plastic, and we are beginning to take advantage
|of
|> |it's healing powers." Also,page 24, "using high-tech imaging devices
|> |that can 'see' the living brain processing thoughts, scientists at
|the
|> |University of California at Los Angeles showed for the first time
|that
|> |behavior therapy produced the same kinds of physical changes in the
|> |brain as psychoactive drugs." It seems as though the book _Brain Sex_
|> |left a few things out. But you don't have to take my word for it.
|>
|> Of course "Brain Sex" may have "left a few things out" - but so does
|your
|> account above because despit the "plasticity" you referr to there are
|still
|> PERMANENT effects that are set pre-natally and perhaps the most
|important
|> one is the extra fetal exposure to testosterone which in the vast
|majority
|> of cases is repsonsible for masculinsing the fetal brain PERMANENTLY.
|>
|> |
|> |Bill Hunter
|> |
|> |
|> --
|> Phil
|> (Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It)
|>
|I am not going to re-write the entire book for you, Phil. But the book
|deals with the causes of violence, as related to brain chemistry.
That may be but this thread is about "Brain Sex" and you were obviously
STRAINING to make a point with your particular representations from the book
you quoted.
|point 1. The same gene that causes aggression in males also causes
|aggression in females.
Then there must be other factors involved - because Males NEEDED to be more
aggressive (than females) and have been throughout history as we know it.
| Aggression amongst females is on the rise.
Yes mainly with EACH OTHER.
|point 2. violence is directy related to the levels of noradrenaline and
|serotonin.
Aggression and violence are not necessarilly the SAME thing.
| No mention of testosterone there.
*LOL* So Males are not "testosterone poisoned" after all!
|point 3. The only mention of testosterone (and even then, other
|hormones are involved) in the entire book is in the treatment and
|prevention of Alzheimer's and other old-age problems. The only benefit
|listed for testosterone is improvement of "spatial
|cognition".
|Logical conclusion: Testosterone does not trump all.
Sorry Bill your "logic" is way off - pre-natal high testosterone exposure is
the major causitive factor for the PERMANENT masculinization of the human
brain. I am not concerned with what factors you consider "trumps" I am
merely stating the results of scientific research in pre-natal biology.
|
|Bill Hunter
| Scotty, beam me up
Yes "Scotty" - please OBLIGE him. :-o)
Society
which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lclce$95g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> You have trouble with the English language, Bill. What
>> is it about "if" you didn't understand?
>
>possible for an average group characteristic to take
>precedence over an individual characteristic. I think it
>highly unlikely that all 3-eyed (or all 2- eyed) are "better"
>(whatever that means. too vague) than their opposites
>at all times.
Sure, so knowing that Bob is a fair-minded person of
good will, the reasonable way to interpret his remark
is to presume he intended to mean "all other things
being equal". If Bob had previously staked out a position
contrary to that assumption, for example, by pleading
for Affirmative Action (AA) schemes based on no more
than one's birth group, then your indignation would have
a rational basis. But, AFAIK, Bob hasn't. Have you?
Society
which...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7lcpkv$aa5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> "Society" explained...
>
>I have a problem with "if (fill in the blank with a group
>characteristic) is "better" (too vague).
In Bob's expansion of your own hypothetical
it wasn't "too vague" for a reasonable person.
>See Dan Winter's post.
Provide the DejaNews URL and I'll take a look.
>> ---
>> All excuses for feminism depend on censorship of
>> information to appear plausible.
>>
>Feminists are no more and no less likely to be freethinkers
>than anti-feminists.
Not so. Feminists are all about the ancient practice
of favoritism-for-females that gives women first place
in the lifeboats -- just dressed up in modern clothes.
Organized feminism is just another craven special
interest group, as the clinton sex-ploitation of women
scandals from which those organizations have averted
their eyes from since '92 so amply demonstrated.
You've been desperate to offer excuses for that
feminist behavior in the past so as to paper over
those facts of reality.
It's the honest people, what you call "anti-feminists",
who are the only iconoclasts.
>Your constant driveling about censhorship and propaganda
>makes you look stupid. Get a make-over.
You're still frustrated because I keep pointing out that feminists
can't stand the full truth -- such as feminism being nothing
other than a female supremacy movement. You claim it isn't
but it's hardly a male supremacy movement -- and feminism
is not at all about 'equality', that's been demonstrated time
and again in this newsgroup by foot-in-mouth feminists
themselves.
Marco
The study was done on an equal amount of men and women.
All participants was tasked to go on a business trip and accomplish the same
goals.
Upon return all participants were asked to describe their travel experience.
Women wrote and described all of the things that happened to them on their
trip.
Men wrote and described about all of the things that the did or pursued on
their trip.
I thought this research was very enlightening on the subject of gender
differences.
Marco -
Philip Lewis wrote in message <7l99nd$nos$1...@lure.pipex.net>...
>
>EXCERPTS FROM BRAIN SEX
>BRAIN SEX: The real difference between men and women
>by Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel.
>Dell Publishing (paperback), New York, 1992.
>
> Source http://www.home.aone.net.au/think/brainsx.html
>
>
>Men are different from women. They are equal only in their common
membership
>of the same species, humankind. To maintain that they are the same in
>aptitude, skill or behaviour is to build a society based on a biological
and
>scientific lie.
>The sexes are different because their brains are different. The brain, the
>chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently contructed
>in men and in women; it processes information in a different way, which
>results in different perceptions, priorities and behaviour.
>
>In the past ten years there has been an explosion of scientific research
>into what makes the sexes different. Doctors, scientists, psychologists and
>sociologists, working apart, have produced a body of findings which, taken
>together, paints a remarkably consistent picture. And the picture is one of
>startling sexual asymmetry.
>
>
>
>
>
>Some researchers have been frankly dismayed at what they have discovered.
>Some of their findings have been, if not suppressed, at least quietly
>shelved because of their potential social impact. But it is usually better
>to act on the basis of what is true, rather than to maintain, with the best
>will in the world, that what is true has no right to be so.
>
>
>
>
>
>A hundred years ago, the observation that men were different from women, in
>a whole range of aptitudes, skills, and abilities, would have been a leaden
>truism, a statement of the yawningly obvious. Such a remark, uttered today,
>would evoke very different reactions. Said by a man, it would suggest a
>certain social ineptitude, a naivete in matters of sexual politics, a sad
>deficiency in conventional wisdom, or a clumsy attempt to be provacative. A
>woman venturing such an opinion would be scorned as a traitor to her sex,
>betraying the hard-fought "victories" of recent decades as women have
sought
>equality of status, opportunity and respect.
>
>Yet the truth is that virtually every professional scientist and researcher
>into the subject has concluded that the brains of men and women are
>different. There has seldom been a greater divide between what intelligent,
>enlightened opinion presumes - that men and women have the same brain - and
>what science knows - that they do not.
>
>
>
>
>
>Recent decades have witnessed two contradictory processes: the development
>of scientific research into the differences between the sexes, and the
>political denial that such differences exist. These two intellectual
>currents are, understandably, not on speaking terms. Science knows it
>dabbles in matters of sexual difference at its risk: at least one
researcher
>into the field of gender differences was refused a grant on the grounds
that
>"this work ought not be done".
>
>
>
>
>
>At a few hours old girls are more sensitive than boys to touch. Tests
>between the sexes of tactile sensitivity in the hands and fingers produce
>differences so striking that sometimes male and female scores do not even
>overlap, the most sensitive boy feeling less than the least sensitive girl.
>When it comes to sound, infant females are much less tolerant - one
>researcher believes that they may "hear" noises as being twice as loud as
do
>males. Baby girls become irritated and anxious about noise, pain or
>discomfort more readily that baby boys.
>
>Baby girls are more easily comforted by soothing words and singing. Even
>before they can understand language, girls seem to be better than boys at
>identifying the emotional content of speech. From the outset of life, girl
>babies show a greater interest in communicating with other people. One
study
>involves babies of only 2-4 days old. It shows that girls spend almost
twice
>as long maintaining eye contact with a silent adult, and girls also look
>longer than boys when the adult is talking. The boys' attention span was
the
>same, whether the adult was talking or not - showing a relative bias
towards
>what they could see, rather than what they could hear. From the cradle,
baby
>girls like to gurgle at humans. Most boys are just as talkative, but are
>equally happy to jabber away at cot toys or looking at abstract geometric
>designs. Boys are more active and wakeful than girls - the male-wired brain
>of activity at work.
>
>The female bias towards the personal shows itself in other ways. At four
>months, most baby girls can distinguish photographs of people they know
from
>photographs of strangers; baby boys cannot."
>
>
>
>
>
>The brain biases persist and strengthen as children grow up, "seeing" life
>through that particular filter of the brain which they find easier, and
more
>natural, to use. That bias in girls towards the personal, for instance,
>shows up in experiments. A group of children was given a rather special
sort
>of sight test. They looked through a contraption rather like a pair of
>binoculars, which showed the left and right eye two different images at the
>same time. One was of an object, the other of a person. The children had
>been shown exactly the same images, but when asked what they had seen gave
>different replies. Boys reported seeing significantly more things than
>people, and girls more people than things.
>
>
>
>
>
>As the months go by, and the child stands upright, the boys tend to show a
>greater interest than the girls in exploring the corners of their small
>world. Their greater muscle-mass helps them explore and range further than
>their sisters, and they make fewer journeys back to the reassuring
base-camp
>of mother. Scientists have devised a test where a barrier is strung across
>the playroom, separating mother and child. The girls tended to stand at the
>centre of the barrier and cry; the boys made little safaris to the edge of
>the obstacle to see if there was a way round it.
>
>
>
>
>
>[Under the heading "Pre-School"]
>
>The infant sexes differ in the way they play. According to one English
>study, having said goodbye to their mothers at the school gates (taking an
>average 92.5 seconds for girls, 36 seconds for boys), boys will wheel off
>into the playground. There, they will play more vigorously, and occupy a
>much larger play-space than the girls. In the playschool classroom, the
boys
>will be much more interested in building structures out of blocks, playing
>with any kind of vehicle - indeed with anything which does something, be it
>a door handle or an electric switch. Girls will opt for more sedentrary
>games, and, if they build, will tend to build long, low structures while
>boys go for toppling height in their creations.
>
>A newcomer to the playgroup - of either sex - will tend to be greeted with
>friendship and curiosity by the girls; with indifference by the boys. There
>is irritation if the newcomer follows the boys about; girls will tend to
>welcome the stranger into their group. By the age of four, boys and girls
>usually play apart, having instituted their own form of infant sexual
>segregation. Boys tend not to bother about whether or not they like any
>particular member of the gang - he's included if he's useful; girls exclude
>other girls because "they're not nice". Girls accept younger children into
>the group; boys tend to try to join groups of older children. Girls know
and
>remember the names of their playmates; boys often don't.
>
>Boys will make up stories of zap, pow and villainy. Girls' narratives focus
>on home, friendship, emotions; the boy will tell the story of the robber,
>while the girls tell the same tale from the point of view of the victim.
fried
>> As a comparator, take witches and their skills in identifying herbs and
>> potions - and the way they were ostracised for so doing.
>>
>
>I think you're getting into mythology here. I won't argue that culture
>doesn't affect, in suttle ways, much of the way we view the world . Here's
>one I've wondered about: from Biblical history we get God gave man dominion
>over the earth. But in Asia the (Taoist) idea is to harmonize with nature. I
>'ve wonder if that shows up in the way we landscape our properties. In the
>West we have long straight rows of squared off hedges. The control of
>nature!? While in the East we have the Japanese gardens which try to imitate
>nature.
>
> But when I walk into these two gardens, the Western style seems cold and
>hard while the Japanese style makes me think "yea this just instinctively
>feels right." I wonder why? Maybe, its because instincts speaks to us on a
>very deep level...like a working mythology is suppose to do. The famous
>mythologist Joseph Campbell argued that human's innate nature is the cause
>for the common archetypes of the world's mythologies, including those of the
>gods and goddesses.
The West has been very strong ona certain type of dualism, to do with the
artificial and the natural, with the artificial, the spirit, rationalism,
technological advance, all seen as being positive virtues.
So they have been anti-nature and seen it (for instance as in the "Gothic
novel" tradition Shelley belonged to) as wild, untameable, dangerous.
Somewhere like the Palace of Versailles with its (to me) revoltingly sterile
pattern is the template for this vision. Many people like it.
The Japanese, with their fastidious and obsessive control of the "perfect
balance" of their gardens or the small perfection of bonsai are in fact no
better.
There is and always has been a flourishing tradition of unkempt, semi-wild
and luxuriant gardens in England above all (Italy, Spain Portugal as well I
think)
Julian
fried
Yes, I've read the first one before ;-))
For the rest, i think i will call myself a 1973er - I see nothing endearing
or heartwarming or comforting about our need to stereotype the opposite sex.
It just gets on my tits. I am in humourless mode, by the way.
Julian
>==================
>2.
>MEN AND WOMEN
>DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN
>
>One basic truth: Men and women are different.
Bollocks.
Philip Lewis
Society wrote in message <377e...@news1.jps.net>...
I know what bothers feminists like Bill - it is that feminism has made great
efforts to convince all and sundry (esp. policy makers!!) that gender
behavioural differences are the result of deliberate Patriarchal
"socialisation" - this simply puts the BLAME on men for said differences
(i.e. scapegoating) - if howwver evidence is produced that there is indeed a
BIOLOGICAL component(s) to gender behaviour this tends to "spoil" their
scapegoating operation because NATURE does not provide FUNDING for their
special pleadings for thier preferred gender "groups" (i.e. women and gays)
|
|---
| All excuses for feminism depend on censorship of
| information to appear plausible.
Absolutley correct!