try sting theory, it makes more sense than Joel logic
- Edit 1
- Edit 1Before modification by random thoughts at 12/01/2011 05:57:53 PM
as for the men a re sprinters and women are long distance runners men dominate women by very large margins in both fields. The best female runner at marathons come muck closer then they do to the best male sprinters (would pure strength dominates) but men still win all of the major marathons. Men are simply more athletic then women are. I know there plenty of experts who spend considerable time effort blowing smoke up each others asses trying to prove that isn't true but that doesn't really change things. It possible that if the push long distance running far enough it boil down to will power and fat reserves and females might gain parity but that is simply finding an exception to the rule.
Not PC I know but reality isn't PC.
Not PC I know but reality isn't PC.
PC is neither here nor there to physiology, but this business of "everyone who's devoted thier professional career and decades of analytical research to the subject but still disagrees with my off the cuff uninformed opinion is a PC idiot" is getting kinda old. All else being equal, I'll bet on the person who has to go through labor when it comes to lower body strength, just as I'll expect the person who has to nurse to have larger breasts, and I'm pretty sure there's nothing PC about that.
I still can't see any reason men should be better at math, on average; I'm open to supporting arguments (and, no, standardized tests by the same people who've been telling the women since birth that they suck at math don't count) but you'll have to present them.
Do you mean from an evolutionary standpoint? Or do you mean you don't understand how any of the known biological/chemical differences in the brains of men and women (assuming nature can be totally separated from nurture) can explain why men would on average be better at math than women?
It makes intuitive sense to me that the presence/degree of different hormone balances impacts how pathways form and what types of thinking those pathways enable or strengthen, and I do believe that the statement "men will on average be better at math than women" would be true even if you could somehow conduct a scientific experiment in which you raised boys and girls from birth in entirely the same environment to remove any nurture component. I also think that our cultural forces exacerbate those differences, though, so I don't think I'm entirely disagreeing with you. Other than the fact that I am willing to buy it and you aren't
I'm not unwilling to buy it, I'm just not willing to take it on faith from someone contending from the start that sexual inequality exists in areas that seemingly have nothing to do with sex.
But I don't get how you can accept that pubertal changes (for example) can affect physical differences in the body that lead to inequality in the strength of certain parts of the body, but not the brain? Or are you just saying that you could accept that but it simply hasn't been proven to your satisfaction yet?