<p>Right, supertara, but modern social norms haven't been around anywhere near long enough for evolution to significantly modify men's neural structures to be better at science (I know, split infinitive). As I stated before, though, I have no problem with anyone voicing any opinion (just as long as they don't impose it).</p>
<p>Even within a single lifetime, neural connections strengthen and weaken according to use, stimulation, experience...this brain is beautifully plastic</p>
<p>If females are not expected to excel in science and their brains are not stimulated in the scientific sense, their neural connections will develop accordingly. Such connections can be thought of as analogous to muscles that strengthen or atrophy according to exertion.</p>
<p>Especially in the first two years or so of life, connections that are not used are pruned away. Indeed, it could be argued that the popularly perceived maleness of science is experienced even at this young age. (Dexter is a boy after all, while his inane sister runs around aimlessly in a tutu....gotta love the shameless esoteric nickelodeon reference;))</p>
<p>Pardon the roughness of my statements, I am no expert in neurology.</p>
<p>And hence, the difference is created by social conditioning, not some "inherent" dichotomy. If you're going to argue that the strengthening/weakening of neural connections is somehow passed down genetically, it sounds an awful lot like the pre-evolutionary theory (the guy's name escapes me at the moment, he was before Darwin) that giraffes get long necks because their parents stretch to reach the tops of the trees. Any significant genetic change takes far more time than current societal expectations of women have been around.</p>
<p>Of course, I could be missing something, considering that the great Larry Summers disagrees with me :-)</p>
<p>but you dont know that, while the neurological issues can attribute to the problem, there may be genetic differences as well, women have that extra Y... either way the only way to find out is to let scientists and academics do their jobs - provide us with some possible ideas and reasons.</p>
<p>innate differences are subject to all kinds of research, except it seems that if the president of harvard cant get away with suggesting it, few people will be brave enough to attempt to study this important issue.</p>
<p>No i am not arguing that intra-generational structure developments change genetics. I would say genetics is generally not how this trend is passed down. If Jane is conditioned not to do science and her brain develops accordingly, she will probably go on to not do science and be less good at it when she attempts. This will only corrobaorate society's generalizations, and strengthen them for the world into which Jane's daughter is born.</p>
<p>The only way structural change alters a species' gene pool is when the alteration changes volume of offspring. Barring some subtle connections you could make, developped scientific handicap does not affect procreation.</p>
<p>You could argue, however, that back in prehistoric times, scientific-type reasoning lumped in the male population made it easier to survive and thus was perpetuated in the gene pool, if somehow a clan with scientific women was disadvantaged. (I dunno, maybe willingness to take risks and go into uncharted territory, qualities used in scientific innovation, were good for the cavement hunters, who maybe went after animals while the cavewomen focused on the safer, less risk-requiring activity of gathering.)</p>
<p>I'm gonna sign up for some womens studies classes. I love arguing with feminists... its so easy.</p>
<p>And when occasionally THEY have a good point that you leaves you silent and defeated you just do "WOMAN GO MAKE ME DINNER!" and they give up and leave you alone.</p>
<p>BullMooseandSqrl:
I agree 100%. Read my earlier posts on this thread. BTW, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant "X."</p>
<p>Supertara:
Sure, that's right. That still means the difference isn't "innate," though, but rather, socially conditioned. It just means that it's happening on more than one level.</p>
<p>GDWilner, read my edit, it COULD be in the genes.
And BullMoose, men have the Y last time I checked...dont wanna sound like an idiot in your battles with the feminists;)</p>
<p>Why would that make them better at English, though? I'll admit it's possible, but it really seems like you're reaching when there's a much more plausible answer right in front of you. To me, it seems like an egregious violation of Occam's razor.</p>
<p>I dont see why you say my explanation is less plausible, complex but not less plausible. Einstein's general relativity is darn complicated but generally accepted as true.
...and also, slow, meticulous, compassionate thinking perhaps used to take care of the cavebabies is conducive to english excellence.</p>
<p>Ockam's razor must be taken with a grain of salt...it is not proven and our universe is pretty effing complex.
Even if you go by it, it forbids excessive assumptions, or deus ex machinas. I am making no more arbitrary baseless assumptions than you.</p>
<p>sorry for excessive edits...prom nails make for jacked up typing:)</p>
<p>I'm not sure either of us has (or can get) the empirical evidence to prove either of our claims, but I'm a little skeptical that whatever effect natural selection might have on such a trait can account for the gender gap we see today in the scientific field. Additionally, outright sexism might play a role outside of whatever neurologicla changes are caused by society. As you probably know, the gap between men and women doesn't really get that huge until you get to the professional level.</p>
<p>Most likely, the truth lies somewhere in between our two positions--"a little from column A, a little from column B," you might say.</p>
<p>Say, wasn't this thread about Brown once upon a time?</p>
<p>yea but tangential debates are the spice of life!<br>
and now meltingsnow can see that if he/she goes to Brown I if no one else will be there to counterbalance unchecked PC-ness!</p>
<p>As a classical liberal, free speech is of importance to me. I haven't followed the churchill case as much as summers, because the summers issue is one of an intellectual nature. However, one problem is that summers is the leader of a private institution, while churchill is at a public. For me that also creates a lot of other issues....</p>
<p>What does the concept of free speech have to do with your personal politcal inclination? Just curious.</p>
<p>Im totally confused by what you are asking me. Not everybody believes in free speech...</p>
<p>i didnt say 'y'. I definitely said x</p>
<p>...shut up all you</p>
<p>BullMooseandSqrl:
"...there may be genetic differences as well, women have that extra Y"
It's post #25. I just copy-pasted.</p>
<p>GHBrown08:
And I don't really see how being at a public/private university ought to have any bearing on it. It seems to me like you're just drawing arbitrary distinctions in order to support your guy and condemn mine. I, on the other hand, support academic freedom no matter what, so I have no problem with either Summers or Churchill. In fact, I commend them both for making their opinions heard.</p>
<p>If this thread is any indication, Brown is indeed militantly PC, but I don't think the thread is indicative of Brown...at least I hope not. </p>
<p>Bringing up the holocaust to hammer vague political opinions home is always a very bad sign of a PC epidemic.</p>
<p>I have already chosen to go to Dartmouth instead of Brown, so its not as if I really need info, but this thread is a very interesting answer to my once upon a time honest question.</p>
<p>One sign of PC:
using the tragedy of others in your own politicized defense of nothing to speak of; that is, to be overly dramatic and historically wounded (OMG
OMG!!) wilts being obnoxiously and sentimentally bourgeois and privileged to the core. </p>
<p>It could be cute, but it is usually just boring.</p>