Hum...a couple of thoughts right off the top after reading the article.
The most obvious to me is my caution around "innate" anything when it comes
to males and females. I immediately got into other areas such as
Black/White, Aryan/Jew etc. as so am careful on this one.
The other is wondering about the data used to draw the conclusions. If I
read the article correctly the author studied existing studies. The
of those studies is what I question. After all, so much keeps coming to
light about the bias in previous data collection in all areas. For example,
doing heart attack studies and generalizing the results to the whole
population when only males were studied.
The chess example was interesting. That males were taught chess and females
were not makes me wonder what if any conclusions can be drawn from this
information. After all, I was taught chess and gave it up because I don't
like the concepts of winning/loosing and "war" that I associate with the
game. (I am doing an intuitive response here so know that as you read
I don't know if other females have the same problem with the game or not.
And, I can see the big picture and attend to details.
I'm also curious about art and why that is not included as a spatial skill.
And if it were, where would the male/female breakout happen on that one?
In summary, I'm a bit leery but open to leaning more about this.
"It would be extremely na´ve to expect the dominant classes to develop the
type of education that would enable subordinate classes to perceive social
Paolo Freire, from The Politics of Education
Career Development Bureau
NH Department of Education
101 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301
firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com> (email)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 17:56:40 EDT