Are men really brain damaged at birth?

Brian zhil at online.no
Sat Jun 30 11:03:17 EST 2001


"Dani" <danielle at zzz.arcticmail.com> skrev i melding
news:B7627675.2207%danielle at zzz.arcticmail.com...
> What does "guass-wise" mean?

Gauss-wise, not guass.
Anyway, what I meant was that intelligence is distributed NOT equally, but
bunched around 100 points (middle reference) with 'tails' that tells there
are
fewer idiots or geniouses than average joe's and jane's.
You should read "The Bell Curve" and it is not to much for you as the
portion
of interest is covered to page 552,  the rest is references and appendixes..

> Additionally, what does "more intelligent" mean in this context? Better at
> visuo-spatial skills? If so, then I'd reply that that does seem to be the
> case. But perhaps is not the case for other skills... ;-)

I covered this in my later replies as I said that intelligence should not be
read
as a one-dimensional score, but as a two-dimensional score;verbal and
spatial.
The difference between these two 'skills' are somewhat related to each
other, but for better measurement; the psychometricians should develope a
better model than what we have now.

> "...males perform better than females on some spatial tasks. This is true
of
> humans, rats, and almost everything in between. [Steve] Gaulin maintains
> that this cognitive fact is borne out by Darwinian pressures in sexual
> selection dynamics; that is, evolutionary forces differentiate the
behavior
> of males and females of the same species. Sexual selection pressures
usually
> are not factors, but when they are, it is because the male or the female
can
> enhance reproductive success by behaving differently from the other ...
What
> prima facie looks like a difference in a cognitive skill is actually a
skill
> borrowed by way of selection pressures to enhance reproductive success."
> --Michael S. Gazzaniga, The Mind's Past ; hardback pg 64 - 65

I see that this article doens't contradict me, but as he said "..on some
spatial
tasks...." remember that one.

> ====
> in article Hm5%6.1247$tD1.158505 at news3.oke.nextra.no,
>     Brian wrote:
> >> I have read a couple of articles that suggest this difference between
> >> men and women. In reality, the difference was not between women and
> >> men itself, but between individuals exposed to higher and lower
> >> levels of testosterone. In their studies, women that had been exposed
> >> to higher levels of testosterone during their lifes seemed to develop
> >> better spacial skills. Thus, they proposed that men develop better
> >> spacial skills because they are evidently exposed to higher levels of
> >> testosterone than women are.
>
> >
> > I've read something similar.
> > But it is not just testosterone, but also estrogene.
>
> It has been proposed that testosterone is responsible for more efficient
> visuo-spatial skills, but it has never been proved. It's only theory,
> assumption, supposition. That it hasn't yet been proven 100% true is
> something that many neuroscientists seem incapable of comprehending,
> probably due to their weak epistemology and "essentialist" bias.

There was one neuroscientist here that told about the experiment they
performed
on rats and they measured the rats performance with enhanced hormone-levels.
They used corticosterone.
The test was never completed as the mortality-rate was high (and I'll
adresse this
later), and the work was done sloppy (his words, not mine).

> ³Is it farfetched to wonder whether parts of girls¹ brains grow or shrink,
> while parts of boys¹ expand or shrivel, becasue they were told not to
worry
> their pretty heads about math, or because they started amassing Legos from
> birth?²
> --S. Begley, ³Gray Matters², ³Newsweek² magazine, 3-27-1995
> (quotation from Fausto-Sterlng, ³Sexing the Body²)

LOL, loved that one :)
I have never thought that brains (or bodies) expand or shrink due to their
'state of mind'...........
What I think; and most would agree with me here I think; is that the human
growth is pretty much controlled by the genes (at least 80%), unless they're
underfed or something unatural occured.

> > I think that the level of these hormones are essential for the
developement
> > of male and female babies.
>
> Physical development? Yes. Brain development? Probably, but there's still
> much to be discovered about that.

Of course it is the developement of the brain !!!
What difference do YOU think there is between male and female brains ?
One; there have been discovered structural differences between male and
female neurons in certain segments of the brain.
Two,the corpus callosum is better developed in females.

> > One theory is that the sex is decided pretty much at the beginning and
that
> > the mothers body respond by raising/lowering the level of the hormones.
>
> The mother does not adjust her endogenous hormone production to suit the
> baby.

You're right about that.

> Sex is decided when the doctor looks at the baby's genitals, which
therefore
> makes it possible for a XY chromosome baby to be a girl if s/he is
> intersexed. "Sex" is to some extent a social construct. The process of how
> fetal physical sex develops is complex, there's many steps along the way
for
> something to go "wrong" and create an intersex baby. According to the ISNA
> website, 1 in 2000 babies is born intersex.

Are you bullshitting me ????
I've read about the XXY's and the YY's, but in no way is sex a social
construct.
That is a PC-doctrine which is flawed.
IF a baby developes naturally for a periode; the brain developes with the
body; and
the hormones changes drastically; then the body (and brain) might develope
male
or female characteristics that would override the genetic programming.

> ISNA:
> http://www.isna.org/
>
> > Sometimes the mechanism is interrupted and the child will develope a
> > 'male' brain in a 'female' body - hence the idea of living in the wrong
> > body.
> >
>
> That's called transgenderism or transsexualism. One of the theories of the
> cause of transgenderism is that the fetus's brain is not fully washed with
> androgens during the "critical period" (in the case of a male-to-female
> transperson, or MTF) thereby creating a male with a feminized brain. Or
vice
> versa for a woman who wants to be a man (female-to-male, or FTM). But we
> know *much* more about how this process works in rodents and monkeys than
in
> humans.

And since humans are animals as the rats and monkeys are, why should we be
much
more different than them ?
I support that theory, it seems much more coherent than the social
construct-thing you
came with earlier.

> sincerely,
>
> Danielle

Sincerely,
Brian

*Point I didn't adresse before, about the mortality-rate in increased
hormone-levels.
Wouldn't it occur naturally to you that IF you rise the levels, that it
would be lowered
at another level ?
Everything comes with a price......................naturally we won't
develope the 'perfect'
being as it would require an optimum at all levels, which as far as I know
is impossible
at this stage.





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list