brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk
Fri Jul 12 16:57:44 EST 2002
[several groups cut to avoid excessive crossposting]
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:19:57 -0500, "Shadow Dancer"
<insomniac at winterslight.org> wrote:
>"The most important single contribution to our knowledge of the facts of the
>case is to be found in Dr. Franklin P. Mall's paper 'On Several Anatomical
>Characters of the Human Brain Said to Vary According to Race and Sex, with
>Especial Reference to the Weight of the Frontal Lobe' (Am. J. of Anat., IX.,
>p. 1, 1909). Dr. Mall's general conclusion is that there is as yet no
>reliable evidence for the variation of anatomical characters with either
>race or sex. The belief that the brains of females differ from those of
>males has been widely accepted, and has been thought to be conclusive
>evidence of the permanent inferiority of the female mind.
That's obviously out of date - the general belief nowdays is that women
are *more* intellectually capable than men. Try reading the posts
John Knight was replying to, for example. Are you going to
counter those, or are you one of the many who think that female
people are innately superior to male people?
You are going back to 1910 for that paper. Do you think that's
actually relevant to today, especially in her conclusions about
the prevailing belief concerning which sex is mentally superior?
As an aside, I have seen it hypothesised that brain mass correlates with
height. That would neatly explain the average difference in brain
mass between men and women (as an artefact of the average
difference in height) and the hypothesis sounds plausible. However,
I haven't seen any evidence for it. Do you have any?
Always remember you're unique.
Just like everyone else. (Anon)
More information about the Neur-sci