Chive, Look! Your golden opportunity (Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's)

OhSojourner ohsojourner at
Sat Jul 13 15:44:39 EST 2002

"Shadow Dancer" <insomniac at> wrote in message news...

>Chive doesn't have to.

>If you know anything about the "wiring" of male versus female brains,
>then you would know that women use their brains far more efficiently
>than men do.

>The cerebral cortex of a man's brain behaves as though damaged,
>allowing only the random signal to travel from one side to another.
>Other than that, most neural firing is confined to either one side, or
>the other.

Actually, this type of setup may be one of the reasons we tend to find
males on the higher ends of the achievement spectrum. A more extreme
manifestation of what you are describing would be what we see in
autism, and as we know, autistics have often proved to have remarkable,
genius-level talents in certain specific areas. ...In fact, recent
reports speculate that this is one of the reasons that Einstein was a
genius in his field ; because he was lacking a certain structure found
in most normal individuals, the "signal" remained concentrated in
specific areas of the brain, allowing him to focus more intensively on
his field of specialty:

"The gross anatomy of Einstein's brain was within normal limits," says
Witelson, "with the exception of his parietal lobes. [Visual and
spacial] cognition, mathematical ideation and imagery of movement are
mediated predominantly by right and left posterior parietal regions."
.... In Einstein these regions were 15 percent wider, and were missing
a folded structure found in the rest of us.


"Albert Einstein was typical as far as higher-functioning autistics
(for the purpose of this article, AS and HFA will be considered to be
the same thing). He was extremely logical and analytical, though
socially awkward. He could deal with people, but he was a loner, and he
felt a need for considerable solitude on a daily basis."

If the "signal" remains undistracted by other concerns, the person is
more likely to devote more time, focus and concentration on their
chosen areas of interest.

>Women, however, have a f, lly-functioning cerebral cortex and neural
>firing is nearly constant across this 'bridge', using the brain far
>more efficiently.


But maybe not. I've read the popular press reports on these findings;
what says basically that women have more connections and "bridges"
across the different structures, and that estrogen may play a role in
creating neural connections. This is supposed to explain why women are
generally better at conversational skills and are able to express
emotions better than men can. However, more connections can mean less
focus in any one particular area and more likelihood of
distractibility. And this is fine in areas of life where one must deal
with people and have good social skills.

OTOH, there is the stereotypical, socially inept male computer nerd as
typified by Bill Gates; we can probably suspect such a person's brain
might not be as fully "integrated" if they are lacking in social
skills, are not emotionally expressive, etc. We could probably make
that assumption about Bill Gates' brain, yet we all know what his story
is in regards to intelligence and achievement.

>"PETER BUONO" <PFBUONO at> wrote in message news

>>Devin's only golden opportunity are showers in that very color.

>>"x9k23Plg8dgmrxz83jfph0e35h" wrote in message news

>>>...To prove that you can offer a pro-feminist, pro-equality argument
>>>using FACTS and EVIDENCE, as you claim you do.

>>>Here on board we have John Knight, arch antifeminist and author of a
>>>proposal to repeal the Nineteenth Amendment. In this thread, he's
>>>arguing with facts and evidence that seems to support his claim that
>>>women are intellectually inferior to men.

>>>So come on Chive, show us your salt, show us you're not merely some
>>>annoying spammer trying to take control of an anarchical
>>>Let's see you put your money where your keyboard is and prove that
>>>you _really_are_ concerned with feminism, facts, and evidence.

>>>"John Knight" <johnknight at> wrote in message news...

>>>>"Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at> wrote in message news

>>>>>Bob LeChevalier wrote:

>>>>>>"Mark D. Morin" <mdmpsyd at> wrote:

>>>>>>>What does all of this have to do with the assertion that there
>>>>>>>is a gender bias in IQ testing? Mattarazzo (1972 *Weschler's
>>>>>>>Measurement and Appraisal of Adult Intelligence*) reviewd the
>>>>>>>then current literature quite extensively (p 352 ff). He cited
>>>>>>>numerous studies that attempted to demonstrate such a difference
>>>>>>>and failed to do so.

>>>>>>I think that his claim is that, since (if) Weschler intentionally
>>>>>>omitted subtests

>>>>>Subtests did not exist before they were constructed.

>>>>>>that men did better on than women, that the bias for a false
>>>>>>equality was built into the test from the beginning. If he indeed
>>>>>>eliminated all subtests that show a gender difference, then of
>>>>>>course you will not find studies that demonstrate a difference.

>>>>>>But then one is never entirely sure what the nincompoop (JK)
>>>>>>really thinks.

>>>>>seems like a great conspiracy theorist. I wonder if he believes in
>>>>>alien abductions too. He really should take a course on
>>>>>psychometrics and test construction before making the comments 
>>>>>he does.

>>>>This of course is the very argument that Peter Zohrab predicted
>>>>"liberals" would resort to when confronted with simple FACTS.

>>>>If every test known to humankind DOES demonstrate a "systemic
>>>>gender difference" [read: in English, the natural difference
>>>>between the sexes], but so-called "IQ tests" do not, then it's not
>>>>me who's suspect--it's Wechsler and his fellow "scientists" who
>>>>evidently manipulated the data right from the start, and all
>>>>"educators" and politicians who followed right along like little

>>>>John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list