In article <33F72E57.6511 at sprynet.com>, James Howard
<jmhoward at sprynet.com> wrote:
> I started this thread as an example of the effects of testosterone on
> human brain evolution. In one of the responses, the body
> - brain proportionality issue was used to refute the importance of the
> difference between male and female brains. In the publication that
> reported the differences between male and female brains, that is, that
> male brains, on average, exhibit 16% more neurons than female brains,
> the proportionality issue is not considered a determinant in causing the
> difference. It contained this phrase: "...body size, per se, had no
> influence on neuron number..." (The report follows below.) Now,
> someone has attached "but not porportionately" to the title of this
> thread, which I am retaining for this post. This debate has left the
> content of my original post, and that is alright, since different people
> have different ideas about this finding. I am responding to this part
> of the thread, because I want those people to read that these findings
> are not affected by body size.
You say that you started this thread "as an example of the effects of
testosterone on human brain evolution." Yes, I see......
I am interested as to why you posted it to a women-in-bio newsgroup?
I can't help but think you were hoping to start a stereotypical war
between the sexes kind of thread. Given that this paper and all of the
findings similar to it are so inconclusive, and given that there seems to
be no reason to think that this particular newsgroup would have a focus
that would be able to shed any light on this paper in particular, I have
to wonder what your point IS, exactly?