Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!csc
From: csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: sexual differences, environment
Message-ID: <7786@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 17-May-84 13:12:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.7786
Posted: Thu May 17 13:12:25 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 18-May-84 00:16:30 EDT
References: <158@decwrl.UUCP>, <342@astrovax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 39


Mario Vietri attacks my article on several grounds, my replies:

I do not feel that there is no evidence one way or another but that
there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.  This is an
important distinction and one that has been missed by several people.

Mario Vietri states that the question of what causes the observed
differences in mathematical preformance between men and women is not answerable by scientific means.  He produces no evidence for this
conclusion.  Assume that different hormone concentrations cause the
brain to develop in different ways such that the male brain is
better adapted to mathematical problems (an assumption for which
there is absolutely no evidence and a hypothesis I do not find
very likely), there is every reason to believe that such facts
could be uncovered by scientific research.  If the causes are
purely social then the problem is much more difficult, but there
is every reason to believe that strong evidence as to how some of
the major factors operate is obtainable by scientific means.  I
agree that the problem is one of staggering complexity.  I do
not agree that solving it should not be attempted.

In any case, as I have said before, whatever the results they should
have no bearing on individuals.  Judge a mathematician by the way
that mathematician preforms mathematics; nothing more, nothing less.

Mario Vietri states that the results of such a study could only be
used to try and prove some type of "superiority".  I agree that the
results might be (incorrectly) used in such a manner (this is the immature 
attitude referred to in my original article).  I do not feel that this is the
only way such results could be used.  If the difference turns out
to be structural then we may have important insights into the 
working of the human brain.  If the difference is social, a better
understanding of the mechanisms involved would help in correcting
them (with the very happy result of a dramatic increase in the number
of top flight mathematicians).  In any case the value of research for
the sake of research has been proven many times in the past.

                                              William Hughes