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: math differences (evolutionary argument)
Message-ID: <7810@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-May-84 14:04:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.7810
Posted: Mon May 21 14:04:11 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 22-May-84 07:15:27 EDT
References: <7109@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 29

Paul Torek argues that, as there is no clear reason to believe in
an evolutionary mechanism that would tend to produce sex diferrentiation
in mathematical ability, one can establish the theory that
all such differences are due to enviornmental factors.  The argument
is certainly plausible, and does lend some weight to the enviornmental
hypothesis.  However it can hardly be said to establish this hypothesis.

1:  We can concieve of evolutionary mechanisms which would cause 
    sexual differentiation in the brain.  (In fact there is some
    evidence that male and female brains do differ structurally)
    As we do not have any knowledge of what changes in brain 
    structure might be related to mathematical ability we cannot
    rule out the possibility that structural differences may be
    present and may affect mathematical ability.  (Perhaps males
    may have hunted to a greater extent, improving spacial 
    perception which turns out to be related to math ability. I
    do not provide this as a plausible argument but as an example
    of evelutionary mechanisms which migh produce sexual
    differentiation.)

2:  As yet evolutionary mechanisms are only partially understood

3:  Pure accident cannot be ruled out

I can come up with a plausible argument that a ten pound rock falls
ten times as fast as a one pound rock.  Strong evidence can only
come from observation and experimentation.  
                                               William Hughes