Indeed: < that women's brains may be intended for eugenics and used for polishing fingernails does not exclude their capacity for other things. That said capacity may not be fully demonstrated does not mean that it doesn't exist. It may not, but you have not so demonstrated.>
But if in nature something does not occur, it's a fairly good bet that is more because it isn't there than that it has not been discovered. Like gremlins, what's required is to show that they do exist. Saying it hasn't been proven that they don't exist is not evidence that they do, or even might.
The best evidence that something does exist would be to have a look and see if it does and if it does, how much it does.
It's difficult to prove it doesn't exist. Proving such negatives is notoriously hard work. Showing something does exist is far more readily provable. "By gum, look, there really IS a green Gremlin hiding in the shed at the bottom of the garden". If the supposition is that there is a Gremlin who lives there but sneaks away if anyone goes to have a look ... that's much harder to disprove.
My preference is to go with what is observationally demonstrable and theoretically logical.
On the second point - earlier maturation>
But no matter what you do, you can't make female brains take longer to develop which is the underlying problem.
< But you can teach math and science earlier, can you not? That would be the way to prove or disprove the hypothesis.>
Yes, and tuning education to individuals is what's needed. Females are ready for more serious intellectual work younger than boys. They are unfairly deprived of opportunity by making them wait until boys are able to cope with the challenge.
My guess is that women would do greatly better with earlier opportunities in maths and science.
Now, males are deprived of university education because females, with their three year development advantage, are filling the available places which would be taken by males if they were timed properly for it. Saying to the human horde, "When you turn 18, we consider you for university. Those with the intellectual horsepower get in, the rest of you can go dig ditches" is a ridiculous way to measure individuals.
Fortunately, tertiary education being as it is, that's perhaps a blessing in disguise for those who miss out, though credentialism on the tax payers' money is quite a problem for those who miss out.
Teaching maths earlier might just get the same answer from females though earlier than now, "Why are we studying this arcane language which seems designed to describe and define things which I don't care about such as how to design car engines and nuclear bomb propulsion mechanisms?"
Thanks for taking the trouble to provide some thoughts.
Mqurice |
