ABC show on gender

[RashanGary]

It's on right now. It's really interesting if anyone cares to watch. It basically goes over the ways hormones and brain composition effect the way men and women act and think.

It's a good show. I'd like to see one conducted on different races some day. I suspect there are differences just like with women vs men.

[Sparkey]

Re: ABC show on gender

I'd like to see one conducted on different races some day. I suspect there are differences just like with women vs men.

I have a hard time imagining that ever happening. Too many "important" people have spent their lifetimes trying to convince everyone that we are all the same................

[pbmax]

There have been studies done on race and genetics. And the genetic differences are miniscule.

If I have read this material correctly race, as we define it, is not strictly a matter of genetics. Genetically, you can be closest to one race, but be identified as another because of the dominance of very few genes. The genes you have in common with one race become subordinated by a smaller number of other genes.

I have seen biologists quoted as saying "Genetics don't recognize race". I don't see how this is literally true, eye color, hair, skin, but I have seen this conclusion in more than one instance.

[Rastak]

Hmmm, isn't this a romper room topic?

[Kiwon]

Hmmm, isn't this a romper room topic?

Sounds like a science lab topic.

[Bretsky]

A cool topic, but non football so I'm going to move this into the RR.


Cheers,
B

[RashanGary]

There have been studies done on race and genetics. And the genetic differences are miniscule.

If I have read this material correctly race, as we define it, is not strictly a matter of genetics. Genetically, you can be closest to one race, but be identified as another because of the dominance of very few genes. The genes you have in common with one race become subordinated by a smaller number of other genes.

I have seen biologists quoted as saying "Genetics don't recognize race". I don't see how this is literally true, eye color, hair, skin, but I have seen this conclusion in more than one instance.

I completely agree that it has gone this way over time. There was a day before modern transportation *ships, airlplanes, highways ect..* and barriers that separated groups of people were more exaggerated, that the gene pools were less mixed. It's getting to a point where a person like Nick Barnett, while classified as an African *black* American could be more european in his genetic make up than he is african.

I believe that if you take someone from the very heart of africa where the mixing of gene pools hasn't gone on for as long and someone from a remote place in europe that has not been changed much over the years, a person from a remote place in asia ect...That you would find bigger differneces. As far as most places, it is one big mix. One day, race will be something that people don't really even acknowledge like eye color or hair color. It's that way very much in this country. You might look like a black guy and called African American but you might be more european than you are African as far as where your genes came from.

I've always been interested in genetics. I would suspect that people in our country are very much mixed and there would be very little difference. Acctually, separating gene pools has been somethign that has strenghtened both. You might find the good traits found in early african gene pools mixed with the good traits found in early european gene pools. Of course, who am I do say what is good or bad, but as far as how it applys to todays world some things tend to be desired or dominate in the current enviornemnt. In a darwinian world, there is better or worse if we're speaking of survival and reproduction. Well..It's always interesting to see something on genetics. Women -vs- Men, Gene pools ect..

[MJZiggy]

It's been done on race.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/emerging/spencerWells.html

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

[RashanGary]

Very interesting.

We're all traced back to one person. That is amazing. People evolved differently but seeing more in depth research makes you realize all people are more similar than what I was expecting.

The fact that there were separate groups of people in certain areas of the world lead me to believe that they were separated and evolved completely separate from the other. That National Geographic study makes it seem that we all evolved together with very slight differences along the way esspecially considering people moved from area to area throughout the whole process.

I've basically developed my own theories but acctually reading and seeing other peoples research really changes my initial thought. There is so much to know on the subject. One person can't really come up with some theory and expect that it be even close to accurate without some in depth research.

Some day I won't have 12 credits of shcool and a full time job to worry about and I might research more. As for now, I think I just wasted 2 hours of time that I could have been doing homework

[oregonpackfan]

Re: ABC show on gender

[quote="GregJennings"]It's on right now. It's really interesting if anyone cares to watch. It basically goes over the ways hormones and brain composition effect the way men and women act and think.

Tell me about it! I live with 3 females, a wife and two daughters. Even the family dog and cat are female!

I also grew up with 5 sisters! You don't have to convince me there more than just subtle differences in the genetic makeup of men and women!

OPF

[RashanGary]

They talked about what women are naturally better at *like reading the emotions on faces*. There were points where some highschool kids were saying women are superior beings from what they learned.

Then they went on to say that women are just as good at anything men can do. It was interesting at first but they definitly didn't want mention that it be possible men are more able in any one area. I didn't think it was complete.

The president of MIT said men tend to be better at science and believed it had something to do with the brain. They went on to call him arrogant and show how that stereo type goes on to hurt women. It's true that stereo types do hurt people but it didn't mean that the MIT official didn't have any backing in what he said. They did a good job showing how this type of thinking hurt women but they didnt' do anything to show that women are, as a whole, just as good as men at science. I just think it was a PC fluff piece. At first they were showing areas that women do better so naturally, I expected they were going ot show the areas where men tend to excell. They didn't, instead they called anyone who thinks men have a strength over a woman arrogant. The truth is probably somewhere in between IMO.

[MJZiggy]

I didn't see the show, but know some women in the science field. They used to say that women couldn't be doctors that they weren't geared for it. Looks like they were wrong about that as there are plenty of successful physicians who happen to be women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but medicine is still considered a science, right? There are things that men excel at. They are usually physical as men are built to be stronger through the upper body and a bit faster. I recall some years back a push for women to be firefighters, which was great, but they had to make a number of allowances so that the few women who wanted to do it could physically get the job done. I am all for any woman who wants to, to be fighting fires but only if she has the physical tools to do so. When my house is aflame, I'd like someone who can control the hose and hack through the roof on the first try.

This could probably be disproven, and someday I might give it a shot, but I have a belief in the back of my mind that men are better at starting wars. There's probably some queen in medieval England who tore up all of Europe isn't there.

[RashanGary]

good views zig. My kids' physician is a woman. I've never thought enough of it for it to be a problem. From what I see, she's confident and knowledgable. I didn't really think about her being female as an issue.

There are individual men and women who can excell at anything. There are many, many women who excell in science. I don't really think about it on an individual basis. I'm sure there are some men who are better than almost all women at reading expression. We can't just assume all men are bad at it but because some are good at it doesnt' mean it's 50-50.

Does that make sense?

[RashanGary]

I think effort is the #1 reason people excell in the things that they do.

[RashanGary]

I'm in an engineering program and I don't think there is any difference in a mans ability to learn physics and calculus than a womans. The girls in my calc class tear it up.

I don't think it has anything to do with the abilities to learn the material.

I was listening to NPR and they had a brain scientist on who was explaining that men and women use different parts of their brains to solve the same math problems. According to this man, both were equally capable but sovled the problems in a generally different way.

I think most things can be learned in a number of ways and none would be superior to the other in the context of learning and applying to most jobs including being a physician.

I think inventing is a science field that men tend to excell in. Inventing isn't about learning. It's about taking what is known and drawing conclusions. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that is an area that men seem to have an edge.