Re: [Haskell-cafe] Are there any female Haskellers?

["Alberto G. Corona "]

2010/3/27 Jason Dusek <jason.dusek@xxxxxxxxx>

2010/03/27 Alberto G. Corona <agocorona@xxxxxxxxx>:
> To say this in scientific headline jargon, it's a matter of

> division of work, time, and dimorphic fixation of abilities in
> the brain by natural selection trough dimorphic development of
> the brain of men and women by different genetic sequences. I
> don't know any kind of tool more flexible and powerful than a
> computer language. Men are good at making tools and using
> them. They invested more in engineering because this activity
> were more critical for their success than in the case of
> women. Sociological or cultural explanations don't explain the
> universal tendencies and habilities across cultures and time.

 In this passage, you seem to attribute to men a relatively
 great adaptation for making & using tools, relative to women.
 You suggest this applies to computer languages -- excellent
 tools -- and this explains the relative absence of women in
 computing.

 It's hard to take your remarks seriously; consider:

 .  There is no single adaptation for "tool using". Men differ
   greatly in their aptitude for working with different kinds
   of tools.

The adaptation consist in the plasure for using such tools, to harness his power to play with them that is, to invest in them. The mean male play an appreciate new tools more than women. that is universal.  Additionally it is clear that some mathematical abilities in which men are better are related with the use of tools. The fact that men and woman have different abilities and tendencies that match these abilities is beyond doubt. Cerebral scanners shows that even there are large differences in which are of the brain is used for each purpose in men and women. That does not ban anyone to do whatever they please. 

 

 .  The relevance of tools in women's lives is well known; there
   are few cultures that have not allocated some essential
   domain of work -- fabric arts, tanning, cooking, picking
   certain plants -- to women. It's hard to see any support for
   the notion that tools are more (or less) critical for the
   evolutionary success of men.

 yes. but these tools are not the object of their pleasure. they just use them for a purpose.

 Though this may be your "honest theory", you don't offer much
 support for it. When offering a theory as to the relative
 success of one movie over another, I suppose there is not a
 great burden of proof; but carelessness in the matter of which
 kind of person can do which kind of work has hurt too many
 people for too long.

This is off topic. and i can not write extensively about that here but is just a consequence of the application of evolution to the human specie. Here you can find some answer to your objections. I strongly disagree with your point. Science is made of theories. If we can even discuss them then we are in the middle age of the politically correct empire, in a civilization that has decide to stop thinking, that regret his achievements and that only look back to find excuses to ate deeper himself.

--
Jason Dusek

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe