I don't either.
>If you
>really get into these comparisons, the statistics are overwhelming. Genius is
>male - period.
And here's where I lose my respect for de Garis.
>What I find truly contemptible of my two (ex)colleagues is their
>closed-mindedness towards the idea that genius is
>male.
And here's where de Garis find him truly contemptible.
He seems to see no difference in genius as "predominantly male", and genius
being "male-dominated". He doesn't seem comfortable with the "mostly but
not all" way of things, and he doesn't seem comfortable with giving others
the benefit of the doubt. What's worse, he seems to believe that this point
of view is more "scientific" or "intellectually honest". Maybe someone
should send him a copy of Korzbyski's "Science and Sanity"?
In reality, one can only say loose things like, "In this study, 45 per cent
of the red-headed persons did such-and-such, and 20 percent did so-and-so,
and 35 percent behaved otherwise." A sentence like "Genius is male" has no
meaning.
Obviously, he's writing poetry, not science. His purpose? Probably to make
himself feel better for owning a penis. Poetry doesn't need to be
reasonable.
Romana Machado romana@glamazon.com
erotic site: http://www.glamazon.com/ "Romana Machado's Peek of the Week"
personal site: http://www.fqa.com/romana/ "Romana Machado World Headquarters"
transhuman site: http://www.transhuman.com/
"Live like a bourgeois, think like a demigod" - Flaubert