h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

loads of comments but no time to explain other than
De ja vous
BBC 1
CUNIFORM tablets
interputation by someone who intodays society and physco bable would be described as suffering from autism,aspersgers or some other disfunction
(not my label) that is could read cuiform intuatively such as the ability to draw complicated architectual drawing with only 60 sec viewing.

busy busy busy...

Jez

Hello Noggin

Thanks for explaining epistemology etc.,

Jane

hi Jane!

*waves to Jez!*


off to bed


az

I did it twice. The first time, my brain was male, the 2nd female! What's that about?

BTW, when I were studying educational psychology, we had to the do the (allegedly) culture blind test, the Raven Matrices. I sucked *and* blew!I took from that, that culture blind tests are *not* gender blind! (By the Raven Matrices, I am educationally sub-normal...)

Well one could say you had a 50/50 chance of getting it right or wrong as the case may be.

All those females who say they cant follow instruction ect, yet can knit pearl plain see dropped stitches ,and visulize finished article from pattern book.

Found both the program on beeb1 and time team ch4 uk terestial tv
very informative as well as linking to topics on this thread for last couple of months,on so many levels.

Della. I'm not surprised! Raven's Matrices are obviously, primarily a test that depends on spatial representation etc. They are NOT culture fair either. The Navajo native Americans are better with diaganol lines in structures than we are; and Australian Aboriginals can pick up information from what to us are virtually featureless landscapes.

Of course, the RM is only linguistically culture fair. The richer middle class linguistic environment favours their performance on language based tests, as does their normally broader semantic memory.

I tried to find the left/right brain test that was linked to on here some months ago. You should be VERY left brained assuming you are right-handed, which I would expect you are. Haven't found it yet but I found one for personality disorders which someone asked about.

This should not be taken too seriously: http://www.4degreez.com/misc/personality_disorder_test.mv

Go up a level for other tests. I scored low on everything except 'narcissism' where I was only moderate. I tried to answer as honestly as I could.

toxx

I did the test twice, first being hard on myself on borderline questions, then being easy on myself for those questions.

First time round I got high on avoidant, moderate on paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal and narcissistic; low on the rest.

Second time round I actually came out high on schizoid , moderate on avoidant and schizotypal, and low on the rest.



Noggin

ADHD

I have worked with children labeled with this diagnosis for 10 years, and to date I have not come accross one child who had difficulty concentrating once a topic that interested or otherwise engaged them could be found. In my opinion the 'diagnosis' refers to the haphazard behaviour children engage in when the significant adults in their lives are unable for one reason or another to keep the childs thoughts and feelings in mind. I feel quite strongly that Ritalin is one of the great evils of the last decade of the 20th century, bareing a greater relationship to Huxleys Soma than to a treatment for the children concerned.

The children so diagnosed have experienced things which so overwhelm them that they are unable to think of anything else, when asked to concentrate on a different subject they appear to be unable to concentrate. Attempts to improve this concentration through drug therapy or any approach which fails to address the childs underlying anxiety, concerns, and/or obsessions is in my opinion doomed to failure. (90 % of the children myself and my collegues work with show some improvement, more than a third are able to attend a normal school following their therapy and a further fifth no longer require residential treatment after their time with us)

Gender Differences.

I am susspicious of the 'biology/genetics' determination of gender differences, equally I feel that the nature vs Nurture argument is somewhat superficial, although the basic premise seems sound

Genetics

Clearly there are genetic differences between male and female, it seems reasonable to assume that the external physical differences and the internal physical differences extend to the structure of the brain. However I think that this can be somewhat overstated. The central theme of human development seems to me to be principally that humans be as adaptable as is possible. This would seem to be one reason why the networking of Neurons in the first years of life happens after birth rather than before.

Task necessity

The plasticity of this networking suggests that the social context of a childs upbringing has enourmous importance in the ways that their brains (And possibly more importantly their minds) develop. In the context of the roles and expectations that society still places on different genders (It will take more than 50 years of femmininsm to change this) the task or tasks expected of boys and girls is likely to have a huge influence on the development of their brains (and minds) In this context the tasks and roles socially assigned will determine the form the brain (and mind) take. e.g. If you invent the nail, you also need to invent the hammer, if you invent sewing you also need to invent the needle. In the context of the task this is not necissarily touched upon by the social context (Although it might be) The greater physical (Explosive) strength of men influences the development of the brain and mind, the biological capability of women to bear children equally has an influence on the development of brain and mind.

General Cultural Context

The nature of the task is not the only element of the social context which is influential however. The expectations of the people arround an individual cannot be underestimated. The broader cultural context is likely to influence the framework within which brains and minds develop and therefore are just as likely to influence the particular structure either will take. (I belive the Feminist agenda has had some influence on this) e.g. women are increasingly demonstrating a capacity to fill the roles traditionally held by men and visa versa (Though not to the same extent, which suggests the social stereotypes binding men are possibly even stronger than those which held women, often the case for the 'oppressor' role)

Specific Cultural Context.

The general context is further influenced by the specific context of what could be called a famillial 'sub' culture. The expectations, more's values and norms of a specific family, potentially have a powerfull influence on the development of individuals, brains and minds. This has been cited as a particularly influential factor in the development of personality disorder. The attachment relationship appears to be particullarly influential in a number of areas.

When all the above factors are taken together it seems to me that the development and differences between male and female brains and minds is as complex an issue as any in the study of human kind, It seems to me that the differences between the genders on a biological basis need not be explained by a reference to genetic determinancy, but also form and task. Cultural influences also play their role as do the specific environments in which individuals are raised. That men and women are different is pretty obvious, the distinction can at times become blured, even before we reach the issues of intersexuality and transgender themes, I multi task better than many men, but not as well as my wife, but better than two of three of my sisters, My other sister seems to understand 'macho' ideals much better than I do. The variation between individuals suggests to me that as a species we have not yet even begun to plumb the depths of possibility in our capacity to be addaptive.

Ok enough for now, If you take the trouble to read all of that I thank you for your patience and perseverance.

Re The tests

The don't take it too seriously advice is very good advice.

The big difficulty with these tests is that they are a relatively blunt instrument. The questions themselves may rest on doubtful assumptions and the answers on a capacity for honesty and self reflection.

e.g.

The question about believe in extra sensory perception assumes belief without rationale.

I believe that many 'supernatural' powers arrise out of developing an awareness of the environment which relates to them. I believe I am a fairly empathic person, and 'read' others moderately well and derive a fair bit of insight about them from that empathy. Comments I have made intended to be helpfull to the individual have generally been well recieved and sometimes individuals have reported that it was as If I knew them better than they knew themselves.

Obviously this is not telepathy, but I believe I am using a process that has been described as such for many thousands of years, e.g. the oracle at Delphi. Does the fact that I have developed some understanding of the process necissarily mean that it is not an 'extra sensory' ability. I answered yes to this question and I guess that this contributed to my 'high' schizotypal score.

I also scored high on the Narcisistic scale and a moderate on another which I forget now. Clearly form my posts a confidence in my own opinion is apparent, however I don't believe this makes me narcissistic, even though my answers would have been influenced by my position. I once read that MK Ghandi and Einstein would both have scored highly on the Narcissistic scale, both because they had confidence in their own ideas despite the criticism of others.

Incidentaly Emotional intelligence has also been added to the list of things to be tested, I did rather well on that one.

http://www.helpself.com/iq-test.htm Is one example but there are others.

Re The tests

The don't take it too seriously advice is very good advice.

The big difficulty with these tests is that they are a relatively blunt instrument. The questions themselves may rest on doubtful assumptions and the answers on a capacity for honesty and self reflection.

e.g.

The question about believe in extra sensory perception assumes belief without rationale.

I believe that many 'supernatural' powers arrise out of developing an awareness of the environment which relates to them. I believe I am a fairly empathic person, and 'read' others moderately well and derive a fair bit of insight about them from that empathy. Comments I have made intended to be helpfull to the individual have generally been well recieved and sometimes individuals have reported that it was as If I knew them better than they knew themselves.

Obviously this is not telepathy, but I believe I am using a process that has been described as such for many thousands of years, e.g. the oracle at Delphi. Does the fact that I have developed some understanding of the process necissarily mean that it is not an 'extra sensory' ability. I answered yes to this question and I guess that this contributed to my 'high' schizotypal score.

I also scored high on the Narcisistic scale and a moderate on another which I forget now. Clearly form my posts a confidence in my own opinion is apparent, however I don't believe this makes me narcissistic, even though my answers would have been influenced by my position. I once read that MK Ghandi and Einstein would both have scored highly on the Narcissistic scale, both because they had confidence in their own ideas despite the criticism of others.

Incidentaly Emotional intelligence has also been added to the list of things to be tested, I did rather well on that one.

http://www.helpself.com/iq-test.htm Is one example but there are others.

Woops went to post changed mind, refreshed and posted again didn't think it would do it twice sorry.

Thank you, SD. When is the book coming out? Seriously though, I've seen shorter guide entries.

There is one very common error that is made about half the time with the sentence form concerned. From the context, you mean the exact opposite of what you say here: "The expectations of the people arround an individual cannot be underestimated." Clearly you mean 'must not be underestimated' or 'cannot be overestimated'. As a cognition person, I've seen this one happen so often and heard it on Radio 4. Sorry to seize on an apparent irrelevance which happens to be of interest to me.

toxx

Noggin.



And then you wonder why you came out high on 'schizoid'!

Sorry, Nogg. I couldn't resist that one.

toxx

Quite so, toxx.

I was just puzzled as to why my schizoid score went in the opposite direction to the others that changed.

Gender differences

Differential investment in childbearing/childcare is the underlying factor in genetic differences in gender attributes.

Noggin

Hey, Noggin. There isn't too much we can really conclude about that test as it isn't the real thing. We'd need to know that it has been tested for validity and reliabilty, and on what kind of population it is normed - if indeed it is. The most serious tests tend to be available, at a price, the the profession only. Perhaps HS knows of some sources.

It seems clear to me that when the emphasis in a set of answers changes, some things will be more in evidence and others less so. This would point to a consistency in answering that is a positive point. We're getting perilously close to a Noether's theorem of personality, I suspect, so I'd better change the point a little.

I'm sure that the parenting roles are the key to gender differences in humans - as you suggest. It is just too obvious that the female must have a caring, nurturing personality with an interest in 'conversing' with the youngest offspring. Quotes, because there had to be interactions that are 'conversing' in a metaphorical sense before language was developed in the species as well as in the individual. The dreaded phylogenetic recapitulation! Feeding and grooming in many cases would count as 'conversing'.

However, this kind of thing carries the known risk of evolutionary psychology - in that /post hoc/ 'explanations' are unscientific unless they also support predictions.

Maternal behaviour may well be partially learned. Different cultures have some very different practices. However, there must surely be innate aptitudes and tendencies. I can't help observing the differences in the behaviour of children of both sexes. However, I've noticed a small girl who was quite interested in learning to use a spanner. I suspect that her mother would not have encouraged this and might actually have discouraged it. Her slightly older brother wasn't interested in the least! He seemed to feel that he had enough tame adults round him, so there was little point in doing things for himself.

toxx

ltp, I can't knit! (Aside from anything else, it's *boring*!)
Toxxin, could the fact that I am ambidextrous (write with both hands, I choose depending on the situation) etc, have owt to do with it?

<>
This class thing interests me. We were working class by most measures (income, milieu, father's occupation, family history) but we had a richer language environment than many 'middle class' people we've met, partly because our father came from the UK, and mother from a fallen (economically) middle class NZ environment - they'd been middle in the 1920s-30s). By the 1960s, many middle class families in NZ concentrated on sport and television mostly sport, "resting on their laurels," my mother would have called it...

Hi, Della. Well, I knew handedness or brain laterality had to come into it - but ambidextrousness really is unusual. I have only theory to go on at present, but it seems as though you have two left brains - one of them on the right, of course. The right brain hemisphere is usually biased towards spatial matters, but yours appears to be a second linguistic area! This would leave you lacking in spatial processing capacity, of course.

I wonder whether, if this is the case, they would cooperate amicably or if they would ever 'fight'. I also wonder whether this is inherited or environmental.

Is anyone else in your family of the same, previous or next generations ambidextrous or lacking spatial facility in the way that you describe for yourself? If not, I would suspect unusual upbringing or perhaps even an accident or other brain/hand 'insult' in early childhood that forced you to develop bilaterally in this way.

I'm sorry to speak to you as though you are a 'case'! For me, this is fascinating stuff and I don't know how it must appear to you personally. I guess I ought to do some background reading.

Cheers, toxx.