[Haskell-cafe] Are there any female Haskellers?

[Alberto G. Corona]

2010/3/27 Jason Dusek <jason.dusek at gmail.com>

> 2010/03/27 Alberto G. Corona <agocorona at gmail.com>:
> > 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<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology>.
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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20100327/3dc86df5/attachment.html