Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5e!hou5d!hogpc!houxe!drutx!druxt!timothy
From: timothy@druxt.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Genetic Determinism utterly trashed
Message-ID: <994@druxt.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Jun-84 11:21:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: druxt.994
Posted: Tue Jun 19 11:21:56 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jun-84 03:26:32 EDT
References: <944@eosp1.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 23

I think there is a flaw in your argument.  There are some human
behaviors that are either genetic or learned so early in life that they
are "imprinted" (to borrow a term from animal behavior).  If we use
forcing left-handed people to write with their right hand as the test
case, I think you will see a good argument in favor of determinism.

I can not think of a good reason to force a left-handed person to use
their right hand, although for a long time, such was the standard
policy in American schools.  The strongest reason, although not a good
one, is that this is a "right-handed" world, and a left handed person
does indeed have problems with many common pieces of equipment.

My biggest, and probably only, disagreement with the original article
is with the attitude that genetic determinism is totally wrong.  I do
not believe that the influence of genetics on specific behaviors is as
strong as the proponents would like us to believe, however, as has been
expressed a lot lately, there is an influence.

I hope this topic quickly becomes a dead horse and people stop beating
it.

Tim
decvax!ihnp4!druxt!timothy