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