Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mcnc!ecsvax!duke!bein!gazit
From: gazit@bein.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: comp.society.women
Subject: Re: Women and Logic
Message-ID: <12990@duke.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 88 02:37:50 GMT
References: <6041@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>
Sender: skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
Reply-To: gazit@bein.UUCP (Hillel Gazit)
Organization: Duke University CS Dept.; Durham, NC
Lines: 29
Approved: skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Moderator -- Trish Roberts)
Comments-to: comp-women-request@cs.purdue.edu
Submissions-to: comp-women@cs.purdue.edu


In article <6041@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> osu-cis!att!cbnews!cblpn!jd@cis.ohio-state.edu writes:

>of the lore and literature that surrounds me takes
>the opposite view.  I do not know whether my observations
>are narrow and invalid,  or whether the socialization of
>the words  "logical=superior, intuitive=inferior"  may have
>caused us to apply these words in a non-scientific manner.

>Since this forum addresses the particular subset of
>humanity who are involved in computers,  and computers
>are uniquely logical in nature,  I would be interested
>in reading the views of the other computer-folks on this topic.

There are several problem that we (computer scientists) know an easy and
fast way to solve them using randomize algorithms (which means that there
is a probability that the answer is *not* correct ), but we don't know
any good (fast) deterministic (always true) algorithm to solve them. 

The phenomena occurs especially in parallel processing. 

If we assume that the brain is a parallel processor, and intuition is
some kind of "randomness" (I can't justify the second assumption, it
is an intuitive one 1/2 :-)), then intuition should give
*in most cases* better and faster result.

>Jo Duston  

Hillel                  gazit@cs.duke.edu