Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!mcnc!ecsvax!bill%cosi%mccc%njsmu@princeton.edu
From: bill%cosi%mccc%njsmu@princeton.edu
Newsgroups: comp.society.women
Subject: Re: Women and Logic
Message-ID: <6069@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>
Date: 8 Dec 88 23:07:30 GMT
References: <6041@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>
Sender: skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
Organization: COS, Inc., Lawrenceville, NJ
Lines: 25
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:
] 
] which described a test-based conclusion that females were
] more logical and males were more intuitive.
] 
] This matches my personal observations.  I have
] consistently found that males tend towards an
] intuitive approach in their activities...

] Females, on the other hand,  seem to operate in a
] step-progression mode,  in which each item is regarded
] as a logical dependency...
] 
] This is, of course, only a personal observation.  Most
] of the lore and literature that surrounds me takes
] the opposite view. 

My gut-feeling about your personal observation is that it is as
unscientific as the lore and literature to which you refer.  Of
course, your intuition may be right.

Could it be possible that your observation has something to do
with a notion you have about "logical" being "superior"?

-- 
Bill Michaelson, COS, Inc.       \ "Better to keep your mouth shut, and let
Voice 609-771-6705               / people think you're a fool, than to open
rutgers!princeton!mccc!cosi!bill \ it..."
CompuServe 72416,1026            /           -Mark Twain