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