The Los Angeles Times seems to churn out
Feminist propaganda feature articles at regular intervals which are
then republished in The Dominion Post (Wellington, New Zealand). In
2005, one of these articles reported on an interview with Sandra Witelson
about Albert Einstein's brain and about the differences between men's
and women's brains (Dominion Post, July 9, 2005).
The focus of the article was, first, on what made Einstein's brain
special, and, secondly, on the differences between men's and women's
brains. Universities are awash with political correctness, and the emphasis
in such institutions on formulating one's findings so as to conform
to the ruling (Feminist) ideology often competes with, or is allied
to, the more usual priorities of furthering one's career and/or telling
the truth as one sees it.
Conflicts
At first sight, there would seems to be a conflict inherent in this
article: if the focus is on finding something in Einstein's brain which
accounts for his particular talents, and if it is agreed that there
are differences between men's and women's brains, then it would seem
inherently likely that there would be differences between men's and
women's talents. However, the article highlights (in a large font) the
statement: "Men's brains, for instance, are typically bigger --
but, on the whole, no smarter." One would expect that size would
have some effect -- after all, anthropologists routinely refer to the
larger brain-size of Homo sapiens, compared to that of other
hominids and great apes.
At first sight, also, this article might seem to be anti-Feminist,
in that it quotes Sandra Witelson as follows:
"What is astonishing to me is that it is so obvious that there
are sex differences in the brain and these are likely to be translated
into some cognitive differences, because the brain helps us think
and feel and move and act. Yet there is a large segement of the population
that wants to pretend this is not true."
In fact, however, the article specifically denies that men's brains
gives them any advantage over women, while also claiming that women's
brains are better in certain ways than men's brains. This is a typical
Feminist trait -- claiming that men and women are equal in one breath,
and then claiming that women are superior in the next breath. That is
why we have to be wary of the term equal rights activists,
when the article states:
"... battle lines between scientists, equal rights activists
and educators have formed."
The activists may or may not call themselves equal rights activists,
but experience should teach us that they are probably actually Female
Supremacists.
Men's Brains vs Women's Brains
The article states:
"Women's brains ... seem to be faster and more efficient than
men's. All in all, men appear to have more grey matter, made up of
active neurons, and women have more of the white matter responsible
for communication between different areas of the brain."
and
"Overall, women's brains seems to be more complexly corrugated,
suggesting that more complicated neural structures lie within, researchers
at UCLA found last year."
At first sight, again, this all seems to imply that women's brains
are superior to men's brains. After all, it would seems to be advantageous
to be fast and efficient. However, the article does not say how this
was tested, and I have been unable to find any articles by Witelson
herself that deal with this issue.* It could be that
the notion of the efficiency is a mere deduction from the fact that
women's brains are smaller, while at the same time women seem to be
able to think as well as men. In other words, it is perhaps just an
attempt to argue that women do not suffer any disadvantage by having
smaller brains.
The notion that women's brains are faster and more efficient is probably
contradicted by a fact that is linked to the fact that women's brains
have more white matter. Women have to have more means of communicating
between the two hemispheres of the brain (i.e. more white matter and
a larger Corpus Callosum), because (right-handed) men are known to have
more brain functions that are localised in one particular hemisphere,
whereas women have corresponding functions that are split between the
two hemispheres. I would have though it was inevitably more efficient
and faster to have functions specialised in particular areas, and therefore
to say that women's brains are faster and more efficient is probably
to state the opposite of the truth (a typical Feminist behaviour). I
can't comment on the function implications of women's brains being more
complexly corrugated.
Size Matters
Witelson is quoted as saying, about Einstein:
"Here was somebody who was clearly very clever; yet his overall
brain size was average.... It certainly tells you that, in a man,
sheer overall brain size can't be a crucial factor in brilliance."
Yet the article goes on to state:
"She found that one portion of Einstein's brain perhaps related
to mathematical reasoning -- the inferior parietal region -- was 15
percent wider than normal. She also found that it lacked a fissure
that normally runs along the length of the brain."
Far be it from me to cast aspersions on the size of the reasoning part
of Witelson's brain, but it seems to me that her logic is faulty: Einstein
was not famous for being multi-talented -- on the contrary, he was only
working in a patent office until his research made him famous, as far
as I am aware. So there is no reason to expect that his overall brain
size would have been large, whereas one might suspect that of some multi-talented
"genius" such as Leonardo da Vinci. If Einstein's brain was
extra-large in the precise part that was involved in the kind of thinking
that he was famous for doing very well, then it would seem very likely
that the size of every part of the brain might well be related to its
effectiveness in performing its specialised functions (which is what
we see with muscles, for example). So if men's brains are, on average,
bigger than women's brains, it might well be the case that men are,
on average, better at everything that the brain does.