Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
39. I would have agreed with you in the 1970s, but now I am less sure
Mon Sep 14, 2015, 11:54 PM
Sep 2015

The main reason for the change was a set of autopsy on London Cabbies done about 20 years ago. The Cabbies all agreed to be autopsy before they died of natural causes. One of the results of those Autopsy was that the cabbies had an extra large size part of their brain that is believe to be tied in with direction. This supports the observation that your BRAIN will develop in ways that benefit you. If you need a better sense of direction, your brain will put more brain cells in that part of your brain for you are using it more. If you do not need a sense of direction, then that part of the brain is NOT developed.

This would explain men's superiority in direction. Men are NOT naturally superior in a sense of direction, but given women tend to follow our leads (look at most couples when they are in a car, it is the MAN that is driving), women do not develop that part of their brain that involved direction. As young girls they follow their parents or brothers, as young women they tend to leave their dates, and later their mates to drive and decide where to go.

Thus men playing better darts then women may go back to playing baseball as a child. Boys tend to play more baseball or simple throwing the ball at each other then do girls. Thus boys developed that part of the brain tied in with throwing and catching accurately, while girls do not for they play less such games. Thus men may be better at darts for the simple reason they developed the part of the brain that goes to accurate throwing when they were boys, while women did other activity as a young girl.

Hand and eye coordination is different. It is the use of a tool to do something. That could be using a paddle to make cake, or a bat to hit a ball. Either effort would improve that part of the brain tied in with hand and eye coordination. Chasing younger siblings could also be part of that brain development (i.e. figuring out where the kid will be not where the kid is right now when you are chasing him or her). Just a comment that hand and eye coordination would be some other part of the brain being developed as a young child, and playing at cooking thus playing at using a tool, would help someone's ability to use any tool, even a pool que.

Just a comment that it may be "Training" as a young child that is the key and the resulting change in the brain that may explain the differences more then the ancient need to hunt.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Averages and minimum acceptable levels Android3.14 Sep 2015 #1
I agree. Not all women are physically strong enough. passiveporcupine Sep 2015 #6
We aren't just talking about the average guy here madville Sep 2015 #34
It looks like physical differences predominated. Yo_Mama Sep 2015 #53
yes angryvet Sep 2015 #2
They have woman's boots and clothes now yeoman6987 Sep 2015 #29
bullshit beergood Sep 2015 #3
That doesn't contradict the study DavidDvorkin Sep 2015 #4
my bad beergood Sep 2015 #24
Canada is north of the United States. mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2015 #5
in other words beergood Sep 2015 #25
the study is not really needed though treestar Sep 2015 #28
How surprising! HassleCat Sep 2015 #7
Some comments happyslug Sep 2015 #8
HS, I beg to differ Big_Mike Sep 2015 #16
First Officer do NOT have to known the job of the enlisted men their lead happyslug Sep 2015 #19
Yes very good treestar Sep 2015 #27
Boots are the most important factor happyslug Sep 2015 #33
Once when I was young madokie Sep 2015 #9
How large was the test group? gregcrawford Sep 2015 #10
300 men, 100 women. Xithras Sep 2015 #12
Way lower. It's not subtle. Yo_Mama Sep 2015 #54
Over time the performance of women could also improve happyslug Sep 2015 #56
Women are customized for endurance, not power. Yo_Mama Sep 2015 #57
We always had the joke 1939 Sep 2015 #26
My Father always talked about firing M1 30'06 rounds.... happyslug Sep 2015 #35
Many prefered using the M2AP round, because it was more accurate, and penetrated trees better. n/t oneshooter Sep 2015 #36
That round is why the US decided NOT to attack the Red Army in 1945 happyslug Sep 2015 #37
Don't overlook the continuing war in the Pacific. oneshooter Sep 2015 #41
And the Japanese were counting on the Russians happyslug Sep 2015 #43
Even at that time the military did not want the surrender. oneshooter Sep 2015 #44
Thus the fear of a Communist Revolution was the driving force behind the surrender happyslug Sep 2015 #47
Springfields in WWII 1939 Sep 2015 #46
Untill 1943 the Marines drew their arms from US Army Depots oneshooter Sep 2015 #49
The Army was very short of M1 into 1943. 1939 Sep 2015 #51
The line I read was the Marines had REJECTED the M1 as not reliable enough. happyslug Sep 2015 #52
Marines did love their Springfields. oneshooter Sep 2015 #58
I would be really ticked if my son was in the military TexasMommaWithAHat Sep 2015 #11
I have heard that attack on women when it comes to Police work happyslug Sep 2015 #38
Also noteworthy - they did not come to the exercise with equal levels of training caraher Sep 2015 #13
I don't know why they had to spend money on a study, I found out men had better aim years ago ripcord Sep 2015 #14
I wonder why this is. Lychee2 Sep 2015 #23
Women Are Awfully Good A Pool ProfessorGAC Sep 2015 #31
I would have agreed with you in the 1970s, but now I am less sure happyslug Sep 2015 #39
so the study found men are,in general,heavier and stronger than women and in combat thats a big deal Demonaut Sep 2015 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author Skittles Sep 2015 #17
Combat is a long, grueling, miserable occupation & that's just the physical aspect. GOLGO 13 Sep 2015 #18
Navy secretary criticizes controversial Marine Corps gender integration study mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2015 #20
If you have to handpick "high performers" to be able compete with average male Marines hack89 Sep 2015 #21
There are a thousand military jobs that women can do XemaSab Sep 2015 #22
Women, injuries and Q-angle.... 4139 Sep 2015 #30
I remember a study from when I was active duty madville Sep 2015 #32
The pull-ups & push-ups is the dirty little secret they don't like to talk about GOLGO 13 Sep 2015 #60
Does this mean Dick Cheney is a woman? n/t Kennah Sep 2015 #40
Maybe dosing women with testosterone would work if they want to be in infantry AngryAmish Sep 2015 #42
Not all agree women aren't suited to Marines Panich52 Sep 2015 #45
BS rockfordfile Sep 2015 #48
Welcome to DU. You can't go wrong saying mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2015 #50
Like it or not rockfordfile Sep 2015 #59
Read my comments above, I think it is training BEFORE one enters the service. happyslug Sep 2015 #55
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Marine study finds women ...»Reply #39