My Favorite things about Angelfire.
My Favorite Web Sites
Angelfire - Free Home Pages
Free Web Building Help
Angelfire HTML Library
HTML Gear - free polls, guestbooks, and more!
I hope I can make this a gooood site! Prima Facia case Indictment: formal accusation by grand jury Grand jury: enough evidence to go to trial? Probate court: specialized state court; distribution of property after death. Courts must follow statute unless it violates consitutional law. Majority: 5 justices agree Justices matter who they are Can appeal indefinately, but its extremely expensive, $15,000 - $30,000. Plurality: majority agree on decision, not on how to get there Stary Decisis: Court goes back to look at back cases Judicial restraint: Congress, people are to change the laws Supreme Court: What was the original intent of the authors? Judicial activism Common law: all based on precedence Courts can only consider issues before it. Congress makes the law, judicial enforces Preponderous of evidence: more likely true than not As part of his self-consciousness, while old age overtook his infant brain, he made conscientious efforts to envision his situation as science proved it to be. He would look at the half-moon and try to see it not as the goddess Diana or as a comic-book decal but as a sphere hung in empty space, its illumined side an infallible indication of where the sun was shining on the other side of the earth's huge dark round mass. He tried to imagine the surface under his feet as curved, and hurtling backward toward sunrise. With a yet greater effort, he tried to imagine empty space in something like its actual enormity, each star an island light-years from the next, and the near-absolute interstellar vacuum containing virtual particles that somehow generated an energy the reverse of gravity, pushing the stars and the galaxies faster and faster apart, until the universe became invisible to itself, cold and dark forever and ever. He tried to picture organic life as Darwin and his followers described it, not as a ladder of being, climbing toward ever more complex and spiritual forms, but as a diffuse soup of blind genes whose simple existence within however ignoble and grotesque and murderous and parasitic a form tended to perpetuation of those forms, without the least taint of purpose or aspiration. It was all in the numbers, as Daddy had said. What was was, and would tend to be the same, generation after generation. There was comfort in this, Lee thought. His guardians were still with him. They were within him, extending their protection and care. From Grampop--who had a quaint, tentative gesture of lifting his thin-skinned hand as if to bestow a blessing or to ask for a halt from the powers that be--he had inherited longevity, and from Granny a country toughness, a wiry fibre that had only slowly bent beneath age and disease. His father's remote realism was his, and his mother's lively, dissatisfied heat. His guardians were within him, propelling him like a tiny human crew within a tall, walking armature of DNA. They would not steer him wrong; his death would come tactfully, and was not close.
(for the tagline) Erin Schulte, 26, is a reporter for WSJ.com, the online > edition of The Wall Street Journal, where she covers the stock market. She > is a 1998 graduate UNL's College of Journalism. Her first newspaper job > was as a clerk at the Lincoln Journal-Star. > > When I got a new job working for The Wall Street Journal in 1999, I > fretted that I would miss the excitement my general-assignment reporting > job in Arkansas, where I had covered natural disasters of every stripe, > plane crashes, and, of course President Clinton. > Tuesday, unfortunately, I came much too close to the biggest news story in > the country. > The Wall Street Journal offices are in the World Financial Center, just a > few hundred feet and directly across the street from the World Trade > Center. From the windows near my ninth-floor desk, I have an unimpeded > view of the once-imposing Twin Towers. > Tuesday, I stepped off the subway at the World Trade Center stop about > half an before the first plane hit. I walked through the basement mall of > the World Trade Center, noticing the 50% off sale at Victoria's Secret and > passing my pharmacy and the place I sometimes buy sushi. Silly things to > think about now. > I threw my bag at my desk and was chatting with a coworker. All of a > sudden we heard a loud rumbling overhead. We looked at each other > quizzically. Jets often fly over, but this one rumbled the floor and > rattled the windows. Then I heard what sounded like a sonic boom. I ducked > to get a better view of the sky, and the first tower exploded in flames. > We thought it was another bomb, like the 1993 attack. I grabbed my bag, > which contained gym clothes, my cell phone, an apple and a bottle of water > (all of which would come in handy later) to run out the door, and my > editor said, "Sit down and write the early market story to include the > explosion!" I sat. > The fire-safety director came on the intercom to tell us to stay in the > building, that there was no danger. Most were glued to CNN, which told us > it had been an airplane, not a bomb. We foolishly thought it must have > been a small commercial plane whose pilot fell asleep or lost control. We > couldn't fathom that someone would intentionally fly into the building, > but looking back we know it would take a determined effort to actually hit > the slim, silver target at that angle. Everyone was nervous. > Then I heard more rumbling, and another boom. The second tower was aflame. > I thought perhaps the plane had blown up and caught the other tower on > fire. At this time, the safety director shouted to evacuate. Everyone ran > for the stairs. I grabbed my bag, a notebook and a pen. > Outside, I found two coworkers. We decided we'd get started reporting, as > we didn't know the worst was definitely ahead of us. We still were not > thinking clearly enough to realize that it was a terrorist attack and not > some freak accident. I had no idea until more than an hour later that the > Pentagon also had been hit. > There were huge chunks of metal flying out of the buildings. Then I saw > the most horrific thing I've ever seen in my life: People were flinging > themselves from the top of the towers, which are more than 100 stories > high. Men still had their briefcases strapped over their shoulders; > women's purses trailed behind them. They looked to be the size of little > worry dolls; their bodies were falling out of the sky like hailstones. I > cannot erase the image from my head of one man's twisting body, in a black > suit and tie, falling and hitting the top of another building on the way > down. Some struggled as they fell and others just were limp, some dove, > some faced the ground and some looked upward. > Before, it had seemed surreal and everyone assumed the workers could > escape the towers down the stairs. Women were screaming and crying and > falling on the ground. People were running backwards in horror toward the > Hudson River. There were body parts on the ground, some near airplane > seats and identifiable as human, in a parking lot. Hands and feet. Two of > my coworkers (but thankfully not me) saw a woman's decapitated head. > Police pushed the crowds toward the water. At this point I desperately > wanted to find my coworkers, as I was sickened and on the verge of > panicking. I ran down the promenade by the Hudson River, toward the Statue > of Liberty, with the crowd. Paramedics were propping up the injured on the > promenade's park benches. I saw a man who had had part of his head sheared > off by falling metal. > I got about three blocks away and found three of my editors. They were far > enough away that they hadn't seen the body parts or the people jumping and > falling from the top of the towers. I told them what I had seen and they > sent me to an editors' nearby apartment to call our office in Brussels and > give them a firsthand account. We went into the apartment and I called my > mother in South Dakota. Then I called Brussels. Mom had been frantic as I > hadn't been able to get through on a cell phone earlier to tell my family > I was alive. All the lines had been blocked. Later I found out that people > trapped in the rubble of the towers were calling their family from cell > phones, but rescuers hadn't yet found them. > A few very long minutes passed, and we were huddled in the living room > trying to figure out where to go. A third frightening rumble filled our > heads. The apartment's picture window faces the towers, and we watched the > first tower collapse only a few blocks away. Metal and glass shot outward, > floor by floor, crushing toward the ground. A huge, billowing wall of ash > and smoke rushed through the street, pushing huge beams of twisted metal > and fiery paper in front of it. A horde of people sprinted ahead of it, > dropping packages and running out of their shoes. Later an acquaintance > told me that his wife and his seven-week-old baby were in this crowd; two > men toppled the baby carriage and dumped the baby on the ground. (Both are > safe now.) > After a few seconds, we realized it wasn't going to stop before it reached > us. We thought it would blow out the windows and sprinted for the inside > of the building, tumbling down the stairs to the basement. All of Battery > Park, the residential area there, is built on a landfill - made from the > earth dug out to build the World Trade Center. I felt very far from safe > in the basement as they were warning that the entire area might collapse > into the river. > (optional cut) People came running in from outside to the basement we were > crouched in, and a girl told me that the whoosh of debris and flames had > forced people to jump over the barriers into the Hudson to get away from > it. I met a Texas man, Jeff, who had been staying in the Marriott at the > World Trade Center. He was covered in the thick white soot. He hadn't been > able to get in touch with his family and knew no one in New York. Since I > didn't want to stay there for fear that the towers would come down on our > building and flatten all the upper floors on top of us, we ran upstairs to > quickly use the phone. He called his family and started sobbing; he had > seen bodies fall all around him while fleeing the hotel. (end optional > cut) > The smoke was so thick outside we couldn't see for about half an hour. No > one knew what to do, where it would be safe to go. Then security knocked > on the door and told us they were evacuating lower Manhattan. We were > hustled outside and were herded onto a police boat to New Jersey. People > held dogs, suitcases, parrots. They left us on a pier in Jersey City. We > walked to a park where they handed out hunks of bread and processed > cheese. I felt like a refugee. Still, I was so grateful that I was one of > the ones lucky enough to be offered a piece of it, though my roiling > stomach wouldn't have accepted a thing. > We went to a nearby apartment building and watched the news; we also spent > hours on the phone talking to our friends and families. Later work called > and told us they needed us at the Dow Jones corporate campus near > Princeton, N.J., where I am still working. I couldn't get back to my home > in Brooklyn. > A day after the attack, I sent out an e-mail to friends and family > describing the events. The e-mail apparently was circulated far and wide, > and I've received letters from many people I don't know - in Arkansas, in > Oregon, in Iowa, in Nebraska, in Oklahoma City -- saying they are praying > for New York. New York says: Thank you. Bower birds are artists, leaf-cutting ants practice agriculture, crows use tools, chimpanzees form coalitions against rivals. The only major talent unique to humans is language, the ability to transmit encoded thoughts from the mind of one individual to another.
Because of language's central role in human nature and sociality, its evolutionary origins have long been of interest to almost everyone, with the curious exception of linguists.
As far back as 1866, the Linguistic Society of Paris famously declared that it wanted no more speculative articles about the origin of language.
More recently, many linguists have avoided the subject because of the influence of Noam Chomsky, a founder of modern linguistics and still its best-known practitioner, who has been largely silent on the question.
Dr. Chomsky's position has "only served to discourage interest in the topic among theoretical linguists," writes Dr. Frederick J. Newmeyer, last year's president of the Linguistic Society of America, in "Language Evolution," a book of essays being published this month by Oxford University Press in England.
In defense of the linguists' tepid interest, there have until recently been few firm facts to go on. Experts offered conflicting views on whether Neanderthals could speak. Sustained attempts to teach apes language generated more controversy than illumination.
But new research is eroding the idea that the origins of language are hopelessly lost in the mists of time. New clues have started to emerge from archaeology, genetics and human behavioral ecology, and even linguists have grudgingly begun to join in the discussion before other specialists eat their lunch.
"It is important for linguists to participate in the conversation, if only to maintain a position in this intellectual niche that is of such commanding interest to the larger scientific public," writes Dr. Ray Jackendoff, Dr. Newmeyer's successor at the linguistic society, in his book "Foundations of Language."
Geneticists reported in March that the earliest known split between any two human populations occurred between the !Kung of southern Africa and the Hadza of Tanzania. Since both of these very ancient populations speak click languages, clicks may have been used in the language of the ancestral human population. The clicks, made by sucking the tongue down from the roof of the mouth (and denoted by an exclamation point), serve the same role as consonants.
That possible hint of the first human tongue may be echoed in the archaeological record. Humans whose skeletons look just like those of today were widespread in Africa by 100,000 years ago. But they still used the same set of crude stone tools as their forebears and their archaic human contemporaries, the Neanderthals of Europe.
Then, some 50,000 years ago, some profound change took place. Settlements in Africa sprang to life with sophisticated tools made from stone and bone, art objects and signs of long distance trade.
Though some archaeologists dispute the suddenness of the transition, Dr. Richard Klein of Stanford argues that the suite of innovations reflects some specific neural change that occurred around that time and, because of the advantage it conferred, spread rapidly through the population.
That genetic change, he suggests, was of such a magnitude that most likely it had to do with language, and was perhaps the final step in its evolution. If some neural change explains the appearance of fully modern human behavior some 50,000 years ago, "it is surely reasonable to suppose that the change promoted the fully modern capacity for rapidly spoken phonemic speech," Dr. Klein has written.
Listening to Primates Apes' Signals Fall Short of Language
At first glance, language seems to have appeared from nowhere, since no other species speaks. But other animals do communicate. Vervet monkeys have specific alarm calls for their principal predators, like eagles, leopards, snakes and baboons.
Researchers have played back recordings of these calls when no predators were around and found that the vervets would scan the sky in response to the eagle call, leap into trees at the leopard call and look for snakes in the ground cover at the snake call.
Vervets can't be said to have words for these predators because the calls are used only as alarms; a vervet can't use its baboon call to ask if anyone noticed a baboon around yesterday. Still, their communication system shows that they can both utter and perceive specific sounds.
Dr. Marc Hauser, a psychologist at Harvard who studies animal communication, believes that basic systems for both the perception and generation of sounds are present in other animals. "That suggests those systems were used way before language and therefore did not evolve for language, even though they are used in language," he said.
Language, as linguists see it, is more than input and output, the heard word and the spoken. It's not even dependent on speech, since its output can be entirely in gestures, as in American Sign Language. The essence of language is words and syntax, each generated by a combinatorial system in the brain.
If there were a single sound for each word, vocabulary would be limited to the number of sounds, probably fewer than 1,000, that could be distinguished from one another. But by generating combinations of arbitrary sound units, a copious number of distinguishable sounds becomes available. Even the average high school student has a vocabulary of 60,000 words.
The other combinatorial system is syntax, the hierarchical ordering of words in a sentence to govern their meaning.
Chimpanzees do not seem to possess either of these systems. They can learn a certain number of symbols, up to 400 or so, and will string them together, but rarely in a way that suggests any notion of syntax. This is not because of any poverty of thought. Their conceptual world seems to overlap to some extent with that of people: they can recognize other individuals in their community and keep track of who is dominant to whom. But they lack the system for encoding these thoughts in language.
How then did the encoding system evolve in the human descendants of the common ancestor of chimps and people?
Language Precursors Babbling and Pidgins Hint at First Tongue
One of the first linguists to tackle this question was Dr. Derek Bickerton of the University of Hawaii. His specialty is the study of pidgins, which are simple phrase languages made up from scratch by children or adults who have no language in common, and of creoles, the successor languages that acquire inflection and syntax.
Dr. Bickerton developed the idea that a proto-language must have preceded the full-fledged syntax of today's discourse. Echoes of this proto-language can be seen, he argued, in pidgins, in the first words of infants, in the symbols used by trained chimpanzees and in the syntax-free utterances of children who do not learn to speak at the normal age.
In a series of articles, Dr. Bickerton has argued that humans may have been speaking proto-language, essentially the use of words without syntax, as long as two million years ago. Modern language developed more recently, he suggests, perhaps with appearance of anatomically modern humans some 120,000 years ago.
The impetus for the evolution of language, he believes, occurred when human ancestors left the security of the forest and started foraging on the savanna. "The need to pass on information was the driving force," he said in an interview.
Foragers would have had to report back to others what they had found. Once they had developed symbols that could be used free of context — a general word for elephant, not a vervet-style alarm call of "An elephant is attacking!" — early people would have taken the first step toward proto-language. "Once you got it going, there is no way of stopping it," Dr. Bickerton said.
But was the first communicated symbol a word or a gesture? Though language and speech are sometimes thought of as the same thing, language is a coding system and speech just its main channel.
Dr. Michael Corballis, a psychologist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, believes the gesture came first, in fact as soon as our ancestors started to walk on two legs and freed the hands for making signs.
Chimpanzees have at least 30 different gestures, mostly used to refer to other individuals.
Hand gestures are still an expressive part of human communication, Dr. Corballis notes, so much so that people even gesticulate while on the telephone.
He believes that spoken words did not predominate over signed ones until the last 100,000 years or so, when a genetic change may have perfected human speech and led to its becoming a separate system, not just a grunted accompaniment for gestures.
Critics of Dr. Corballis's idea say gestures are too limited; they don't work in the dark, for one thing. But many concede the two systems may both have played some role in the emergence of language.
Search for Incentives As Societies Grew the Glue Was Gossip
Dr. Bickerton's idea that language must have had an evolutionary history prompted other specialists to wonder about the selective pressure, or evolutionary driving force, behind the rapid emergence of language.
In the mere six million years since chimps and humans shared a common ancestor, this highly complex faculty has suddenly emerged in the hominid line alone, along with all the brain circuits necessary to map an extremely rapid stream of sound into meaning, meaning into words and syntax, and intended sentence into expressed utterance.
It is easy to see in a general way that each genetic innovation, whether in understanding or in expressing language, might create such an advantage for its owners as to spread rapidly through a small population.
"No one will take any notice of the guy who says `Gu-gu-gu'; the one with the quick tongue will get the mates," Dr. Bickerton said. But what initiated this self-sustaining process?
Besides Dr. Bickerton's suggestion of the transition to a foraging lifestyle, another idea is that of social grooming, which has been carefully worked out by Dr. Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Liverpool in England.
Dr. Dunbar notes that social animals like monkeys spend an inordinate amount of time grooming one another. The purpose is not just to remove fleas but also to cement social relationships. But as the size of a group increases, there is not time for an individual to groom everyone.
Language evolved, Dr. Dunbar believes, as a better way of gluing a larger community together.
Some 63 percent of human conversation, according to his measurements, is indeed devoted to matters of social interaction, largely gossip, not to the exchange of technical information, Dr. Bickerton's proposed incentive for language.
Dr. Steven Pinker of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the first linguists to acknowledge that language may be subject to natural selection, disputes Dr. Dunbar's emphasis on social bonding; a fixed set of greetings would suffice, in his view.
Dr. Pinker said it was just as likely that language drove sociality: it was because people could exchange information that it became more worthwhile to hang out together.
"Three key features of the distinctively human lifestyle — know-how, sociality and language — co-evolved, each constituting a selection pressure for the others," Dr. Pinker writes in "Language Evolution," the new book of essays.
But sociality, from Dr. Dunbar's perspective, helps explain another feature of language: its extreme corruptibility. To convey information, a stable system might seem most efficient, and surely not beyond nature's ability to devise. But dialects change from one village to another, and languages shift each generation.
The reason, Dr. Dunbar suggests, is that language also operates as a badge to differentiate the in group from outsiders; thus the Gileadites could pick out and slaughter any Ephraimite asked to say "shibboleth" because, so the writer of Judges reports, "He said sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right."
Language in the Genome From Family Failing First Gene Emerges
A new approach to the evolution of language seems to have been opened with studies of a three-generation London family known as KE. Of its 29 members old enough to be tested, 14 have a distinctive difficulty with communication. They have trouble pronouncing words properly, speaking grammatically and making certain fine movements of the lips and tongue.
Asked to repeat a nonsense phrase like "pataca pataca pataca," they trip over each component as if there were three different words.
Some linguists have argued that the KE family's disorder has nothing specific to do with language and is some problem that affects the whole brain. But the I.Q. scores of affected and unaffected members overlap, suggesting the language systems are specifically at fault. Other linguists have said the problem is just to do with control of speech. But affected members have problems writing as well as speaking.
The pattern of inheritance suggested that a single defective gene was at work, even though it seemed strange that a single gene could have such a broad effect. Two years ago, Dr. Simon Fisher and Prof. Tony Monaco, geneticists at the University of Oxford in England, discovered the specific gene that is changed in the KE family. Called FOXP2, its role is to switch on other genes, explaining at once how it may have a range of effects. FOXP2 is active in specific regions of the brain during fetal development.
The gene's importance in human evolution was underlined by Dr. Svante Paabo and colleagues at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. In a study last year they reported that FOXP2 is highly conserved in evolution — in other words, that the precise sequence of units in FOXP2's protein product is so important that any change is likely to lead to its owner's death.
In the 70 million years since people and mice shared a common ancestor, there have been just three changes in the FOXP2 protein's 715 units, Dr. Paabo reported. But two of those changes occurred in the last six million years, the time since humans and chimps parted company, suggesting that changes in FOXP2 have played some important role in human evolution.
Sampling the DNA of people around the world, Dr. Paabo found signs of what geneticists call a selective sweep, meaning that the changed version of FOXP2 had spread through the human population, presumably because of some enormous advantage it conferred.
That advantage may have been the perfection of speech and language, from a barely comprehensible form like that spoken by the affected KE family members to the rapid articulation of ordinary discourse. It seems to have taken place about 100,000 years ago, Dr. Paabo wrote, before modern humans spread out of Africa, and is "compatible with a model in which the expansion of modern humans was driven by the appearance of a more proficient spoken language."
FOXP2 gives geneticists what seems to be a powerful entry point into the genetic and neural basis for language. By working out what other genes it interacts with, and the neural systems that these genes control, researchers hope to map much of the circuitry involved in language systems.
Ending the Silence Linguists Return to Ideas of Origins
The crescendo of work by other specialists on language evolution has at last provoked linguists' attention, including that of Dr. Chomsky. Having posited in the early 1970's that the ability to learn the rules of grammar is innate, a proposition fiercely contested by other linguists, Dr. Chomsky might be expected to have shown keen interest in how that innateness evolved. But he has said very little on the subject, a silence that others have interpreted as disdain.
As Dr. Jackendoff, the president of the Linguistic Society of America, writes: "Opponents of Universal Grammar argue that there couldn't be such a thing as Universal Grammar because there is no evolutionary route to arrive at it. Chomsky, in reply, has tended to deny the value of evolutionary argumentation."
But Dr. Chomsky has recently taken a keen interest in the work by Dr. Hauser and his colleague Dr. W. Tecumseh Fitch on communication in animals. Last year the three wrote an article in Science putting forward a set of propositions about the way that language evolved. Based on experimental work by Dr. Hauser and Dr. Fitch, they argue that sound perception and production can be seen in other animals, though they may have been tweaked a little in hominids.
A central element in language is what linguists call recursion, the mind's ability to bud one phrase off another into the syntax of an elaborate sentence. Though recursion is not seen in animals, it could have developed, the authors say, from some other brain system, like the one animals use for navigation.
Constructing a sentence, and going from A to Z through a series of landmarks, could involve a similar series of neural computations. If by some mutation a spare navigation module developed in the brain, it would have been free to take on other functions, like the generation of syntax. "If that piece got integrated with the rest of the cognitive machinery, you are done, you get music, morality, language," Dr. Hauser said.
The researchers contend that many components of the language faculty exist in other animals and evolved for other reasons, and that it was only in humans that they all were linked. This idea suggests that animals may have more to teach about language than many researchers believe, but it also sounds like a criticism of evolutionary psychologists like Dr. Pinker and Dr. Dunbar, who seek to explain language as a faculty forced into being by specifics of the human lifestyle.
Dr. Chomsky rejects the notion that he has discouraged study of the evolution of language, saying his views on the subject have been widely misinterpreted.
"I have never expressed the slightest objection to work on the evolution of language," he said in an e-mail message. He outlined his views briefly in lectures 25 years ago but left the subject hanging, he said, because not enough was understood. He still believes that it is easy to make up all sorts of situations to explain the evolution of language but hard to determine which ones, if any, make sense.
But because of the importance he attaches to the subject, he returned to it recently in the article with Dr. Hauser and Dr. Fitch. By combining work on speech perception and speech production with a study of the recursive procedure that links them, "the speculations can be turned into a substantive research program," Dr. Chomsky said.
Others see Dr. Chomsky's long silence on evolution as more consequential than he does. "The fact is that Chomsky has had, and continues to have, an outsize influence in linguistics," Dr. Pinker said in an e-mail message. Calling Dr. Chomsky both "undeniably, a brilliant thinker" and "a brilliant debating tactician, who can twist anything to his advantage," Dr. Pinker noted that Dr. Chomsky "has rabid devotees, who hang on his every footnote, and sworn enemies, who say black whenever he says white."
"That doesn't leave much space," Dr. Pinker went on, "for linguists who accept some of his ideas (language as a mental, combinatorial, complex, partly innate system) but not others, like his hostility to evolution or any other explanation of language in terms of its function."
Biologists and linguists have long inhabited different worlds, with linguists taking little interest in evolution, the guiding theory of all biology. But the faculty for language, along with the evidence of how it evolved, is written somewhere in the now decoded human genome, waiting for biologists and linguists to identify the genetic program that generates words and syntax.
researchers did find that the higher the levels of fetal testosterone, the less the children made eye contact with others. A hallmark of autism is a marked lack of eye contact. Moreover, the children with lower levels of fetal testosterone had larger vocabularies.
Women, he says, are slightly more empathetic than men on average—that is, they are more likely to recognize, and respond to, the emotions of others. In tests, women are better at recognizing the emotions conveyed in photographs of eyes. In a skill related to social interaction, girls tend to develop language abilities and vocabulary faster than boys. Various studies show that women use both sides of their brains for language, while men use only one side, he says.
Men, meanwhile, are on average slightly better at understanding systems that respond to inputs and outputs, he says. Examples include math, engineering and carpentry, fields that tend to be dominated by men. Systemizing, while a good way of interacting with things, is not a good way of handling the subtleties of social interaction, Dr. Baron-Cohen argues.
I'm sort of feminine-masculine, I am often in touch with feminine side, can empathize better than some men, perhaps? That is why marketing and journalism. I see it both ways, bursts of each.
