home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky misc.education:6129 misc.kids:33369 sci.edu:1479
- Newsgroups: misc.education,misc.kids,sci.edu
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!ticipa!elise
- From: elise@ticipa.pac.sc.ti.com (Elise Wade)
- Subject: Re: Branding kids, IQ tests, smart vs dumb (Was: Re: Seminar Program)
- Message-ID: <1993Jan25.191426.2250@ticipa.pac.sc.ti.com>
- Organization: Texas Instruments
- References: <1993Jan20.215406.18366@clpd.kodak.com> <1jlcldINNj0l@mojo.eng.umd.edu> <1993Jan21.205714.9514@sequent.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:14:26 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1993Jan21.205714.9514@sequent.com> petel@sequent.com (Pete Lancashire) writes:
- >clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin) writes:
- >
- >
- [...]
- >
- >From what I have been able to collect mostly about human (child)
- >ethology and child psy, a LOT has come out in just the last five or
- >so years. I have a theory but it may seem sexist. I think one factor
- >is that in the last ten years the percentage of women entering the
- >behavior and psy fields has shot up. A little of track but.....
- >
- >
- [...]
- >-pete
- >Pete Lancashire
- >petel@sequent.com
-
- Hum, perhaps we can restate that so it isn't sexist, but still
- retains an interesting point --- Maybe the difference is that
- there are a lot of folks now entering those fields who actually
- spend a significant amount of time raising their own children.
- Being an active, fully participating parent changes your viewpoint.
-
- Elise.
-