Re: ::scr Other jobs

[Piers Cawley <pdcawley-scr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

jonah <jonah@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> on 26/4/02 10:41 am, Magnus Huckvale at magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> and why not?  I think the idea that people follow a particular
>> profession is more due to necessity and tradition than people
>> simply following their calling.  Limiting ideas about people being
>> stronger in 'left brain' or 'right brain' activities don't help.
>> Secondary schools seem to drum into us the idea that we're either
>> good at Sciences or the Arts.
>
> Yes, sadly, and it's not just schools: the concept is reinforced all
> over the place. This was the point that I thought a lot of people
> missed in the long-winded "eloi and morlocks" thread. People were
> making the point that some people are taller or stronger than others
> and holding that up as evidence that nature played a major part in
> determining if someone was better suited to arts and sciences.

Er... no. I'm reasonably confident that some of us were disputing the
claim that was made that nature had *no* effect on anything, all of
it was down to nurture, and if we could just throw off our mental
chains (doo doo doo!) everything would be all right and we could all
acheive like Feynman or Picasso or whoever.

-- 
Piers

   "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
    possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
         -- Jane Austen?