From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 02:16:32 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan25.050047.113@csis.dit.csiro.au> prl@csis.dit.csiro.au writes:

                        The change in the character of the mucus is not
 > a "smelly discharge" as Gil characterises what he seems to think is
 > an indicator of ovulation.

Sorry, but I do think it is unfair, and quite unreasonable to take one
single phrase I wrote and place it in a completely different context. I
had plainly excused myself in writing what I did, doing so for no more
reason than to discern from the other person concerned whether such
indications of ovulation, apparently obvious among female chimpanzees,
would need to be monitored in response to his bet that if I lined up
ten human females I would not be able to tell who was ovulating.

 > >What do you mean by no "external physical indication", however?
 > >Excuse me ladies, no red, swollen vulva with a smelly discharge
 > >and whatnot? Is that what you would want me to discuss with you,
 > >were you less "civilised" and gentlemanly?
 >  
 > >Lining up ten women would be an interesting exercise, if we could
 > >carry it out at an appropriately cross-cultural level of validity
 > >to be certain of our results (and indeed get away with it without
 > >causing a riot in each village we visited).

There are my original paragraphs left to substantiate exactly what I
had said, while you edited out the other's challenge to a bet. I yet
await his realistic and practicable research design, that the wager
can be validated.

I had already myself pointed out that the Billings method was an
already established practice, and I expect that while we might have
a little fun here in drawing out these various debates and having
the participants present their evidence, there are surely limits to
which a disreputable stance is dishonestly attributed to others.

In other words, no dirty political or rhetorical tricks, eh?

 > >Not at all, although you have perhaps entered this thread late. I have
 > >twice now quite explicitly stated that I am referring to Pre-menstrual
 > >Tension (PMT) as the most commonly visible indicator that ovulation is
 > >taking place, raising the query in why in certain identifiable social
 > >traditions such indication is regarded as an illness, or behavioural
 > >abberation.
 >  
 > Gil, about how many days prior to menstruation do you think ovulation
 > occurs in humans? For how many days prior to menstruation do women typically
 > experience PMT? The former is about 10-12 days, and the most fertile time
 > is a few days before and a few days after that. As I understand it
 > (and being a male I must confess to a lack of direct understanding),
 > PMT usually occurs for a few days before menstruation, and would
 > be a poor indication of fertility, and in most cases would be a reasonably
 > reliable indicator of infertility.

I don't know, I am neither a women nor a gynaecologist. I don't know
either that all women suffer from PMT, or what sort of indicator of
fertility it my be. I don't even know that any of this is relevant at
all, for that matter.

My only argument has been that all these indicators that ovulation is
taking place in human females are sufficient to have the hypothesis
that in human females ovulation is hidden rejected.

In other words, sufficient evidence is plainly available that we are
obliged to accept the null hypothesis. Whether you subsequently wish
to act against me in some way, or have undue aspersions cast upon my
reputation, is an entirely different matter.

I would suggest to you that your public attempts to do so would rather
reflect upon you finally, yes?

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology