From: leung@DSG.Tandem.COM (Steven Leung)
Subject: Re: Genetics/PMS/Midlife crisis
Organization: Tandem Computers
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:03:53 GMT

siu@athena.mit.edu (Olivia I Siu) writes:
> I think this is one of the society taboos that should be completely 
> overthrown.  Blaming one's acts on the HORMONES, or the GENETICS
> of human, is a disgraceful excuse in explaining one's faults.

I won't call it taboos. Maybe prejudice a better word. I think there
are at least two different issues here:

    1) whether hormones (and thus genetics) affect one's behavior/
       personality (even temporarily)?

       This is a scientifically verifiable issue, and I believe the
       answer is yes in general.

    2) whether the act/personality_trait of a specific person is
       determined by (an abnormal amount of) certain hormone?

       Obviously, we need to make judgement on a case-by-case basis.
       There are people who use this as an excuse to defend their
       own behavior or blaming others without factual support, but
       from that to negate the issue of 1) seems to be going from
       one extreme to another.

> One has to be responsible for one's acts no matter what state one
> is in, even if it's caused by physical and genetic constraints.

Even if s/he is enforced into that state?

> Let me make an illustration.  A professor of mine once told us about
> a seminar she attended.  In the lecture, a male director lectured about
> how women should not be placed in some decision making post of a company, 
> his reason being that the hormonal cycle of women causes them to act 
> irrationally at times and make bad or wrong decisions.  So, this guy 
> was saying that women can't make rational decisions during what
> is now termed at PMS. ...

Again, we need to distinguish the two issues as applied to PMS. I believe
that PMS is real (Note, as the term syndrome implies, that state is not
considered as normal, and thus does not support the generalization to
all women), but whether a specific lady's behavior is due to PMS or just
somebody uses this as an excuse to protect his own interests must be
judged by the case. Negating the PMS as an issue is as invalid as making 
PMS generalization to all women.

> A female geneticist stood up and demonstrated that
> men also have hormonal cycles, which occurs every four days throughout
> the men's lives.  So, corresponding to the director's suggestions that

Men also have hormonal cycles? I don't have problem with that. Every
four days? Throughout the men's lives? Not sure about this. I wonder how
that female geneicist "demonstrated" that. If it's true, I think I
should be able to use that to convince my employer why I should work
only four days a week.:)

> women were not qualified on particular positions in a company due to
> their PMS, the geneticist asked if men should be completely eradicated
> from the world of business because of their 4-day cycles!!! 
> The director was speechless.

Hey, this is an even better four work-day a week idea!

> "Mid-life crisis" is also part of the idea that a man around their 40s
> or 50s can throw away his responsibilities to his family, ...

PMS and "Mid-life crisis" are two completely different matters. I consider
PMS has real physiological origin while MLC does not (unless somebody
could prove that the 4-day cycle somehow turns into 5-day or something). 

> My conclusion is a human being is intelligent enough to be responsible
> for his/her own acts, without finding some "term" as an excuse to 
> justify their irresponsible acts.  Such reasoning is illogical.

My conclusion is that when a real problem exists, masking it out with
another problem is not the way to solve the problem. (BTW, IMO, 
intelligence is not necessary - therefore, there is no question of
enough or not enough - in order for a person to take responsibility for
his/her own acts. Only integrety will do.)

Steven
------
328. Seek opportunity, not security. ...
        - Life's Little Instruction Book by H. J. Brown, Jr.