Amps and Women

Your girlfriends' comments are totally biased, fully subjective, as are all of our individual opinions, don't you get it?

It's all subjective. It's all subjective. It's all subjective, if it were not so then there would be one system that would be the best, get it?

In all this discussion about differences in hearing between the sexes and if its genetic or not, I wonder if "listening" would not be the better expression. I also wonder if its a quantitative thing, in the sense of the frequency range you are capable of hearing, or if it is rather a qualitative thing, in the way you listen to what. Another puzzling thing: Why is it that people who are known to have defects in their intake ability for higher frequences will imediatedly notice if there is a cut off above say 15khz in any given piece of music. They will tell you, that there is something "wrong", but in terms of pure sience they are not supposed to notice anything at all. Can anybody clarify?

I wonder why this thread fell asleep? It seems interesting enough to follow through. Contrary to what whatever "science" may maintain, there may well be a genetic difference in hearing between the genders. If we suppose that prehistoric females were not expressively trained in karate and selfdefence (-: and being physically inferior to their male counterparts and hampered by their brood, it was essential for their survival to hear approaching danger as early as possible, in order to take the appropriate measures. In other words: being hampered ( pregnancy, children) means a certain amount of involuntary passivity, hence the importance of an early warning system. Its only hypothesis, but a valid assumption I think.

Great post, but would the males not also be in need of an early warning system when out hunting and gathering? I suppose you suggest, that women, being forced to live more passive, needed an even more finely honed hearing acuity, compared to the males. Wonder what anthopologists have to say to that. Any around?