{"id":38,"date":"2015-09-11T20:50:13","date_gmt":"2015-09-12T00:50:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns15\/?p=38"},"modified":"2015-09-11T20:55:31","modified_gmt":"2015-09-12T00:55:31","slug":"disproving-summer-blog-chapter-4-olivia-choe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns15\/2015\/09\/11\/disproving-summer-blog-chapter-4-olivia-choe\/","title":{"rendered":"Disproving Summer (Blog Chapter 4: Olivia Choe)"},"content":{"rendered":"

To all the ladies reading this blog: Save the energy\/time and give up. We will have a better chance in succeeding in something we are actually good at than in something that we are forcing ourselves to believe is true. Instead of bothering to read these books about women in the sciences\/math, how about we take an FYS course about household duties and the controversies of which mop brands to use when cleaning the house. Clearly these remarks are offensive and don\u2019t even make sense right? The sad reality is that some people still think males are more superior over females and all we are good at is taking care of the house. Females are notoriously known for being incompetent in STEM compared to men. Humans are so easy to manipulate, so it is easy to let society determine how you think about an individual\u2026specifically women. Lawrence Summers is one of these victims na\u00efve enough to fall for such a trap. He believes that there are three factors that account for the underrepresentation of women in science: sex differences in cognition, discrimination, and motivation. Spelke and Grace from Sex, Math, and Science <\/em>do the honors of analyzing and discrediting Summer\u2019s idea of cognitive abilities through their own research and findings.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s first focus on this whole controversial idea of cognitive abilities. Let me give you a clear idea of what these cognitive sex differences are: males are more focused on objects while girls are focused on people, males are simply \u201cgifted\u201d with spatial\/numerical reasoning, and males have greater variability. Grace reacts to these statements by stating, \u201cwe believe research casts doubt on all these claims.\u201d What kind of research was found? They found that through meta-analysis, male and female infants learned at indistinguishable rates in how to fit blocks into holes. They concluded that the data showed that there was no such evidence that boys engaged with objects more than women. Grace and Spelke then debunk the next statement, \u201cmales have a gift in math\u201d through a study that was performed on two\/four year olds. They tested these children on geometry-based and landmark based navigations quite similar to the mental rotation test. There was an equal result in both genders; however, grace and spelke stated that there is a gradual sex difference as people age. Adult females relied more on landmarks (singling out individual features) and males relied more on geometry (shapes viewed by rotation). However, these minuscule differences do not prove anything because both gender performed at almost equal levels. The SAT M is known for testing \u201ctrue math ability.\u201d The SAT M shows that males outperform females; however, Grace and Spelke argued, \u201cBy suitable choice of items, one could create a test favoring either gender.\u201d Hence, it is how the test is setup that determines an individual\u2019s success. However, they still point out that \u201cNevertheless, it is possible that one of these profiles is better suited to learning or performing high level mathematics.\u201d They argue that creating a gender fair test requires people to develop an understanding of the sexes and the nature of mathematics. There are two solutions they propose: To study male\/female infants, children, and adults and to test mathematical aptitudes on males\/females with strong equal background by introducing them to new math material. If one sex masters the material, that one sex should master the material more effectively. This then leads on to the final topic of cognitive differences, which is variability. More males have variability causing them to have a larger pool of talented mathematicians. Grace and Spelke disprove this claim by testing males and females of same mathematical background, new challenging material. Both were successful. As much as I support Grace and Spelke\u2019s discovery, I found a shortcoming with their research. I found their claim to be a little too biased with such data because if we look back on chapter three, at least Dweck mentioned that there was still a gender gap with her findings. In Dweck\u2019s study, she found that girl\u2019s who did not think of knowledge as a gift performed just as well as males did. Although the gender gap did decrease, it did not close completely, showing that males were still in the \u201clead\u201d. But in Grace and Spelke\u2019s data, they do not mention any possible signs of gender gap. With Grace and Spelke, they don\u2019t give specific numbers that show by how much each gender did better than the other. They concluded that SAT M does not determine a man and woman\u2019s progress in careers in STEM. They stated, \u201cCognitive sex differences do not account for the preponderance of males in math and science.\u201d (61)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Now this question is going off a slight tangent, but has anyone noticed \u201cDora the Explorer\u201d has had a drastic makeover in the last couple of years? As I recall my childhood memories, she was a cute and stout tomboy, but now she simply resembles an awkward tween ready for trouble and drama. What\u2019s going to happen next? Will Dora the Explorer become Dora the next top model or will she be a part of the next bachelor? Though these ideas seem exaggerated, I\u2019m pointing out a recurring pattern that exists in our world, which is gender stereotype. Spelke and Grace point out some of the gender stereotypes that exist in chapter four. They found that parents end up overestimating the competence of their male children compared with their female children. Parents wanted to be as equal and not show any signs of gender bias despite their best interest. This is no surprise considering the fact that this is quite common. In an article called Girls in STEM,<\/em> parents were asked what kinds of jobs they thought their daughters would like. And their responses were? They expected their daughters to take on traditional female vocations such \u201ceducation and child care, the arts, healthcare and hair and beauty.\u201d This shows gender bias from a sub conscious level. We are so brainwashed into thinking that females will take on careers that are known for being feminine. This shocking pattern does not stop there. Valian came across a similar finding Spelke and Grace state out. They state, \u201cwomen were found to be less likely than men to receive postdoctoral fellowships.\u201d In the study when one dossier depicted a candidate with an average record, they saw the candidate as \u201cmore impressive when the name on the dossier was male than it was female.\u201d Sexism at its finest, am I right? Obviously this is a sarcastic statement and with all seriousness this is a huge issue that should not be overlooked. Overall, what readers get out of Grace and Spelke\u2019s speculation is that discrimination and gender bias still exists!<\/p>\n

Finally, with the idea of sex differences in cognition and discrimination, both synergize into what is known as motivation. Males want to pursue careers in STEM because they are not as discriminated while females are less motivated to pursue fields in STEM because it seems somewhat intimidating.<\/p>\n

Through the analysis that Grace and Spelke offer, we are able to conclude that women are indeed capable in succeeding in STEM because there is no exact evidence that shows males have an advantage in these fields because of their cognitive abilities. It is true that females and males have somewhat different cognitive abilities; however, both are on par when it comes to understanding any kind of concept. Males are just as good with understanding people, as females are good with understanding objects. So, to all the ladies who read up to this point of my blog: Never give up and use all the energy you can because you will succeed through endless effort. The truth is, both male and females are equally capable in performing perfectly well in the STEM field. The key to success is having a positive mindset. Kudos to you because you took the right FYS course. Think of knowledge as a tree. It is constantly growing and will never stop growing. Growing knowledge is the best gift that is given to everyone.<\/p>\n

\"imgres\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Sources:<\/p>\n

– Why Aren’t More Women in Science by Ceci and Williams<\/p>\n

-http:\/\/www.ibtimes.com\/girls-stem-parent-stereotypes-may-discourage-daughters-science-technology-engineering-1895719<\/p>\n

Image Sources:<\/p>\n

-https:\/\/www.sweetcitycandy.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/Tween-Dora.jpg<\/p>\n

-https:\/\/www.pinterest.com\/tjleonhard\/school\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

To all the ladies reading this blog: Save the energy\/time and give up. We will have a better chance in succeeding in something we are actually good at than in something that we are forcing ourselves to believe is true. Instead of bothering to read these books about women in the sciences\/math, how about we […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2205,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[31180],"class_list":["post-38","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-fys-wns"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns15\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns15\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns15\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns15\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2205"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns15\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns15\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns15\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns15\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns15\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}