Newcombe’s article has an unusually neutral position. Newcombe talks about Lawrence Summer’s argument and the negative influence of itsmisinterpretation. She mainly evaluates the interpretation that sex difference of intelligence is biological based and unchangeable. She points out that there is little evidence of extant biological explanations and she argues that though sex difference can be eliminated through training, intelligence ability is one of many elements that contribute to science success so we should more focus on education. Many parts of her analysis convinces me. However, the effort to contain opposite viewpoints makes her article confusing and her rejection lack linkage. Although I believe in the authenticity of evolution psychology theory and think that it can explain differences between men and women, it should not be the only factor focused on today. The veracity of biological evidence should never be obstacle for women in their career lives. Newcombe’s rejection approach is good but she arrives at it for the wrong reasons.

Newcombe over looks the differences in division of men and women’s social labors. Evolution theory says that primitive men target at prey to hunt and women search for fruit without targeting at certain objects, so such different duties has improved men’s spatial ability. Newcombe believes that men do not usually use spatial ability to hunt and women need spatial ability too to search for food. Yet her assumption is more farfetched. First, opposite to the author’s inference that men use traps rather than follow the prey to hunt, in many primitive tribes today, men follow prey for three to four days and use spears to kill it. Second, focusing on a fruit and quickly switch to another is very different from aiming at one target for a long time. Women and men may have different types of searching ability. Research shows that women are better at finding objects in brand visual field while men are better at focusing on one target, which fit in the evolutionary theory. I believe the evolution theory because it exists. In nature, many species have distinct difference among male and female. Female insects usually have much bigger volume and are more aggressive for breeding offspring. Male mammals usually have stronger body to protect their occupation of mate partner and their children. Among the same species, we should not overlook the difference between male and female.

Author’s claim that men don’t need spatial ability to find women for reproduction and gain reproductive advantage ignores opposite evidence either, for men need to trek between different tribes to find female spouse. The author disputes the generalization to human from an experiment that shows male vole, who needs to search for female to mate, has better spatial ability than female. Female human, unlike vole, live in a tribe rather live separately. Yet though human females live in tribe, marriage usually won’t happen in the same tribe, so male still need spatial ability to find female in other tribes. Also, research reveals that women tend to find stronger, more athletic men; such tendency has imprinted on female’s unconscious mind. Such physical advantages include ability to hunt, which engaged with spatial ability. A simple question, if spatial ability fails to give men productive advantage, how could it maintains in gene, and spread all tribes across the world?I think men actually gain some productive advantages.

Although the correlation between spatial ability and biological basis is unclear now, it is hasty to link it just to accident. True, some gene mutation happens, but the actual accidents will be weed out and the ones conserve have pass through nature selection. Moreover, to analogize spatial and acne is improper. Acne is a skin disease but spatial ability is an inner element that can affect our behavior in many dimensions. Moreover, acne may not be an accidental as it linked to male’s high metabolism in adolescence. Thus, like acne, spatial ability is likely linked to certain function that important to male. In a word, distinctive spatial ability is not accident.

Other than her rejection to evolutional theory, her objection to other biological theories conflicts with each other, as she implies sex difference appears at older age as maturational without intention to focus on that. Arguing whether sex difference emerges at early ages is caused by biological basis, Newcombe refutes the biological theory by saying that early-emerging effect is more likely produced by environment, and late-emerging effect is more maturational. However, such argument mixes with following statement: more obvious sex difference emerges in middle and high school. Such statements convey the information Newcombe doesn’t mean to highlight: sex difference in older age period is maturational.

Though Newcombe’s arguments lack linkage, her main point that we should not focus on unchangeable sex difference and that it doesn’t link to scientific success reminds me of the nature of serendipity in science, thus highlighting that sex difference is meaningless, even harmful. She compromises that the sex difference can be hard to eliminate even by such training, yet it never has had a dominant effect to academic success. We fail to state a linkage between intelligence and scientific success. First of all, does science retain the most intelligent brains? Fifty percent students in Princeton University choose careers in financial field.(Rampell) Science has become unpopular among smart students due to its low salary and arduous laboratory work. We will find it hard to prove that people in science field are intelligent. Moreover, can we imply a correlation between intelligence and success? Probably not. Proof by fact, success is more related with chance rather intelligence, just like success of science. Most scientific success is rather serendipity than result of wisdom, such serendipity more reflecting diligence of scientists rather than intelligence. For example, the discovery of nylon. However, I have to compromise that the science successes is circumscribed at science field, as success of mathematics is more related to intelligence.We can infer from the truth that focusing on women’s weakness is only meaningless and will truly become an obstacle for women scientists.

In “Taking Science Seriously”, Newcombe fails to refute the evolutional theory by strong evidence. But her opinion about limited correlation between spatial ability and science success is right. She fails to use the right reasons to approach her purpose as decrease the influence of biological sex difference theory. Based on fact, there are many factors influence a scientist’s career success, and intelligence may just play part role. And the research about biological explanation for sex difference in spatial ability is endless. We are hard to find a perfect answer. In contrary, we shall focus on how to retain intelligent group in science and how to train both men and women to improve their ability as part of them will become next generation of scientists.

Citation:

Newcombe, Sex differences in spatial ability and spatial activities in Why there are few women in science? Ceci and William

Catherine Rampell, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/out-of-harvard-and-into-finance/?_r=0