Spatial Sex Differences

Although men are shown to have strengths in the spatial domain, the media has blown up the images of ditzy women and men with an innate sense of direction. They amplify the assumptions that sex differences are biological and fixed, but evidence introduced in Nora Newcombe’s essay “Taking Science Seriously: Straight Talk About Spatial Sex Differences” suggests otherwise. She argues that spatial ability is not purely biological and can be vastly improved, so there should be a focus on education for this skill to maximize the people available to the STEM careers that utilize it, which is a call to action I think should be implemented, but it ignores the key factor of gender biases attributed to the lack of women in science and math.

There is evidence of a large environmental factor that affects spatial sex differences that disputes the biological influence considered an explanation for the lack of women in science based on cognitive ability. Studies of children with different socioeconomic statuses showed no sex difference for low income background, only for middle or high income backgrounds (Levine et al). Newcombe’s explanation for this is that boys from low income families did not have access to computer games and building sets that strengthen spatial skills, so they did not have the discernible advantage over girls that was seen with children in higher income families. A person’s environment greatly affects who they are and who they become, so to say mathematical skill is biologically caused seems like a narrow-minded assumption. Nature and biology give humans the cognitive capacity for mathematics, but the skill is learned and improved as one grows based on the education they are exposed to, whether through a computer game or class. This ties in to the research from the AAUW powerpoint Why So Few that references the study Dr. Sheryl Sorby conducted at Michigan Tech because she provided this spatial skill experience to students. She exposed students to an extended course that resulted in 82% improvement in spatial skills by the end.

Newcombe also makes this point that spatial ability is not biologically fixed and can be improved with practice. In Newcombe’s most recent study on improving spatial skill with task specific practice and computer games, the subjects were still improving after a semester of work and showed no sign of leveling off at a fixed limit. This supports the incremental theory for this skill, which is also discussed in essays one, three, and four of Why Aren’t More Women In Science. The pattern makes it seem as though whether the researcher is an incremental or entity theorist determines their position on increasing representation of women in science. The growth mindset of the researchers continues to discredit fixed mindset evidence and support the potential for women in science and math. Although practice in Newcombe’s study did not cause women to catch up to men, there is possibility of convergence with other practice methods.

Newcombe closes on this thought that there is more work to be done in understanding how to properly educate for spatial skills and argues that this is the solution to maximize availability for both genders in the STEM careers. I mostly agree with this solution and believe that exposing women to courses in spatial skills would be very beneficial since they are a significant determinate of ability in the math and science fields. My only other concern is the gender biases, which were not discussed in this essay. The evidence in essays one and four of Why Aren’t More Women In Science show that these gender biases unconsciously influence employers when choosing between applicants for a job considered dominated by men. I think addressing the societal issue as well as the educational issue will show greater improvements in women’s representation in STEM fields.