Genetic Influence

Is there any truth to what Lawrence Summers said in 2005? Summer’s controversial points brought about new insight on the debate on women’s success in math and science fields. Nora Newcombe’s Taking Science Seriously: Straight Thinking about Spatial Sex Differences talks about the assumptions that now surround women, such as how sex-related differences have evolutionary explanation or what causes males to be better scientists than females. Newcombe presents a fresh, new take on how the past theories, and even current ones, on causation are not well researched and are not really able to identify the cause of why are men better than women. She then brings up the biological factor of women talents, where she says that it makes no sense for men to evolve and women to stay in a lesser stage of evolution. Finally, Newcombe talks about how spatial ability can be taught “fairly easily”, which shows that even if men have superior spatial abilities, women can still reach their spatial level through being taught how to better utilize their spatial abilities (74, Newcombe). Throughout this essay, what really sparked my interest was the genetic piece that she mentioned. Before I had thought about the nature VS nurture debate and how evolution and genetics play a big role in the differences between men and women. But Newcombe brings up an interesting point on if our genetic makeup really influences what our talents are. I believe that it does not play such a large role in this and it is instead a mix of factors influencing our talent.

 

When we think about genetics, we think about DNA and all these other molecules that make up our being. We think about how genetics influences so many aspects of our life ranging from how we look to what diseases we are pre-disposed to. Yet, according to Newcombe, there are explanations for the evolutionary assumption that men evolved earlier and had a bigger advantage for doing so than women because evolution was “not relevant for women” (72-73, Newcombe). I disagree with this assumption. Genetics is not something that happens with rational thought, but instead happens naturally, and when evolution happens, genes change. Changes in our DNA due to mutations or reshuffling of genes can provide an advantageous aspect to the organism’s life (PBS). Evolution is a concept, not a human being with a brain and prejudices. A supreme being does not sit there and think about who gets to evolve, how, and when. Instead, evolution happens spontaneously, without thought, and without careful planning. Evolution causes abilities to advance in everyone, but we just see less of the same quality of abilities out of both genders because the extent of how well one can use these abilities also varies. Genes for these talents can be stronger in some people and weaker in others. An example of how this can be shown is found in Newcombe’s Man the Hunter and Woman the Gatherer (72, Newcombe). According to Newcombe’s essay, the man evolved over time in order to gain more spatial ability so he could hunt more and and help ensure the survival of his children (72, Newcombe). Yet people don’t acknowledge that the woman also had to develop spatial skills and evolve at the same time as the man. The woman evolved because she needed new abilities to find food to gather or to make baskets and pottery to be used in the household, and by doing such tasks, the woman showed how she used her spatial ability (72, Newcombe).  In both sexes, spatial abilities were developed, yet each gender displayed these abilities in different ways. As a society, we tend to not look at the genetics of a person but at how well they display the ability to perform certain tasks. This has lead to a lot of assumptions that men are better at spatial abilities than women, and these abilities are what are mostly used in the science and math fields. By using inference, society then concludes that men are better suited for these fields than women, which is not necessarily true. Just because men display their abilities in certain way, does not mean that women have to display it the same way. Instead, both genders present their abilities through different ways of thinking, which can be influenced by evolution and genetics, but is also influenced by their environment and culture.

 

Even though there is evidence and my own knowledge to support what I believe, there is still more research that I would either need to do or get familiarized with to protect my belief. Educating myself on the topic on a deeper level or even conducting research to examine this aspect of genetics and talent could help provide more concrete proof that first, genetics really does affect a person’s talent and second, if a person’s gender has an influence on their ability. By looking over such research, I can make further conclusions on this topic and what the research leads the peers to believe. Results can help determine if spatial ability and other ability associated with specific genders really differs between genders and if the ability is even genetic in the first place.

 

Newcombe also had some holes in her own beliefs and assumptions. The way Newcombe talked about relevant research was very interesting because she critiqued other people’s work in the past and present, which made me realize that research is rapidly changing and it is not necessarily set in stone because there might be new research around the corner that will shift what we know and believe. Yet, she did not really support her assumptions with describing the studies in depth. Instead, she tended to just cover the surface of a study but didn’t explain what she thinks is wrong with the approach or what the results really told us. By not expanding on the study she used to support herself, readers are left not knowing much about the way the studies were conducted or if the study would really strengthen her position since the bare minimum is told. She also cited only her own studies in her section Spatial Ability can (fairly easily) be Vastly Improved, which is questionable since the readers cannot put that much trust into what Newcombe presented in that section due to little outside support. She also did not discuss pitfalls of her research or how to expand current research in topics that she feels it should be, like in her section Current Evidence on Causation. Overall, Newcombe brings up many interesting points in her essay, but they could have been supported better.  

 

Overall, I believe Newcombe had some interesting points, yet she did not quite support them as well as I thought she should have. I found her writing on genetics very interesting and agree with her that genetics does not define one gender to be superior over the other.  Evolution and genetics may play a small role in how sex differences show themselves, but they do not play the biggest role. Instead, it is a combination of our environment, genetics, and cultural beliefs that influence our abilities and how we solve problems. These influences can cause us to grow abilities like spatial reasoning in different ways, which can lead to one person developing one talent more than other. It is that merge of nature and nurture that that influences us and shapes our strengths and weaknesses.

References:

PBS- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

Why aren’t Women in Math and Science?— Author Nora Newcombe