Chelsea Eareckson- A Confused Reader (Blog 5) – Well-behaved women rarely make (scientific) history

Chapter 5 in the book Why Aren’t More Women in Science? by Ceci and Williams was probably one of my least favorites. Nora Newcombe is yet another expert that attempts to define the cause for the sex discrepancy in the STEM fields. In my opinion, her argument is weak because it is not only unsupported but also uniformed and draws illogical conclusions.

Nora Newcombe assesses the validity of Larry Summers infamous statements in her essay, “Taking Science Seriously: Straight Thinking About Spatial Sex Differences.” Newcombe pinpoints Summers’ claims that “men outnumber women by especially large ratios at the highest levels of these abilities” (Newcombe 70) to launch her analysis for the source of those differences. However, Newcombe carefully identifies Larry Summers as the president of Harvard, but fails to mention that he was forced to step down. This detail would significantly decrease Summers’ credibility as a source. To add insult to injury, Summers was forced to step down for the very statements that Newcombe platforms her essay on. This puts the reader on guard and her credibility on shaky footing from the beginning of her essay, where she should be trying to win the reader over.

Newcombe starts by dismissing biology as the reason for gender discrepancies. She revives old studies that have been proved to be faulty and have gone out of use. While I saw this as unnecessary at first, I see now that it is a good strategy to see if the old (disproved) studies have any hold or influence on the current theory in use. If so, that would be a powerful tool to debate the strength of the theory in effect in the science community. She mentions the most popular theory today “concerns the effects of sex hormones, although it is not quite clear which hormones are the most relevant” (Newcombe 71). We’ve heard about this theory in multiple different essays, though in those essays it was quite clear that it is widely believed the prenatal androgens give men elevated spatial ability. This makes it seem like Newcombe is not informed on the topic, which undermines her whole section of the argument. Not identifying prenatal androgens is a key flaw in dispelling the biological theory hypothesis, because it destroys her credibility.

Newcombe then investigates the influence of evolutionary psychology on people’s willingness to believe the biological basis for sex discrepancies in the math and science fields. She portrays men in two characters: Man the Hunter and Man Who Gets Around. Newcombe claims these two abilities do not require any more spatial ability than Woman the Gatherer (the woman character) would, so there is no basis for spatial ability being heightened in men in evolution. If it was a beneficial trait in a society, both men and women should have developed it. Because there is no clear evolutionary advantage for men exclusively to have developed spatial ability that she can find, she concludes that spatial must be an accidental sex difference, like acne (Newcombe 74). Her conclusion in this section of the argument is based on an analogy, with no factual evidence to back it up. She gives the reader no reason to believe what anything she says is true, and closes her argument with a dubious claim that spatial ability is in any way correlated with acne. Again, provides no evidence or even full explanation of this closing statement, leaving the reader confused and doubtful.

This analogy interested me because I love the ideas behind evolution. As Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, ““Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Dobzhansky was a legendary evolutionary biologist, and his revolutionary support of the universality of evolution directly clashes with Newcombes logic in her analogy. She asserts that spatial ability must be an accidental trait in men, because it has not developed in women. I cannot agree with that statement, because it doesn’t make sense. Newcombe only considers three roles: Man the Hunter, Man Who Gets Around, and Woman the Gatherer. This is a huge oversimplification of early society, and there is so much evidence that spatial ability did not evolve by accident. Spatial ability is a highly advanced trait controlled by a complex hormonal system. Evolution does not complexify “accidental traits” because that would be a waste of energy that could be used on something else. Spatial ability is also very helpful in society today. It’s clear that this trait is no accident, and that evolutionary biologists just haven’t determined the cause for its development yet.

In her final part of her essay, Newcombe supports incremental theory as the key reason there should be no sex differences in science. However, though she hits all the points of incremental theory, she never mentions it by name. To the informed reader, this is a major oversight and throws even more doubt onto the legitimacy of the rest of her essay. If Newcombe was fully integrated into the field and knowledgeable on the topic, she should definitely know what incremental theory is and cite it. Her failure to do this is a huge red flag.

Newcombe formulates an, at best, confusing, at worst, uncrafted, essay in which she fails to conclude to a clear point. She began her argument saying that she agreed with Summers, and finished saying the exact opposite. I acknowledge that there are probably flaws in my assumptions and interpretations about Newcombe’s essay, because I went into reading her argument with a highly critical eye. Her omission about Summers in the very first paragraph of her essay made me very uncomfortable, and I doubted many of the things that she claimed as a result. To me, Newcombe is yelling loudly but not saying anything of much worth.

Works Cited

Ceci, Stephen J., and Wendy M. Williams. Why Aren’t More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007. Print.

Sara Camilli says:

September 19, 2015 at 2:09 pm

Hi Chelsea! I loved your blog post and reading about your disagreements with Newcombe. I agree that there were some flaws in her arguments, but I wanted to mention that she didn’t start her essay in complete agreement with Larry Summers. I too was a bit taken aback when she said she believed Summers was correct. However, she went on to say that she thinks he was right only on a superficial level, and that on a deeper level he is incorrect. I feel that the rest of her essay is spent convincing the reader he may be wrong (such as the fact that spatial ability is malleable and not fixed). Though Newcombe is not very firm with some of her points and some of her assertions are not backed with evidence (although many are backed with evidence from her own research), I think that it is a good thing that she is acknowledging other points of view and that it actually helps the points she tries to make.

Lillie Mucha says:

September 20, 2015 at 1:36 pm

Hey, Chelsea! ^^ This was an really interesting read for me. I definitely agree that it was a confusing essay at first for whatever reason. It took me several read-throughs to get a better idea of what Newcombe was trying to say. I wanted to look into the evolutionary psychology more but I couldn’t grasp it well enough to do so, so I’m glad that you took a more critical look at it! You made some interesting statements about evolution. They might be common knowledge to you, but I don’t know the nuances of evolution or why a secondary characteristic would be unreasonable. Do you think you could provide sources for that? I’d like to read more about it!

Yang Yang says:

September 20, 2015 at 4:19 pm

Hi, Chelsea, I really appreciate your blog! You remind me several points I didn’t think about. And your analysis is more logical which I will try to make. I agree with you that her article is confusing. But that is caused by Newcombe’s objective attitude. As a scientist, because of strong evidence, she compromises theories that sex difference exists. but she herself is a advocate of women. Anyway, the previous articles we read are more like address in a debate, only containing viewpoint in one angle. But Newcombe is more neutral. There is a nuance that I disagree with you: Newcombe believes Lawrence Summer’s argument. She opposes a simplified interpretation of such argument. The simplification will bring bad environment to women scientists.

Nicole Murgia says:

September 20, 2015 at 9:25 pm

Hey Chelsea! I thought that your blog was very well-written and included great points. I loved your portion on Newcombe’s Larry Summers example. I to believed that she was deceiving by not including that he was forced to step down shortly after that speech was given. It really is an important point and she should have included it considering it would definitely change how credible an outside reader viewed the statement. I also felt the same way with the acne example as well. It was just a poor example that did not have substance of research to back it up.