Think Outside The Box

 

(Image: http://www.alrasub.com/?attachment_id=49903)

In chapter 5, Larry Summers’ speech on the unbalanced distribution of two genders in STEM fields is once again mentioned. However, what is different is that Newcombe has an interesting qualification. She agrees with him on a superficial level because all the data Summers provided – descriptive facts – was correct, but she also disagrees with him at a deeper level because by believing he’s right, you are also assuming that “any sex-related differences are biologically caused and that they are hence immutable (70).” She also says that there’s no direct relationship between biology and immutability and I support that statement this reason: there are multiple factors that could affect the number of women entering STEM fields. For example, personally, I think the environment the person grew up in could really influence his or hers decision when it comes to choosing a career, more so than anything biological. In fact, later on in the chapter, Newcombe mentions that “early-emerging effects can be environmentally produced (71).” Biological evidence helps us target specific interventions, but it doesn’t tell us that the reason behind the differences is biological. Another factor that can affect one’s choice of field and that took me by surprise is the income of a person’s family. Newcombe talks about a study that shows sex differences found in two spatial tasks for upper- and middle- class children. However, these differences were not observed in children from low-income backgrounds, simply because they lack access to experiences that enhance spatial skill. What’s clear is that biology is not the only explanation to this problem.

Newcombe also that brings up ideas that have never been mentioned before in previous chapters- the fact that evolutionary reasons affect sex differences in spatial ability. For example, men are the hunters and they need spatial ability for “tracking animals, aiming at them, and fashioning the weapons (72).” Not only could hunting help to ensure the survival of the himself, but it could also enhance a man’s access to women and thus, reproduction. On the other hand, women are the “gatherers” and though they don’t seem to need to use as much spatial ability, they do need it to “weave or make baskets or pottery” and for “long trips… to find various kinds of edible vegetation (72).” Despite the fact that it is an intriguing idea, Newcombe didn’t really provide any data or information as to where or how she came up with this “theory” and personally, I don’t think it is credible or convincing at all as a result. Even though I agree with her refutation that they both man and woman would need spatial skills, the way she presents the information is making me question her credibility.

She then goes on to explore another explanation for evolutionary reasoning for spatial sex differences and provides an example of prairie voles and meadow voles. According to the biological level of analysis, animal experiments do sometimes provide insights into human behaviour. However, I don’t think it is best for Newcombe to use an animal as an example to try and prove her point. When discussing a topic like this, I personally believe that it is better to stick with researches on human. Not only is the biology of humans different than voles, but humans feel social pressures that voles do not. It is a complicated topic that needs to be examined at different angles but since there’s no a definite relationship between animals and humans’ abilities, it is less effective using an animal research instead of a research done on humans.

When reading this essay, I found myself confused. This essay isn’t written effectively in comparison to the other essays that I’ve read. To me, most of what she says are “assumptions”. She raises a lot of very good questions but she doesn’t always answer them with supportive evidence. For example, she asked ”why is there a biologically based sex differences in spatial ability?” and answered ”one clue comes from data. (73).” She doesn’t disclose what data she’s referring to and this same error could be spotted throughout the entire essay. Also, her ideas are not organized, even with the sub-headings. It was very hard for me to follow what she’s saying. Without the sub-headings, I wouldn’t know the idea behind the paragraphs. Even after I finished the whole chapter, I couldn’t figure out her exact stand in this situation and what she wants to convey. Information is all over the place and I couldn’t make many clear connections between it. Though she provides some new points of view, I must say that this chapter is relatively less scientific than the others and I had a hard time trusting her “data”.

However, like I said, she does have some valuable opinions. One of them is how she thinks that it is important to criticize things that seem “normal” or “common”. When she talks about how it is natural for us to think that “the spatial ability story seems to fit so neatly into an evolutionary psychology framework,” she also thinks that we should “look at this framework with a critical eye (72).” It is very easy for us to accept concepts without having any actual evidence and we need to remember that just because something seems almost natural to us, it doesn’t mean that it is completely unquestionable. Let’s take this topic as an example. I didn’t know the underrepresentation of women in the STEM field was a serious issue until I took this FYS. I have never really thought about it, let alone questioned it, simply because I’m so used to the idea that men are just “better” at science. By constantly questioning and challenging the world around us, we will find underlying problems that desperately need our attention. Her concluding point states that instead of focusing on “the explanation of sex differences,”  we should understand how to educate for spatial skills (75). This is, of course, assuming that spatial abilities are needed for someone to succeed in the field of math and science. Nevertheless, it is a new perspective that I’ve never considered: if we help children practice spatial abilities, maybe this could get them more interested in problems like that and more would enter STEM jobs regardless of sex. Newcombe’s essay showed me that there is always more than one solution to every problem (even if we don’t agree with every causation for the problem), and sometimes by thinking outside the box, we can actually find what we have been looking for.