“No,” and so much “Yes”: An appreciation of Dr. Melissa Hines’ “However,” and a pondering of the possibility in infinite “however’s” – Well-behaved women rarely make (scientific) history

Yes! Someone finally, explicitly answered a question to which we were all awaiting the cut and dry answer. “No.” (Many cheers and clinking of glasses.)

Melissa Hines actually answers the title question of her article “Do sex differences in cognition cause the shortage of women in science?” by stating, “Innate sex differences in cognitive abilities do not cause the shortage of women in science” (101). She sticks it to the old, unhip science by challenging preconceived notions such as a specific characteristic shows an innate, immutable sex difference, bigger brains equal bigger knowledge, men are limited to excelling on spatial and math abilities and women are limited to excelling on verbal abilities, kids get spatial ability from parents, prenatal exposure to androgen increases intelligence, and hormones are the culprit. Yes! Greatly appreciated, Dr. Hines!

Alright, there you have it, folks. We can all go home and wipe the sweat of anticipation from our brows. UM, NO. WE CANNOT DO THAT. Never become complacent in the realm of science. Never yawn in the face of progress.

While I appreciate Dr. Hines tackling and calling out dated results of ill-conceived studies, I believe she even falls short of providing more supporting data with specifically two of her arguments: (1) the correlation between brain size and intelligence (for I think that to be a relevant and unnecessarily convoluted topic) and (2) sex differences in cognition are smaller than sex differences in behavior— for I see they lack a broader “however”. On the other hand, there is only but so much one can fit in a written article that attempts to answer unanswered questions: Why aren’t there more women in science? Do sex differences in cognition cause the shortage? As I browse resources trying to find the catch-up to her short-falls, the end-all-and-be-all, I am greeted by endless results on the brain—how this part may affect this part which would affect male in this way and females in another. How do we know when to end?

As far as this article goes, I must say, in my opinion, this was by far the most interesting, engaging, and well-supported one that I have read thus far. Her three main “however” arguments (1) how typical cognitive sex differences that come to our minds (verbal and spatial abilities) are oversimplifications; (2) influence of early versus adult hormonal exposure on brain development; and (3) the debunking of the suggestion prenatal exposure to androgen increases intelligence were all very well supported and truly altered my perception on the question of why there aren’t more women in science. It has me questioning what I have read in the past… and if I read in the past is the “real cheese” and rather if Dr. Hines’ article is the stinky soy cheese! Science is a sticky spectacular thing in itself; and once you add the science of social science (gender issues within STEM fields) to the mix, it becomes almost like wet cement.

Sara Camilli says:

October 6, 2015 at 6:30 pm

Hi Lillie!! Always enjoy reading your blogs- they never fail to be entertaining and informative. I particularly liked how you pointed out that we cannot as of yet understand the convoluted mechanisms of the brain enough to point fingers at it as the cause of the STEM gender gap. I would like to add that brains (and cognitive ability) are not stagnant nor uniform things. Each individual has a unique brain, and while there may be similarities in certain aspects between genders, we cannot know how seemingly unrelated areas impact each other -we see only the net product of all the brain’s many interactions. There is still much work to be done before we can determine cognitive ability as a cause of the gender gap in STEM!

Shivani Patel says:

October 7, 2015 at 1:35 pm

I’m becoming a really big fan of your blogs! They’re always fun to read. I liked what you had to say about the author of the essay actually answering the question that they posed, I found that just as refreshing as you did. I also appreciated that you highlighted that it is important for us to keep looking deeper into the subject because that is the only way we will be able to move forward. Overall, I think you did a great job and keep it up with the fun blogs!

Charlotte says:

October 7, 2015 at 1:57 pm

I cannot agree more with the claim that the brain is way too complicated. We definitely don’t understand it enough to make the assumption that it is the reason why there aren’t more women in math and science. And that’s why Dr.Hines considers a range of factors that might play a role such as the biology, psychology, economy, and politics. I believe by tackling this issue from different angles can give us a sense of what’s really going on. Also, I would love to see what your opinion is on this matter. You spent most of the time doing a summary, which is great, but while raising all those questions, you could try and maybe answer them? I think that having a more developed personal opinion would make this blog even better.

Malena says:

October 7, 2015 at 9:05 pm

Hi! Loved your blog! I agree with many of your points. But I would also mention how neurology is an ever changing science and that we don’t know half about our brains and how they function. Also, I think that the research discussed throughout our past blogs doesn’t take into account how each individual is unique and that each of us is different from each other. This means that we cannot combine all people of one gender into one group because of all the differences that each of us have. The research we have read discards these differences, causing everyone to think and act the same, which we do not.