As Simple As Sudoku

Sudoku. A puzzle in which players insert the numbers one to nine into a grid consisting of nine squares subdivided into a further nine smaller squares in such a way that every number appears once in each horizontal line, vertical line, and square. Sudoku is one of the post popular puzzle games of all time. The puzzle is sort of like a mental maze that takes time and effort to conquer. Some would say that in order to solve Sudoku, one must have patience and some form of spatial ability. But I believe that, like education in the sciences, mathematics and other fields, solving this puzzle takes practice. Because “intellectual abilities, and possibly more so, spatial ability has increased in the past century faster than the gene can change” (Newcombe 74), it is nonsensical to assume that there is a specific allele that codes for how well a person can solve a puzzle.

In chapter four of Why Aren’t More Women in Math and Science, researcher Nora S. Newcombe discusses her beliefs that the assumption that men are more spatially capable than women is partially true. I am inclined to question her reasoning because it is very risky to say that something is partially true. I find myself asking what is meant by partiality and by how much is it measured? If something is partially accurate, is that reliable enough to support an argument? Newcombe states that studies on the outcome of standardized tests have shown men to be more spatially able than women. Though this is true, there can be no argument of what can be taken as more able without defining the meaning of spatial ability. This is something Newcombe did not do at the start of her essay. While reading the first half of the essay, I was left wondering what spatial ability really meant in context of her argument. How is it measured? Who or what was tested to determine what was labeled as “spatially able”? I think that, depending on the context of argument, “spatial ability” between sexes can be used to support any theory.

Newcombe uses the Man Who Gets Around as an example of spatial ability. The “Man” is spatially able in that he knows his way around territory and is skilled in hunting. In retrospect though, the woman also uses spatial ability to do “womanly” tasks like weave baskets, shape pottery, and fashion arrowheads. In this example, we see that the definition of spatial ability is two sided. If one was to compare this example to examples we label as spatial ability in common modern day activities, one would see that it depends on which side of the definition one looks. If one was to ask the male to perform a spatial task that requires the ability to weave, he may not be able to do it as well as a woman who has done it all her life and vice versa.

This idea of spatial ability is ambiguous because it has been interpreted in different ways; there is not just one definition. When people hold a certain belief, it is hard to steer them away from that belief even with new founded evidence because “their speculations are so often repeated that they have attained acceptance without having been subjected to searching analysis or scientific testing” (Newcombe 72). It seems that there are more questions and uncertainty than there are answers about spatial ability. As I read research about ability, I find myself asking: Does the definition of ability favor the male or the female? Because arguments and research about gender differences in spatial ability continue to evolve,  and new data is found upon argumentation, I am inclined to believe that the question is not whether spatial ability differs between gender but whether it really matters.  

 

Resources Cited:

Newcombe, Nora S. “Taking Science Seriously: Straight Thinking About Spatial Sex Differences.” Why Aren’t More                  Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence. (2007): 69-77. Web.