For a Second I Didn’t Know What to Believe – Well-behaved women rarely make (scientific) history

Hormonal fluctuations are something we often associate with moody pubescent teenagers and maybe even our own awkward teenage years *shudders*, but did you know that they might be affecting YOU right now? In addition to wreaking havoc on teens, hormones also play a (supposedly) important role in determining cognitive abilities in both men and women. At least that’s what essays 1-5 in the book Why Aren’t More Women in Science have led me to believe. Well, that is until I read the 7th essay by Melissa Hines, entitled “Do Sex Differences in Cognition Cause the Shortage of Women in Science?”. After reading Hines’ essay about organizational and activational hormones, and arguing with myself about what she was trying to say, I was left thinking that sex differences are negligible and that we, as a society, should be more focused on improving upon our weaknesses rather than being held back by them.

The main amendment that Hines’s essay made to my recently formed opinion was in relation to the role that hormones play in cognitive differences. Essays 1-5 had convinced me that cognitive sex differences existed and that they occurred because of the hormone differences between men and women. Hines presented her information on differences in cognitive abilities using a mathematical manner and I appreciated that. In my opinion, Hines’ use of statistics to show the differences between the genders is best way to convey the gap because quantifying the differences shows how large it truly is. Hines introduces congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), which is a genetic disorder causing the adrenal gland to produce extra androgens, starting prenatally. Hines used girls with CAH to display the effect of increased male hormones on females’ cognitive abilities and eventually came to the conclusion that there was no real effect on abilities because the results could not be replicated and because they were too many other factors that could not be discounted. Hines continued on to discuss the organizational and activational influences hormones had on human cognition, concluding that the hormones did not play a role in the differences because the results were not consistent across the board. I looked into this theory and learned that it is becomng more and more commonly accepted (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/girl-brain-boy-brain/). In comparison to some of the other essays, I think that Hines does an exemplary job at analyzing the data collected and then deciding whether or not to use the data to support the claims made. Since Hines was presenting both sides of the argument by analyzing the evidence and then rejecting it when appropriate, I was more convinced of what she was saying because I could follow along her train of thought. After reading the essay, I was left questioning and then changing my opinion that hormones caused the sex differences. In summation, Hines’ method of presenting evidence about hormones and cognitive differences caused me to believe that hormones do not play a role in a person’s cognitive abilities.

Despite the fact that Newcombe addressed and analyzed the data presented, her argument did have some limitations. She argues that the mentality surrounding sex differences is having a larger effect on cognitive differences in comparison to hormones. When Hines asserts this, she is assuming that the mentality is very impactful, although many people have begun to disregard the belief that males are better than females at some things. In addition to this limitation, Hines ends her essay in a similar manner to how Nora Newcombe ended her essay earlier in the book by saying that society should be more focused on improving upon weaknesses instead of focusing on what causes the differences in the first place. Hines is assuming that people will be willing to put in more effort to improve themselves rather than participating in activities that they are already inherently good at.

In conclusion, when I first began reading the essay, I started relating what Hines was saying to other essays in the book. The relation between the essays in the book is starting to make me think that there may actually be an answer to question “Why Aren’t More Women in Science?”. I think that answer may be that although sex differences exist, it is more important to focus on getting rid of them rather that focusing on why they exist. And that is an answer I can accept.

Lillie Izo says:

October 6, 2015 at 8:53 pm

Hi Shivani! I really like how you question everything that you have read and try to make sense of it all in this blog. As for suggestions, I’d try to cut down on the summary, as it is your largest paragraph, even though you do a fabulous job summarizing! You have a very logical way of thinking and it translates beautifully in your writing, making it very easy to follow your complex thinking.

Shannon Laughlin says:

October 7, 2015 at 11:52 am

(Ayyye) Shivani! I agree that Hines presenting both sides was much more effective. You bring up a good point that the essays within this book all state very different facts and evidence. It can be confusing when multiple essays cite research that prove exact opposite points. But, I like how you’ve chosen to remain wary of the contradicting answers and instead focus on finding a solution to the discrepancy of women in math and science fields, similar to Newcombe.

Charlotte says:

October 7, 2015 at 2:10 pm

I love how you linked this essay back to the first five chapters that we’ve read so far. Though they all take a similar approach, using studies and data, Dr.Hines gave us an answer that we could all accept because she uses studies that both support and reject her thesis. I, too, believe that this particular approach – presenting both sides of the argument – really makes her stand stronger since it eliminates some bias. Lastly, I agree that we should really spend some time on how to further develop our abilities than justify why they exist.

Olivia Taylor says:

October 7, 2015 at 2:47 pm

Hi!! I appreciated your view throughout this blog, since i had all the same reactions you did as i was reading myself. its a big shocker to have this information thats been drilled into your head for so long be totally discounted; you almost think the opposition is false. But the evidence she provided was sound, as you said. While i do believe that finding a solution to this problem should be the main focus, I have to note that finding the root and cause of the problem is the quickest way to finding a solution. Diseases aren’t cured until scientists find out where it came from, what it does, where it lives, its strengths and weaknesses, and how they can hit it where it hurts to solve the problem. This is sort of being done by trying to pinpoint the origin of the underrepresentation of women in STEM.