{"id":667,"date":"2015-09-18T21:00:57","date_gmt":"2015-09-19T01:00:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns5\/?p=41"},"modified":"2015-09-18T21:00:57","modified_gmt":"2015-09-19T01:00:57","slug":"crooked-thinking-about-spatial-sex-differences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/2015\/09\/18\/crooked-thinking-about-spatial-sex-differences\/","title":{"rendered":"Crooked Thinking About Spatial Sex Differences"},"content":{"rendered":"

by: Nicole Murgia <\/span><\/p>\n

Nora S. Newcombe is the writer behind the essay titled <\/span>Taking Science Seriously: Straight Thinking About Spatial Sex Differences<\/span><\/i> however, in my opinion, there is no \u201cstraight thinking\u201d behind any of the points or examples she discusses. <\/span><\/p>\n

Newcombe constantly seems to be contradicting her own beliefs and opinions on the topic of spatial reasoning abilities in men and women. It almost seemed like she was having an argument with herself throughout the essay. Newcombe brings up Lawrence Summers, the former president of Harvard University, who stated in a presentation that there is indeed a difference found in men and women regarding spatial ability that favors men and is most prevalent at the higher ends of distribution. The comments made by Summers have been discussed previously in the book <\/span>Why Aren\u2019t More Women in Science?<\/span><\/i> by other authors, and from what I have read about him, his speech was completely irrational and unsupported, as other authors have pointed out and backed up with research and examples. Newcombe however, chooses to not take a clear stance on Summer\u2019s points when she answers both no and yes to the question \u201c…was Summers correct in speculating that women may be held back from success in science partly because they lack the cognitive prerequisites?\u201d (Newcombe 70). This point is both indecisive and confusing to the reader, which is a red flag already within the first few paragraphs of her essay. <\/span><\/p>\n

Newcombe presented one assumption in the next section of her essay on causation that I partially agreed with. She concluded that the higher cognitive ability of some boys can be contributed from an environmental factor, in this case access to experiences that enhance spatial ability (computer games, puzzles, etc.), \u201csex differences in two spatial tasks\u2026 were not observed in young elementary school children from low-income backgrounds, although we saw sex differences in middle-and high-income groups (Newcombe 71). I found this very interesting, as there is a similar debate regarding SAT test scores between students high and low income families. Throughout the years, there have been results that support the statement that students from higher income environments score better than low income <\/span>(Zumbrun 1)<\/span>. Although there is information that support this fact, \u201c<\/span>Within each income category, of course, is a tremendous amount of variation. There are students from wealthy families who do very badly and students from poor families who do very well. Having wealthy parents gives a leg up. But parental income is not destiny\u201d (Zumbrun 1). I think that the same conclusion can be made for Newcombe\u2019s take on elementary students and their cognitive abilities. Although access to tools and toys can enhance spatial ability, there are always exceptions. <\/span><\/p>\n

After Newcombe presented that somewhat relevant point, she completely lost me for the rest of that article after her examples on the \u201cMan the Hunter\u201d and the \u201cMan Who Gets Around\u201d. The \u201cMan the Hunter\u201d example explains that because hunting requires spatial skills, men have the upper hand with spatial skills (Newcombe 72). However, once again, she contradicts herself by also including the \u201cWomen the Gatherer\u201d example that explains how women also have good cognitive skills because of their experience basket weaving, making pottery, etc. (Newcombe 72). Last but certainly not least, was the \u201cMan Who Gets Around\u201d example. This point stated that men gain spatial skills navigating by navigating around their territories finding women to make sexual partners (Newcombe 72-73). <\/span><\/p>\n

In conclusion, Newcombe\u2019s essay was filled with strange examples and unbacked evidence. And even after reading her article multiple times, I still was not able to detect a clear stance on sex differences within spatial ability or an overall underlying purpose of her essay. <\/span><\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/span><\/p>\n

Zumbrun, Josh. “SAT Scores and Income Inequality: How Wealthier Kids Rank Higher.” <\/span>Real Time Economics RSS<\/span><\/i>. N.p., 7 Oct. 2014. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.\u00a0<\/span>http:\/\/blogs.wsj.com\/economics\/2014\/10\/07\/sat-scores-and-income-inequality-how-wealthier-kids-rank-higher\/<\/p>\n

Newcombe, Nora “Taking Science Seriously: Straight Thinking About Spatial Sex Differences”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by: Nicole Murgia
\nNora S. Newcombe is the writer behind the essay titled Taking Science Seriously: Straight Thinking About Spatial Sex Differences however, in my opinion, there is no \u201cstraight thinking\u201d behind any of the points or examples she dis…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2195,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29790,31180,29798],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-fall-2015","category-fys-wns","category-student-blogs","column","twocol"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/667","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2195"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=667"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/667\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1210,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/667\/revisions\/1210"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}