![\"think-outside-the-box\"](\"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns18\/files\/2015\/09\/think-outside-the-box1.jpg\")
<\/a>(Image:\u00a0http:\/\/www.alrasub.com\/?attachment_id=49903)<\/p>\nIn chapter 5, Larry Summers\u2019 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\u2019s right, you are also assuming that \u201cany sex-related differences are biologically caused and that they are hence immutable (70).\u201d She also says that there\u2019s 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 \u201cearly-emerging effects can be environmentally produced (71).\u201d Biological evidence helps us target specific interventions, but it doesn\u2019t tell us that the reason behind the differences is biological. Another factor that can affect one\u2019s choice of field and that took me by surprise is the income of a person\u2019s 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\u2019s clear is that biology is not the only explanation to this problem.<\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201ctracking animals, aiming at them, and fashioning the weapons (72).\u201d Not only could hunting help to ensure the survival of the himself, but it could also enhance a man\u2019s access to women and thus, reproduction. On the other hand, women are the \u201cgatherers\u201d and though they don\u2019t seem to need to use as much spatial ability, they do need it to \u201cweave or make baskets or pottery\u201d and for \u201clong trips\u2026 to find various kinds of edible vegetation (72).\u201d Despite the fact that it is an intriguing idea, Newcombe didn\u2019t really provide any data or information as to where or how she came up with this \u201ctheory\u201d and personally, I don\u2019t 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.<\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019t 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\u2019s no a definite relationship between animals and humans\u2019 abilities, it is less effective using an animal research instead of a research done on humans.<\/p>\n When reading this essay, I found myself confused. This essay isn\u2019t written effectively in comparison to the other essays that I\u2019ve read. To me, most of what she says are \u201cassumptions\u201d. She raises a lot of very good questions but she doesn\u2019t always answer them with supportive evidence. For example, she asked \u201dwhy is there a biologically based sex differences in spatial ability?\u201d and answered \u201done clue comes from data. (73).\u201d She doesn\u2019t disclose what data she\u2019s 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\u2019s saying. Without the sub-headings, I wouldn\u2019t know the idea behind the paragraphs. Even after I finished the whole chapter, I couldn\u2019t figure out her exact stand in this situation and what she wants to convey. Information is all over the place and I couldn\u2019t 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 \u201cdata\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u201cnormal\u201d or \u201ccommon\u201d. When she talks about how it is natural for us to think that \u201cthe spatial ability story seems to fit so neatly into an evolutionary psychology framework,\u201d she also thinks that we should \u201clook at this framework with a critical eye (72).\u201d 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\u2019t mean that it is completely unquestionable. Let\u2019s take this topic as an example. I didn\u2019t 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\u2019m so used to the idea that men are just \u201cbetter\u201d 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 \u201cthe explanation of sex differences,\u201d \u00a0we 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\u2019ve 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\u2019s essay showed me that there is always more than one solution to every problem (even if we don\u2019t agree with every causation for the problem), and sometimes by thinking outside the box, we can actually find what we have been looking for.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\n(Image:\u00a0http:\/\/www.alrasub.com\/?attachment_id=49903)
\nIn chapter 5, Larry Summers\u2019 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 qual…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2271,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29790,31180,29798],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-679","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\/679","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\/2271"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=679"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/679\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1277,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/679\/revisions\/1277"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswomeninscience\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}