'Women can read maps — they just need Lego '

[ErrolTheDragon]

Report in The Times today on Gina Rippon speaking at the Hay Festival

Women can read maps — they just need Lego

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-says-women-can-t-read-maps-they-just-need-lego-kdlp5x2nw?shareToken=e523367a117a4ca5c3927f8270a4bbc1

I'm pleased to say that DD did indeed have a lot of Lego (and k'nex which imo is even better), and began with a megablocks self-build pink fairy castle.

Knitting is similar - it’s basically coding for making 3D fabric but you never hear of men being told they’re crap at understanding code because they can’t read knitting patterns.

Oh, I like that! If you can crochet, you can code? Dumbledore liked his knitting patterns though..............

Just had a mad thought -- given that girls supposedly like messing about preening, I wonder if this means that girls are more used to deciphering information obtained using a mirror, and so are better at spatial reflection?

Also interesting to note, cultural differences, and adults who use sign language are better at spatial rotation skills as well!

Still annoyed about sex bias in Springwatch, sick of hearing about magnificent male capercaillie boinging about making daft noises, whilst the boring ole brown female who does all of the reproductive labour...............

RandomlyChosenName When you’re on google maps click on the compass to change from north always upwards to directional and vice versa.

Not sure what you're confused about, goosefoot so don't know how to explain.

At this point, a recommendation to read Cordelia Fine's 'delusions of gender' must be overdue.

It seems even anecdotally on this thread there is wide variation.
I'm a map turner, DH isn't. I don't think he's an idiot - he's better at navigating than me, although I'm pretty good at it.
Neither of us were big Lego fans.

Oh, I like that! If you can crochet, you can code?

Knitting patterns have 'for' loops, and 'while' loops, and subroutines. Code for 3-d printing in yarn.

Not sure what you're confused about, goosefoot so don't know how to explain. At this point, a recommendation to read Cordelia Fine's 'delusions of gender' must be overdue.

I dislike Fine, I think she cherrypicks the evidence she presents and it undermines her argument.

As far as your comment, it's straightforward, I don't see what you are responding to. What is "that"?

Cross posted with you, Goosefoot. I thought SciFiScream and you were saying opposite things, but perhaps you were saying the same. I've always rotated the map to the direction of travel, and I'm baffled by people who don't do that. I was surprised that the military were suggesting that you shouldn't rotate the map (which is what I understood SciFiScream to be saying).

I think the misunderstanding was due to what people mean by 'upside down'. I was assuming people meant literally 'upside down' (i.e. with the writing upside down), but perhaps they meant 'not in the direction of travel'. But maybe some people did mean literally 'upside down'. Which makes this discussion very confusing.

Your long description about map rotation is what I do - what I was saying to SciFiScream was if you can't turn your map 'upside down' (literally, with the writing upside down), then north is always at the top, so to orientate yourself to the map when going south, you have to walk backwards.

Crochet and knitting are both very mathematical. For example see this pattern for crocheting a perfect sphere: www.ravelry.com/patterns/library/ideal-sphere

Even without searching for geometric perfection, most knitters / crocheters will work out how to change increases / decreases to improve fit, adjust for yarn weight and tension as standard.

It seems even anecdotally on this thread there is wide variation.

The plural of anecdote is not data.
And it's hard to discern what influences each of us has been subjected to, in terms of experience and gendered expectations.

I don't know if it would be unusual that boys might be ahead in this skill as children. Girls are typically substantially ahead of boys in reading and language skills at those ages, its a real factor in teaching that age group.

Presumably while girls' brains are racing ahead in that area, boys' are doing something else. To a large degree it seems to even out later on but it would not be odd that the difference is reflected somewhat later on.

It is odd that some skills like sewing aren't recognised generally as spacial, but I do think people who are better at them tend to have good spacial thinking. Hairdressing is another example. Insofar as sewing or carpentry have a historical gendered association, I think its for reasons other than relative spacial ability of men and women.

Another ability which might be viewed as spatial is the ability to estimate volumes. Short fat glass v tall thin ones type of thing. I remember ages ago seeing a study on this - iirc the differences found were cultural rather than gendered, and essentially depended on experience of estimating.

OldCrone

Ah, yes, I see what you mean, yes, I agree with you, you have to turn it. To me an upside down map is one not turned in the direction of travel, but to people who don't use them it often seems to mean not having North at the top.

When I was teaching, some people seemed to turn it naturally, and for others it is a revelation. Though often the problem is they don't fold the map, and its impossible to turn it when it is open, as it is too big. Even for people who can read a map when they are facing the wrong direction, I think you are less likely to make an error if you make a habit of turning it in the direction of travel.

What I've always struggled with is elevations on a map. Unless it is really obvious I have to work it out. My husband is very good at it, he can see the map and just visualise the landforms.

As regards rotating the map, I don't when using a road atlas (bit too hard to do so when a large one), so have to do the mental rotation as regards 'take the 3rd left'. With OS maps and going across country, that would make more sense to rotate. especially where you need to try and align physical features of the landscape that you can see with their abstract representation on the map.

Jigsaws, I rotate the pieces, but there is also some mental rotation going on as well, when guessing which would be a piece worth bothering with. The missus (engineer so should be good at the mental rotation) is useless at pattern-matching for jigsaws (or perhaps just takes the engineers approach of if we take a bit off here, THEN it will fit! Why she isn't allowed scissors when we are doing jigsaws!)

I'm failing to find anything significant so far as regards mental reflection (mirrors!), and possible sex differences....................

Wondering about links between mental rotation ability and evolution.........if men did all the flint knapping and hunting (supposedly hones mental rotation skills), whilst the graceful laydees did all the gathering, then surely the gatherers should be ace at map reading (since they need to orient themselves in a landscape and be able to find good food sources again -- you can't just potter about at random and assume you'll stumble across a tuber!). Although AFAIK, we don't even have evidence that the muscley males did the flint knapping in the first place. And I bet something ladylike like basket weaving requires similar mental rotation skills to flint knapping anyway..............

I can read a map, and I'm teaching DDs to turn their maps.

I've always claimed my ability to read maps is down to my ability to get lost walking down the road if I don't have a map with me.

I like Lego too (and DDs love their Lego friends... Recent themes have included snowsports, go cart track and a theme park... Terrible hobbies for girls...)

Wondering about links between mental rotation ability and evolution.........if men did all the flint knapping and hunting (supposedly hones mental rotation skills), whilst the graceful laydees did all the gathering, then surely the gatherers should be ace at map reading (since they need to orient themselves in a landscape and be able to find good food sources again -- you can't just potter about at random and assume you'll stumble across a tuber!)

I've read a little bit about theorising around this. What they suggested is the directionality/spacial component with men is related mental maps for hunting, or maybe not even maps but how the hunter relates himself to moving prey. While the gathering thing involved mental maps as well, but much more like landmarking, which tends to be how women prefer to navigate.

I'm failing to find anything significant so far as regards mental reflection (mirrors!), and possible sex differences.....

Well... there are quite a lot of women in crystallography (a field in which symmetries are key), but that might be more down to having some great role models especially Dorothy Hodgkin.

A couple of years ago I watched a documentary about Tubu women who cross the Sahara desert without a map or compass. It was amazing, I really recommend watching it if you can.

To me an upside down map is one not turned in the direction of travel, but to people who don't use them it often seems to mean not having North at the top.

I don't think it's anything to do with whether or not you use maps often, it's purely a language issue, and people on this thread have used it in both ways.

I initially assumed Mangoes post early in the thread to mean 'upside down' in your sense. But the thing I discovered was that when they say men are better at reading maps - It's a very specific thing - It's reading the map upside down that they are good at.

But then other people seemed to mean 'upside down' in the literal sense. So then I got confused.

I'm brilliant good at reading maps from any angle and have a strong sense of direction too. I only came across the idea that women were bad at reading maps as an adult because in my family our DM was the acknowledged queen of maps.

When my DPs were in their teens during WW2 they used to go on epic hikes on Exmoor in a mixed group of a dozen or so. The whole group relied on my DM to get them home, which she did using a map and her sense of direction.

I wonder if people who like north at the top would prefer south at the top in the Southern Hemisphere? Is it mere convention or related to subconscious awareness of direction?

There was a letter in the newspaper recently by someone who'd always been able to find his way around, then spent some time in the antipodes walking under clear skies - on his return to the U.K. he kept finding himself 180 degrees wrong.

I can read maps (I look at the map and memorise routes, both visually and as sequences of places/roads, so I don’t have to consult it often) estimate the time accurately, aim at and catch things easily and do other things that rely on spatial awareness and good coordination. I have a degree in Maths. I never had any interest in LEGO, Meccano, jigsaws, puzzles. I can write code but find doing so boring. I don’t think these things are necessarily linked in the way that people believe they are.

Does anyone really doubt that plenty of men are bad at maps, and plenty of women are good at them? Or that experience plays a role, or that people can usually learn things that don' come naturally to them?

But as far as the scientific question, it really seems to be about whether on a population level there is some innate difference that affects how people, on a population level, tend to develop their spacial abilities. It's very difficult to know whether factors like stereotypical activities are stereotypical because one sex is somewhat inclined to be better at them, or there is some other reason they become associated and the activity itself creates the increased ability to do the task? Or a bit of both.

But its not in the end really useful to talk about anecdotal evidence, surely there has never been some total difference even in culturally determined activities. Men and women both have to use their spacial sense at times or people wouldn't be able to function.

I never had any interest in LEGO, Meccano, jigsaws, puzzles. I can write code but find doing so boring. I don’t think these things are necessarily linked in the way that people believe they are.

I think a lot of these things have different facets. Interest is one, what if its not ability but interest that is innate? Some studies suggest that males and females, as a group, at a young age have different things that they like.

I was very good at coding in high school, my teacher suggested that I might want to take a degree in computer science. I did well in symbolic logic at university too. But I found them both very tedious, so I didn't go on to become practiced at higher levels or develop my mental capacities. Lots of people are much better than I am at them, even though they may have come easily for me at the beginning.
There is some evidence that females from a young age are more likely to be interested in tasks that involve people. If that were innate, it would tend to direct interests somewhat.

I can read maps

But Lego is a total fecker of a toy. It waits for the unwary every single day to step on with bare feet.

Hurty.

LEGOPHOBIC

Some studies suggest that males and females, as a group, at a young age have different things that they like.

The problem with generalisations like this, is that even at a young age, those children will have been treated differently by some adults in their lives, depending on whether they are boys or girls. So socialisation comes into play.