'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.

Sadly I fit into pretty much every female stereotype it's possible to fit into WRT this sort of thing

My wife is pretty good at all those things. Oddly enough, she did once genuinely believe that she had been born a boy.

This map thing always pisses me off.

How many men can read a knitting pattern?

Oops! Knitting patterns already addressed — that’ll teach me to RTFT when I’m pissed off.

I don’t think you can ignore the studies which point to an innate difference in the spatial abilities of men and women.

As mentioned by Goosefoot earlier, a difference in spatial cognition between male and female animals has been observed, some of the human studies have been on babies a few months old and the findings on spatial cognition differences hold across cultures.

That’s not to say that socialisation doesn’t have a role to play too.

The good news is that women - and men - can hone their skills in this domain.

In this regard, I was interested in the work of a female professor of engineering who devised a programme to help her (female) students improve their 3D thinking. She had discovered that her female students struggled more in this area than her male students, and would often drop out, thinking engineering wasn’t for them. The professor recalled having more difficulties in this area than her male peers when she was a student too.

The initiative improved retention rates amongst female students.

I think it’s really important to acknowledge that women may find such tasks more difficult than their male counterparts and not adopt the rigid idealogical position that it's all sociocultural.

My dad always made me orientate my map. Part of his job was navigation (not cars) so i learned from a pro. I dont have to orientate my map to read it but i feel like im doing it wrong if i dont. I also have a great sense of direction. I did have lego as a toy.

Im not that great at other spatial awareness things like looking at a big box and knowing if it will fit in my boot though.

If there is an innate difference (at a population level) then it'd be helpful if we tried to counter it rather than exacerbate it by gendered socialisation, wouldn't it?

I'd be interested to read your link, OutwiththeOutCrowd, but it's not working for me. Could you put it plain or tell me what to search for, please?

How many men can read a knitting pattern?
My grandfather, and he made his own designs too. Away with stereotypes!

I always wonder why it would matter if, as a whole population, men and women differ on this? Or on any thing, as there are areas where women seem to have an edge.
I think it's interesting, and possibly useful if we are trying to think about reasons that, for example, there might be more male than female engineers, or more female GPs. But I don't think it tells us anything about what some particular individual is good at, or likes, or should do, and I don't think it tells us anything about the relative value of men and women.

Sorry about that Errol, try this:

nautil.us/issue/32/space/men-are-better-at-maps-until-women-take-this-course

Or google 'Men are better at maps until women take this course'

I didn't make the 'idiot' comment

I didn't say you did.

And yet, Outwith, from time immemorial, girls and women have been constructing elaborate clothing and clothing patterns, which of course requires understanding of geometry, along with rates of change along a linear progression - and no one considers that a skill using innate spatial awareness.

I think there’s a great deal of cognitive bias in the research seeking to find innate differences in male and female abilities, and some of that bias lies in the very definition of what constitutes ability.

If there is an innate difference (at a population level) then it'd be helpful if we tried to counter it rather than exacerbate it by gendered socialisation, wouldn't it?

I guess it would depend on what you mean by countering it. If we think everyone should have high school physics, or should be able to read a map, which both seem plausible, then I think normal people of both sexes can accomplish that.
On the other hand, often people like work they are naturally good at, and the very best at certain type of work are often people who have some natural advantage. Do we really need a 50-50 male female split among engineers, or other jobs where there are sex imbalances? I am not sure that matters in many cases. And in general I don't see value in pushing people into work they find less enjoyable because of ideology.

The other issue though is that if some innate differences are real, the social element will be caused by that. If 80% of nurses are women, then you can try to make people aware that some nurses are men, or try and make sure interested men get a chance, or the workplace isn't hostile to them. Those things should be taught. But you won't change the perception that women are more likely to be, or be interested in, nursing. Because the stereotype comes from the real observation.

from time immemorial, girls and women have been constructing elaborate clothing and clothing patterns, which of course requires understanding of geometry, along with rates of change along a linear progression - and no one considers that a skill using innate spatial awareness.

So? Does anyone think women are totally incapable of any spacial work? We aren't constantly running into things after all. That women can sew, and some do so very well, doesn't really tell us whether or not there are innate differences.

• I always wonder why it would matter if, as a whole population, men and women differ on this? Or on any thing, as there are areas where women seem to have an edge. I think it's interesting, and possibly useful if we are trying to think about reasons that, for example, there might be more male than female engineers, or more female GPs. But I don't think it tells us anything about what some particular individual is good at, or likes, or should do, and I don't think it tells us anything about the relative value of men and women.*

It matters because of stereotypes and how they affect socialisation and aspirations etc.
It shouldn't matter, everyone should be treated as an individual, children should be given the means to develop their individual talents, the words 'girls can't ...' or 'boys shouldn't ...' ought to be banned.

But, it seems that differences - be they real or an artefact - still get exacerbated rather than alleviated. So, maybe until we know for sure (which for many abilities we don't), it may be safest to assume there isn't a difference than assume there is.

Goosefoot i do understand wha vyou are saying but i think people get nervous when there are small statistical differences between groups as they get latched onto and suddenly being statistically less likely to have good map skills means noone expects you to have these skills or gives you the opportunity to try and the small difference becomes a huge gaping gap.

And yet, Outwith, from time immemorial, girls and women have been constructing elaborate clothing and clothing patterns, which of course requires understanding of geometry, along with rates of change along a linear progression - and no one considers that a skill using innate spatial awareness

Are all women good at that though, or is it the same proportion that can easily read maps etc?

"As mentioned by Goosefoot earlier, a difference in spatial cognition between male and female animals has been observed, some of the human studies have been on babies a few months old and the findings on spatial cognition differences hold across cultures."
Animals tend to be more sexually dimorphic than us humans? What studies on babies can they do 3d rotation? Although even little babies have already been exposed to sexual stereotyping, and I wouldn't be surprised if the interactions (isn't he active, isn't she good (and quiet) steroetypical interactions based on assumed sex via clothing colour) haven't had an effect in terms of what the babies get exposed to perhaps? Like fast, zoomy toy play encouraging tracking for what someone thinks is a boy, and calmer, hand it to her and let her grasp it toy play for a girl??

Of course, I'm hypothesizing here from a position of almost total ignorance :-)
Across cultures, as I recall, women from some cultures as good as men from others when it comes to spatial rotation, so the gap is closable in some sense. And all cultures are patriarchal after all.................So, was a conspiracy of the Patriarchy to stop females reading maps and escaping to a feminist utopia (if anyone knows the way, please send GPS coordinates :-) )..............

Actually to balance it out, I'm also utterly pants at sewing, knitting and general tidiness.

Excellent at cooking though.

• And in general I don't see value in pushing people into work they find less enjoyable because of ideology.

I agree. However, neither should they be excluded from work that they might find enjoyable because of ideology. That is exactly what used to be the case, women were appallingly limited in what they were considered able to do, with no justification. In theory we should be over that; in practice, we're not.

Bicker, from what I've read there are some visual skills which women tend to be better at, for example, seeing small differences between two similar arrangements of objects, while men tend to be better at rotating objects in their heads.

I guess both skills are useful in different situations!

Of course, there's one ability where the sex difference is clear, and which alone means we are unlikely to see 50:50 in all areas of employment (even if that was a desirable aim) due to its knock on effects - men are completely crap at having babies.

From Outwith's article.

Moreover, while comparing the cognitive performances of men and women may produce a measurable difference, the averages don’t tell the whole story. “Many women have significantly stronger spatial ability than many men,” explains George M. Bodner, a professor of chemical education at Purdue University, who designed one of the tests commonly used to measure spatial cognition ability. Bodner stresses it’s important not to perpetuate the myth that a gender gap implies all men are better than all women at spatial cognition tasks. Stereotypes about spatial ability can have an insidious effect. “When women hear myths, such as the idea that they have ‘poor spatial ability when compared with men,’ they often believe this will be true for themselves, and it often is not true,” Bodner says.

When male/female differences in areas like spatial ability are talked about, it's always about the averages, and there will be both men and women at both ends of the distribution of ability.

Ideally, it shouldn’t matter if we don’t have 50% women engineers.

But in the real world, when we don’t, we end up with cars that aren’t designed, wrt safety, to account for the physiological differences between men and women. We end up with AI experiments that have to be terminated because quite quickly they end up with robot voices talking about raping women. We end up with pharmaceuticals never tested on women and vast surprise when, after centuries of anatomical study, scientists finally deign to examine the clitoris and discover it extends into the vagina.

It starts SO young. There was a Guardian article some years back about a study that found that 6- year olds think “genius” is something only boys can have.

In my opinion, all the intensive research into discovering the holy grail — THE thing that makes male and female brains different, cognitively, serves to perpetuate that. We’d be aghast at anyone doing that research wrt race or ethnicity. But because we ALREADY accept the idea that there IS some important difference (one which, naturally, positions women on the wrong end of the value-spectrum) we dont blink an eye at spending billions to prove the case.

But because we ALREADY accept the idea that there IS some important difference

But the difference is only one of distribution and averages.

I turn the map the way I'm travelling and then I'm really good at navigating. I have dyspraxia - I'm shit with lefts and rights and mentally rotating objects in my head... but I'm bloody good at working around things I find hard and not just plugging on the hardest way possible out of pride.

(And for street signpost maps I can't physically rotate I photograph them onto my phone and rotate them there if required).

Animals tend to be more sexually dimorphic than us humans? What studies on babies can they do 3d rotation? Although even little babies have already been exposed to sexual stereotyping, and I wouldn't be surprised if the interactions (isn't he active, isn't she good (and quiet) steroetypical interactions based on assumed sex via clothing colour) haven't had an effect in terms of what the babies get exposed to perhaps? Like fast, zoomy toy play encouraging tracking for what someone thinks is a boy, and calmer, hand it to her and let her grasp it toy play for a girl??

Some animals are more dimorphic than humans, others less so. The point really is that we readily accept that these sort of sex based cognitive differences happen in animals, as if that would be expected and totally possible and we can even see why it happens, and then dismiss it as unlikely, or offensive, or requiring a huge evidential burden, in humans. Which is irrational.

Most of the studies that are deemed relevant when looking at human differences are with other apes. Ape studies aren't human studies of course, but they have many similarities and it is one way to look at what might be the case if there were no cultural or socialisation issues.

Infant studies are a similar attempt. Some of them include extremely young babies doing things like looking at faces, or other objects, and seeing how long they hold their interest. Suggesting that socialisation is the cause seems to be really reaching to ignore something which is entirely possible. Sure, maybe girls who are days or weeks old look at faces longer because of socialisation. But I don't think its more likely than any other reason, and I am suspicious when someone states that is more likely. Especially with similar results from other primates.