I do think it is worthwhile to study gender and sexuality
differences in cognition (and other differences observed between different
genders and sexualities). If looking at the example that males are better at
spatial tasks, and we were able to find out why this was, this could lead to an
ability for scientists to maybe understand people who suffer from a deficiency
in spatial abilities (not females, but people who regardless of sex have
problems that affect their daily lives). Being able to point to why some people
do better at certain things will aid us in identifying what may be
malfunctioning in people with a decreased ability. Additionally, by learning
what differs in brains of people who are good at spatial tasks and those who
are poor at them, researchers may be able to develop more balanced ways of
testing aptitude.
In terms of social stereotypes, research really suggests
that the knowledge of these stereotypes affects a person’s ability on different
aptitude tasks. In terms of SAT math, there is the stereotype that Asians are
good at math but women are bad at math. A study was done (I can’t remember if I
read this for this class or not) where Asian women were made (I forget how) to
focus on their identity as an Asian or their identity as a woman. Those that
focused on their identity as Asian did significantly better than those who
focused on their identity as a woman, seeming to cement the idea of stereotypes
influencing a person’s ability. While the stereotypes must stem from somewhere,
they reinforce the cycle since people follow the stereotypes. Research has also
found that when African-American high school students are given a test and are
either told that it measures aptitude or that its just a test (not measuring
talent), the students who were told it was measuring talent did significantly
worse than those who did not have to confront the stereotype that
African-Americans aren’t as talented on achievement tests (they were both
reminded that African-Americans don’t do as well on aptitude tests). Once
again, stereotypes seem to be changing how people perform.
Finally, looking at the difference of the number of men and
women in the math and science fields, I am always forced to wonder if the interest in such fields is biological
(or socially based). I won all of the math awards in high school and can
immediately see how to solve math problems, but I found it boring; because of
that I haven’t taken any math (besides statistics) in college. My boyfriend
majored in math and saw it more as solving puzzles---I was never able to see it
that way. While I think my inherent aptitude for math is still high, I have no
desire to ever do another math problem. Since I feel that this disinterest is
biologically inherent to me, I wonder if the interest in such fields is
biological (and therefore the basis for difference of the number of men and
women in these fields). While I see obvious reasons for it to be socially
based, my personal experience makes me think that the interest may be at a more
biological level.
»
Reply
Search Serendip
Narrative is determined not by a desire to narrate
but by a desire to exchange. (Roland Barthes, S/Z)
Studying Sex Differences, Social Sterotypes
I do think it is worthwhile to study gender and sexuality differences in cognition (and other differences observed between different genders and sexualities). If looking at the example that males are better at spatial tasks, and we were able to find out why this was, this could lead to an ability for scientists to maybe understand people who suffer from a deficiency in spatial abilities (not females, but people who regardless of sex have problems that affect their daily lives). Being able to point to why some people do better at certain things will aid us in identifying what may be malfunctioning in people with a decreased ability. Additionally, by learning what differs in brains of people who are good at spatial tasks and those who are poor at them, researchers may be able to develop more balanced ways of testing aptitude.
In terms of social stereotypes, research really suggests that the knowledge of these stereotypes affects a person’s ability on different aptitude tasks. In terms of SAT math, there is the stereotype that Asians are good at math but women are bad at math. A study was done (I can’t remember if I read this for this class or not) where Asian women were made (I forget how) to focus on their identity as an Asian or their identity as a woman. Those that focused on their identity as Asian did significantly better than those who focused on their identity as a woman, seeming to cement the idea of stereotypes influencing a person’s ability. While the stereotypes must stem from somewhere, they reinforce the cycle since people follow the stereotypes. Research has also found that when African-American high school students are given a test and are either told that it measures aptitude or that its just a test (not measuring talent), the students who were told it was measuring talent did significantly worse than those who did not have to confront the stereotype that African-Americans aren’t as talented on achievement tests (they were both reminded that African-Americans don’t do as well on aptitude tests). Once again, stereotypes seem to be changing how people perform.
Finally, looking at the difference of the number of men and women in the math and science fields, I am always forced to wonder if the interest in such fields is biological (or socially based). I won all of the math awards in high school and can immediately see how to solve math problems, but I found it boring; because of that I haven’t taken any math (besides statistics) in college. My boyfriend majored in math and saw it more as solving puzzles---I was never able to see it that way. While I think my inherent aptitude for math is still high, I have no desire to ever do another math problem. Since I feel that this disinterest is biologically inherent to me, I wonder if the interest in such fields is biological (and therefore the basis for difference of the number of men and women in these fields). While I see obvious reasons for it to be socially based, my personal experience makes me think that the interest may be at a more biological level.