[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Title:Topics of Interest to Women
Notice:V3 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open.
Moderator:REGENT::BROOMHEAD
Created:Thu Jan 30 1986
Last Modified:Fri Jun 30 1995
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1078
Total number of notes:52352

649.0. "The Psychology of Gender Differences" by STAR::RDAVIS (Just like medicine) Thu Jan 17 1991 12:39

The Autumn 1990 issue of "Signs" (a "Journal of Women in Culture and
Society") had a couple of articles on the subject of "Gender, Computers,
and Difference" (I especially liked the one about the Very Special
Friendship between the computer industry and the military) and an
interesting study of current "treatment" of hermaphroditism, but one story
keeps coming to mind while reading =wn=:  "Meta-Analysis and the Psychology
of Gender Differences" by Janet Shibley Hyde.  (Please, let's reserve
ratholes on "gender" vs. "sex" for the "Language" topic or JOYOFLEX....)

I first heard about what Hyde calls "meta-analysis" from epidemiology.  It
copes with the information explosion by applying statistical methods to
already published reports, in this case psychological studies on
differences between the sexes.  As Hyde points out, this surveying
technique brings up its own issues (for example, studies which showed no
difference between the sexes would be more likely to have "not proven a
thesis" in the '50s and therefore never be published, whereas such a study
would have "proven a thesis" in the '70s and would more likely see the
light of print), but has at least as good a shot at reality as each study
considered individually.

The article includes an amusing-to-scary history of such studies, and is
worth reading in total (as is the rest of the magazine), but in interests
of copyright and such, here are just a few highlights. 

   - The constructors of the standard Stanford Binet IQ test back in the
   1910s (amazingly) operated on the uncommon assumption that there was no
   innate difference in intelligence between the sexes, and worked over the
   test to make sure that the results averaged the same for both boys and
   girls.  (Too bad they didn't worry about class differences as well.) 
   This may explain the continued parity in average IQ.... 

   - All but a very few of the popularly accepted differences in mental
   abilities between the sexes are swamped by the standard deviations
   within each sex.  In particular, the difference for verbal ability is
   actually very small ("so small... that we concluded there is no gender
   difference"), and the differences for mathematical and most spatial
   abilities are "at most moderate" -- not of much use in predicting or
   explaining particular cases, or the vast disproportion of men to women
   in engineering careers (to pick an example at random).

   - The greatest difference between the sexes in standardized academic
   tests is in "mental rotation", which men are much better at.  Why? 
   Beats me.  I'm not good at it myself, so I hope it's not overwhelmingly
   important.

   - Another common idea is that women are more inclined to attribute
   success to luck or the easiness of the job and that men are more
   inclined to credit their own talents, and that this helps to explain
   men's relative academic and financial success.  In fact, the differences
   in attribution appear to be insignificantly small.  Maybe there's some
   external reason for the difference in financial success? 

   - Studies on social behavior (i.e., how much of a jerk one is) are
   fairly recent, so there's not as much data to munge, but these
   (surprise!) present the most dramatic differences:  women are more
   likely to pick up on nonverbal cues, to express emotions clearly, and
   much more likely to be "expressive".  Given the amount of pressure on
   men to stay stone-faced and women to react (e.g., Woody Allen makes the
   joke, Mia Farrow laughs), this is about the only sexual difference which
   overwhelmingly matches my (anecdotal) experience.

   - Men are moderately more "aggressive", but again the difference between
   sexes doesn't seem as important as the standard deviation within the
   sex, and the differences lower with increasing age (and with the age of
   the study, which is probably good news).  The difference is more marked
   for physical than for psychological aggression.  Big surprise there,
   what with all the gay-bashing that B.U. field hockey players have been
   doing lately.

"Signs" is available from your local pretentious newstand or from The
University of Chicago Press, Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago,
IL, 60637.

Ray
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
649.1WRKSYS::STHILAIREFood, Shelter & DiamondsThu Jan 17 1991 13:104
    What is "mental rotation"?
    
    Lorna
    
649.2Helps one play with "executive toys"STAR::RDAVISJust like medicineThu Jan 17 1991 13:1812
649.3Not sure it is useful "ability" anyhowCADSYS::HECTOR::RICHARDSONThu Jan 17 1991 16:1411
    I'm pretty good at the "mental rotation" thing, too, but I'm not sure
    it has much real-world application; most of the time if you want to
    know if part X fits into hole Y, you just pick it up and try it!  The
    fact that I am better at this trick without actually picking up object
    X may explain why I can stuff more dishes into a "full" dishwasher than
    my SO can.  Of course, if you work with three-D images for a living
    because you are designing car bodies or something, you now have a nice
    workstation which can rotate the images for you, error-free
    (hopefully!).
    
    /Charlotte
649.4The only thing I've ever used it for...NAC::BENCEShetland Pony School of Problem SolvingThu Jan 17 1991 17:317
    
    re mental rotation
    
    	It helps when you're putting together jigsaw puzzles.
    
    							clb
    
649.5oh! And fitting into small parking spacesTLE::RANDALLPray for peaceThu Jan 17 1991 18:3015
    I'm extremely good at mental rotation -- I would brag about the
    scores I get except that as .3 and .4 point out, it's not much
    good for anything practical.  It helps if you do jigsaw puzzles,
    it helps load the car for vacation (I think I could pack an entire
    houseful of furniture into the back of a full-sized pickup), it
    helps stuff closets fuller than God meant them to be, and you
    don't want to look at my basement.  I don't think my life would be
    significantly poorer if I were completely lacking rotational
    ability.
    
    I'm told that there is a career in cargo loading in ships and
    trucks that this skill is valuable for, but that's probably been
    replaced by computers.  
    
    --bonnie
649.6Artists and such...HYSTER::DELISLEFri Jan 18 1991 12:417
    Which gender is supposed to be better at mental rotation?
    
    If you're in one of the visual arts fields, I think it would come in
    handy.  A good artist can depict something from different angles,
    without having to see it in real life at the time.  Draw it from memory
    as it were.  I would think this would be a quite valuable ability.
    
649.7Surgeons need it too.CSSE32::DESCHENESFri Jan 18 1991 15:522
    Mental rotation is one of the skills tested in the Medical School
    Admission Test.  It's pretty important if one is to become a surgeon.
649.8STAR::RDAVISJust like medicineFri Jan 18 1991 16:278
649.9RDVAX::COLLIERBruce CollierFri Jan 18 1991 18:5813
 I think "mental rotation" is shorthand for the ability to mentally manipulate
 2 or 3 dimensional shapes (or spatial relationships)  as abstract geometrical
 entities (though I haven't read the article, which sounds interesting). 
 Quite different from skill at visualizing how something "looks" from
 different angles, in an artistic sense.  I, for example, am good at the
 former, lousy at the latter.  I can't see why surgeons would need it for much
 of what they do.  But it is useful for lots beyond jigsaw puzzles.  It is
 probably vital to architects, to most athletes, and  (to take a timely
 example) to fighter pilots, for example.  The traditional notion has been
 that males developed this because they were the hunters in early
 hunter/gatherer societies.
 
 		- Bruce
649.10CLICK?CSSE32::RANDALLPray for peaceFri Jan 18 1991 19:2611
You mean I coulda been a surgeon or an architect?!?!?!

Sheesh, nobody ever told me that!

I think I'm about to get really mad at the high school guidance counsellor
who told me it didn't mean anything . . . even after I asked why they
tested for it if it didn't mean anything . . . because I think I just
realized that what she meant was that "it's not useful for any fields
a *girl* might be interested in."

--bonnie
649.11Go ahead, get mad57133::WASKOMFri Jan 18 1991 20:0210
    Bonnie -
    
    You got it.  Also useful for several different types of engineering,
    including ME, CE, and whatever the shorthand is for petroleum engineers
    (the guys out in the field figuring out what's down in the ground).
    
    Discovered all this when my son tested 99% percentile high in this
    particular skill.
    
    Alison
649.12GUESS::DERAMODan D'EramoFri Jan 18 1991 22:335
        re .-1   -< Go ahead, get mad >-
        
        Don't get mad...get even.
        
        Dan
649.13Double your pleasure.CUPMK::CASSINSun Jan 20 1991 16:075
    re .-1  -< Don't get mad...get even. >-
    
    Don't get even...get ahead.
    
    -jc
649.14I'd fail "mental rotation" tests.BABBLE::MEAGHERTue Jan 22 1991 00:0314
Wow! Somebody's finally explained to me why I couldn't learn to tie knots in
rock climbing class.

Having excellent "mental rotation" is good for being able to tie a bowline on a
coil with one hand while you're standing in a shower. (That's what my rock
climbing teacher--a woman--told me I should be able to do.)

Well, I couldn't tie a bowline on a coil with two hands after 20 minutes of
practice.

In the mountaineering class I took, most people had more trouble with
navigation--which involves only two dimensions--than with knot tying.

Vicki Meagher
649.15OXNARD::HAYNESCharles HaynesTue Jan 22 1991 04:0918
    I can teach you how to tie a bowline on a coil - but you don't need to
    know that for rock climbing. For rock climbing you only HAVE to know
    one knot - the figure eight - and I can teach that to anyone in under
    ten minutes.
    
    You want to be able to tie your knots in pitch blackness in a driving
    rain while hypothermic, over and over again. Your life may depend on
    it. That's why you want to learn only one knot and engrave it on your
    brain. You want to be able to tie it with your eyes closed when your
    effective IQ is 60.
    
    That doesn't require spatial visualizatio skills, that just requires a
    certain minimum of manual dexterity plus a certain minimum of
    kinesthetic sense. I'm afraid that I don't hold your instructor's
    teaching methods in very high esteem...
    
    	-- Charles
    
649.16special spatial educationTLE::D_CARROLLget used to it!Tue Jan 22 1991 15:0213
    FWIW...
    
    There is a section on the standard IQ test on "spatial ability" one
    part of which is mental rotation. I am horrible at that.  When I was in
    1st grade I took and IQ test and came out retarded (not sure what the
    formal word is) in that area; ie: IQ < 90.  They tried to put me in a
    special needs class, but, thanks to my mother being an education and
    child psychology specialist, she was able to stop them.
    
    (Nothing quicker guarantees that a child will develop special needs
    than putting hir in a special needs class.)
    
    D!
649.17;*} couldn't resistTINCUP::KOLBEThe dilettante divorceeTue Jan 22 1991 22:352
And here I thought being able to visualise "rotation" was so people would be
able to picture the positions I was suggesting they assume. Go figure....liesl
649.18maybe part of applied ve abstract?TRACKS::PARENTHuman In ProcessWed Jan 23 1991 14:1117
    For me spacial skills (rotation) are very useful.  I helps me visulize
    a room with furniture rearranged or an empty kitchen with new cabinetes
    yet to be installed.  I think object wise in 3d form, Yet rotating an
    object in my head eludes me!  I think that's because I have to know
    whats around the corner and it's relationship to the other sides.
    
    I'm not sure that skill is particularly gender related at least based
    on genetics alone.  The idea that it shows up as gender related in
    tests may indicate differences in the inculturation on boys and girls.
    It also point out differences in how individuals visualize and 
    conceptualize things around them, the applied vs abstract.
    
    Allison
    
    
    
649.19click! (and smiley faces where appropriate)MYCRFT::PARODIJohn H. ParodiWed Jan 23 1991 14:2215
  Re: .18

  Allison, I think you may have solved one of the Mysteries of the Ages.  If 
  there really is a gender gap when it comes to spatial visualization, that
  may explain why some women (my spouse Alison in particular) every so often 
  ask that the furniture be rearranged.  

  I've never seen any point in it and until now have always attributed it
  to the discomfort Alison obviously feels when she sees me sitting 
  comfortably with nothing important to do.  But your interpretation
  makes me wonder whether it is a question of needing to see the new 
  arrangement in "real life" before she can decide whether she likes it.

  JP