|
|
|
|
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 1:07:59 AM | | Why aren't there more women with careers that involve math and science? There have been lots of initiatives to help girls choose these types of careers. I have a hard time convincing my nieces about the importance of math and science though they seem to be more interested than my nephews so maybe there is hope for the future. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 1:27:14 AM | Well , since we necessarily have to speak in generalities , the answer must be that womens' midns simply aren't geared towards these fields. Certainly some are but in general women clearly have less interest in these subjects as compared to men. On the other hand , most men have much less interest in child-care than do women so this must speak to something in our evolutionary past whereby it was beneficial to have our respective minds geared as they are.
In broad terms it does seem to make sense. One sex has to defend for the future while the other cares for the next generation of defenders. Naturally there must be more to it than that but it seems reasonable to hypthesize that males with the ability to devise new and better methods of defense (defending everything from territory , materials , the group itself) would have an evolutionary advantage over others. Women , on the other hand , who spent more time raising the next generation instead of focusing on hunting and defense would turn out the next , better generation of both males and females.
Just a hypothesis of course and I have nothing scientific to back it up but it doesn't seem unreasonable . | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 1:52:09 AM | | I think it is more cultural. If you look at other countries like Russia there are much more women that study math and science though that number has gotten less since education is more expensive. I don't think there is anything genetic about it. Womanhood and rationality aren't necessarily mutually exclusive or at least I hope not. | |
|
| |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 6:57:48 AM | Lets also keep in mind that typically women are not encouraged in these fields. Family, school and culture all play a part. I was actively discouraged in pursuing my interest in physics by a high school teacher who didn't believe that women should be in science. Didn't matter, I became a lawyer, but I still cruise the quantum websites now and again... | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 7:51:49 AM | It's just a PR slant. Women ARE involved in science, but when it is a subject that is mostly women, people define it as a "soft" science. Psychology, for example. Anthropology for another.
Each of which I have a degree in--each of which required chemistry and stats, which are "hard" sciences because you men play in them. My actual field of study was psychobioneuroscience/biopsychology/neurological bioscience (it goes through so many name changes I can't keep up). I studied physical anthropology, too, particularly cranial morphology (again, brain stuff).
I'm supposedly great at math--hate it, but great at it ( according to standardized tests and classes at uni). | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 7:53:45 AM | Well..considering the time and investment into these kind of courses...they can get pretty expensive. If a guy is geared towards that, and gets a career going in that field, chances are he's going to stick with it, or some related field where it won't be a total waste. Meanwhile a woman may use it too...but then decide to settle down, raise kids, blah, blah...so all that effort is wasted. Sure, some may decide that a career and child raising can be done at the same time...but not all. So more parents are likely to pay for a son's education, before a daughters, especially in the developing nations.
The same happens in the West though not to the extent it does elsewheres.
Also, a son is expected to help his parents...support them, etc, later in life, whereas a daughter may not be. So it pays a parent to invest in a son...not a daughter.
I've met some women who are totally competent on the mathematical field. Some guys too. In school, girls seem to excell a bit...at first...but the guys catch up (on average) fairly quickly. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 10:38:55 AM | I know some women at the doctorate level in math & science. I will admit though, that they are a comparative rarity in those fields.
It could be argued that women have been the subject of discrimination, but I don't really think that's true. In general there are fundamental differences between mens' & womens' brains. Women have much stronger verbal skills than men and tend to navigate by landmarks. Men on the other hand, are far less verbally skilled, and tend to navigate by vector.
The difference in navigation probably arises from men being the hunters, who had to corner & kill the food, usually using spears. Also, they had to range farther afield to look for food, often in strange terrain. Moving targets and unfamiliar landmarks probably forced computation/navigation by vector on men through evolution. Women, being the gatherers likely didn't venture far from home and could most easily navigate using familiar landmarks to locate things like fruit & firewood.
Another problem that men seem to have is difficulty in communicating, even with themselves (I'm sure most women would agree). They tend to look at things less literally and compensate for the deficiency with metaphore and abstraction. These are positive boons in terms of logic and science, not to mention poetry. If I am correct in my assumptions, I suspect you will find that women (being so verbal and literate) would be more common than men as authors of books, but men, being more abstract and metaphorical, would be far more common than women as poets. So I think it's logical to assume that there will be more men than women in math & science, as even the women in those fields would probably admit that they think more like men do, than like other women.
In general terms, I would assert that men are more abstract in outlook than women, who tend to think in elaborately verbal, but concrete terms. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 2:16:54 PM |
Well , since we necessarily have to speak in generalities , the answer must be that womens' midns simply aren't geared towards these fields.
This answer is perfect because it perpetuates cultural stereotypes! For thousands of years, women were not allowed to get educations and when they did, they were told that they were better at being teachers and nurses rather than scientists and mathematicians.
And if anyone thinks those days are gone, all you have to do is read a quote like the one above--the idea that women simply CAN'T succeed in theses fields because of biological imperatives STILL exist.
It could be argued that women have been the subject of discrimination, but I don't really think that's true.
Thinking that it isn't true doesn't make it not true. Again, women are gaining ground, but there is still opposition.
The difference in navigation probably arises from men being the hunters, who had to corner & kill the food, usually using spears. Also, they had to range farther afield to look for food, often in strange terrain. Moving targets and unfamiliar landmarks probably forced computation/navigation by vector on men through evolution. Women, being the gatherers likely didn't venture far from home and could most easily navigate using familiar landmarks to locate things like fruit & firewood.
Before there were settlements, societies were nomadic, necessitating the movement of the whole tribe, not just men. Even after the first settlements came into existence, tribes still moved for various reasons, including winter vs. summer camps.
If I am correct in my assumptions, I suspect you will find that women (being so verbal and literate) would be more common than men as authors of books, but men, being more abstract and metaphorical, would be far more common than women as poets.
A gross assumption and generalization. Again, women were not educated for hundreds of years. In the late 1800s, Hopkins wrote that writing is a man's profession and talent. Women who were taught to read and write were limited in where and how they could express themselves. Women who wrote usually were "Anonymous" or used male nom de plumes. For decades after its inception, only men were in the literary canon. Hundreds of men have written successful novels and many women have written successful poetry (but not as many because women were not published as were men)--but consider this: in the 1970s, I received a BA in English literature and NEVER heard of one of the greatest female poets of all time, Hilda Doolittle. Her work was not taught alongside the works of Eliot or Thomas even though it is equal to their genius.
Your statement also discounts the metaphorical, abstract facets of prose--symbolism is not confined to poetry! | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 2:53:26 PM | I think that those statistics are likely to change. Woman are getting more and more educated, while men are beginning to lag behind.
I don't buy the biological rationalization behind the arguement that women just are not built for math. If they weren't built for math than they would be on par with men at it.
I also believe that historically a lot of women didn't get their due, and a lot of famous men stood on not-so-famous shoulders. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 2:57:37 PM |
I also believe that historically a lot of women didn't get their due, and a lot of famous men stood on not-so-famous shoulders
lol, why do so many people just pull ideas out of their arse??
actually, in studies, women test as good in mathematics as men...except for one area....spacial recognition....women have a harder time imagining 3 dimensional space than men. At least according to studies.
as for why less women are in mathematics...it probably mostly has to do with lack of interest and stigma. Nothing to do with intelligence. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 3:11:13 PM | Thinking that it isn't true doesn't make it not true.
I was thinking in terms of more recent history, not a hundred years ago, when women were considered the property of their husbands and not allowed to even vote. I can only speak about Canada's educational system, but I would say that for the last fifty years, there has been no discrimination against women in terms of science/math education that I can see. This necessitates (in my mind) a different explanation for the unequal representation of women in the sciences.
There may be sociological reasons, such as adherence to traditional roles & societal programming, but even that (I suspect) isn't the total explanation. quite simply, there are physical differences between male & female brains. Certain centres are larger or smaller by comparison and these centres correspond to differences that I would call genetically (and therefore evolutionarily) based. Hence my hypothesis.
Please note that my assumptions leave plenty of room for "overlap" between the sexes on an individual level, so the presumption cannot be made that a woman needs a lighthouse to navigate, or that a man needs an interpreter to even think. We are only talking about slight differences which may manifest as preferences in education.
Why did you get a BA in English? Why not Physics, or Mathematics? Surely you know that there are far more women getting degrees in English than in Math. Why didn't you get your degree in Math? Don't you like it? Were you the subject of educational discrimination, or did you just have a preference for English literature? (for my own part, I hated English and only took such courses as I was forced to - I loved math though)
Getting back to my evolutionary arguments (I don't think they've been sufficiently explored, or refuted):
Before there were settlements, societies were nomadic, necessitating the movement of the whole tribe, not just men. Even after the first settlements came into existence, tribes still moved for various reasons, including winter vs. summer camps.
Yes the whole tribe moved, but who do you suppose did the navigating, the women (who mostly gathered near to home base), or the men (who likely had to venture far afield hunting)? Are you aware of any "uncivilized" societies where the roles were switched? If not, I would contend that this state of affairs goes as far back as the apes we evolved from, and could well explain the brain differences that appear to result even today in sexually biased choices regarding education and career.
But hey...What do I know about such things?...When asked to write my sex on a document, I usually check both M & F, or put "unsure" and let them figure it out. 
(For some reason that never went over well with "matchmaking" services.) | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 3:23:37 PM | Greg14229
lol, why are so many people intent on somehow feeling superior to someone they don't even know??
Women, in contrast are generally better able to recall the spatial layout of an array of objects, to scan perceptual arrays quickly to find matching objects, and to recall verbal material, whether word lists or meaningful paragraphs.
You forgot to mention that part.
I did not pull the idea out of my ass.
I encourage you to google 'female scientist discrimination' and read a little, than tell me what you pull out of your ass. I didn't say that Tesla's girlfriend invented his machines, or that it was Enstein's wife that came up with his scientific discoveries (well maybe there's a little something there...again google if you care). I generalized and meant that given the patriarchy and difficulty women have had to even be taken seriously as thinking human beings it is only natural to say that many geniuses have gone unnoticed and unrewarded.
Though I do agree with you that generally speaking women (generally speaking) seem to prefer more social roles and men more technical ones. Not ability, preference. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 3:23:47 PM | | Certain kinds of thinking happen differently by sex, generally speaking, so what you have as the result of male biased education traditions is subject matter and education methods favoring men's strengths. Males are better at imagining geometry, spatial relationships, the stuff of conceptualizing physical systems and phenomena. Women are better at abstraction. The sciences that rely on concrete modeling come easier to men, while the ones that fathom intangible or abstract knowledge come easier to women. A man would be the architect for a city, planning its spaces, streets, buildings, drainpipes, bridges, and vending machines. The woman would be the city's policymaker, creating the laws, contracts and social organization that are the social infrastructure of civic life. If you want things made right and run right you would have men make things and women decide how they are to be used. The current state of affairs has men predominant in areas best done by women. The ideal of equality and choice is great, but at the same time, when there are built-in strengths it might make sense for those to be acknowledged, at least, and promoted when possible. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 3:32:07 PM |
This answer is perfect because it perpetuates cultural stereotypes! For thousands of years, women were not allowed to get educations and when they did, they were told that they were better at being teachers and nurses rather than scientists and mathematicians.
Bull. It's not perpetuating anything. The OP asked why "Women" (is that NOT a general term ?) weren't generally interested in science. That's why I stated that we were talking in generalities. Good grief...relax.
Secondly , whatever happened in the past isn't the case today no matter how much the Womens' Studies professors want everybody to believe in the "oppressive patriarchy" rhetoric.
And if anyone thinks those days are gone, all you have to do is read a quote like the one above--the idea that women simply CAN'T succeed in theses fields because of biological imperatives STILL exist.
Where did I say that ?
See , this is the problem with discussing any topic feminists have latched onto. All objectivity goes right out the window. I never said women couldn't do anything , what I said was that men and women are different . Is this some sort of surprise for you or something ? I said that one of the ways we are different from each other might be that mens' minds are more geared towards science and mathematics than are those of women IN GENERAL . I offered a hypothesis as to why and that's it.
All you have to do is peruse the science and technology forums to see for yourself that more men are interested in these topics than are women. NOBODY said that women couldn't participate yet there is a lack of interest on womens' part. You think that the site moderators delete posts from women in these forums as part of their participation in some grand conspiracy by all men to keep women down ?
So you like science...that's great. It's not my fault that there aren't more women like you nor is it any man's fault either. Women get plenty of encouragement as well as myriad government programs designed specifically to get their numbers up in scientific fields. Feel free to tell the women that aren't interested in these subjects to get crackin' then. The answer isn't always (if ever) the "patriarchy". | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 7:43:15 PM |
Why did you get a BA in English? Why not Physics, or Mathematics?
I am 56 years old--when I was six (50 years ago) and in the first grade, the teacher told the class one day that ANY little boy in the room could grow up to be president some day. That didn't hold true for the little girls. Heck, we weren't even told that we could grow up to be the president's wife.
I have a natural talent for writing, but so do many men. Throughout elementary and high school, I was told that women were not good at math or science and the emphasis was put on teaching, nursing, being a secretary, etc. Girls were required to take Home Ec to prepare them for marriage; boys took auto mechanics and drafting. Because I was in a low socioeconomic strata, my guidance counselor suggested that I go to cosmetology school instead of a university! This was despite the fact that I had a high ACT score.
There have been advances in women entering fields that were previously closed to them, but if you think that prejudice and stereotypes still don't exist, you are wrong. And the advances are much more recent that you think.
Yes the whole tribe moved, but who do you suppose did the navigating, the women (who mostly gathered near to home base), or the men (who likely had to venture far afield hunting)? Are you aware of any "uncivilized" societies where the roles were switched?
Actually, I have no idea who did the navigating, and this still begs the question of whether navigating is/was an inherent trait in men or whether it was from experience. I also wonder how far afield the men went--animals often follow the same migration routes from year to year.
Who led Lewis and Clark through the wilderness of the North American continent? A woman!
Where did I say that ?
Here:
the answer must be that womens' midns simply aren't geared towards these fields.
That is an either/or fallacy and a hasty generalization about the minds of both sexes.
You also said:
Naturally there must be more to it than that but it seems reasonable to hypthesize that males with the ability to devise new and better methods of defense (defending everything from territory , materials , the group itself) would have an evolutionary advantage over others.
Sheesh--men have an evolutionary advantage over "others"? The only "others" are women. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/2/2009 8:34:43 PM | | I've found the education system doesn't have the bias that it once did. My daughter is in the 98th percentile for visual/spatial and most maths and sciences come easily to her. Even though they were actively recruiting for girls, she was the only girl to join the student IT department in grade 9 and she dragged some of her female friends kicking and screaming into the robotics club just so she wouldn't be the only girl. That suggests to me some of it must be social. | |
|
| |
| |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/3/2009 12:33:18 AM |
That is an either/or fallacy and a hasty generalization about the minds of both sexes.
Yeah , that's exactly what I said. Too bad you decided to make it out to be so much more than it was. I also said (which you conveniently omitted) that IN GENERAL it might be true. Do those two words not show on your screen when somebody else types them ?
You know , there's nothing wrong with expressing an observation. You'll find (and should have already found by now) that there are many things you don't like that still happen to be true. If you disagree with my hypothesis then say so without acting like it's some personal attack on you.
Sheesh--men have an evolutionary advantage over "others"? The only "others" are women.
No , in the context of that quote , "others" is other men who don't have that advantage. Can you only read things men write about women as inherently hostile towards women or something ?
Besides , why does it offend you so much anyway ? You know , it's entirely possible that I'm right and most women ARE biologically programmed to focus more on subjects that have little to do with science and math. It certainly appears to be the case since , when given the choice , most women DON'T pursue careers in the sciences. Well , women have had the option for decades now and you can't argue anymore that there's any societal pressure discouraging them either. So where are they if they're just as naturally interested in science and math as men are ?
Almost %60 of university students are female. Females get virtually all sex-specific funding at all levels of the education system. You also have positive discrimination in your favour once you enter the workforce.
What exactly is it that you want to hear ? Well , you want to hear about how it's some conspiracy by some men to make sure that women don't succeed as scientists. Got anything resembling proof ? Don't waste your time trotting out the feminist myths about a wage-gap and glass ceilings either...the evidence is trickling in and it says what we've known for some time now . In fact , it says pretty much what I'm saying which is that when given the choice , women CHOOSE not to enter dangerous , time-monopolizing , full time fields. That's also what Betty Friedan said would happen.
It's not a conspiracy , it's womens' own choices. What we're supposed to be discussing is why they make them as they do. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/3/2009 8:45:32 AM |
It's not a conspiracy , it's womens' own choices. What we're supposed to be discussing is why they make them as they do.
If choices are limited, it directs which choices one makes. The "glass ceiling" is cracking, but it's not shattered yet. The biological differences in humans are minimal--each gender can do what the other can do, so to me it's a moot point. In general, men are stronger, but not every man is stronger than every woman. What the glass ceiling does is limit OPPORTUNITY. And the discussion isn't about "why women choose" it's about "why aren't there women who..."
I'll tell you a story. When I was younger, I needed a job. I was tall and very strong, and a great worker. I applied for a job as a groundskeeper at the university. The guy told me to my FACE that he didn't hire women because "you're too pretty to get dirty". Today, I notice quite a few smaller, weaker women are groundskeepers. It's the times and attitudes that have changed, not the work.
Still today, the Army won't even allow women to TRY for the Rangers--not even to TRY out to be on the team.
That being said, if I have a choice, I am NOT going to take a dangerous job over a non-dangerous job, even if it pays more. Not everything is about money.
I've already stated that women are overwhelmingly represented in psychology and anthropology, and there are nor more female doctors than male doctors. Why is it that you all seem to think these are not "science and math"? (Hint: the glass ceiling is about attitude as well) | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/3/2009 9:07:16 AM |
Besides, math is only a fraction of science.
What!!!
Math is the language of science, it is not a part of science.
And just like there is many fields of science, there are many fields in math.
_______________________________________________________
As for the OPs question. I think it is exactly what other posters suggested; culture discourages women to excell in math and science. But this is changing, and there is no reason why women cannot succeed in the fields of math and science. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/3/2009 9:58:02 AM |
Lets also keep in mind that typically women are not encouraged in these fields. LOL... that's it... blame mom and dad and the whole neighborhood you grew up in. I think you're honest in your comment, however, you're just repeating what you've heard.
What that should read is: People don't expect much from women, are offered an easy way out, and most women take it. Ya... I know.. that's harsh. But men would too, only they are expected to go the extra mile, to be driven, ambitious, take risks. HUGE risks in all areas of life. If women were expected to do the same, they would also be going to school longer (they are now actually), inventing things, starting businesses, making scientific discoveries, etc. There would be 50% representation in all fields. Including politics, sciences, truck driving, and yes... ditch digging too (ya.. I know.. it's hard). People are lazy by nature. Only expectations and hunger keep us from sitting on our behinds. But attitudes have changed in the last 10 years spurred on by women's studies. So expect your life expectancy to drop and match men's.
Math isn't hard. For women or men. It's practice. Don't believe anyone who says differently. Trust me on this one. I know. lol. If I'm an employer, and a I need a mathematician, I'll take the one who knows it best. If you want to be hired, you'll have to kick butt and be better than the rest. And there's only one way to be the best. Work longer and harder than everyone you know.
Oh... you want a life... lol. Well you can't have both. At least not in the early years. People shouldn't be allowed to have kids before they're 30 anyway.  | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/3/2009 1:00:04 PM | CassaGo,
You are learned in anthropology, so I figure you may have an acumen to share about natural selection and humans vis a vis gender differences (I'm assuming that you hold with evolution and not creationsim/ID). Relative to some species it's fair to say the differences between men and women are minimal for certain. The issue I think is trying to quantify the observed differences between men and women on a basis of how much is cultural and how much is genetic. That's a bit sticky.
As I see it, it would be great if we could remove any cultural roadblocks that are prohibitive for either gender when it comes to life/work/behavior. many studies have examined certain advantages for one gender over another in humans for certain tasks/aptitudes. But even for those studies, those are just observed differences and still have trouble sorting out the reason why - nature and/or nurture?
It's certainly fair to think that there would be more women in the fields of math and "hard" sciences if cultural roadblocks/pressures were nonexistent. We're making strides in that direction...and that's a good thing. One the flip side...if it were to be determined that if biology alone did provide certain advantages for some tasks/aptitudes in general...that's not a big deal if we don't make it so. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/3/2009 3:20:16 PM |
Why aren't there more women with careers that involve math and science? There have been lots of initiatives to help girls choose these types of careers. I have a hard time convincing my nieces about the importance of math and science though they seem to be more interested than my nephews so maybe there is hope for the future. 1/3rd of my degree in maths was women. The only difference was that nearly all chose to become accountants, rather than do a Masters or a PhD.
But the news reported recently, that with the current trend, there should be more women doctors than male doctors, by 2011, or 2015. So I'm not sure that this is the case.
However, there is a general lack of interest in mathematics and in science, among the young, in men and women. That might be what you're seeing. Part of that in the UK is because graduates are coming out with debts of about £30,000 (US $49,002), and doctors are coming out with debts of £40,000 (US $65,336) on average. But 25% of graduates are not getting graduate-level jobs. With the credit crunch, it's become far harder for graduates, because companies aren't hiring them, except for in the armed forces. So a lot of people are re-thinking if going to university is worth it.
As to why less women are might be avoiding mathematics and science as careers, UK studies have shown that women are choosing jobs where they will be feel comfortable to take time off for pregnancy, and for a family. If you want to be in those fields, then tenure becomes an issue. It takes years to get a decent position in a faculty. You cannot just take off a few years for having kids, and then come back. I don't know why women find it easier in other subjects, like psychology. But maybe it's because they already favour flexibility. After all, psychologists go on 6-month rotations while they are training, and they don't treat the same people for years anymore in the NHS. 10 sessions in a few months, and then they'll move on, and probably never see the patient again. So it's probably a lot easier to drop out of psychology for a few years, then come back when the kids are ready to start kindergarten.
Actually, one of the biggest problems we are facing, is that men are finding themselves squeezed out. Because of the prior experiences of discrimation against women, better paying jobs are being highly encouraged and supported in women, but not in men. Men are finding that they are told that women can do twice the work of men, and have to be twice as smart as men, to get half the pay, and that they do it, which sends men the message that women are far smarter and more productive than men. They are also told such messages as "women need men like fish need a bicycle", which sends men the message that they are unnecessary in this world, and therefore, unimportant. But men are NOT saying "men need women like fish need a bicycle". So women aren't getting the same negative messages. On the contrary, society is now telling women they can be anything they want to. But when it comes to men, they're not being told they could be anything at all. So men's self-esteem is lowering significantly. This is happening to such an extent, that it was reported a few months ago, that young women are more likely to get a good job in a city than a man. When sexual abuse is found, men are automatically assumed to be the culprit, and women are automatically assumed to be entirely innocent. So many men are avoiding any situations in which they might have contact with children, as a result. Primary schools are reporting they cannot get men as teachers. Voluntary groups who work with children are reporting that they cannot get men either. There is a definite push with women's rights. But it's been going on for nearly 50 years now, and it's reached the point at which men are finding a tremendous opposition in them taking responsible positions, especially with children. Expect more.
RE Msg: 11 by greg14229:
actually, in studies, women test as good in mathematics as men...except for one area....spacial recognition....women have a harder time imagining 3 dimensional space than men. At least according to studies. From what I've read, men do better in general spacial recognition. But women do better in path-finding recognition.
One might describe the difference between the 2, as men are better at imagining space, and women are better at working out orbits, and general movement patterns of stars, spiral arms, galaxies and the like. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
