There is undisputedly, a difference in the numbers of men versus women in the fields of math and science. This debate seems to center around the conclusion that men are in fact better at math and science, and are even predisposed to be, as derived logically from this difference. That is faulty logic. My main dispute with the acceptance of biological differences is not whether they exist. As similar as men and women are (I speak in terms of two genders, though the argument applies to others as well), they are still different in millions of ways, even if those differences are minute. I tend to agree with Steven Pinker in some of his views, primarily that with so many differences, the possibility that at least one of those differences separates men and women and plays some role in determining one’s strengths and weaknesses could at least exist, again, even if it is small. To paraphrase Pinker, the one universal difference between men and women is that differences exist. My dispute with the idea of biological differences is that it tends to embrace the idea that if the differences do exist, then it seems to draw the conclusion that change in society cannot.
Pinker provides a substantial amount of evidence to support his claims (some of which are sketchy at best and others, such as the idea that differential treatment between genders does not exist, are entirely wrong) and Spelke cannot refute all of it. How do you prove a negative? I do agree that perception can have a pronounced effect on people’s choices and on their lives, on their very gender identities, but one must remember that stereotypes do not always cause differences, but can merely reflect them also. Based on the idea that environmental influences can affect biological ones and vice versa, I would believe that the two are not mutually exclusive. Differences in attitude/psyche and in biological makeup develop as we step through life, shaped by our experiences. These differences do affect our likes/dislikes, be it math and science or otherwise.
The world started with human interaction (business, religion, etc.) and was very nearly thereafter male dominated (speaking of white culture). It took more than 50 years for men to develop into prominence in math and science (early prodigies were shunned in society, Galileo was even forced to renounce his works) and it will take women more than 50 years to do the same. Yes, stereotypes and perception affect the amount of women in the fields of math and science, and only with time will those attitudes change.
If both biological and environmental shape each other, how can one have more effect than the other?
Does being very nearly the same at birth mean that we cannot be very very different thereafter?
I agree with most everything you have said! I like the discussion question: If both biological and environmental shape each other, how can one have more effect than the other? I believe that they both biological and environmental have a pretty even effect on shaping a human. Everything that I have been taught about human cognitive growth has shown both a biological and environmental impact. So yes, it is very hard to say that one effects the other more than the other.
ReplyDeleteI think that men and women can vary tremendously after being considered very close at birth. I think this is due to the environmental experiences and how the help to mold our interests.
ReplyDelete