This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← New study disputes notion that men are better at spatial thinking than women

Premiseless's Avatar Jump to comment 10 by Premiseless

For spatial thinking per se, I think education and available experimental observation is probably most significant. For example, it was not too many moons ago that most people would visualize the Earth as flat because they were told it was so, and soldiers blazing a trail were usually well travelled men exposed to greater experimental observations de facto.

But education and experience is unlikely the only variable:

I think some individuals are imprinted from early childhood with spatial restrictions (inhibited thinking) due their environment not stimulating it maximally or accurately - in the same way some are fed a fiction (religions) and are hard pressed to lose it, for life, or at least to catch up with peers who escaped such blights on their consciousness.

Genetic capabilities likely posit some variance on this across both sexes, but to what degree this might be biased toward one sex over another also will likely be due various factors - and I think fears are a nasty inhibitor of clear thought per se due the devil in the dark or god in the bathroom type lunacy. Cultural expectations likely lead ones ambitions to want to become more spatially connected in different directions. If you're one of the millions of muslim women, which of you need to consider flying an aircraft when males dominate such potentials? This kind of subliminal anchorage or letting go of ones mind into potential future realities might be a bigger influence than is clearly evident. If you tell a million individuals they might become a world class footballer some will do so, but the proportion likely to make it are likely men, with the womens game deemed lesser due the mean range of physical development being lesser. Some women will outperform most men but less than men who outperform all women. We need similar barometers to test when the reverse is the case and whether this is in general or for the elite alone.e.g. how much genetic reproduction has transmitted down the centuries to ensure more physically developed males dominate the pool as compared to the females whose role is less a physical extreme and whether the same can be said for spatial thinking per se?

Maybe we will see, due such studies, which gender role, as heritage plus reproduction, has indeed sold short, over generations, males or females in the various domains of thought and physical potentials etc. or indeed whether any that we have are likely too costly a trade off for ones we might be better placed as having in our current environment?

Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:49:44 UTC | #866401