4 ms·
The current title doesn't highlight the salient bit in this article; I think the original article title is better, even if a little clickbaity. The salient bit
by gpvos 9y ago
The current title doesn't highlight the salient bit in this article; I think the original article title is better, even if a little clickbaity.
The salient bit in this article is that women can attain the same level of spatial abilities as men by following a fairly short training. (And the article discusses implications and likely causes of why this is so; it appears to be a biological factor that is enlarged by cultural factors. Or to expand on this a little: both "types" of brains are capable of the same things, but in men, somehow this development is usually automatically biologically triggered, maybe by testosterone, while in women, this usually doesn't happen automatically, and isn't stimulated by the cultural environment either, so it generally doesn't develop, even though it easily could, and can also be developed without problem at a later age. All this, of course, is about averages between women and men.)
- jesperlang 9y agoYes misleading title So whenever stuff like this pops up it's this read-between-the-lines idea that bothers me, but I am going to play along. OK, let's say there were scientific evidence on the biological part. What do you want me to do with that information? What exactly are people hinting at that constantly emphasize that information? If we could stop this fixed mindset nonsense we would be so much better off. The brain has incredible plasticity, lets work with that! The wander off for food and mates theory that they bring up here, how applicable is that for anyone in current society? All genders can benefit from spatial ability, so we should all practice it :)
- btwt 9y ago>this read-between-the-lines idea that bothers me This "ick" factor is holding back both science and society. Lifting the taboo of acknowledging the "scientific evidence on the biological part" could, for example, explain why certain populations skew towards, for example, lower salary. If we stopped ignoring questions and answers because of an uncomfortable implication, we could explain and possibly correct population differences in equity without resorting to "crabs in a bucket" style disregard for merit brought about by an irrational assumption of equality in ability. >If we could stop this fixed mindset nonsense Differences in cognitive performance among genders are no more nonsensical than physical differences in performance[1]. We know that cognition is influenced by brain structure, hormone concentration, neurotransmitter concentration, and we know that these differ markedly between the two genders, but for some reason people are unwilling to acknowledge that these could lead to different abilities in application. At the very least, one must admit that time and resources are required to "work with" the brain's plasticity to overcome fundamentally biological differences, and that leads to difference average performance among genders in different roles. 1.http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-sign... Not the most official source, but a good overview of what amount to pretty old ideas, in an unbiased context. This science is only controversial because people are biased by the implication of the results.
- jesperlang 9y agoYou are misreading me. I am talking about how people use results like this to confirm their fixed mindset ideas (women shouldn't do this/that because their minds aren't fit for it)
- kaybe 9y agoNow I really want to take that course. 15 hours is a low investment for something like this.
- nicolashahn 9y agoAre there other abilities shown to be like this, especially with the sexes reversed?
- owebmaster 9y agoHandling emotions?
- gpvos 9y agoIf there were an short and foolproof course to fix that, I'd sign up in a heartbeat.