3 ms·

I believe the 3D rotation of objects differences between men and women has been known for quite a long time now, so I’m not sure what this is adding really. Als

I believe the 3D rotation of objects differences between men and women has been known for quite a long time now, so I’m not sure what this is adding really. Also men are physically stronger than women, but women can lift weights and become stronger too, so not surprisingly practice can eventually trump nature which has been known for melenia too. I think this obsession with trying to find that everything and everyone is equal has also been written about since Aristotle’s time and cautioned against since it eventually leads to demigods and tyranny according to the Greeks since eventually no one can stand any restraint including ones you need to aheader to due to them being true. This equality discussion isn’t a marvel of the 20st century, it dates back even before the Greeks and has continued to this day.

loudmax 8y ago
> I’m not sure what this is adding really. Research doesn't need to be ground breaking to be useful. A course like the one described in the article can be a helpful resource to women (and men) discouraged from engineering because of difficulty with spacial reasoning. > I think this obsession with trying to find that everything and everyone is equal That's actually not what the article is about. It pretty much says up front that the woman who designed the course had difficulty with spacial reasoning, as many women do. She got better with practice. Stories like these are valuable to people who believe that innate difference cannot be overcome. We should think of these abilities less like height, which changes very little after adulthood, and more like strength, which can be improved with practice and effort.
- argd678 8y ago
  I agree completely with compensating for weakness, however while that is part of the article, it’s clearly quick to go back to the everything is really equal argument and even mentions how gender differences are a popular topic. So it’s mixed at best.
nemo1618 8y ago
>trump nature which has been known for melenia too. come on, this had to be intentional
vajrabum 8y ago
According to the article, this 15 hour program enabled 80% of the women admitted to the engineering program to graduate vs 50% before hand. I guarantee if you ask Dr Sorby who came up with the program that is the main takeaway not some culture war thing. The same course was offered to men and it improved their spatial ability but didn't improve their rate of matriculation. I'm not exactly sure how it relates to that school since we don't know the rate of matriculation for men there, but the article didn't mention that nationwide 60% of people admitted to engineering programs drop out. That suggests that with a 15 hour intervention that women may be less likely to drop out of engineering programs than men are.
loco5niner 8y ago
>but women can lift weights and become stronger too, From the Article: "Sorby’s program, for example, improved the spatial skills of male engineering students as well, boosting their scores on tests. Because they start out ahead of their female counterparts, their gains often put them ahead on spatial cognition tests after the course."
hrktb 8y ago
I think the main takeaway is they found an efficient way to improve spacial awareness. It was known there was a difference, and here they expose an experiment that effectively helped improve that specific skill.

loudmax 8y ago

> I’m not sure what this is adding really. Research doesn't need to be ground breaking to be useful. A course like the one described in the article can be a helpful resource to women (and men) discouraged from engineering because of difficulty with spacial reasoning. > I think this obsession with trying to find that everything and everyone is equal That's actually not what the article is about. It pretty much says up front that the woman who designed the course had difficulty with spacial reasoning, as many women do. She got better with practice. Stories like these are valuable to people who believe that innate difference cannot be overcome. We should think of these abilities less like height, which changes very little after adulthood, and more like strength, which can be improved with practice and effort.

argd678 8y ago
I agree completely with compensating for weakness, however while that is part of the article, it’s clearly quick to go back to the everything is really equal argument and even mentions how gender differences are a popular topic. So it’s mixed at best.

nemo1618 8y ago

>trump nature which has been known for melenia too. come on, this had to be intentional

vajrabum 8y ago

According to the article, this 15 hour program enabled 80% of the women admitted to the engineering program to graduate vs 50% before hand. I guarantee if you ask Dr Sorby who came up with the program that is the main takeaway not some culture war thing. The same course was offered to men and it improved their spatial ability but didn't improve their rate of matriculation. I'm not exactly sure how it relates to that school since we don't know the rate of matriculation for men there, but the article didn't mention that nationwide 60% of people admitted to engineering programs drop out. That suggests that with a 15 hour intervention that women may be less likely to drop out of engineering programs than men are.

loco5niner 8y ago

>but women can lift weights and become stronger too, From the Article: "Sorby’s program, for example, improved the spatial skills of male engineering students as well, boosting their scores on tests. Because they start out ahead of their female counterparts, their gains often put them ahead on spatial cognition tests after the course."

hrktb 8y ago

I think the main takeaway is they found an efficient way to improve spacial awareness. It was known there was a difference, and here they expose an experiment that effectively helped improve that specific skill.