[Siri]

Originally Posted by anfrcguy

Also, I find it interesting that you qualify the research as "highly questionable"... I'm curious as to what exactly is highly questionable about it.

I'll speak for myself on this; I don't find the studies themselves particularly questionable. They're peer-reviewed, and their authors are well enough regarded. The Colom paper is very narrow in scope, however. The Linn paper is broader, well-cited and in a high impact factor major journal. It does a good job of reviewing the current debate on gender-based child spatial development research. Note however, that when I say "current", I mean from 1985. I'm not a cognitive development expert, but a cursory inspection of its recent citations indicates the field has moved on in the intervening 30+ years. (I won't claim to know in what direction.)

Moreover, neither of these papers have anything to do with what you're talking about.

All that Colom, Escorial, and Rebollo suggest is that contradictory findings from certain testing methods are attributable to the tests' specific visuo-spatial format. Their study is not designed to address the origins of the differences in spatial performance, nor indeed the veracity of any differences in reality. They are only saying that with regard to this specific test format, the differences in performance disappear when one controls for spatial ability as it is required in that test. They make no claim that this format for testing dynamic spatial performance is a reasonable or accurate reflection of reality, much less whether that reality is biologically (rather than experientially) based. (They do point to a general view of some kind of gap as a reason to check the possibility, but they make no assertions about it.) It's a very narrowly-defined study that only attempts to resolve inconsistencies in previous experimental results, which explains its length and minor reference status.

The Linn and Peterson paper is broader and more interesting. It's also very clear in its conclusions (in 1985) that the origin of any sex differences in spatial ability have not been determined or even fully characterized, and in fact are not decidedly genetic by any assessment. I'll quote for those of you who don't have access to the full version:

Originally Posted by Linn and Peterson, 1985

To the extent that any biological factors affect spatial ability they would interact with sex-typed experiences and sex-role expectations to produce the observed patterns of performance (e.g., Newcombe et al., 1983; Tobin-Richards & Petersen, 1981). Males and females have differing experiences across the life span (e.g, Bem & Bem, 1970; Cordua, McGraw, & Drabman, 1979; Haugh, Hoffman, & Cowan, 1980; Papalia & Tennent, 1975). The relationship between these experiences and documented sex differences in spatial ability has not been established but may eventually offer an explanation for sex differences in spatial ability (e.g., those in mental rotations) and for the success of training programs aimed at reducing the differences (Connor, Schackman, & Serbin, 1978; Goodenough et al., 1984; Newcombe et al., 1983; Liben & Golbeck, 1984).

In conclusion, sex differences in spatial ability are now more specifically described. The mechanisms that lead to these differences remain to be established, as do the possible influence of these differences on other behaviors. Individuals probably have an assortment of spatial skills rather than a single ability. Furthermore, several mechanisms may contribute to the observed sex differences. Researchers attempting to characterize the nature and origin of these differences and their potential influence on other behavior need to differentiate the types of spatial ability and the processes respondents use for each item type.

So in fact, Linn and Peterson 30 years ago said what several posts on this thread have said about them now: namely that such studies cannot possibly be controlling for environmental and experiential factors separately from biology. It's true, and they were sure to point out as much back then. Efforts like the type this thread is discussing are aimed at addressing experiential and environmental factors that might be contributing to any gender performance differences that do exist. So while neither of these studies do anything to reason away the gender gap via biology as you've alluded, they can be read as a positive for interest in correcting potential performance differences caused by gendered life experiences.


EDIT: Since we've pulled back to the Wikipedia page, the two articles I'm addressing were the ones directly citing in this post:

Originally Posted by anfrcguy

Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_di...n_intelligence (and the references at the bottom). There is a fairly overwhelming scientific consensus that there are "differences in the capacity of males and females in performing certain tasks, such as rotation of object in space, often categorized as spatial ability," in which a male advantage exists (https://www.researchgate.net/publica...tial_a bility, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1130467?...tab_conten ts are just a couple examples). I doubt many would disagree that spatial ability plays an important role in building a robot.

Note that I am certainly not suggesting that women can't excel in FRC as men can, nor am I suggesting that biology is the sole cause of the gender gap. But to those who dismiss so quickly and confidently the notion that some of the disparities in gender composition could be attributed to physiological differences, I feel that further research would be worthwhile.

(emphasis mine) My point in particular is that this post drastically misrepresents the studies it actually cites, inserting the word "physiological" where none is intended or implied, and saying that those who disagree with the assertion should do more research. In fact, the research investigated at the links provided in no way support or even address the idea that "disparities in gender composition could be attributed to physiological differences". (This is not to say it's impossible, just that it's unsupported. I could easily insert any number of words in for "physiological" in this context and have a similar strength of argument.)