Why Can't a Man Be More Like a Woman?

by Wolpert, Lewis;

  A controversial and very different view was put by Harvard President Lawrence Summers, who in 2005 suggested that women might be under-represented in the sciences because of a lack of ‘intrinsic aptitude’ for science compared to men. Speaking of the finding that there are many fewer women than men at the upper end of advanced mathematical achievement, Summers said:

  It does appear that on many, many different human attributes–height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability–there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means–which can be debated–there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top 25 research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it’s not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it’s talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool.

  His statement implies that the skills required to be a good scientist are innate, and men have them to a greater degree than women. Although he did discuss the possibility that sex-related differences in socialisation or sexual discrimination during hiring or promotion could be barriers to female success in science, mathematics and engineering, but he did not rate these factors highly. The remarks caused a backlash; Summers resigned his Harvard post in 2006, partly because of this controversy.

  We now know that sex influences on brain function are quite common, and the question is whether the differences in representation in science-based positions have a biological cause. The scientific literature is filled with studies of cognitive sex differences, but general intelligence is not an issue, as IQ tests have shown minimal or negligible differences between men and women. At primary school there is a small difference between boys and girls in mathematical abilities and it favours girls. There are no essential differences in primary maths abilities such as counting and doing simple arithmetic in childhood. One analysis of gender differences in over a hundred studies found that performance on a range of maths tasks was similar in girls and boys. But differences emerge later in geometry and other fields. Across diverse cultures girls are better at calculation while boys are better at mathematical problem-solving, and a male advantage appears when the maths requires more reasoning and is more spatial in nature, as in geometry and calculus. How children play may be related to sex differences in some skills related to maths and the sciences. Boys select play areas that are one and a half to three times the size of girls’ play areas, and they organise the space with buildings like forts. Activities of this kind this might contribute to an ability to visualise and remember the geometric features of large-scale space.

  The most obvious difference in maths ability is that men are often over-represented at extreme scores, both very high and very low, and this can make a big difference in the numbers selected for academic posts. Among those who took the SAT-M maths test at school in the United States, large sex differences were found at the highest end of the distribution. The test is designed to measure ability to solve problems, not to gauge maths knowledge, and although the questions require only basic maths and all have simple solutions, they call for considerable ingenuity. Boys are more variable in the relevant abilities and there are more boys at both the high and low extremes. But among the top one per cent of scorers there are twice as many boys as girls. There is thus a strong male preponderance for outstanding mathematicians–but there are also many very competent female mathematicians. A possible reason why males show more variability may be that the inferior parietal lobule in the brain is linked to mathematical ability and is typically larger in men, especially on the left side, than in women. When men and women with equal ability in maths are tested doing maths, there is temporal lobe activation in men but not in women. There is evidence, to be discussed, for a male advantage in some visuospatial rotation tests, and this ability may make them more skilled in engineering and science tasks that involving the manipulation of objects. This may involve the intraparietal region, the principal functions of which are related to perceptual-motor co-ordination. Einstein’s brain is claimed to have been abnormally large in this region.

  In the United Kingdom no significant male–female differences in ability are indicated by the numbers graduating in science subjects or by A level results in maths. In the United States girls at all grade levels now perform on a par with boys on the standardised maths tests required of all students, and the percentage of US doctorates in maths and the sciences awarded to women has climbed to thirty per cent, up from five per cent in the 1950s. In the UK girls perform as well or better in GCSE and A level science-related subjects, but form a smaller proportion of the A level entrants to most of these subjects. For example, boys made up seventy-nine per cent of all pupils taking physics in 2013 and only six and a half per cent of those taking computing were girls. Even of those who had graduated in these subjects a high percentage are not using their qualifications to work in related occupations

  Ability at mental rotation, where a subject is asked to compare two three-dimensional objects or shapes, and say if they are the same image or mirror images, is a prominent skill in males but it is not closely associated with performance in maths. Spatial and maths performance are largely independent of each other, but statistically significant correlations between maths and visualisation and mental rotation have been reported. Social scientists often cite gender differences in spatial abilities as a crucial factor in discouraging women from entering fields such as architecture, engineering, physics and maths. This fits well with the view that men are systemisers who are naturally at home in these subjects, whereas women are not. Another possible reason for women being less involved in maths and the physical sciences is that they have an image of these as being closely connected with ‘forces’. Some images of engineering conjure up the enormous forces involved in, for example, building a skyscraper. Thus the greater physical strength of men could predispose men rather than women to enter such fields.

  Probably more important is the idea that maths and physical sciences do not involve empathy. As Simon Baron-Cohen points out, this lack would alienate females. He argues that men and women are naturally suited to different kinds of work. In The Essential Difference he offers the following ‘scientific’ careers advice:

  People with the female brain make the most wonderful counsellors, primary school teachers, nurses, carers, therapists, social workers, mediators, group facilitators or personnel staff . . . People with the male brain make the most wonderful scientists, engineers, mechanics, technicians, musicians, architects, electricians, plumbers, taxonomists, catalogists, bankers, toolmakers, programmers or even lawyers.

  For Baron-Cohen the difference between the two lists reflects what he takes to be the ‘essential difference’ between male and female brains. The female-brain jobs make use of a capacity for empathy and communication, whereas the male-brain jobs exploit the ability to analyse complex systems. Another possibility is that women wish to avoid highly competitive fields like these. However, some feminists have argued that Baron-Cohen is trying to suggest that women are better at low-paid and menial work, to the advantage of men.

  Female choice of a career can be greatly influenced by thinking about having children, taking care of elderly parents or staying geographically close to home in order to remain with their family. This isn’t necessarily a female choice, as there is a clear expectation that women will do the majority of the work rearing children and taking care of the elderly. Factors such as maternity and paternity leave laws, employers’ attitudes to mothers in the workplace, and society’s attitudes to house-husbands will pl
ay a role, as well as basic biology. One woman scientist known to me has stated that she believes she would have been able to run her lab very successfully if she had been permitted to share the work with a close female colleague, who also had young children.

  A number of factors are required to become a successful scientist and these are not well understood, but as we have seen, males show more variability which results in a greater number having the highest skills. There is also the key issue of how being a scientist is perceived by young girls and boys. They know little about what it is really like to be a scientist but undoubtedly have various images from the media. But different fields of science require different skills and attract male and female students in different ways. Biology, for example, is different from maths and physics as it relates more closely to humans. A key issue is of course how genuinely interested the individual is in science. It is important to recognise that there are many distinguished women scientists and I have had the pleasure of collaborating with several.

  There is evidence for a reduction in interest by adolescents for school science, especially more for girls than for boys. Girls often have greater verbal ability than boys, and this gives them more career choices than the boys, whose strength is mainly in the sciences. Schoolchildren in the United Kingdom have to make an early choice at about age fifteen and sixteen as to whether they will specialise in the arts or science. There are many determinants in choosing a course and later a career, and both abilities and personal beliefs are thought to be important. One poll of eight- to seventeen-year-olds reported that twenty-four per cent of boys were interested in engineering versus only five per cent of girls; a survey of thirteen- to seventeen-year-olds reported that seventy-four per cent of boys were interested in computer science while only thirty-two per cent of girls were. Girls with CAH were found more likely to express interest in careers often seen as the preserve of the male, such as engineering, working in construction, or being an airline pilot.

  A primary factor in women’s under-representation in maths and engineering careers is thus their choice when young. They prefer, for example, to be doctors, vets, biologists, psychologists or lawyers rather than engineers or physicists. Men are very much more likely than women to apply for a job with a salary potential that is dependent on outperforming their colleagues, according to a large new study from the University of Chicago by Flory’s team. ‘Women shy away from competitive workplaces whereas men covet, and even thrive in competitive environments,’ concluded the study, involving nearly 7,000 job-seekers in sixteen large American cities. Women tend to prefer to work with people rather than things and so prefer medicine rather than technological subjects. They now outnumber men in medical schools in the United Kingdom, and female doctors will soon outnumber male doctors. But there are concerns that they still do not occupy many senior positions. In the United States more women than men who enter graduate study in maths-related fields drop out, and fewer of those who complete doctorates apply for tenured academic positions. Women drop out of scientific careers–especially maths and physical sciences–even after becoming assistant professors at higher rates than men. This is not, apparently, to do with discrimination or ability but rather with lifestyle choices. But the fact that women are not systemisers must play an important role.

  In the United States women obtain at least forty per cent of bachelor degrees in maths, biology and chemistry, but the proportion who earn bachelor degrees in physics has been unchanged at just above twenty per cent since the turn of the century. The engineering workforce remains the area of highest under-representation for women, as in 2003 only eleven per cent were women. However, in China forty per cent of engineers are now female. In computer science especially there has been a serious drop in women earning degrees. There are claims that some aspects of computing may discourage women, particularly what has been called the ‘geek factor’. The image of a computer scientist sitting in front of a screen all day is not an appealing image for teenage girls who look for more sociability in the workplace. A highly relevant study by John Chen and his team of the performance of 126 female mechanical engineering students at North Carolina A&T State University in a range of classes, each emphasising different skills, found that the female students performed better on every measure than the males in all but one class. The reasons were related to the better preparation of female students for entering into engineering studies, as well as the relatively high proportion of women in mechanical engineering at the college, which provided a more supportive atmosphere for the female students. These led to greater self-confidence with respect to their skills and abilities. This is a set of objectives to be strongly encouraged.

  There are some interesting figures for other occupations. The statistical breakdown of women in different occupations is quite complex, but on the science side the numbers are low. Only one in twenty of all working women is employed in any maths-, science-, engineering- or technology-based job, compared to nearly one in three of working men; and only about a third of all female graduates of working age in this area are employed in related occupations compared to half of all male graduates. There is also a ‘leaky pipeline’, where women in these areas leave their careers and struggle or fail to return. Of surgeons in the United States only nineteen per cent are women; the figure is just eight per cent in the United Kingdom, although forty-three per cent of NHS dentists are now female, forty per cent of UK lawyers are women and eighty per cent of UK primary-school teachers are female, while the figure for those teaching in higher education is forty-three per cent. Elsewhere women owned nearly thirty per cent of all non-farming businesses in the United States in 2002, and it is impressive that more than twenty countries currently have a woman holding office as the head of a national government.

  But a large number of women in maths and science areas have reported significant sex discrimination, and overall they earn significantly less than men in physical sciences, maths and engineering, as well as in life sciences, health and teaching. Yet there is no good evidence for discrimination against women in maths or science by grant agencies, journal reviewers and search committees. Evidence shows that women in these fields do as well as men in funding and publishing when given comparable resources to men. The fact that they are often not given the same resources may be due to family commitments and lifestyle choices they have made rather than sexual discrimination.

  Women’s limited numbers in the physical sciences thus reflect choice influenced by empathy. They still have primary responsibility for child care, and may need to work fewer or more flexible hours than men. There is also a view that being successful in careers such as maths or engineering may make women less attractive as marriage partners. Girls’ lack of maths and science motivation is positively associated with their mothers and peer-group support. Women appear to favour a more communal, holistic perspective of life relating to family and friendships, with less time devoted to a career. Although they are at least as able as other workers, mothers may need to prioritise short, flexible working weeks and part-time work. Men, by contrast, can focus much more time on their careers.

  There is evidence that single-mindedness, an attribute important for maths and science, is particularly common in males. The web pages of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington suggest that those working on review problems number about thirty women and 125 men. Again, there is evidence that men do better at producing significant research. Recently among student members of the British Psychological Society, there were 5,806 women to 945 men, and among graduate psychologists, 23,324 women to 8,592 men. Of those who practise as chartered psychologists, there were 7,369 women to 4,402 men. Yet among Fellows of the Society, honoured largely for their research, there are 428 men to only 106 women. This may reflect commitment.

  A provocative suggestion is that men may have realised that a reputation for being no good at housework can sometimes work to their advantage, as women will then do it all, leaving them more time to concentrate on their careers
.

  10

  Skills

  I hate women because they always know where things are.

  Voltaire

  There are no significant variations in general intelligence between the sexes, but the areas in the brain where they generate their intelligence are significantly different. Melissa Hines has noted that there are many differences in brain function during equivalent performances by the two sexes. For instance, men and women show different patterns of asymmetry of brain function when performing certain tasks involving listening, despite showing no sex difference in task performance. But there are differences in certain skills and it has long been held that as mentioned earlier, men have more grey matter and women more white matter, possibly related to some skills. Human evolution has resulted, it seems, in two similar but different types of brains with equally intelligent behaviour, but their characteristics can be mixed. There can be women with features of a ‘male brain’ and vice versa.

  As Uta Frith, the distinguished neuroscientist, has pointed out to me, one can achieve the same performance on a test by entirely different means. Equal performance on, for example, an IQ test does not allow one to say each subject has achieved it in the same way. It seems to her quite likely that in the future many differences in male and female brains will be found, and these may not relate to performance levels at all. One needs to realise that brains combine ‘male’ and ‘female’ properties.