Reddit Reddit reviews Why Aren't More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence

We found 3 Reddit comments about Why Aren't More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Health, Fitness & Dieting
Books
Mental Health
Why Aren't More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence
Used Book in Good Condition
Check price on Amazon

3 Reddit comments about Why Aren't More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence:

u/hypnosifl · 6 pointsr/slatestarcodex

After coming across this interesting article in Skeptic summarizing the evidence surrounding sex differences in cognitive ability I decided to pick up a book on the same subject by the author (Diane Halpern), Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities, which I haven't read through yet but I noticed it did have the following discussion of Baron-Cohen's hypothesis:

>Numerous researchers have offered stern criticisms of the idea that female and male brains are "essentially different," especially in ways that Baron-Cohen has suggested (e.g., Eliot, 2009; Spelke & Grace, 2007). According to Baron-Cohen, it is high levels of prenatal testosterone that make the male brain good at systemizing. But males who are exposed to very high levels of testosterone while still in the womb (i.e., CAH males) are not more masculine or better at male-typical tasks than males who are exposed to normal levels of prenatal testosterone. In fact, the idea that high levels of prenatal testosterone cause autism, which might be expected from this theory, has not been supported. In addition, one prediction from this hypothesis is that autistic boys would be "hypermasculine," which is not supported with any research (Eliot, 2009). The experiment with newborns that Baron-Cohen frequently cites as evidence that girls are born with an interest in faces and boys are born with an interest in objects has been criticized on methodological grounds, including experimenter bias, small sample size, and failures to replicate (Spelke, 2005). ... In addition, numerous studies have found no sex differences in aptitude for science or mathematics in young children (Fine, 2010).

u/munchbunny · 5 pointsr/gentlemanboners

I wouldn't be so ready to dismiss biological reasons as a possible cause.

We should avoid giving biological reasons because it's too easy to claim "biology" before looking at social causes, but the medical and scientific communities have never conclusively eliminated biology as a factor in performance.

Great book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Arent-More-Women-Science/dp/159147485X/

Basically what it says is that we know men and women are different both physically and mentally, but you would have a hard time tying those differences to actual performance/competitive differences.

u/kqr · 1 pointr/programming

Mainstream or not, the book is actually really good. If you want a good run-through of the current evidence of the topic we're discussing, definitely worth a read.