In this study, we use a large-scale incentivized experiment with nearly 1,300 participants to show that the gender gap in spatial abilities, measured by time to solve a puzzle, disappears when we move from a patrilineal society to an adjoining matrilineal society. [...] Given that none of our participants have experience with puzzle solving and that villagers from both societies have the same means of subsistence and shared genetic background, we argue that these results show the role of nurture in the gender gap in cognitive abilities.
Our paper shows that the gender gap in spatial abilities in the task that we study interacts with culture. In the matrilineal society, we observe no gender difference in this task. These results show that nurture plays an important role in the gender gap in spatial abilities. Our results also indicate that providing equal education and improving treatment of women at the family level may make a difference; however, this implication should be taken with a grain of salt, because causality cannot be ascertained. Nevertheless, the implications for both policymakers and ordinary people interested in reducing the gender gap cannot be overstated: reducing the gender gap in spatial abilities may reduce the gender gap in the science, engineering, and technology workforce.
Influences of the prenatal hormonal environment on other behaviors that show sex differences, including sex-specific cognitive abilities, and interest in infants, are less well established. In regard to interest in infants, this may reflect the small number of published reports. Results are currently equivocal for cognitive abilities, in part because studies have often relied on small samples or on measures that do not show reliable sex differences. Information regarding hormonal influences on brain structure and functional characteristics that can be visualized using techniques such as MRI and PET is still developing, and this area is likely to expand in the coming years. At present, one obstacle is a lack of convincingly demonstrated, reliable sex differences that can be visualized in the living human brain.
Scholars in the gender clinic were doing fascinating research on tasks like spatial rotation skills. They found that people taking androgens (a steroid hormone similar to testosterone) improved at tasks that required them to rotate Tetris-like shapes in their mind to determine if one shape was simply a rotation of another shape. Meanwhile, male-to-female transsexuals saw a decline in performance during their hormone replacement therapy.
Although there was variability across the board, biological men were significantly more likely to prioritize motion parallax. Biological women relied more heavily on shape-from-shading. In other words, men are more likely to use the cues that 3D virtual reality systems relied on.
gendered vs. non-gendered nicknames
Do you actually think about what you type?
I doubt his book is any different and that he has actually done ANY research about the topic at hand,
He is as biased as it gets.
Das Ansinnen, mehr Frauen in die Wikipedia bringen zu wollen, ist nicht die Lösung des Problems, sondern Teil des Problems. Frauen werden nie etwas auf die Reihe bekommen, solange sie sich nicht aus der Position als Beteiligt- und Versorgtwerder lösen können. Das aber können sie nicht, weil es biologisch codiert ist. Das wäre mal eine Vorgabe, mit der sie sich sinnvoller beschäftigen könnten, als den x-ten Workshop abzuhalten, wie sie sich schon wieder mal an irgendeinem Männerwerk ihren Anteil abholen können wie ein Steuereintreiber.
By the way the fact that gender studies don't have anything in common with science has nothing to do with the "Body-Mind-Problem".
Do you think it is fundamental to our society as a people to fully understand what 'gender' means and to what extent 'gender' influences the human being as a whole?
The quote you are speaking of does NOT assert that objectivity is a male quality. It is instead suggested that it is wrong to view objectivity as a male trait.
The commentator just doesn't understand it, because he apparently didn't read the whole book, but just the blurp.
I made the effort to check and there is literally no context for the quote that would be missing in the article.