|Abstract||This article considers 3 claims that cognitive sex differ- ences account for the differential representation of men and women in high-level careers in mathematics and sci- ence: (a) males are more focused on objects from the beginning of life and therefore are predisposed to better learning about mechanical systems; (b) males have a pro- ﬁle of spatial and numerical abilities producing greater aptitude for mathematics; and (c) males are more variable in their cognitive abilities and therefore predominate at the upper reaches of mathematical talent. Research on cogni- tive development in human infants, preschool children, and students at all levels fails to support these claims. Instead, it provides evidence that mathematical and scientiﬁc rea- soning develop from a set of biologically based cognitive capacities that males and females share. These capacities lead men and women to develop equal talent for mathe- matics and science.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Elizabeth S. Spelke (2005). Sex Differences in Intrinsic Aptitude for Mathematics and Science? A Critical Review. American Psychologist 60 (9):950-958.
Stephen C. Maxson (1999). Some Reflections on Sex Differences in Aggression and Violence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):232-233.
Dario Maestripieri & Kelly A. Carroll (1999). Costs and Benefits of Female Aggressiveness in Humans and Other Mammals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):231-232.
R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Craig T. Palmer & Hasker P. Davis (2000). More Women (and Men) That Never Evolved. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):598-599.
Sean R. Valentine & Terri L. Rittenburg (2007). The Ethical Decision Making of Men and Women Executives in International Business Situations. Journal of Business Ethics 71 (2):125 - 134.
Myra J. Hird (2004). Sex, Gender, and Science. Palgrave Macmillan.
Stephen Beckerman (1999). Violence, Sex, and the Good Mother. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):215-216.
Deborah S. Mower (2009). Sex Differences in Moral Interests: The Role of Kinship and the Nature of Reciprocity. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 39 (1):111-119.
Fenna van Nes (2011). Mathematics Education and Neurosciences: Towards Interdisciplinary Insights Into the Development of Young Children's Mathematical Abilities. Educational Philosophy and Theory 43 (1):75-80.
Cordelia Fine (2012). Explaining, or Sustaining, the Status Quo? The Potentially Self-Fulfilling Effects of 'Hardwired' Accounts of Sex Differences. Neuroethics 5 (3):285-294.
Sharon Galbraith & Harriet Buckman Stephenson (1993). Decision Rules Used by Male and Female Business Students in Making Ethical Value Judgments: Another Look. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 12 (3):227 - 233.
John Lazarus (2005). Sociosexuality and Sex Ratio: Sex Differences and Local Markets. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):288-288.
Alice H. Eagly & Wendy Wood (1999). The Origins of Aggression Sex Differences: Evolved Dispositions Versus Social Roles. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (2):223-224.
John Marshall Townsend (1999). Extraversion, Sexual Experience, and Sexual Emotions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (3):537-537.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads9 ( #122,297 of 722,698 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?