Terms in this set (28)

We read this earlier so a lot of it is repetitive. Again, it's really long, and he just kind of lists observations but I'll try to bring out the key points. It also jumps around between diff topics a lot.

-Systemizing = predicting an output from a system when you vary the input
-Men are better at intuitive physics, attention to details than women. This overlaps w people w autism who have a strong visual search ability. Men also more attracted to systems or functional toys like cars/trucks.
-Women better at empathizing and language skills: start talking earlier, have larger vocabulary
-This has evolutionary function bc traits have been specialized for different goals
-Difference in mathematical ability (i.e. girls better at calculating/computation, boys better at problem solving) might develop later in childhood, but he denies that this has a social function b/c this difference holds true across cultures worldwide. Men mostly win worldwide math competitions

-Autism or Asberger Syndrome is genetic. The author tries to prove this by showing that the fathers/grandfathers of autistic kids are most likely physicists.
-Gives examples of people in history (mostly physicists w/ symptoms of autism or asbergers -low sympathizers, lonely): Newton, Einstein
-Talks about personal experience w/ a man named Richard who had outgrown his AS (shows the importance of the environment) but was better at systemizing than empathizing/social skills

Autism conditions (autism= empathy disorder b/c autistic people can't read others' minds or understand how their own actions impact others ):
(1) genetic in origin (evidence: studies of twins, chances of autism higher if identical twin has it than if identical twin does not have it),
(2) mostly males who have it
(3) conditions develop pre-natally
(4) Autistic/ AS people have unusual talents in seeing/understanding patterns, small details (feel the need to control their environment),
(5) are often lonely as children
very science-oriented but he still might ask about the findings
From the beginning, the environment acts differently on wired brains in girls and boys bc of differing hormonal influences on developing brain
-effects of exposure to sex hormones are called organizational bc they alter brain function permanently during a critical period
-Sex differences lie in ability rather than IQ
-Men better at spatial/math reasoning tests, finding shapes hidden in bigger figures, remembering routes (navigational ability)
> left half of brain is critical for speech and right is critical for perceptual/spatial functions → women are more affected by damage to the right & the reverse is true for men; women use the hemispheres more equally than men
-Women better at matching, verbal fluency, math calculation, remembering placement of objects, precision-related tasks, math calculation, remembering landmarks
-Studies w/ rats show that male hormones organize male behaviors early in life
-Homosexual vs. heterosexual men: differences in size of brain region that usually is bigger in males than females, homosexual men don't perform as well on spatial tasks as heterosexual men
-Study of girls exposed to androgens (male sex hormones) in pre-natal/neonatal stage: more tomboyish/aggressive than sisters, better @ spatial performance than low-androgen men

*Conclusion: division of labor (men as hunters/defenders, women gathering food and tending to the home) put different selection pressures on men and women. Men needed long-distance, route-finding abilities, women needed short-rang navigations w/ landmarks & noticing small changes
Sparknotes version: This article is long, rambling and actually kind of confusing. Read below if you want a lot of detail. Basically showing intellectual differences between "exceptionally able" men and female. Uses the Theory of Work Adjustment to explain the differences in abilities and preferences btwn men and women. Concludes that women won't go into as prestigious fields as men b/c of preferences, abilities. Women vary more in their abilities which enables them to go into more fields, whereas men are fairly exclusive in their commitment to the sciences. Math section of SAT highly favors males. Suggests the need to "conduct multi-attribute assessment of key characteristics relevant to criterion behaviors of interest". I think this basically means looking at preferences/abilities in order to understand behaviors. Also poses the question of requiring men and women to study courses they wouldn't other take (i.e. requiring gifted females to take more math classes/ gifted men to take more social/artistic classes) to improve their representation in those fields

-People who have potential for exceptional achievement need certain encounters w/ the environment to bring about accomplishments
-Quotes Tannenbaum who said that great performance/productivity comes from (1) superior general intellect, (2) distinctive special aptitudes (3) nonintellectual traits/ (4) challenging environment (5) good fortune
the first three from above, superior general intellect, distinctive special aptitudes, nonintellectual traits, form what is called the Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA), discussed frequently throughout this article but never really defined beyond this
-People who have developed math/spatial/mechanical reasoning/investigative/theoretical abilities will choose careers in the physical sciences
males & females seem to be converging towards a common mean on intellectual abilities (but this is NOT the case for gifted individuals)
-Men are more variable than females across intellectual measures (even if women have the superior intellectual ability)
>Study of high school students [four measures: English language, spatial visualization, math. reasoning & general intelligence] showed more variability in males than females for English language, for which females were superior
-When looking at gifted students, top portion is inordinately male.
-At age 13, gifted males have abilities and preferences oriented towards careers in physical sciences, whereas girls will develop talents in equal proportions and go onto artistic/social/investigative jobs. → "due to more evenly distributed preferences, mathematically gifted females' career choices will be less distinguished than male counterparts"
-Thorndike used the people-versus things distinction: females prefer the former while males prefer the latter [this can explain why females prefer biology & medicine to "inorganic" domains [no clue what these are]
-Females more likely to plan to work part-time than men, so they will devote less time to vocational development than men
-Poses the question of requiring gifted females to take more math classes/ gifted men to take more social/artistic classes improve their representation in those fields
The typical story about how females work harder at school that young males. Studies have shown that men, regardless of socioeconomic status or race, are less likely than women to get bachelors degrees, those who do are less likely to complete the degree in 4 or 5 years. The gender gap is smaller than the black/Hispanic gap for college representation. So the debate is worried about where attention should be focused, gender or race. Boys are more likely to be suspended or expelled than girls. But since boys make more than girls right out of college, what is it that boys are doing differently? People point to the fact that no one cared about the race discrepancy but yet white middle class males being disproportionately affected is a problem... Mens work ethic is different than women's. The amount of time men spent socializing and relaxing mirrored the time that women spent preparing for class, that this could have to do with an entitlement issue, that men think they can do nothing and still get a good job. If colleges are genderblind on accepting applications they more often accepted female applicants. So now a big issue is getting gender balance in admission rates. "A 4.0 is worth it to females but not to males" Conclusion: Possibly, men do better at jobs because of their ability to work long hours and had fewer career interruptions. This article was sort of aimless, its basically contemplating why men have the advantage in the working world while women dominate the college arena.