Sorry girls, you just don't cut it ...

Aushiker · Post by **Aushiker** » 25 January 05 1:40 am

Hi

I take no responsibility for the content of the said article ... no shooting the messenger please

.

All shall be revealed at http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12 ... 62,00.html.

Regards
Andrew

Bronze · Post by **Bronze** » 25 January 05 9:00 am

How ironic.

A link on the bottom of that article points to this.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12 ... 62,00.html

Go figure.

Bronze.

sc00t · Post by **sc00t** » 25 January 05 12:20 pm

OMG.....well i'm definately in the wrong career. I guess there is a difference between LOOKING at maps and MAKING maps...

Team Red Devil · Post by **Team Red Devil** » 25 January 05 6:18 pm

Well...maybe I was a man in a former life or something - 'cause I do all the navigating- map reading, gpsr reading, planning etc in our house. Not that Scott CAN'T do it- its just he doesn't have time, and I know how to do it, so it makes sense for me (who is currently time rich) to do it instead. I've never gotten us lost, and I always get us there on time, and by the shortest route possible. 
 
So frankly, I think that those 'tests' are crap- you can learn anything you set yourself to do- I don't believe that we need to be stereotyped by this kind of sexist crud. I'm not a feminist- but I do believe that ANYONE can learn anything- we're not restricted by our genders at all. I re read that article and here is what it appeared to me to say: 'Women are suited to talking on the phone all day' Insane! 
 
Put it this way- Scientists once swore that smoking was NOT bad for you- Last year or maybe the year before- a scientist claimed they'd created a cloned human being- we're still waiting to see it. So I don't believe a word they say anymore- they're all full of it. 
 
Marie- Who Is, Always Will Be, And Always Has Been an Independent Woman

LOL!!

Aushiker · Post by **Aushiker** » 25 January 05 6:37 pm

Team Red Devil wrote:Well...maybe I was a man in a former life or something - 'cause I do all the navigating- map reading, gpsr reading, planning etc in our house. Not that Scott CAN'T do it- its just he doesn't have time, and I know how to do it, so it makes sense for me (who is currently time rich) to do it instead. I've never gotten us lost, and I always get us there on time, and by the shortest route possible.

First up, this is news article not the actual paper from the study so it should be read with caution, but anyway, no scientific paper would be claiming that it applies in 100% of cases, they never do. There is a thing called "statistically significant" which I would assume is 95% in this paper. Second it is only one paper. The findings have to be replicated first before they are given serious validity.

Team Red Devil wrote:Put it this way- Scientists once swore that smoking was NOT bad for you- Last year or maybe the year before- a scientist claimed they'd created a cloned human being- we're still waiting to see it. So I don't believe a word they say anymore- they're all full of it.

And you are right 100% of the time? I suspect not

BTW there has been evidence against smoking for a long long time. You need to check your sources on your claims, understand the influences on some papers (e.g., sponsorhips) and understand the nature of scientific research. Claims in the media based on one or a few papers are not in anyway indicative of the nature of scientific research.

Have you ever actually read scientific papers published in reputable journals? They might be boring, but you might actually get a better understanding of what you are attacking.

A closing thought ... you are using a computer, the Internet, telephone lines etc to communciate here. You wouldn't be doing any of these without those dumb scientist. You might also think about this next time you go to the doctor or take your child to the doctor .....

A defender of the informed scientific world.
Andrew

Team Red Devil · Post by **Team Red Devil** » 25 January 05 7:34 pm

Understand the influences on some papers (e.g., sponsorhips) and understand the nature of scientific research. Claims in the media based on one or a few papers are not in anyway indicative of the nature of scientific research.

I agree with this- and my comments were based on the information provided in that one article. I was speaking in reference to that article-as it was presented in the link you provided Andrew.

And you are right 100% of the time? I suspect not

No, I am not 100% right all the time. BUT I am also NOT a scientist stating that they know why women can't read maps. (And I do realise that a bit of poetic license was probably taken when this article was written).

Have you ever actually read scientific papers published in reputable journals? They might be boring, but you might actually get a better understanding of what you are attacking.

Did a whole lot of this in high school- and ended up more jaded by what I read- for a paper stating one thing- there was another stating the opposite. And frankly, the average person, unless they have a vested interest in science wouldn't bother- for the exact reason you stated- they're boring.

you are using a computer, the Internet, telephone lines etc to communciate here. You wouldn't be doing any of these without those dumb scientist. You might also think about this next time you go to the doctor or take your child to the doctor .....

I never once called anyone DUMB. And I am annoyed and offended that you would insinuate that. I questioned their credibility- simply for the fact that many 'scientific' things (especially in the day and age of crackpots) are just pure crap, or publicity stunts- so its become harder and harder to tell the real from the fake for the average person.

A defender of the informed scientific world.

Science has its place in society- and I have no doubt of that-and I am indeed thankful for that. I never said I wasn't appreciative of the work that scientists have done - I am indeed grateful for Alexander Graham Bell, Marie Curie and other scientific pioneers- but I dislike the charlatans calling themselves scientists making false claims, and claims that are unfounded. It is these, (and to some extent the media) that is responsible for my scepticism regarding scientists. 
 
But here's a thought- how does what this guy found out help the human race? If presented in the media all over the world the same as it was in that particular article- it will just serve to justify sexism - SHE can't do that- WOMEN can't read maps/do anything other than talk on the phone. Sexism at its best. If this study has some credibility- I would advise the scientists to choose reputable publications, and monitor the amount of poetic licence taken with the information. If I was the scientist in charge of that study- I'd be calling the publication and giving them a mind full. 
 
Marie.

Lt. Sniper · Post by **Lt. Sniper** » 25 January 05 8:24 pm

I know some of my female friends cant read a UBD but others can, I think motivation is the key. If you want to learn to do something you do it, maybe males are more interested and hence know (when the time comes at least) how to use one.

Look at the gender ratio for people who do Geocaching, thereÃ‚â€™s not a lot of women, its just not interesting enough. Knowing how to read a map is just not appealing.

In writing this I am not really proving the point I wanted to make or expressing myself properly. Ill leave it at this and not say something stupid which might offend someone.

Bring on the discussion.

Aushiker · Post by **Aushiker** » 25 January 05 8:41 pm

Hi Marie

My appologies, you didn't say scientists where dumb, you said "So I don't believe a word they say anymore- they're all full of it" which I took as being pretty much the same thing and obviously incorrectly.

As to the sexist stuff, actually male and female brains are different, there is plenty of evidence that they process data/information differently, that does not make one gender better or worse, but it is important to understand it and to address it when appropriately! Just as people within a gender learn differently. If that offends you, so be it!

As an academic I would be professionaly negelent if I did not take this knowlege into consideration when developing my teaching programs and the way I teach. If you consider that sexist, so be it, I would rather be sexist in your view and a better teacher because of it than not.

Going back to the article, I find this section particulary informative (which by the way relates to my comment above).

"Professor Rex Jung, a co-author of the study at the University of New Mexico, said: "This may help explain why men tend to excel in tasks requiring more local processing, like mathematics and map-reading, while women tend to excel at integrating information from various brain regions, such as is required for language skills.

"These two very different pathways and activity centres, however, result in equivalent overall performance on broad measures of cognitive ability, such as those found on intelligence tests."

Previous studies have shown that women have weaker spatial awareness than men, making it harder for them to read maps."

Note the use of the word "MAY." Note also that this is about the difference in use of brain matter, no one is claiming one gender is better than the other, rather that different levels or types of processing tend to dominate in one gender over the other. I find this particularly evident in my classes where one gender addresses issues/processing information differently than others. To me this is important knowledge and helps in improving delivery of teaching programs.

That is that from me.

My appologies for ever posting this article. If I had realised it would result in such a dicussion I wouldn't not have posted it.

Lesson learnt ...

Andrew

Team Red Devil · Post by **Team Red Devil** » 25 January 05 8:47 pm

I agree with you Lt. I guess thats kind of what I was trying to say originally. 
 
Hey Lt...had a thought (lookout!

)....maybe its not the whole learning to read a map thing but the fact that many caches are in snake/spider other bitey creepy crawly places that most women just don't want to go... 
 
I've also heard women call it boring- how they could think that is beyond me- I have never once been bored- even whilst sitting in the car at night while Scott tramped through bushland (because he just COULDN'T drive past the cache without at least having a shot at it!) 
 
We bought handheld UHF CB's so that we are in constant communication, and there's always something to be done- recently I got a brainwave, (will get pics and show you all when I can get access to a digicam), so I've been sitting in the car creating CITO things to be dropped into caches we visit

. 
 I love caching with Scott, but I also like the break Rhi and I got to hang out and talk when dad was off bucket hunting. And we don't mind that he gets the find-we get mum & Rhi time

Mind you- even from a distance- Rhi is ever the raider- she will get on the cb and ask him whats in the cache for her! Too funny! 
 
And I've found plenty of things to do to keep myself happily occupied while he's been off hunting, and Rhi has been in NSW. Never a dull moment for me! 
 
Marie

Aushiker · Post by **Aushiker** » 25 January 05 8:47 pm

Team Red Devil wrote: But here's a thought- how does what this guy found out help the human race?

Actually, assuming the validity of the study, it adds significantly to knowledge, confirming early findings on brian processing.

Regards
Andrew

Team Red Devil · Post by **Team Red Devil** » 25 January 05 8:53 pm

Actually, assuming the validity of the study, it adds significantly to knowledge, confirming early findings on brian processing.

What I meant in the paragraph after the question- was that if that study is credible- one would hope that it would NOT be presented to the world in such a sexist and demeaning manner. 
 
Marie

Lt. Sniper · Post by **Lt. Sniper** » 25 January 05 8:54 pm

Team Red Devil wrote:I agree with you Lt. I guess thats kind of what I was trying to say originally.

W00h00!

Team Red Devil wrote:I've been sitting in the car creating CITO things to be dropped into caches we visit

I have been putting CITO bags in some of my caches. I will post a pic of my idea.

Citria · Post by **Citria** » 25 January 05 8:59 pm

May I put my big foot into my mouth and weigh into this by saying that if the point of posting of this article was to enlighten us all, then it probably shouldn't have been listed as "sorry girls, you just don't cut it." The title alone was bound to raise hackles, no matter how informative the article was.

I agree with the comments that motivation is the key ... if you are motivated enough, you can learn to do almost anything, no matter how your brain is wired.

Aushiker · Post by **Aushiker** » 25 January 05 9:01 pm

Team Red Devil wrote:What I meant in the paragraph after the question- was that if that study is credible- one would hope that it would NOT be presented to the world in such a sexist and demeaning manner.

I think you might be misunderstanding what is being said. The key word in this sentence is "vocabulary" which is about the range of words available and used. Women have a far greater range of words and use them. This could be seen as greater intelligence, but at least a sign of an ability to better present an idea, point of view etc.

Quite frankly I would love to have a greater vocabulary range. Would make my lecturing and sharing of knowledge far better.

Regards
Andrew

Phlosten · Post by **Phlosten** » 25 January 05 9:08 pm

There was a thing that came out a few years ago along similar lines. Women were better at emotions or something but generally (yes, generally, not all) lacked the spatial awareness that males have.

Basically males were better at judging distance. ie reading basics of a map was not the challenge but judging a map on the run and estimating the travel distance at the time. My wife has always had a hard time judging distances, but then she can usually tell how, and where the caches are hidden.

Are there any women estimators in these forums?