John Dewey, PSY 360
Do Significant Innate Differences Influence the Success of Males and Females?
Are male and female brains so genetically distinct that the differences account for specific developmental
outcomes? There seem to be two levels to this issue—one is about actual cognitive abilities, and the other is about
how to discuss group differences. In regard to cognitive abilities, it does seem likely that there are sex differences
in cognitive ability—some of which favor men and some of which favor women. But, in regard to discussing group
differences, it does not seem likely that discussing those differences as causing specific developmental outcomes is
valid. Thus, my initial position is no: significant innate differences do not influence the success of males and
females.
In the readings on this issue Pinker notes three possible explanations for the fact that only 20% of scientists in “hard
science” disciplines are women, the second of which “is that gender disparities can arise in the absence of
discrimination as long as men and women differ, on average, in their mixture of talents, temperaments, and
interests—whether this difference is the result of biology, socialization, or an interaction of the two” (p. 52).
Although Pinker groups nature and nurture together as one explanation, this seems to be the key question in relation
to lifespan development: do women differ from men on average primarily because of socialization or primarily
because of biology? As noted in class, our development is always a product of an interaction between nature and
nurture. So it is not a question of either/or – but rather which is more influential.
Pinker implies that nature is more influential. To me, however, his arguments were unconvincing. He argues that
sex differences are real, and based on genetic differences (though he does acknowledge the differences do not
necessarily favor men or women—in some cases depending on society they may favor either). He uses
evolutionary speculation to explain these differences, arguing that reproduction requires different characteristics
from men and women. But these speculations sound like the “just so stories” those critical of evolutionary
psychology deride. Pinker, for example, claims that in families having one really smart son can outweigh “dull
sons” more than having one really smart daughter. This seems to be ungrounded evolutionary speculation.
In contrast, Russett implies that society is more influential in determining the meaning of sex differences. She
points out that biological differences are easy to misinterpret. For example, men do, on average, have bigger brains
than women, but they also have more body mass and proportionately their brains are not in fact larger. She points
to a pattern of misleading thinking through history that clearly demonstrates how our theories are dictated by our
society.
Yet, as both Pinker and our text point out, efforts to raise children of different sexes without regard to gender have
not diminished the salience of gender in society. In fact, most efforts to “re-assign” gender through socialization
have failed. It does seem that gender differences have an innate developmental root. In fact, in the text the
discussion of genetic bases for our development notes that we have many “sex-linked traits.” These are traits that
are linked specifically to the x or y chromosome, and mostly determine things such as blood type or eye color. It is,
of course, a grand leap to say that these “sex-linked” traits also influence later life abilities in science. There is too
much socialization in-between. But if sex differences are inscribed at the most basic genetic level, it seems
necessary to admit that some gender differences must have a genetic basis.
At the same time, the manifestation of those traits depends heavily on society and culture. As the text also notes,
even identical twins (who share identical genetic material) do not develop with absolutely identical psychological
characteristics. Genes are never destiny. Ultimately, Laurence Summers and Pinker rely on the notion that the top
end of the curve for cognitive abilities related to science is dominated by men (they cite a ratio of 5:1). The
problem with this logic is that it assumes top scientists are simply the innately smartest people. Even for men, if
they are not provided the education, resources, and opportunities to succeed in science they will not succeed. In
lifespan development, our genetic dispositions provide a broad foundation for who we become, but the actual
direction we take is too heavily influenced by society to think that accounting for innate sex differences would help
us constructively understand something as particular as gender disparities in science.
