Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Cushman 5628 days ago
Okay, again, you said there were studies. That means you have to find them, not me.
1 comments

Google is your friend. I'm not about to spoon feed you common sense, just like I can't be bothered to find studies that show the earth isn't flat right now.

And if you're serious, you have to respond to all my other points. For example:

  Do you believe that evolution exists
  Do you accept that women are physically different to men
  Do you accept that womens brains are different to mens
We're talking scientifically here. On average.

Is it racist to say most basketball players are black due to them being on average taller? Or maybe you think their extra height is caused by their environment :/

Your world may in fact be flat: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/spence/Feng,%20Spence,%20...

Since you mentioned spatial awareness, you'll probably like this one. Having both groups play Medal of Honor for only 10 hours total narrowed the spatial gender gap into nonsignificance, with women benefitting much more than men. The benefits were still visible months later, without any instruction to continue playing.

Considering the wildly different toys and games we encourage boys and girls to play from infancy through adolescence, to say that this calls the idea that the spatial gender gap is genetic into question is quite an understatement.

So, uh... got any evidence that it is?

So, decided to completely ignore all my points and evidence about physical differences in the brain between the sexes, evolution etc eh?

I think we're getting nowhere here. You clearly have an agenda to follow rather than a desire to find out the 'truth'.

I'm also guessing from your comment about toys that you don't have kids yet.

No, really, you should read that study. It directly contradicts what you're saying in an experimental, repeatable way.

It's totally wild.

UTTER BS.

It shows that women can 'learn' to get better at spacial awareness. Just like men can 'learn' to get better at communication.

It doesn't "directly contradict" anything.

Since you still haven't provided any research in support of your claims, I suppose it doesn't contradict anything. Fair cop.