Women Lost at Reading Maps

And actual headline, not mine. In fact the study cited is not nearly so black and white as it appears from the Australian article. No mention is made of any control groups (such as controlling for age- I can image older women, raised in a time when men did all the driving, probably have less ability than younger women who were not raised in such a way- but I am speculating of course). The article does not really talk about the methodology of the actual study (proper control groups, statistical methodology- was the difference actually statistically significant and what kind of test did they use?, etc).

Not once in either article was the fact that reading a map is something most people have to LEARN to do. Like almost anything else. Why is our society so hung up on "innate" abilities or lack thereof? Personally, I believe that very little is actually innate and that it is possible for almost anyone to learn almost anything. But our parents and our teachers and people around us try to pigeonhole us from a very early age and THAT is what is to blame for any deficiencies some women might have in reading maps, not because their brains are inferior in any way. it is a skill, nothing more, and not a particularly difficult one at that.

For what it's worth here is the original article citing the study

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21819451-5005370,00.html

A new study into the mental skills required to read a map has handed blokes new ammunition and dealt heterosexual women a final indignity.

The research, from the University of Warwick in the UK, suggests that not only are straight women worse at map reading than straight males, they are also outperformed by bisexual men, gay men, gay women and bisexual women - in that order.

The study looked at what's called mental rotation. This is our ability to mentally visualise an object from different perspectives.




And here is a commentary in Salon, where I first read about it:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/?last_story=/mwt/broadsheet/2007/05/31/mapping/

I thought one biased remark deserved another.

he had to drive first to the Beverly Hills Hotel before driving anywhere because he only knew how to get to places from there.

Guess he didn't get the memorandum.

That's one area where spacial skills are crucial. Also, efficiently packing closets and cupboards.

In fact, comparing the women I've known to the men, I'd say they excel at spacial skills--just used in different contexts.

never had any problems with it :shrug:

I can refold it.

So there.

Far fewer women participate in these activities.

Girl Guides as they'd say in Oz.

Last time I checked, I have ovaries and am the one that everyone I know asks for 'directions to' and 'how far is' and 'where can I find' ....


:eyes:

Is that I prefer they be specific: give me the name of the street, the number of the exit, not landmarks, like "turn left at McDonalds". That is useless since there is a MCDonalds on every corner it seems.

Now, I do use a GPS extensively in my work so that may hinder or help my ability but I have always been able to read maps. I am not sure why it is considered so difficult. I don't use it much anymore, what with Mapquest and all the online maps there are, but I do use nautical charts a lot. And I was taught to plot a course on them (not that that skill is used much either, again with the GPS units we have). Of course it is dangerous to rely on electronics exclusively.

I think, judging from the way the study was reported, is that I must either be gay or man. Last time I checked I was neither, so who knows?

A very poorly reported article altogether, an issue I have with science writing in general. They report that some study shows X, when in fact it may show the opposite or the results are a lot grayer than that.

refuses to stop at, say, a gas station and ask for directions? Furthermore, I rented a car where the car company comes out to pick you up. Well, the guy was late because he couldn't find me. Not only was he new to the area, he didn't even consult a map. I told him if he was working for a car rental company it might be a good idea to have a Thomas' Guide handy.

--they would have stopped and asked for directions, gotten there on time, helped deliver the baby, brought practical gifts, and made a casserole! :)

We're directly above the center of the earth!

In fact, the overwhelming majority of animal behaviors-- including our own-- are innate to some degree, usually very much so. Don't make the mistake of thinking that only conscious behavior or conscious decision making counts-- conscious behaviors are nearly always made up of smaller "units" of innate behaviors. Thus you might "learn" that apples taste good, and "decide" to eat an apple based on that experience, but virtually every component of your behavior from that point on is innate.

I know, this doesn't have anything directly to do with your point, but it's biologically important.

And socialization isn't taken into account.

But you are correct.

Older woman here who can read any map, any type, any legend just fine. And I can orienteer pretty well too.

I guess I am just as guilty as the writer of the article.

But I do not remember learning to read maps in Brownies, like the boys in Cub Scouts did. That really pissed me off (and the fact we had to sew instead of learning to camp- and this was in the 1970s too, a time when things were changing all over but apparently not in my town!).

The only reason that many of them don't is because they never bothered to learn how to read a map. I think it is just a matter of interest just like I am not very good at sewing. My wife cannot read a map very well because I do most of the driving. I cannot sew very well because she does most of the sewing. It's a dumb argument as far as I am concerned.

At at time when, say, my mother grew up, women didn't even do much of the driving. Or they didn't have to learn to read a map because "women didn't do those things".

I do not believe in biological determinism at all. Women are not "innately" inferior or superior in anything. Almost everything is learned. That is my opinion of course.

and prefers the challenge of using maps to find where I'm going. (but I also like old-fashioned PC adventure games.)

I did read somewhere once that women tend to prefer more three dimensional instructions; they make much greater use of landmarks.

My guess is that this is mostly cultural. When I was a kid, my father was always the one who mapped out the vacation route in advance. And my mother was always the one in the car with her hands over her ears so she didn't have to listen to his swearing when he got lost.

Give me the name of the street. Maybe landmarks are easier to remember for some people. Not me. Until I have been in a town a long time, I have trouble remember if Building X was on this block or on the next one.

Take Boston, or just about anywhere in Massachusetts (or NH), please!

You cain't get thar from heah!

And I learned to drive (and swear) in Lowell, MA.

small street signs, which might have been stolen.

"Heading North, turn left at Roosevelt Ave. which is the first left after the Taco Bell."

I don't have a good memory for landmarks for some reason. Was the Taco bell on this street or the next one?? Sometimes I just can't remember it. When I am looking up an address, I make note of the street and number. Then I use that, although some buildings are not labeled with their street address so it doesn't always help.

Left and right is way more useful than north and south, for example, because many streets do not go strictly in one directly. Around here they tend to meander a bit. South Padre Island Drive is fairly self-explanatory but there is no corresponding North Padre Island Drive (actually there is but it is very difficult to find!).

Seriously always avoid them. My husband puts them in my car and I ignore them. I do what the article says, and try and orient it to my environment. I don't mind it on a navigation system revealing itself as I travel but when I want to get somewhere I just get details, names of streets, mileage to turns etc. So this rang true for me.

I dunno. Just saying that men and women are different isn't necessarily insulting. I think studying it in accepting way can be fascinating. I actually felt vindicated by this even a bit.

But the way in which the article was written, simply to enforce the usual stereotypes. The article reveals nothing of the study methodology, the sample size, control groups, statistical methods, whatever. Just more bad science writing. In fact, most reporting on science is just like this.

It also makes me wonder about who they chose for their study. I mean I have heard from numerous women that don't fit the stereotype for every one that does. So it may not have been very random at all but, again, this goes back to poor reporting.

advice I was given is first determine your position, that is determine North (if your someplace unfamiliar it's not always clear so its good to have a compass). Then find north of the map. Then place the compass on the map and line up North on the map to North on the compass. Once you so that reading the map is really straight-forward.

Never had a problem with maps. Or directions. I'm not so hot at seeing 3D in my head, tho -- not good at visualizing interior design or architecture, for example.

have difficulty with them. The trick is to TEACH the skill, and not to deny women lessons in it.

I happen to have learned a love of maps early in life (my father was a USAF navigator, lol, and also an avid outdoorsman. For several years I competed in an obscure sport called ORIENTEERING, and was nationally ranked for a while. That means I can not only read maps, I can NAVIGATE from them, at a run, in the woods, while evading bees and poison oak and slick surfaces and cactus and chapparal. And yes, I am a woman - so were half of my fellow orienteers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orienteering

I'm the ONLY person in my office that can read maps--all the service techs make me TELL them how to get places because they can't figure it out from our maps!

The stats for male/female differences in mental rotation haven't changed for over 20 years.

You can produce anecdotal information to 'discredit' it, but only stats-ignorant folk buy the 'debunking'. The stats have little meaning for any individual.

Originally, back in the '70s (at least) the findings of definite sex-based differences in *any* area--including this one--were challenged. Some bit the dust, but mental rotation skills (along with lexical access) was tested, and the findings replicated over and over ... and over.

Then it was claimed to be a culture-specific trait, nurture, not nature at all. So cross-cultural studies were done. The results varied a bit by culture, but the overall trend was the same; you can take the variance to reflect nurture, and the invariant baseline to reflect nature.


I can't find the journal the research was published in (Archives of Sexual Behavior) on any of the proxy servers that I can access. But they had a fairly large statistical base to work off of: "The researchers worked with the BBC to collect data from more than 198,000 people ages 20 to 65 years -- 109,612 men and 88,509 women." http://www.upi.com/Consumer_Health_Daily/Briefing/2007/05/24/sexual_orientation_affects_some_tasks/5245/

Typically bad, that is. And just more fuel for the sexists out there (look at the letter page for the Salon article for one- talk about internet trolls!).

What is so fucking hard about reading a map anyway? I do not get why everyone can't do it.

I still give examples of shoddy or misleading maps in my research methods class, when teaching students not to assume that books, TV, etc. don't always know what they're talking about, or are trying to pull a fast one on you!

As alarimer pointed out, the thing about map-reading being a learned skill is pretty important. Given that women have been told for generations that they're incompetent at it (see CS Lewis's Narnia books, for example), I think there are a lot of background factors at work here.

which is why I DESPISE the kind of generalization you find in the article. It takes a scientific (presumably- though I never checked the original study for problems in methodology or whatever) study and boils it down to the same old stereotypes, when the truth is so much more complicated.

I forwarded her the article (she used to be on the committee that screened prospective grad students, so she has a lot of experience with assessing aptitude in the spatial sciences -- as well as the gap between test scores and actual performance at problem-solving, etc.) -- and she is entirely in agreement with you, re: overgeneralization. She commented that it's not too hard to skew a test for map-reading abilities, depending on which variables are selected.

Searching the Warwick website referenced in the OP, I did find the original article. And another way of pre-digesting the research for AP could be "Women Get Spatial Marks", or "Doddering Old Men", or "Men Can Read Maps Better".

The stuff I found at www.warwick.ac.uk:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/new_research_finds_sexual_orientation_affects_how_we_navigate__recall_lost_objects_but_age_just_targets_gender1/
and linked from there is a better summary of the study http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/articles/results/ageing.shtml


From the actual research paper (Gender and Sexual Orientation Differences in Cognition Across Adulthood: Age is Kinder to Women than to Men Regardless of Sexual Orientation - Elizabeth A. Maylor, Stian Reimers, Jean Choi, Marcia L. Collaer, Michael Peters, Irwin Silverman):

More differences between women and men, than between sexual orientation.

Aside 1: The article from AP annoyed me very much. The extrapolation is extremely superficial and crass.

And what about transgender people? Do they read the map one way up while really wanting to read it the other?

The article does not state the title of the study, or the scientific publication that the study is submitted to. In fact, I doubt the writer read and analysed the original publication at all. And Dr Tlauka, misleadingly, is not at University of Warwick and is not an author to the study in question - he is at Flinders University http://www.flinders.edu.au and he is a researcher of gender differences in spatial abilities.
In November 2003 he stated:

"Males have significantly better spatial skills than females in both real and virtual environments," he said.
"I don-t think that-s problematic - it-s just a matter of giving more training."

Aside 2: It can raise the blood pressure to know the sexist headlines on this particular topic (gender differences, Dr Tlauka, Flinders University). It's possible his quotes are selectively used to provide backing for the sexist slant. Why isn't there a headline "Men Need Help To Pack Cupboards" or "Give Women Same Training As Men" "Give Men Same Opportunities As Women". Here's a sample of headlines that promote the stereotyping:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Dr+Tlauka%22+%22Flinders+University%22&btnG=Search&hl=en

Everyone's better at reading maps than women | | The Australian
... in gender differences and spatial ability from Flinders University. ... Dr Tlauka says he isn't aware of any researcher who has ventured into this ...
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21819325-29277,00.html - Similar pages
Women the worst map readers | The Daily Telegraph
... an expert in gender differences and spatial ability from Flinders University. ... Dr Tlauka says the explanation is based in both nature and nurture. ...
www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21819456-5006007,00.html - Similar pages
It's official - girls just can't read maps - Sunshine Coast Daily ...
... and spatial ability, from Flinders University. This is one mental task where studies have shown that men consistently outperform women, Dr Tlauka said. ...
www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3736256&thesection=localnews&the... - 29k - 30 May 2007 - Cached - Similar pages

Note the use of "girls" to trivialise women in the study.

SameSame.com.au ~ International News ~ The Butch Gene?
Dr Tlauka from Flinders University told News.com.au that it’s not just a case of getting a male or female brain, but there’s such a thing as a gay brain and ...
www.samesame.com.au/news/international/835/The_Butch_Gene - 31k -

at least it isn't referring to 'macho' gene...
The overabundance of the female-ness ('women', 'girls', 'butch') in the headlines without a balance of male-ness leads me to believe in a biased pre-digestion of the AP article. Or the news editors.

So much of this is just bad science reporting. The scientist quoted in the article may well have been misquoted. And it was the tone of that article, more than the actual research findings, that got my goat.

Heck I was the one doing the map directions when I was around 11-12 for my clueless father on long car trips.

And I also have a great sense of direction navigating without a map as well.

but I don't think the men have a innate ability over women when it comes from reading maps. The differences can be explained socially like boys are more likely to take up sports growing up.

There has been studies showing that visualization skills can be acquired so I don't think the study suggests that women are doomed when it comes to reading map.