This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Now scientists claim to have finally answered the question of which gender has the best sense of direction - and it's not good news for women.
Norwegian researchers said men are better at " wayfinding tasks " than women, which means they reach their destination much more quickly.
"Men's sense of direction was more effective," said Carl Pintzka from Norwegian University of Science and Technology's Department of Neuroscience.
"They quite simply got to their destination faster."
"In simple terms, women are faster at finding things in the house, and men are faster at finding the house."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/men-better-sense-di...
Norwegian researchers said men are better at " wayfinding tasks " than women, which means they reach their destination much more quickly.
"Men's sense of direction was more effective," said Carl Pintzka from Norwegian University of Science and Technology's Department of Neuroscience.
"They quite simply got to their destination faster."
"In simple terms, women are faster at finding things in the house, and men are faster at finding the house."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/men-better-sense-di...
3
7
In reply to SenzuBean:
Yes, it'll be more interesting when they study 1.000 people.
Yes, it'll be more interesting when they study 1.000 people.
Post edited at 15:25
2
In reply to Timmd:
The other 964 people failed to locate the research institute.
> Yes, it'll be more interesting when they study 1.000 people.
The other 964 people failed to locate the research institute.
16
2
In reply to SenzuBean:
Not necessarily. If its a well constructed study the findings could well be significant.
Not enough information to determine if it was though....
Not necessarily. If its a well constructed study the findings could well be significant.
Not enough information to determine if it was though....
2
In reply to Timmd:
That would be a very small sample indeed.
and not sure you need that level of precision about your sample size....
> Yes, it'll be more interesting when they study 1.000 people.
That would be a very small sample indeed.
and not sure you need that level of precision about your sample size....
Post edited at 17:30
3
In reply to gd303uk:
but we need help with finding a pair of socks
That's only because they've been 'tidied up'!
but we need help with finding a pair of socks
That's only because they've been 'tidied up'!
2
In reply to SenzuBean:
Arrggh, when will people start understanding statistics?
There is no hard and fast rule as to how many measurements you need, once you pass some threshold required by the statistic test you chose beforehand (e.g., limits on how many of your data points are allowed to have a value of zero). Of course, if the effect turns out to be weak, you may miss it with a small sample size, even if it would have been significant with a larger sample.
You can also calculate the required sample size beforehand if your either (roughly) know the size of your expected effect or the desired sensitivity of your study (e.g., there is normally no point in making ones statistic test more precise than the original measurements).
36 subjects is certainly enough to satisfy the mathematical constraints for most tests, and if it is sensitive enough for them to find a difference, then fine.
Anyway, I don´t need to read the study, daily experience tells me this is true (sample size 2, me and my wife....).
CB
Arrggh, when will people start understanding statistics?
There is no hard and fast rule as to how many measurements you need, once you pass some threshold required by the statistic test you chose beforehand (e.g., limits on how many of your data points are allowed to have a value of zero). Of course, if the effect turns out to be weak, you may miss it with a small sample size, even if it would have been significant with a larger sample.
You can also calculate the required sample size beforehand if your either (roughly) know the size of your expected effect or the desired sensitivity of your study (e.g., there is normally no point in making ones statistic test more precise than the original measurements).
36 subjects is certainly enough to satisfy the mathematical constraints for most tests, and if it is sensitive enough for them to find a difference, then fine.
Anyway, I don´t need to read the study, daily experience tells me this is true (sample size 2, me and my wife....).
CB
5
In reply to cb294:
I'm still a bit skeptical about samples of that size when trying to generalise to massive populations. The chance of poor sampling has to be pretty high. Give it a large number of repeats... Then we'll see.
I'm still a bit skeptical about samples of that size when trying to generalise to massive populations. The chance of poor sampling has to be pretty high. Give it a large number of repeats... Then we'll see.
1
1
In reply to cb294:
36 subjects and what seems like 1-2 navigational exercises (that may be biased as they were probably designed by Carl [a man], the studie's lead author). That's by far nowhere near enough to develop an accurate answer.
Secondly it's a hugely well known issue that most university studies suffer from biases in their participants. They often recruit only university students, and thus you're already biasing the study by a magnificent amount (furthermore the students are often from the same department). To truly make a general statement about the sexes navigational differences you would need participants from all cultures, all levels of education, all ages, and a vast array of navigational exercises.
Furthermore the bar for statistical significant is often set very low (usually p < 0.01), which basically means 1/100 studies are _totally_ wrong. This is usually only taken into account by meta-analyses, which are probably the only trustworthy form of social studies.
> Arrggh, when will people start understanding statistics?
> There is no hard and fast rule as to how many measurements you need, once you pass some threshold required by the statistic test you chose beforehand (e.g., limits on how many of your data points are allowed to have a value of zero). Of course, if the effect turns out to be weak, you may miss it with a small sample size, even if it would have been significant with a larger sample.
> You can also calculate the required sample size beforehand if your either (roughly) know the size of your expected effect or the desired sensitivity of your study (e.g., there is normally no point in making ones statistic test more precise than the original measurements).
> 36 subjects is certainly enough to satisfy the mathematical constraints for most tests, and if it is sensitive enough for them to find a difference, then fine.
> Anyway, I don´t need to read the study, daily experience tells me this is true (sample size 2, me and my wife....).
> CB
36 subjects and what seems like 1-2 navigational exercises (that may be biased as they were probably designed by Carl [a man], the studie's lead author). That's by far nowhere near enough to develop an accurate answer.
Secondly it's a hugely well known issue that most university studies suffer from biases in their participants. They often recruit only university students, and thus you're already biasing the study by a magnificent amount (furthermore the students are often from the same department). To truly make a general statement about the sexes navigational differences you would need participants from all cultures, all levels of education, all ages, and a vast array of navigational exercises.
Furthermore the bar for statistical significant is often set very low (usually p < 0.01), which basically means 1/100 studies are _totally_ wrong. This is usually only taken into account by meta-analyses, which are probably the only trustworthy form of social studies.
8
In reply to Timmd:
Reminds me of the Terminator " Human casualties 0.0 "
> Yes, it'll be more interesting when they study 1.000 people.
Reminds me of the Terminator " Human casualties 0.0 "
In reply to cb294:
Sounds like you don't really understand them yourself. A small sample from one specific group of people doing a couple of quick tests in between pints extrapolated to an entire gender and you're sold.
Either way, i'd rather follow someone with a map than some guy whose got an amazing sense of direction courtesy of his penis.
For those who can't be bothered to read the drivel:
Women usually orient themselves along a route to get there, for example, 'go past the hairdresser and then up the street and turn right after the store'."
To explain his findings, the Norwegian citied evolutionary differences between men and women.
"In ancient times, men were hunters and women were gatherers," he continued.
"Therefore, our brains probably evolved differently.
"In simple terms, women are faster at finding things in the house, and men are faster at finding the house."
Glad to see the issue of sexism in science has been combatted in Norway!
Sounds like you don't really understand them yourself. A small sample from one specific group of people doing a couple of quick tests in between pints extrapolated to an entire gender and you're sold.
Either way, i'd rather follow someone with a map than some guy whose got an amazing sense of direction courtesy of his penis.
For those who can't be bothered to read the drivel:
Women usually orient themselves along a route to get there, for example, 'go past the hairdresser and then up the street and turn right after the store'."
To explain his findings, the Norwegian citied evolutionary differences between men and women.
"In ancient times, men were hunters and women were gatherers," he continued.
"Therefore, our brains probably evolved differently.
"In simple terms, women are faster at finding things in the house, and men are faster at finding the house."
Glad to see the issue of sexism in science has been combatted in Norway!
Post edited at 18:56
1
In reply to winhill:
I think a study should be done, which investigates how quickly people rush in to refute any research that suggests women are worse then men...
I think a study should be done, which investigates how quickly people rush in to refute any research that suggests women are worse then men...
5
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
Yes, that too, it could possibly apply to a lot of things, like sporting prowess in people of different races, it could cause a stir because of eugenics and slavery in past times, but it could be interesting, though it might find out nothing much.
I'm vaguely sheepish about the accuracy of the term 'Having a man's look' when it comes to not really looking properly.
It is quite sexist sounding, but I've annoyed myself by proving it right. An ex traffic cop once said that men make better progress through traffic when driving, but have worse crashes.
Yes, that too, it could possibly apply to a lot of things, like sporting prowess in people of different races, it could cause a stir because of eugenics and slavery in past times, but it could be interesting, though it might find out nothing much.
I'm vaguely sheepish about the accuracy of the term 'Having a man's look' when it comes to not really looking properly.
It is quite sexist sounding, but I've annoyed myself by proving it right. An ex traffic cop once said that men make better progress through traffic when driving, but have worse crashes.
Post edited at 19:26
In reply to SenzuBean:
those are possible sources of bias, and may be true in relation to this study.
But they are of no relevance to the issue of whether 36 is sufficient to power the study adequately.
Indeed, if the sample was biased, it could have 1 million participants, the results would still be wrong.
those are possible sources of bias, and may be true in relation to this study.
But they are of no relevance to the issue of whether 36 is sufficient to power the study adequately.
Indeed, if the sample was biased, it could have 1 million participants, the results would still be wrong.
In reply to Sharp:
Yes, the accompanying press release is pretty dismal and doesn't exactly breed confidence in the quality of the research its commenting on.
But the article doesn't actually comment on the methodology, it might have been more robust than surveying his mates. Maybe.
And I don't think cb294 was agreeing with the findings- just pointing out that for a properly designed study, the numbers they had may be entirely sufficient.
With the stress on 'properly designed'...
Yes, the accompanying press release is pretty dismal and doesn't exactly breed confidence in the quality of the research its commenting on.
But the article doesn't actually comment on the methodology, it might have been more robust than surveying his mates. Maybe.
And I don't think cb294 was agreeing with the findings- just pointing out that for a properly designed study, the numbers they had may be entirely sufficient.
With the stress on 'properly designed'...
In reply to winhill:
I seem to recall hearing/reading that after extensive studies, the consensus is that male and female brains pretty much work in the same way. If that's the case, I can't imagine sex being in any way relevant.
I seem to recall hearing/reading that after extensive studies, the consensus is that male and female brains pretty much work in the same way. If that's the case, I can't imagine sex being in any way relevant.
3
In reply to winhill:
Mythbusters did an episode on this and they found no significant difference between women and men. Some men were really good, some were awful. Some women were really good, some were awful.
Mythbusters did an episode on this and they found no significant difference between women and men. Some men were really good, some were awful. Some women were really good, some were awful.
1
In reply to ScottTalbot:
Was on Have I Got News For You last Friday, from what they said, most brains are pretty much the same, but with some being 'very male' and some 'very female'.
Was on Have I Got News For You last Friday, from what they said, most brains are pretty much the same, but with some being 'very male' and some 'very female'.
Post edited at 22:26
In reply to ScottTalbot:
I seem to recall hearing/reading that after extensive studies, the consensus is that male and female brains pretty much work in the same way. If that's the case, I can't imagine sex being in any way relevant.
Except of course, there are studies that generally speaking, show that males and females have different strengths and weaknesses in spatial awareness.
I seem to recall hearing/reading that after extensive studies, the consensus is that male and female brains pretty much work in the same way. If that's the case, I can't imagine sex being in any way relevant.
Except of course, there are studies that generally speaking, show that males and females have different strengths and weaknesses in spatial awareness.
Post edited at 22:49
1
In reply to Timmd:
Was on Have I Got News For You last Friday, from what they said, most brains are pretty much the same, but with some being 'very male' and some 'very female'.
Out of curiosity, did they say if the 'very male' brains were mostly in male skulls and the 'very female' ones in female ones?
Was on Have I Got News For You last Friday, from what they said, most brains are pretty much the same, but with some being 'very male' and some 'very female'.
Out of curiosity, did they say if the 'very male' brains were mostly in male skulls and the 'very female' ones in female ones?
5
In reply to winhill:
They bloody need it due to being unable to ask for directions and can't find the map!
They bloody need it due to being unable to ask for directions and can't find the map!
Post edited at 22:40
1
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:
Yeah, but they faked that whole Plane on a Treadmill thing so they got busted.
> Mythbusters did an episode on this and they found no significant difference between women and men. Some men were really good, some were awful. Some women were really good, some were awful.
Yeah, but they faked that whole Plane on a Treadmill thing so they got busted.
In reply to ScottTalbot:
If you click the link there's a bit about that as a connected story. The problem is we don't know enough about the relationship with consciousness.
But a brain independent explanation could be that women think in social terms, they imagine describing to someone else how to get there, longer but easier to remember and follow. Whereas men think of doing it themselves, not communicating it to others, so it's more directive and effective (as long as they don't go wrong).
So then you'd just have to come up with an explanation for the different way men and women use the same(ish) brain. Simples.
> I seem to recall hearing/reading that after extensive studies, the consensus is that male and female brains pretty much work in the same way. If that's the case, I can't imagine sex being in any way relevant.
If you click the link there's a bit about that as a connected story. The problem is we don't know enough about the relationship with consciousness.
But a brain independent explanation could be that women think in social terms, they imagine describing to someone else how to get there, longer but easier to remember and follow. Whereas men think of doing it themselves, not communicating it to others, so it's more directive and effective (as long as they don't go wrong).
So then you'd just have to come up with an explanation for the different way men and women use the same(ish) brain. Simples.
In reply to cb294:
That isn't entirely true. Statistical power does play a part in interpreting the results and sample size does affect the distribution of p-values, in just the same way as it affects the distribution of the test statistic.
There is an interesting discussion of the need to take into account power (as well as significance in the interpretation of reported p-values) here:
www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v12/n3/full/nmeth.3288.html
From that article:
"Most readers will probably appreciate that a large P value associated with 80% statistical power is poor evidence for lack of an important effect. Fewer understand that unless a small P value is extremely small, it provides poor evidence for the presence of an important effect. Most scientific studies have much less than 80% power, often around 50% in psychological research and averaging 21% in neuroscience. Reporting and interpreting P values under such circumstances is of little or no benefit."
> Arrggh, when will people start understanding statistics?
> There is no hard and fast rule as to how many measurements you need, once you pass some threshold required by the statistic test you chose beforehand....
That isn't entirely true. Statistical power does play a part in interpreting the results and sample size does affect the distribution of p-values, in just the same way as it affects the distribution of the test statistic.
There is an interesting discussion of the need to take into account power (as well as significance in the interpretation of reported p-values) here:
www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v12/n3/full/nmeth.3288.html
From that article:
"Most readers will probably appreciate that a large P value associated with 80% statistical power is poor evidence for lack of an important effect. Fewer understand that unless a small P value is extremely small, it provides poor evidence for the presence of an important effect. Most scientific studies have much less than 80% power, often around 50% in psychological research and averaging 21% in neuroscience. Reporting and interpreting P values under such circumstances is of little or no benefit."
Post edited at 10:01
In reply to MarkJH:
I totally agree, my statement was rather oversimplified. Still, with a very strong effect a small sample size may be sufficient, and increasing a sample size so that you are able to detect small effects will not do any good if your assays are too crude. I can´t be bothered to read the paper, but simply commenting that the authors only looked at 36 subjects , therefore there is nothing to see here, doesn´t make much sense either.
CB
I totally agree, my statement was rather oversimplified. Still, with a very strong effect a small sample size may be sufficient, and increasing a sample size so that you are able to detect small effects will not do any good if your assays are too crude. I can´t be bothered to read the paper, but simply commenting that the authors only looked at 36 subjects , therefore there is nothing to see here, doesn´t make much sense either.
CB
2
In reply to cb294:
True. There is a lot to be said for not doing more work than you need to!
> I totally agree, my statement was rather oversimplified. Still, with a very strong effect a small sample size may be sufficient, and increasing a sample size so that you are able to detect small effects will not do any good if your assays are too crude. I can´t be bothered to read the paper, but simply commenting that the authors only looked at 36 subjects , therefore there is nothing to see here, doesn´t make much sense either.
True. There is a lot to be said for not doing more work than you need to!
In reply to MarkJH:
Indeed. In fact, given the massive expense of running RCTs in clinical research, ethics committees are likely to view that a needlessly overpowered study would be unethical.
Of course, estimating the effect size so as to power the study 'just right' is a whole can of worms of its own...!
Indeed. In fact, given the massive expense of running RCTs in clinical research, ethics committees are likely to view that a needlessly overpowered study would be unethical.
Of course, estimating the effect size so as to power the study 'just right' is a whole can of worms of its own...!
In reply to sebastien:
Or a car satnav, with the voice of my wife: "Left, turn left, left.... Sorry, I meant the other left..."
Annoys her no end when I am navigating and give the instructions as "Towards my side...".
CB
Or a car satnav, with the voice of my wife: "Left, turn left, left.... Sorry, I meant the other left..."
Annoys her no end when I am navigating and give the instructions as "Towards my side...".
CB
In reply to winhill:
It's all true. My girlfriend is no good at navigating, but when it comes to finding an item in a fridge full of food, she'll win every time.
This type of research is not new however.
It's all true. My girlfriend is no good at navigating, but when it comes to finding an item in a fridge full of food, she'll win every time.
This type of research is not new however.
In reply to cb294:
Well, my experience is exactly the opposite, so that cancels out the four of us for a start!
I have to say that my wife has an almost supernatural ability to know exactly where she is at all times. If there's ever a conflict between her and any satnav she's always right!
> Anyway, I don´t need to read the study, daily experience tells me this is true (sample size 2, me and my wife....).
Well, my experience is exactly the opposite, so that cancels out the four of us for a start!
I have to say that my wife has an almost supernatural ability to know exactly where she is at all times. If there's ever a conflict between her and any satnav she's always right!
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I was of course joking, which I had hoped was obvious from the sample size comment. My wife and daughters are all good at navigating, to the extent that we trusted our 17 yo daughter to lead three of her friends on a two week hiking trip through the Norwegian fjells last summer, when the conditions were still pretty wintery (e.g. many small lakes invisible as they were still frozen and covered in snow).
Nevertheless, the scenario of me driving, my wife reading the map and directing me to turn left, only to then complain that "the other left" would have been the better choice, has happened several times, most recently while driving through Milan this summer. Of course it is my duty to remind her of this at every opportunity!!!
CB
I was of course joking, which I had hoped was obvious from the sample size comment. My wife and daughters are all good at navigating, to the extent that we trusted our 17 yo daughter to lead three of her friends on a two week hiking trip through the Norwegian fjells last summer, when the conditions were still pretty wintery (e.g. many small lakes invisible as they were still frozen and covered in snow).
Nevertheless, the scenario of me driving, my wife reading the map and directing me to turn left, only to then complain that "the other left" would have been the better choice, has happened several times, most recently while driving through Milan this summer. Of course it is my duty to remind her of this at every opportunity!!!
CB
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...