2007;39-46. doi: 10.1037/11546-003.

'Underrepresentation' or Misrepresentation?.

Doreen Kimura

UIID-AD: 1846 DOI: 10.1037/11546-003

Abstract

The word underrepresentation as the theme of this volume says much about the bias we contend with in attempting a rational discussion of sex differences. It has become standard form to assume that if there are fewer than 50% women in any cohort, the situation is undesirable and indicates some form of systemic or deliberate discrimination. We don't hear of underrepresentation of men in nursing or education, yet this would be an analogous, and equally fallacious, description. Most people assume that the lower numbers of men in these fields reflect a lesser talent or interest, and that is almost certainly correct. Coupled with this biased view is another that sustains it: that there are no substantial differences between men's and women's cognitive profiles that cannot readily be altered by appropriate socialization. This view is so strongly ingrained in most social scientists (and in nervous politicians) that it has become a rule that socialization interpretations must be given priority over others. Such a position is basically incompatible with scientific principles, because it encourages the ignoring of a large body of opposing research. This essay concerns sex differences in specific cognitive abilities rather than general intelligence. Nevertheless, the possibility that men have a slight advantage in overall intelligence, or IQ, is under serious discussion (Irwing & Lynn, 2005). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved). (chapter)

Publication Types

• Books and Documents