Pinker And Spelke Argumentation Essay

The underrepresentation of women in the academic fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, henceforth referred to as STEM, has piqued a momentous debate in which scholars have labored to explain the disparity. In exploring this debate, I attempt to identify the location of the truth, if there is one to be found from existing evidence, between the view that men are inherently better at STEM and the view that societal discrimination fabricates the disparity in STEM. My approach will be to evaluate the arguments of Dr. Steven Pinker, an advocate of the intrinsic aptitude and motivations theory, in contrast to those of Dr. Elizabeth Spelke, an advocate of the societal discrimination theory. Both Dr. Pinker and Dr. Spelke are Harvard cognitive scientists. In examining the two academic juggernauts’ arguments, as well as evaluating the scientific studies from which Pinker and Spelke draw their evidence, this paper attempts to show that Pinker’s case is altogether more compelling than Spelke’s.

I. OUTLINING THE DEBATE

Pinker argues that men have both a superior inbuilt aptitude for STEM and a greater affinity for STEM-favoring motivations, whereas Spelke maintains that the operative force in keeping women out of STEM is societal discrimination. It is also worth noting that neither scholar claims absolute accuracy over this debate. More precisely, Pinker concedes that social discrimination may be a factor at play in the STEM disparity, and Spelke recognizes that genetic differences exist between the sexes. To comprehensively and straightforwardly address all salient points in this debate, I will consider the intrinsic aptitude and motivational differences debates