Monday, March 31, 2014

LOOKING BEHIND THE GENDER GAP IN SCIENCE


         The sexism-laden stereotype that Science is a “male” field in which men are better than women has existed since the dawn of time. Women used to be prohibited to even enter a university building, let alone to be involved in academic activities. Nowadays, however, men and women are ensured fairly equal chances to pursue career and education they desire. The myth that girls are innately worse in Science has been long since debunked, and gender differences and segregation have gradually disappeared from many academic setting, especially in developed parts of the world. 

 However, this does not seem to go hand in hand with how women are currently being portrayed in Science. Despite many efforts done to balance the scale, young women are generally very underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields of study and labor markets. UNESCO’s Institute for Statistic (2012), for instance, reported that the representation of women in Science research is less than 50% in nearly all regional, with the highest being in Latin America and The Caribbean where females comprise 45,2% of the researchers. Not to mention that since the Nobel Prize was established in 1901, from 853 Nobel laureates, only 44 of them are female. With women being half of the world’s population, this fact suggests a gap that is interesting to be investigated. 


















An even more interesting finding was reported in Vansteenkiste, Soenens, Sierens, Luyckx, & Lens (2009) about a correlation between autonomous motivation and gender. They claimed that female students tend to show ‘a more adaptive academic pattern of functioning’; they are less likely to procrastinate and cheat, are more efficient in using time and environment, and tend to obtain higher grades than their male counterparts. In short, girls can be really great learners if they want to. Yet in Science, they continue being inferior to their male counterparts. If it is already established that it is not a matter of opportunities or genetic, and girls apparently do not lack in motivation either, what could possibly be the reason behind this gender gap in Science?


Indeed, most educational institutions in recent decades will not openly condone any form of gender discrimination, and the ones that do are easily faced with scrutiny by their fellow educators. Yet it probably has to be noted that policies by educational institution probably only comprises small percentage of the total influence in a student’ educational achievement. Each race, nationality and its respective society has their own perception on what field is deemed suitable for each gender, and this presumption affects an individual’s expectation of success and achievement. Women are less likely to pursue science related careers if they grow up in an environment whose gender expectation for women put less subjective values on these fields (Eccles, 1994). On the other hand, there is also a positive correlation between a daughter’s educational performance and their mother’s education and career, suggesting intergenerational transmission of gender identities from mothers to daughters (San Roman and Goiricilaya, 2012).Therefore, gender roles in society definitely has some influence on the involvement of girls in Science. It is very likely that if in a certain society a woman’s right is oppressed, their contribution in Science will not be much appreciated either. 

Such gender discrimination is mostly identified with developing countries, yet in developed, modern countries where women are granted equal rights as men in all walks of life, similar trend is still apparent. In regard to this, Osborne, Simon and Collins (2003) have defined what they called as an attitude toward science as “the feelings, beliefs and values held about an object that maybe the enterprise of science, school science, the impact of science on society or scientist themselves”.  Findings of various studies (Osborne, Simon and Collins; 2003) confirmed that the girls generally have less positive attitude toward Science than boys. They avoid being involved in Science although they have the potential to be as successful as boys in it, and are provided just as much of opportunities. 

A lot of causes can be behind this negative attitude. Firstly, Science is often perceived as practical subjects with no cultural significance. Since Science is compulsory in school, teachers are less pressured to promote their subject and consequently, it comes across as something useful instead of something fulfilling (Osborne, et al, 2003). Students’ involvement in it are ensured while they are in school, but it declined as soon as they enter college and continued to during their career, since for most young people in modernized countries, education and job are entitled to self-fulfillment and self-actualization (Osborne, et al, 2003; Schreiner and Sjoberg, 2005). 

Secondly, they simply assume that Science is not the right path for them. This self-perception can go in two different ways. First, it is because they think they are good at something else. Girls are reported to be able to compare various fields, progressively contemplating their ability and choosing what objects will suit them best (Osborne, et al, 2003). Girls also tend to have strong both verbal and math skill, and consequently are attracted to different careers (Azar, 2010). Second, it is because they believe they are not good at Math. Girls are prone to anxiety and they who endorse the negative stereotype about women in Science tend to show a drop in their performance (Azar, 2010) which later manifests into avoidance toward Science related occupations. 

Thirdly, they do not want to be identified as a ‘Science’ person. Young woman recognize the importance of Science for society, yet they are not interested in becoming a scientist or working in science (Schreiner and Sjoberg, 2005). It is because from their point of view Science is portrayed as boring practical job, and girls are more interested in jobs that offer late-modern values such as creativity or money (Schreiner and Sjoberg, 2005).

It is apparent that the lack of involvement of women in Science is not a matter of cognitive ability, motivation, or opportunities. Both developing and developed countries have similar problem. Gender-role during the upbringing of a girl gives a lot of influence on how she might or might not take opportunities handed to them. On the contrary, in cases where gender-inequality is practically nonexistent, girls’ attitude toward science takes turn on the steering wheel instead. In the end this will cause chain reaction because to have more women in Science, a more positive and attractive portrayal of Science are essential, and that can be attained by the involvement of more women in Science.

References:
Azar, B. (2010). Math+ culture= gender gap. American Psychological Association, 41(7).
Institute for Statistics (2012). Women in Science. No. 23. UNESCO.

Eccles, J. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 585-609.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.

San Roman, A.G & Goiricilaya, S. 2012. “Gender Gap in PISA Test Scores: The Impact of Social Norms and The Mother’s Transmission of Role Attitudes.” IZA Discussion paper no. 6338, February 2012.

Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth's identity construction - two incompatible projects? In: D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, and R. F. Gunstone (eds.). The Re-Emergence of Values in Science Education (pp. 231-248). Rotterdam, Sense.

Vansteenkiste, M, et al. (2009). Motivational Profiles From a Self-Determination Perspective: The quality of motivation matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 671-688.


Friday, March 21, 2014

Baked Pangasius

As an Indonesian living in Netherland, I rely a lot on Chinese grocery store to get stuff that I won't usually find in regular Dutch stores. Mostly food - well, it is always food. A few days ago I went there and bought fish fillet for quite a cheap price. It was frozen and a kind of fish I've never heard before so it was kind of suspicious, but I went with it anyway. It is apparently called Pangasius, and this is what it looked like after I defrost it.























Because I did not know how to cook Pangasius, I decided to bake it in the oven. Here how it goes.

First, preheat you oven to 225 C. Wash the fish and dry it with paper towel (baked wet fish is NOT good) and put it on baking tray - after putting on baking paper, of course. Season it with salt, pepper, lemon and those Italian leaves.






















The one on the left is my failed attempt at splittit it in half. Damn those bones are hard.

Pop it in the oven, and bake it for 5 minutes. Turn it over to the other side and continue to bake for another 5 minutes, more if you want it drier. Here is what my fish looked like after it's cooked.
















































It is pretty good. Not as good as this though.
























But still good. 



"OMG Stop Being So Negative!!1"


The problem with negativity is you often do not realize how bad it is, or at least that how it is in my experience. I used to be so depressive, pessimist and hopeless about life. I had this very fucked up view on what I think I deserve and I don’t deserve; I let people underestimate me and look down on me because I think I deserve it, and I never tried to get (or be) the best simply because I don’t think I deserve it. From an outsider point of view, I probably look like a psycho masochist or something, but for me it was normal. Depressing yet normal. It was my mind, it was how I perceive world and how I understand the world works. Trust me, if I can burn the content of my brain into a DVD and play it for you, you will feel like you are watching Requiem for a Dream or something.


Negativity is something that I identify with myself strongly, especially when I was younger. After I distanced myself from my supposed source of depression and grew a much, much better and positive new mindset, I looked back and realized how awful my mental state was, mainly because it did not have to happen. I was not a war or child trafficking victim – it is not like I was subjected to a prolonged inescapable torture or something. But negative perception to the world does not only happen to victims of these serious situations – it can happen to everyone. 

Example: Dan Howell.



















I've been watching loads of his videos lately, and I can assure you he is the poshest, most articulate youtuber out there, so it is a good influence to your English speaking ability (not the swearing though). I reccomend it if you are sick of watching TedxTalk and want something lighter. Dan, who started youtubing at the age 18, mainly vlogs about his social awkwardness, procrastination and negativity, wrapped in sarcastic, witty humor. I think it mostly started as a passive-aggressive way to deal with things he hates about himself (‘yeah whatever this is me you wanna laugh go ahead’), but it turns out to be what distinguishes him from other youtubers and he is known for the most.  Now he is currently one of the most famous Youtuber on the planet, has a successful career as radio presenter, and widely acknowledged as a walking wet dream. And you know what; those negative traits are still there. He still has existential crisis every two weeks and in videos when he has to unexpectedly interact with other human beings, I can almost feel the awkwardness emanating through the screen. 















 See? Negativity is not a matter of what happens to you, but how you react to those situations.

NEGATIVITY IS NOT A CHOICE
 
People usually blame depressive and negative people for their hopelessness. “Be positive!,” “Get over it!,” or “Just forget about it already!.” Woah, isn't that an awesome, informative, ground-breaking suggestion. I did not know that what I have to do it is just to get over it. 

That was sarcasm, in case you did not know.

There is a psychological attribute that prevents you from getting out of negativity even though you are able to. It is called explanatory style.  Remember that question ‘Is the glass half-empty or half-full?’. Yup, that more or less is what this is about. Explanatory style is ‘one’s tendency to offer similar sorts of explanation for different events’ (Peterson, Buchanan & Seligman, 1995). It is the way people explain good or bad thing that happens involving themselves along three dimensions. The first is internal (they blame it on themselves) vs external (they blame it on somebody else). The second is stable (they view it as something permanent) vs unstable (they view it as something temporary). The last is global (they think of it as a life-determining event that defines them as a person) vs specific (they think of it as it is). People who have internal, stable and global explanatory style are said to have a pessimistic explanatory style, while people who have external, unstable and specific is called optimistic

The question is, what are the determining factors? What makes a person optimistic and other pessimistic? Eisner (1995) reviewed the studies in this area and reported four different determinants of explanatory style. The first is feedback from teacher, parents or other influential figure, especially in young children. The second is modeling, which means that children develop their explanatory style by adopting or mimicking the style of their significant others or primary caregivers (i.e. parents). The third is genetic, a conclusion after the difference in result of experiment involving monozygotic and dizygotic twins. And the last, is learned helplessness effect. 

We learned about this in class actually, which is the reason why I wrote this. Learned helplessness effect is a condition in which an organism forced to endure pain or similar unpleasant stimuli, is unwilling or unable to avoid those stimuli even if they are provided a way to escape it, presumably because they have learned that they have no control over it and whatever they do will end up futile. Ovemier and Seligman (1967) did an experiment during which they found out that dogs exposed to inescapable and unpredictable electric shock in one situation later failed to escape shock in different situation where escape is possible. Basically there are 2 groups of dogs; the first group which has been trained a way to escape the pain show normal response and recovered after a while, while the second groups, whose pain subjected to them seemed to start and end at random, after a while shows a kind of ‘giving up’ behavior and stop trying to escape the pain, even though a way of release was provided later on. This result contradicts the predictions by B.F. Skinner’s behaviorism theory, which is by the way the leading psychological theory at the time. 

THE EFFECTS
People who are exposed to the feeling of helplessness on a regular basis will most likely to develop a pessimistic explanatory style (‘It is because I’m stupid’, ‘Fuck my life’, ‘My life is useless’, etc.). On the contrary, pessimistic explanatory style can worsen the feeling of helplessness as well. Together these make a never ending chain of misery that sucks you in and never let go. 

These are the source of all those negativity, and it broadly affect a person’s life. Learned self-helplessness and pessimistic explanatory style have been linked to depression, poor motivation and lack of social effort. Children who are constantly exposed to miserability (is that even a word?) they cannot control can develop pessimistic explanatory style that last until their adulthood and in turn determine how they react to everything that happens in their life. People may neglect medication, diet or hygiene simply because they are conditioned to think that it is useless. Abused or neglected children will very likely to choose a partner who also treats them that way. It is impossible for them just look past the dark shadow engulfing their mind at whim – it can be done, but it is not easy. There are therapy designed for that, I forgot what it is called though. 


Basically, everything that happen in our life programmed us to think in certain way and to act out of what you are programmed to be is not an easy thing to do. Just like how a conceited, overly optimistic person is very difficult to accept criticism or admit fault. Therefore, next time you met a depressive person, try not to judge them. We know we have to be grateful, positive, all smiling and crap, but try to go to that from where we come from is hard, okay? Give us time.

Sources :
Seligman, M.E.P.; Maier, S.F. (1967). "Failure to escape traumatic shock". Journal of Experimental Psychology 74: 1–9.
Peterson, C., et.al. (1995). “Explanatory Style: History and Evolution of the Field”. Explanatory Style: 1-20.
Eisner, J.P. (1995). “The Origins of Explanatory Style: Trust as a Determinant of Pessimism and Optimism.” Explanatory Style:49-56.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Review: 12 Years a Slave

Solomon Northup is a free black man from Saratoga, New York, who works as carpenter and musician. One night, he was drugged by two gentlemen who originally promises him a job, and woke up the next day with his limbs chained. He was then sold as a slave, and lived his life as one for 12 years. He moved from one master to the other, swallowing his pride as a free man just to survive and sharing pain with other slaves. Until one fateful day, a man he knows came to fetch him up and return him to his family. 























 I did not finish Django Unchained, frankly because it was too much for my faint little heart, but somehow I managed to finish this. 

The title itself is pretty explanatory. Just like Django Unchained, this movie is about slavery. Is it a trending formula now? I don't know. It is set in 1841, during when slavery was still a legal constitution and there was all those things about Southern and Northern states before Abraham Lincoln wiped them out. As embarrassing as it sounds, I never knew that there were free black people during that time in USA. I thought when slavery was a condoned by law, every black people who live in USA was objected to that. But apparently I was wrong, and hey, I learned it now - in not a very nice way, may I add, because this is painful to watch. Just like other historical drama such as Schindler’s List or Black Hawk Down. This is also apparently a true story, based on a memoir written by a man of the same name.

It is a pretty traditionally made drama. I mean, it is a good movie which obviously was made very seriously, but nothing out of the box or mind-blowing about it. The set and costumes are well-done, and the scripts use English that is old enough to make you pause every second and check the dictionary. The cast? Well, they have Benedict Cumberbatch, Brad Pitt, Sarah Paulson, so this is kind of a big deal. Quvenzhane Wallis (that adorable little girl in Beasts of the Southern Wild) also has small role as Solomon’s daughter, and there is also that emo guy from Little Miss Sunshine. 

This movie actually came to my attention because of the Oscar and all that hype surrounding Lupita Nyongo, as well as Dan Howell’s tweet, so I decided to check it out. This movie definitely is worth all those Oscars, but still.

Okay, I actually wanted to say 'meh', but I guess I shouldn't do that, should I?