Overview:
In this article, Mary Whiton Calkins refutes the findings of a previous study conducted at Wellesley College which claimed to show differences in the cognitive processes of men and women. She claims that the original study’s methods were flawed, and she repeats the experiment using more rigorous methodology. While Calkins acknowledges that the results of her experiment show some similarities to the original, she concludes that they are not sufficient to support the claim of fundamental differences between men and women’s minds.
Main Parts:
- Introduction: Calkins begins by addressing the criticism of a previous study on the mental community of men and women, stating that she repeated the experiment following the methods laid down by the critic, Dr. Jastrow.
- Methodology: Calkins describes the methods used in her experiment, including the selection of participants, the word lists, and the classification of words.
- Results: Calkins compares the results of her experiment with the original Wellesley study and the Wisconsin study, focusing on the number of different words, unique words, and the prevalence of various categories of words.
- Interpretation: Calkins discusses the implications of her results and argues against the claim that there are fundamental differences between men and women’s minds.
- Conclusion: Calkins reiterates her belief that the differences in the interests of men and women are primarily due to differences in environment and upbringing, not fundamental differences in intellect. She also emphasizes that further research is needed to reach definitive conclusions.
View on Life:
- Calkins’ view on gender and intellect: Calkins believes that differences in interests between men and women are primarily due to environmental factors, not inherent differences in their minds. She argues against the notion of a fundamental distinction between masculine and feminine intellect.
Scenarios:
- Scenario 1: The original Wellesley study, which purported to show differences in the mental community of men and women.
- Scenario 2: Calkins’ repetition of the original Wellesley study, using more rigorous methods and comparing her results with the Wisconsin study.
Challenges:
- Challenge 1: Calkins’ biggest challenge is to refute the claims made by the original Wellesley study and Dr. Jastrow’s criticisms.
- Challenge 2: Calkins acknowledges the difficulty in eliminating the effect of environment on the differences observed between men and women.
Conflict:
- Conflict 1: The main conflict in the text is between Calkins’ view and the views of the original Wellesley study and Dr. Jastrow, who claim to have found evidence for differences between men and women’s minds.
- Conflict 2: Calkins also faces the challenge of separating the effects of environment from those of inherent differences in intellect. This is a conflict that many researchers struggle with when studying gender differences.
Plot:
- Introduction: Calkins introduces the issue of the original Wellesley study and Dr. Jastrow’s criticism.
- Methodology: Calkins describes her repeated experiment and the methods used.
- Results: Calkins presents the results of her study and compares them with the original Wellesley and Wisconsin studies.
- Interpretation: Calkins analyzes the results and argues for her interpretation.
- Conclusion: Calkins summarizes her conclusions and calls for further research.
Point of View:
- Calkins’ point of view: Calkins argues from the perspective of a researcher who believes that differences between men and women are primarily due to environment and not inherent differences in intellect.
How It’s Written:
- Tone: Calkins uses a formal and scholarly tone throughout the text, presenting her arguments in a reasoned and scientific manner.
- Style: Calkins writes in a clear and concise style, using precise language and logical arguments.
- Example: “The comparison of ‘unique words’ or words appearing but once, also shows a greater originality on the part of the Wellesley women. Among our 2,500 words, there are 565 which occur but once, while the Wisconsin men’s lists include 746, and those of the Wisconsin women only 520.”
Tone:
- Formal: The text is written in a formal and objective tone, reflecting Calkins’ academic background and her focus on presenting research findings.
Life Choices:
- Calkins’ choice to repeat the study: Calkins chose to repeat the original Wellesley study to challenge its findings and demonstrate the importance of rigorous methodology in scientific research.
- Choice to publish the results: Calkins chose to publish the results of her experiment to share her findings with the scientific community and contribute to the ongoing debate about gender differences.
Lessons:
- Lesson 1: The importance of rigorous methodology in scientific research.
- Lesson 2: The difficulty in separating the effects of environment from those of inherent differences.
- Lesson 3: The need for critical examination of research findings, particularly in areas that are sensitive or subject to bias.
Characters:
- Mary Whiton Calkins: A leading psychologist and author of the article, Calkins is a strong advocate for rigorous methodology and a critical thinker who challenges the claims of others.
- Dr. Jastrow: A psychologist who critiqued the original Wellesley study, Dr. Jastrow represents the opposing viewpoint to Calkins.
Themes:
- Theme 1: The nature of gender differences. This theme is explored through the debate over whether differences in interests between men and women are due to inherent differences in intellect or to differences in environment and upbringing.
- Theme 2: The role of methodology in scientific research. Calkins emphasizes the importance of rigorous methods and the need to avoid bias in research.
Principles:
- Principle 1: The scientific method should be used to investigate claims about gender differences.
- Principle 2: The effects of environment and upbringing should be carefully considered when studying gender differences.
Intentions:
- Calkins’ intention: Calkins’ intention is to challenge the findings of the original Wellesley study and to advocate for a more nuanced understanding of gender differences.
- Reader’s intention: The reader of the text may be interested in learning about the history of psychology research on gender differences, understanding the methods used in research, and gaining insight into the debate surrounding the nature of gender differences.
Unique Vocabulary:
- Mental community: This term refers to the shared set of ideas and concepts that people use to understand the world.
- Unique words: These are words that appear only once in a list.
- Abstract terms: These are terms that refer to concepts or ideas, rather than concrete objects.
Anecdotes:
- The original Wellesley study: This study, which claimed to show differences in the mental community of men and women, serves as a key anecdote in the text. Calkins uses this study as a springboard for her own research and to highlight the importance of rigorous methodology.
Ideas:
- Idea 1: There is a need for rigorous methodology in scientific research to avoid bias and ensure accurate conclusions.
- Idea 2: Differences in interests between men and women are not necessarily indicative of fundamental differences in intellect.
Facts and Findings:
- Fact 1: The original Wellesley study found that women’s word lists contained fewer different words than men’s word lists.
- Fact 2: Calkins’ repeated experiment found that women’s word lists contained more unique words than men’s lists.
Statistics:
- Statistic 1: The average time occupied by the Wellesley women to write their lists of 100 words was five minutes and one-sixth second.
- Statistic 2: The percentage of different words in the Wellesley women’s lists was 52%, compared to 55% in the Wisconsin men’s lists.
Points of View:
- Calkins’ point of view: Calkins is critical of the original Wellesley study and the conclusions it drew. She argues that the study’s methods were flawed and that its findings do not support the claim of fundamental differences between men and women’s minds.
Perspective:
- Calkins’ perspective: Calkins offers a feminist perspective on the issue of gender differences, arguing that differences in interests between men and women are primarily due to environmental factors and not inherent differences in their minds.