This follows a series of validation studies (incl. e.g. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617741719) from this year especially. The results seem to consistently show the same 'paradoxical' outcome. J. Peterson came to my campus last week and I think he mentioned this one specific study, and also noted several other ones, which brought the one I linked to my attention. It really isn't the only one, and it's good to see that it's getting a stronger foothold by the day.
As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men
31–40 of 536 posts
Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men
#32Can someone with an access to the article provide more information on the direction in which the "willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust" is associated with gender?
Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In a nutshell, I'm saying your 5th scientific category of "make shit up" would be more accurate for a broader subset than your framing would tend to suggest. I get you, I think I may have put my point across fairly badly in that case.
Eh, not a big deal. It's a topic full of landmines and communication challenges.
The fun topics always are.
Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men
#34This seems like non-news to me. Really, what we are discussing here is lowering of inhibition. As we see equality better represented out there, women should feel less inhibited, in terms of role compliance to get opportunity, and with that, should be expressing themselves through work, as they would any other thing they are doing.
You are doing a disservice by sweeping this under the rug as common sense.
We live in a political climate where people are looking at the tech industry and especially FANG companies with a microscope and unless they see 50/50 representation they feel there must be inequality at work.
James Damore was fired for highlighting this very fact.
Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men
#35Can someone with an access to the article provide more information on the direction in which the "willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust" is associated with gender?
There's a figure for those properties, and the textual summary would be:
"The symbols + and − in the panel titles indicate the sign of the difference for each preference; + indicates that positive differences correspond to women exhibiting higher levels of the respective preference, whereas − indicates that positive differences correspond to women exhibiting lower levels of the respective preference."
There are the six categories in the order of: Altruism, Trust, Positive and Negative Reciprocity, Risk Taking, and Patience.
The signs associated are, for the log GDP per capita quartiles: +, +, +, -, -, - respectively for categories listed above, where the graphs demonstrate increasing levels of differences (in standard deviations).
For the Gender Equality index, it's almost exactly the same except for positive reciprocity, where the curve is a little flatter than its GDP per capita counterpart.
Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men
#36This seems like non-news to me. Really, what we are discussing here is lowering of inhibition. As we see equality better represented out there, women should feel less inhibited, in terms of role compliance to get opportunity, and with that, should be expressing themselves through work, as they would any other thing they are doing.
> This seems like non-news to me. Well, they do state their analysis is consistent with other data available (which they cite). > Really, what we are discussing here is lowering of inhibition. Not sure why you're getting down-voted, I think that's fairly accurate. I just read Sandberg's Lean In (recommended by a colleague), from the perspective of a male manager for multiple teams with women at multiple levels (I hav…
I think he is being downvoted for the low quality of the comment. A study on 80,000 individuals in 76 countries is not "news", it is a high-quality science.
Stating blatantly that "Really, what we are discussing here is lowering of inhibition." is a low effort conclusion when the study actually compares the competing "social role hypothesis" and "resource hypothesis".
Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men
#37I wonder how it adjusts for culturally pushed gender differences. Women could have the same opportunities as men but be expected to have different tastes, be subjected to different experiences growing up, etc. which could affect their choices in latter life.
Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure how you got a binary classification system out of my position. I was fairly sure I was saying that there isn't one.
You listed 5 categories, 4 of which are defined in relation to the well known binary classification. Intersex and asexual are well understood variations of that classification system. In a nutshell, I'm saying your 5th scientific category of "make shit up" would be more accurate for a broader subset than your framing would tend to suggest. It's a little like the concept of Newtonian gravity, which was made obsolete b…
> For many situations, male and female are broadly sufficient mental models. Where they aren't, they can be actively harmful. But the fact that higher levels of accuracy are frequently not needed doesn't mean they are actually true anymore than using Newtonian math here on earth makes Newtonian physics not obsolete in a post Einstein world.
I would like to add that you just can't live in a complex world without the broader models. Trying to use the accurate models for every case would be just overwhelming.
Sure, everyone likes to bitch about other people using the broader model for their own pet peeves, but this doesn't mean that they aren't - and have to be - ignorant in other cases.
Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men
#39I wonder how it adjusts for culturally pushed gender differences. Women could have the same opportunities as men but be expected to have different tastes, be subjected to different experiences growing up, etc. which could affect their choices in latter life.
Yeah this is the part I don't see the clear logic in. I mean how much of a persons preferences are biological vs taught/environmental behaviour. I would accept the results straight up if it's all because of biological reasons but to me it's not that clear. Imagine if we brought up women to be amazon warriors, of course they would have different preferences compared to women today no? You often pick a career after what you are good at already.
Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like non-news to me. Well, they do state their analysis is consistent with other data available (which they cite). > Really, what we are discussing here is lowering of inhibition. Not sure why you're getting down-voted, I think that's fairly accurate. I just read Sandberg's Lean In (recommended by a colleague), from the perspective of a male manager for multiple teams with women at multiple levels (I hav…
> They want to be who they believe they should be, which, at least based on the 6 metrics I see in the paper, seems to be generally nicer people. My impression is that there is a lot more social pressure on women to be nice in western countries and especially united states. To the point that expectation is sometimes that women dont swear etc. I dont think I encountered that in Slavic countries that much despite them…
> expectation is sometimes that women dont swear etc.
FWIW, a woman swearing definitely lowers her attractiveness, at least to me, by quite a bit.