Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

throwww.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#81

Post by csense »

simonsarris wrote: post #7

I'm slightly apprehensive (terrified) about commenting on this topic or any relating to gender/race because it seems like the bar for public crucifixion is somewhat low, even to those who just want to add data or other side-points to a discussion. Anyway, and I apologize in advance if I derail the topic, but I think there's a semi important distinction to qualify this discussion, because I do think the discussion app…

> I'm slightly apprehensive (terrified) about commenting on this topic or any relating to gender/race because it seems like the bar for public crucifixion is somewhat low

This is very true. I sometimes like to play devil's advocate, take up an unpopular side of an argument just to see how people react to an intelligent opponent.

I highly suggest trying this. It sharpens your perspectives; helps you think about your own biases, dogmas and blind spots. (I personally recommend trying to be somewhat anonymous, i.e. this account is my only HN username, so I'm not anonymous as far as people knowing that this current comment and all of my past comments have been made by the same real person. But this username isn't linked to my other online presences or real-life identity. Saying controversial things can be bad for your reputation.)

Taking unpopular positions -- most of the time things I don't believe, but sometimes things I do -- also opens your eyes to precisely how much we rely on name-calling -- racist, sexist, homophobe, terrorist -- to selectively frame issues and shut down discussion.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#82

Post by davidtanner »

alxp wrote: post #50
erikj54 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. There is indeed a biological explanation for many of these behaviours. We are programmed to believe that tall men would infer strong mating partners, or someone to avoid in the case of a male. For females, it is quite similar. Women who possess certain qualities appear more attractive and we generally look more favourably upon them in society. This problem is indeed real, but it is perhaps more subconsc…

Beware of using biology to explain behaviours when those behaviours re-enforce the status quo. Evolutionary psychology is struggling to seem legit and using it to make 'that's just how things are' statements sound scientific is not helping at all.

You're barking up the wrong tree if you think sex selection for height and attractiveness are anything but biological in origin.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#83

Post by ctbeiser »

betterunix wrote: post #51
ctbeiser wrote: post #37

I'm no expert, but this hasn't convinced me yet: 1. The author shows one anecdotal example of the effect being claimed, and then claims that it's a large factor based again, on wholly anecdotal factors. 2. The author uses as evidence that two CEOs that they can think of are attractive. I don't need to go into the statistics to point out how ridiculous this is. 3. Of CEOs who are women, there aren't any exceptional le…

"While claiming not to, this article feeds into the narrative of 'attractive women must be stupid,' by implying that attractive women, having clearly been selected for their attractiveness, will tend to be less intelligent." This is not the right way to read it. The article is saying that if your promotion process selects the men with the most merit, but where the appearance of women takes precedence over their merit…

Perhaps I'm not being clear enough; I'm aware that wasn't what was being argued,but it did very little to dispel that narrative, which it plays into. Still, looking back, it seems to be a somewhat overblown critique.

I didn't feel that it explicitly addressed how an individual should be running their promotion process, but I could have missed something.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#84

Post by davidtanner »

ucee054 wrote: post #72

Anecdotal, but in my experience smart girls are uglier and cute girls are stupider. This is verified by comparing 2 groups: nightclub girls and science research nerd girls. As a group the nerd girls are uglier on average, because there are several severely plain nerd girls, though an individual nerd girl may be very attractive. As a group the disco girls are stupider on average, because there are several severely dit…

You are very off track.

All the evidence I've ever come across points to the opposite conclusion: there is a positive correlation between beauty and intelligence.

A few seconds of googling turned this up: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundament...

I've seen actual journal articles on the matter as well. Facial symmetry is influenced by genetics, the oxygenation of the womb, as well as other factors. A lot has to go right for a person to have a beautiful face and a lot has to go right for someone to have a high IQ. It shouldn't be remotely surprising that they are correlated.

Judging by your incredibly stereotyped conceptions of "disco" girls the limited dating experience you had was probably a few decades ago. Judging by your silly, evidence free post you might not be particularly smart or attractive.

Better put in some effort on both.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#85

Post by bane »

simonsarris wrote: post #7

I'm slightly apprehensive (terrified) about commenting on this topic or any relating to gender/race because it seems like the bar for public crucifixion is somewhat low, even to those who just want to add data or other side-points to a discussion. Anyway, and I apologize in advance if I derail the topic, but I think there's a semi important distinction to qualify this discussion, because I do think the discussion app…

I think this is a double edged sword. Anecdotal I've noticed that people who fit certain attractive ideals do rocket up the ladder faster, but seem to flame out (not burn out) faster.

Rather than attribute this to a "lights that burn twice as bright..." I think it can be attributed to being moved up into positions faster than their own competency is ready for.

Those few that can make it by competency and grit alone seem to be the ones that do last up into the higher ranks.

Ask yourself this, how many male fortune-500 CEOs could be thought of as extremely good looking.

A second anecdote: I used to spend a great deal of time working with the military, and the running joke was that Lt. Colonels and Colonels all seemed to be 6'1", while the Generals above them were all very short.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#86

Post by lexarchy »

There are only 18 female CEOs within the fortune 500. The number for the Russell 3000, is a bit better, at about 10 percent. Why are there so few women in senior leadership positions?

A deviation from a 50/50 gender split is not by itself evidence of unjustified gender discrimination. For example, there are about as many current NBA players as there are Fortune 500 CEOs. Since virtually every top university has a women's basketball team, approximately half of NCAA Division I-A basketball players are female. Why then are there so few women (none!) in the NBA?

Of course, the lack of women in the NBA is principally due to gender differences in the aptitude and inclination needed to play basketball. Based on these differences, the natural split between between men and women in the NBA isn't 50/50—it's 100/0. In particular, if (say) 10% of NBA players were female, women would be over-represented in the NBA.

It's entirely possible that, based on the aptitude and inclination needed to be a Fortune 500 CEO, the natural gender split is the same as the split in the NBA. In other words, women may very well be over-represented among Fortune 500 CEOs. Indeed, given the current official policy of the United States Government for gender-based (pro-female) affirmative action, this would even appear to be the null hypothesis. One might just as reasonably ask, "Why are there so many women in senior leadership positions?"

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#87

Post by saranagati »

jlgreco wrote: post #34
simonsarris wrote: post #7

I'm slightly apprehensive (terrified) about commenting on this topic or any relating to gender/race because it seems like the bar for public crucifixion is somewhat low, even to those who just want to add data or other side-points to a discussion. Anyway, and I apologize in advance if I derail the topic, but I think there's a semi important distinction to qualify this discussion, because I do think the discussion app…

For whatever it may be worth (probably nothing), I am a relatively short guy who is not particularly attracted to men, but if I really think about it, I think I have a preference to taller men, just in terms of first impressions. I think I associate height with being "more grown up". I have been taller than my father for many years now, but I think the extent to which I consider him more of an "adult" than myself is…

similarly, I'm 6'2" and almost all my male friends have been taller than me since early high school. This correlation has given me the first impression that any male under 6 feet is not a person.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#88

Post by saranagati »

stanleydrew wrote: post #74

I feel compelled to include a link to Roy Baumeister's "Is There Anything Good About Men?": http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm . It is possible that there are fewer women in the upper echelons of business because evolutionarily women didn't have to take as many risks as men in order to reproduce. So men are biologically programmed to take risks, and either spectacularly succeed or spectacularly f…

how dare you bring biology into a gender debate. it was well established decades ago that a billion year old evolutionary trait is no longer relavent.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#89

Post by tedunangst »

ucee054 wrote: post #79
tedunangst wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a flaw in your methodology. You are comparing a group of preselected smart girls with a group of preselected pretty girls. Neither is a representative sample of the population.

3 Questions then: A) Do you disagree with my position on effort? B) How else is one going to encounter this phenomenon in real life? C) How should I correctly test the hypothesis?

Gather an unbiased representative sample of the population. Rate their intelligence and appearance. Plot a graph.

I'll also make the following observations. Girls in a club may appear dumber than they are because they're drunk and having silly fun. Girls in a research lab are quite possibly wearing less makeup than they would wear to a club. It's entirely possible you're looking at the same set of girls, but aren't recognizing that fact because the effects of environment and context are so transformative.

Re: A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About

#90

Post by pbhjpbhj »

enraged_camel wrote: post #69
Osmium wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link is still there in the developed world, though perhaps not in the way you'd think: studies have shown that poorer people are more likely to be overweight. One is left to speculate as to why, but clearly if attractiveness is linked to later performance in life, then many of these people would start off at a further disadvantage as a result. e.g. just this week http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21158087

>>One is left to speculate as to why There is no need for speculation, since we already know the answer: fast-food is both affordable and calorie-dense, which is why lower-income people consume it and become overweight. Ever noticed how many fast-food restaurants there are in lower-income neighborhoods?

>since we already know the answer: fast-food is both affordable and calorie-dense //

Fast-food is not affordable in the UK. It's substantially more costly than preparing your own food. There is no way that we could afford to eat fast-food more than a couple of nights per week; then we'd have to cut the quality of food on other nights considerably.

McDonalds for one adult costs about what we spend on a meal for 4 cooked at home (not including energy costs).

That said friends we have friends on benefits who eat fast food regularly. How they afford it I don't know. They have the heating on all day (with windows open, in winter) and things too, it's all a mystery to me.

Post reply on HN