4 ms·

This article doesn't even begin to posit "innate gender differences" It shows a correlation in confidence displayed to gender, but social conditioning of eith

This article doesn't even begin to posit "innate gender differences" It shows a correlation in confidence displayed to gender, but social conditioning of either confidence display or confidence interpretation are as good an explanation as any innate differences. It's even supported by some research, so it's actually a stronger hypothesis than yours.

sebastos 10y ago
Seems to me you're playing hide the ball a bit here. If it's the case that society conditions men to display confidence, then aren't we left to explain why _that_ might be the case? Why doesn't society condition women to be the more confident? How did we get here? The null hypothesis would probably be that innate gender differences created the current sociological environment, creating a chicken and egg problem. This reminds me of the argument that women's under-representation in STEM fields begins during childhood when we condition them with toys that don't encourage spatial reasoning. This claim leaves a gigantic dangling question of "Why are toy companies and parents so damn bad at understanding what little girls want to play with?" The literature supports the intuitive truth of the matter: girls and boys find their toy affinities on their own without much input from society. Incidentally, I think most people are morally taking the wrong tack when it comes to this kind of stuff. If you make a value judgment that having an affinity for leadership or spatial reasoning is Good, then you are no longer free to interpret the actual world without worrying that the data will show men are Better (or Worse). Why can't we accept men and women as they are, and stop pre-supposing equality of all measurements that we might consider desirable? If it turns out that men are naturally suited to taking leadership roles, who cares? It takes all kinds to make a functional society, and in the scheme of things, leaders are a tiny thread in that tapestry. I find the role of leader or mathematician to be equally valuable to artist, baker, carpenter, fashion designer, grocer, mother or father. Each of them is a valuable member of society that should earn a fundamental human dignity. In my view, admonishing women to pursue engineering is equally repugnant to demanding they avoid it! Let's encourage all of the women who find engineering or mathematics irresistible, but avoid fretting about the many who don't!
geofft 10y ago
The article makes it clear that this is a difference that happens across cultures. If men and women are in fact as equal as star-bellied and non-star-bellied sneetches, why do we see the same social conditioning in the same direction in every culture? Shouldn't half the cultures have the social conditioning in the other direction?
- watwut 10y ago
  Men are stronger. When all is said and done, he can get his way by hitting her. You need quite modern society for women to be able to escape that and subsequently feeding themselves (and children). This alone can cause women being raised for lower self confidence and submissiveness.

sebastos 10y ago

Seems to me you're playing hide the ball a bit here. If it's the case that society conditions men to display confidence, then aren't we left to explain why _that_ might be the case? Why doesn't society condition women to be the more confident? How did we get here? The null hypothesis would probably be that innate gender differences created the current sociological environment, creating a chicken and egg problem. This reminds me of the argument that women's under-representation in STEM fields begins during childhood when we condition them with toys that don't encourage spatial reasoning. This claim leaves a gigantic dangling question of "Why are toy companies and parents so damn bad at understanding what little girls want to play with?" The literature supports the intuitive truth of the matter: girls and boys find their toy affinities on their own without much input from society. Incidentally, I think most people are morally taking the wrong tack when it comes to this kind of stuff. If you make a value judgment that having an affinity for leadership or spatial reasoning is Good, then you are no longer free to interpret the actual world without worrying that the data will show men are Better (or Worse). Why can't we accept men and women as they are, and stop pre-supposing equality of all measurements that we might consider desirable? If it turns out that men are naturally suited to taking leadership roles, who cares? It takes all kinds to make a functional society, and in the scheme of things, leaders are a tiny thread in that tapestry. I find the role of leader or mathematician to be equally valuable to artist, baker, carpenter, fashion designer, grocer, mother or father. Each of them is a valuable member of society that should earn a fundamental human dignity. In my view, admonishing women to pursue engineering is equally repugnant to demanding they avoid it! Let's encourage all of the women who find engineering or mathematics irresistible, but avoid fretting about the many who don't!

geofft 10y ago

The article makes it clear that this is a difference that happens across cultures. If men and women are in fact as equal as star-bellied and non-star-bellied sneetches, why do we see the same social conditioning in the same direction in every culture? Shouldn't half the cultures have the social conditioning in the other direction?

watwut 10y ago
Men are stronger. When all is said and done, he can get his way by hitting her. You need quite modern society for women to be able to escape that and subsequently feeding themselves (and children). This alone can cause women being raised for lower self confidence and submissiveness.