4 ms·

>Women are socially smarter What does this mean? Do women talk more? Yes. Is it substantive? Women are more willing to talk about their feelings but they also

>Women are socially smarter What does this mean? Do women talk more? Yes. Is it substantive? Women are more willing to talk about their feelings but they also can be quite indirect compared to a man. Women also have a reputation of being more adversarial and catty: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/why-women-compete-with-each-other.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/why-women-...

door2 9y ago
You’re a misogynist
- bluthru 9y ago
  The parent above me said "Women are socially smarter, so they are aware of that. Men are clueless" and I didn't resort to calling them a misandrist. Let's stick to talking about the issue at hand.
  - door2 9y ago
    You called women catty. That’s straight up misogyny. I don’t know what else you want me to say.
    - bluthru 9y ago
      Describing a gender with a negative adjective is never ok? Is it wrong to call men "clueless"?
      - door2 9y ago
        It’s not the same. If women and men held totally equal power in society, it would be the same, but they don’t. Attacking women in tech as a group is punching down, attacking men (at least for their rampant horrible and sexist behavior) is punching up. In terms of gender relations, men are absolutely, in general, and especially in tech, totally clueless.
        bluthru 9y ago
        Saying that you can't criticize a group because of its amount of power in a society is a completely arbitrary rule that is easily disregarded. You will never be able to shame people into following that nonsense.
        dang 9y ago
        You appear to still be using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's an abuse of this site because it destroys the intellectual curiosity that HN exists for. As I've explained to you before, we ban accounts that do this, regardless of which ideology they favor. This is in the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html): Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. This destroys intellectual curiosity, so we ban accounts that do it. If anyone wants to understand how we interpret this rule, the key word is 'primarily' and I've posted about it a lot: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20primarily https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... I don't think you're abusing HN on purpose, but we've given you multiple warnings already. When people either can't or won't use the site as intended, we do end up banning them.
        bluthru 9y ago
        >I don't think you're abusing HN on purpose Thanks for saying this. I skimmed my past 6 months of comments and I don't share your view that I'm "using HN primarily for ideological battle". I don't believe I've previously discussed gender issues, either. If anything it looks like I've had a pro-Apple ideology, which hasn't been flagged. I make a point to be respectful while commenting, but I don't keep an internal quota for the subjects I comment on. I don't want to add noise to a topic I can't contribute to just to drown out my other comments. The moderation is a bit stifling and doesn't feel ideologically neutral. I know moderation is nebulous so I wanted to offer some feedback, regardless of what happens.
        dang 9y ago
        It's not ok to use HN primarily for ideological battle, which your account appears to be doing. This site exists for intellectual curiosity, and we can't have that and war at the same time. That doesn't mean politicized topics can't be discussed—obviously they are and should be, up to a point. But such discussions tend to consume everything else with their flames, so we have to be careful about not letting them take over HN completely. The best way we've found so far to draw the line is the 'primarily' test. When an account uses HN primarily for intellectual curiosity, i.e. for encountering and discussing interesting things, it's not an abuse of the site to occasionally talk politics too. But if it's on HN primarily for political battle, then—regardless of the politics—we ask the user not to and ban the account if it doesn't change. This turns out to work well because there's a gap between these two kinds of user. The first kind tends to remain civil and substantive even as topics get more divisive. The second kind tends not only to drop the gloves, but also to come armed with talking points and not be interested in conversation for its own sake. The one group fits the purpose of HN while the other does not. There are exceptions, of course. But the rule holds up well enough to be a fair standard for moderation. More on this at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16185062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16185062, https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20primarily%20line https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... If you'd read those (especially the guidelines) and take the spirit of this site to heart when participating here, we'd appreciate it.
Raphmedia 9y ago
Socially smarter doesn't mean better social skills. It simply means that they are more socially aware. If you allow the metaphor, I would say that they are more likely to "play the game" and "play it well" at that. Social skills have very little relationship to "emotional intelligence", so I have no clue why you would bring up the point that women are more willing to talk about their feelings. You are comparing extraversion and agreeableness. While both are statistically higher in women, you are comparing apples and oranges. Here, have some science: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/
- bluthru 9y ago
  Thanks for the link. >Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men. Isn't this basically what got James Damore fired? Heh.
  - Raphmedia 9y ago
    He worded it in a socially unaware way. If he ranked higher in Agreeableness, he would likely have found a way to communicate the information without getting fired.
    - bluthru 9y ago
      >He worded it in a socially unaware way. I don't think so: "Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." Maybe if women were more agreeable they wouldn't have been so offended.
      - Raphmedia 9y ago
        Agreeableness trumps Neuroticism IMHO. Neuroticism is a knee-jerk reaction that you cannot control without a lot of self-control. To expect an individual ranking high in Neuroticism to control themselves is to be blind to other's points of view. In short, it means that you do not have enough sensibility to understand and predict the reaction of others before they happen. Agreeableness allows you to predict those reaction and plan accordingly.

door2 9y ago

You’re a misogynist

bluthru 9y ago
The parent above me said "Women are socially smarter, so they are aware of that. Men are clueless" and I didn't resort to calling them a misandrist. Let's stick to talking about the issue at hand.
- door2 9y ago
  You called women catty. That’s straight up misogyny. I don’t know what else you want me to say.
  - bluthru 9y ago
    Describing a gender with a negative adjective is never ok? Is it wrong to call men "clueless"?
    - door2 9y ago
      It’s not the same. If women and men held totally equal power in society, it would be the same, but they don’t. Attacking women in tech as a group is punching down, attacking men (at least for their rampant horrible and sexist behavior) is punching up. In terms of gender relations, men are absolutely, in general, and especially in tech, totally clueless.
      - bluthru 9y ago
        Saying that you can't criticize a group because of its amount of power in a society is a completely arbitrary rule that is easily disregarded. You will never be able to shame people into following that nonsense.
        dang 9y ago
        You appear to still be using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's an abuse of this site because it destroys the intellectual curiosity that HN exists for. As I've explained to you before, we ban accounts that do this, regardless of which ideology they favor. This is in the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html): Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle. This destroys intellectual curiosity, so we ban accounts that do it. If anyone wants to understand how we interpret this rule, the key word is 'primarily' and I've posted about it a lot: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20primarily https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... I don't think you're abusing HN on purpose, but we've given you multiple warnings already. When people either can't or won't use the site as intended, we do end up banning them.
        bluthru 9y ago
        >I don't think you're abusing HN on purpose Thanks for saying this. I skimmed my past 6 months of comments and I don't share your view that I'm "using HN primarily for ideological battle". I don't believe I've previously discussed gender issues, either. If anything it looks like I've had a pro-Apple ideology, which hasn't been flagged. I make a point to be respectful while commenting, but I don't keep an internal quota for the subjects I comment on. I don't want to add noise to a topic I can't contribute to just to drown out my other comments. The moderation is a bit stifling and doesn't feel ideologically neutral. I know moderation is nebulous so I wanted to offer some feedback, regardless of what happens.
      - dang 9y ago
        It's not ok to use HN primarily for ideological battle, which your account appears to be doing. This site exists for intellectual curiosity, and we can't have that and war at the same time. That doesn't mean politicized topics can't be discussed—obviously they are and should be, up to a point. But such discussions tend to consume everything else with their flames, so we have to be careful about not letting them take over HN completely. The best way we've found so far to draw the line is the 'primarily' test. When an account uses HN primarily for intellectual curiosity, i.e. for encountering and discussing interesting things, it's not an abuse of the site to occasionally talk politics too. But if it's on HN primarily for political battle, then—regardless of the politics—we ask the user not to and ban the account if it doesn't change. This turns out to work well because there's a gap between these two kinds of user. The first kind tends to remain civil and substantive even as topics get more divisive. The second kind tends not only to drop the gloves, but also to come armed with talking points and not be interested in conversation for its own sake. The one group fits the purpose of HN while the other does not. There are exceptions, of course. But the rule holds up well enough to be a fair standard for moderation. More on this at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16185062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16185062, https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, and https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=by:dang%20primarily%20line https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... If you'd read those (especially the guidelines) and take the spirit of this site to heart when participating here, we'd appreciate it.

Raphmedia 9y ago

Socially smarter doesn't mean better social skills. It simply means that they are more socially aware. If you allow the metaphor, I would say that they are more likely to "play the game" and "play it well" at that. Social skills have very little relationship to "emotional intelligence", so I have no clue why you would bring up the point that women are more willing to talk about their feelings. You are comparing extraversion and agreeableness. While both are statistically higher in women, you are comparing apples and oranges. Here, have some science: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

bluthru 9y ago
Thanks for the link. >Replicating previous findings, women reported higher Big Five Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism scores than men. Isn't this basically what got James Damore fired? Heh.
- Raphmedia 9y ago
  He worded it in a socially unaware way. If he ranked higher in Agreeableness, he would likely have found a way to communicate the information without getting fired.
  - bluthru 9y ago
    >He worded it in a socially unaware way. I don't think so: "Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." Maybe if women were more agreeable they wouldn't have been so offended.
    - Raphmedia 9y ago
      Agreeableness trumps Neuroticism IMHO. Neuroticism is a knee-jerk reaction that you cannot control without a lot of self-control. To expect an individual ranking high in Neuroticism to control themselves is to be blind to other's points of view. In short, it means that you do not have enough sensibility to understand and predict the reaction of others before they happen. Agreeableness allows you to predict those reaction and plan accordingly.