7 ms·

The rules and grading are different. In school, the rules that students are rewarded for following are "softer" and harder to justify directly. eg. You must su

The rules and grading are different. In school, the rules that students are rewarded for following are "softer" and harder to justify directly. eg. You must submit a project with a cover with beautifully handwritten title of this specific size, or you lose marks (This is real guidance that was provided for my school and college projects.) At work, while these kind of rules exist, it's typically okay to break them, and performance is mostly rated on actual impact, not pointless rule-following.

endisneigh 6y ago
None of this explains why women are capable of following these rules and men are not. Are you saying men are biologically predisposed to not follow such simple rules?
- aviraldg 6y ago
  I was answering your question about why this difference exists. I don't know about the reason, but if I had to guess I'd say it's not biology, but culture/upbringing. I think girls are culturally expected to follow rules, and boys encouraged to break them.
  - AussieWog93 6y ago
    I'd suspect it's biological, since boys in (almost?) all human societies are more prone to challenging authority. It's the same story in elephants, chimps and wolves too. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the case in all species of social mammals.
- imtringued 6y ago
  No, it sounds like female teachers make rules that are easy for female students to follow. Meanwhile some boys simply don't like the rules and thus don't follow them.
  - endisneigh 6y ago
    Yes I've seen this comment many, many times. Where's the proof? Women crush men in college (see link below) yet most professors are men. People are just spouting unsupported nonsense. Heck my link understates the difference as it is old. https://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/ANNALS_Conger,Long_Manuscript%20(Feb%2009).pdf https://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/ANNALS_Conger,Long_Ma...
    - BlargMcLarg 6y ago
      There is at least the "women are wonderful" effect covering both why female as well as male teachers may favor girls over boys, including subjective grading methods. That seems enough of a point to counter this being "unsupported nonsense". Additionally, pointing out most professors are men does not counter the argument. Merely the transition of going from a highly cooperation- and rule-following-favored environment to an extremely competitive environment should give some indication as to how multifaceted this problem can truly be.
      - endisneigh 6y ago
        That just seems like a convenient excuse. Do you have any actual data to support your claim? I notice that no one ever posts any peer-reviewed research, just a bunch of anecdotes. Also the grandparent claimed that females made rules that benefitted the same gender. In other words in a school setting a same sex relationship between teacher and student is such that the student benefits. However this clearly isn't the case per my college performance citation. Your claimed "women are wonderful" effect seems to stop conveniently at the career stage of life.
        BlargMcLarg 6y ago
        The "women are wonderful" effect doesn't stop. I would ask you actually search around a little and read my point again, as well as the many other comments, before dragging down the conversation with phrases such as "convenient excuse". As other comments have pointed out, the reason can easily be explained by a paradigm shift. One which shifts from a cooperation-favored environment, to a competition-favored environment. Though there is an absence of evidence, the absence of evidence doesn't prove the opposite, it merely puts into question the hypothesis. > Also the grandparent claimed that females made rules that benefitted the same gender. In other words in a school setting a same sex relationship between teacher and student is such that the student benefits. However this clearly isn't the case per my college performance citation. The GP stated this goes for women. Clearly, that doesn't claim the same goes for men. In fact, this is entirely in-line with the "women are wonderful" phenomenon, though I would personally believe other factors are at play beyond this.
- mudita 6y ago
  It is pretty well established in psychology that women score higher in agreeableness (in the sense of the Big 5 trait). This difference is pretty small, the distributions overlap a lot, but I think, the fact, that women are more agreeable in general is pretty indisputable. As far as I know, whether the difference has biological or cultural reasons is not equally well established. But it seems somewhat stable across cultures, which seems to me to suggest that it’s indeed biological, see e.g. Costa et al (2001), Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11825676_Gender_Differences_in_Personality_Traits_Across_Cultures_Robust_and_Surprising_Findings https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11825676_Gender_Dif... “In brief, gender differences are modest in magnitude, consistent with gender stereotypes, and replicable across cultures. Substantively, most of the gender differences we found can be grouped in four categories: Women tend to be higher in negative affect, submissiveness, and nurturance, and more concerned with feelings than with ideas.“
  - tomp 6y ago
    Newer research: Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why? (2010) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9004.... > How big are gender differences in personality and interests, and how stable are these differences across cultures and over time? To answer these questions, I summarize data from two meta‐analyses and three cross‐cultural studies on gender differences in personality and interests. Results show that gender differences in Big Five personality traits are ‘small’ to ‘moderate,’ with the largest differences occurring for agreeableness and neuroticism (respective ds = 0.40 and 0.34; women higher than men). In contrast, gender differences on the people–things dimension of interests are ‘very large’ (d = 1.18), with women more people‐oriented and less thing‐oriented than men. Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender‐egalitarian societies than in gender‐inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences. In particular, the differences aren't "stable accross cultures" but more pronounced in more gender-equal societies, so the difference are either (likely) biological, or else caused by society but in a counter-intuitive way.
- finder83 6y ago
  When the rules are to "sit still" and "be quiet", yes, probably so. Boys are diagnosed with ADHD at a rate of 12.9% vs 5.6% for girls [1]. I've heard many counselors and psychologists (in my counseling program) suggest that many cases are misdiagnosed. Sit in any classroom or ask any teacher who their problem children are, and they're almost always boys. They're louder, more violent, more likely to disobey, and have a harder time sitting still. Are all boys a problem? No, of course not. I imagine a lot has to do with home balance, the involvement of two parents, etc. Are all girls good? No, of course not. But statistically there is a difference. This is true until they settle down in their mid to late twenties...just look at insurance rates. Maybe it's not biological and is cultural, but it's true from a very young age through young adult that boys are less able to sit still, be quiet, and listen. And school is structured in a way that punishes those traits, and we as a culture medicate boys to make them calm down. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html
  - endisneigh 6y ago
    I don't disagree with any of your assertions, but it remains a mystery how women then are excluded from top jobs if they do better in middle school through college and are less likely to be diagnosed with something that would impair their job performance.
    - scarmig 6y ago
      Landing a "top job" is a zero sum game: on top of skill and intellect, you've also got to put in more labor and hours than anyone else to get there. For a large constellation of reasons, women are more likely to choose to put extra hours into childcare, and men are more likely to choose to put extra hours into the kind of market labor that lends itself to reaching those top tier jobs.
    - DC1350 6y ago
      Young women now earn more than young men on average. Most high paying jobs go to people near the end of their career who are part of a different generation. I think it’s too early to know if young women are still discriminated against in the workplace.
hitpointdrew 6y ago
>At work, while these kind of rules exist, it's typically okay to break them, and performance is mostly rated on actual impact, not pointless rule-following. Exactly this. Doing something simply because "it's a rule" and doing something where you see actual impact/results is world of a difference.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  The word for the former is "authoritarian." Relationships are defined by power imbalances, hierarchy, and superficial displays of conformity, not by outcomes.

endisneigh 6y ago

None of this explains why women are capable of following these rules and men are not. Are you saying men are biologically predisposed to not follow such simple rules?

aviraldg 6y ago
I was answering your question about why this difference exists. I don't know about the reason, but if I had to guess I'd say it's not biology, but culture/upbringing. I think girls are culturally expected to follow rules, and boys encouraged to break them.
- AussieWog93 6y ago
  I'd suspect it's biological, since boys in (almost?) all human societies are more prone to challenging authority. It's the same story in elephants, chimps and wolves too. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the case in all species of social mammals.
imtringued 6y ago
No, it sounds like female teachers make rules that are easy for female students to follow. Meanwhile some boys simply don't like the rules and thus don't follow them.
- endisneigh 6y ago
  Yes I've seen this comment many, many times. Where's the proof? Women crush men in college (see link below) yet most professors are men. People are just spouting unsupported nonsense. Heck my link understates the difference as it is old. https://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/ANNALS_Conger,Long_Manuscript%20(Feb%2009).pdf https://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/ANNALS_Conger,Long_Ma...
  - BlargMcLarg 6y ago
    There is at least the "women are wonderful" effect covering both why female as well as male teachers may favor girls over boys, including subjective grading methods. That seems enough of a point to counter this being "unsupported nonsense". Additionally, pointing out most professors are men does not counter the argument. Merely the transition of going from a highly cooperation- and rule-following-favored environment to an extremely competitive environment should give some indication as to how multifaceted this problem can truly be.
    - endisneigh 6y ago
      That just seems like a convenient excuse. Do you have any actual data to support your claim? I notice that no one ever posts any peer-reviewed research, just a bunch of anecdotes. Also the grandparent claimed that females made rules that benefitted the same gender. In other words in a school setting a same sex relationship between teacher and student is such that the student benefits. However this clearly isn't the case per my college performance citation. Your claimed "women are wonderful" effect seems to stop conveniently at the career stage of life.
      - BlargMcLarg 6y ago
        The "women are wonderful" effect doesn't stop. I would ask you actually search around a little and read my point again, as well as the many other comments, before dragging down the conversation with phrases such as "convenient excuse". As other comments have pointed out, the reason can easily be explained by a paradigm shift. One which shifts from a cooperation-favored environment, to a competition-favored environment. Though there is an absence of evidence, the absence of evidence doesn't prove the opposite, it merely puts into question the hypothesis. > Also the grandparent claimed that females made rules that benefitted the same gender. In other words in a school setting a same sex relationship between teacher and student is such that the student benefits. However this clearly isn't the case per my college performance citation. The GP stated this goes for women. Clearly, that doesn't claim the same goes for men. In fact, this is entirely in-line with the "women are wonderful" phenomenon, though I would personally believe other factors are at play beyond this.
mudita 6y ago
It is pretty well established in psychology that women score higher in agreeableness (in the sense of the Big 5 trait). This difference is pretty small, the distributions overlap a lot, but I think, the fact, that women are more agreeable in general is pretty indisputable. As far as I know, whether the difference has biological or cultural reasons is not equally well established. But it seems somewhat stable across cultures, which seems to me to suggest that it’s indeed biological, see e.g. Costa et al (2001), Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11825676_Gender_Differences_in_Personality_Traits_Across_Cultures_Robust_and_Surprising_Findings https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11825676_Gender_Dif... “In brief, gender differences are modest in magnitude, consistent with gender stereotypes, and replicable across cultures. Substantively, most of the gender differences we found can be grouped in four categories: Women tend to be higher in negative affect, submissiveness, and nurturance, and more concerned with feelings than with ideas.“
- tomp 6y ago
  Newer research: Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why? (2010) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-9004.... > How big are gender differences in personality and interests, and how stable are these differences across cultures and over time? To answer these questions, I summarize data from two meta‐analyses and three cross‐cultural studies on gender differences in personality and interests. Results show that gender differences in Big Five personality traits are ‘small’ to ‘moderate,’ with the largest differences occurring for agreeableness and neuroticism (respective ds = 0.40 and 0.34; women higher than men). In contrast, gender differences on the people–things dimension of interests are ‘very large’ (d = 1.18), with women more people‐oriented and less thing‐oriented than men. Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender‐egalitarian societies than in gender‐inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences. In particular, the differences aren't "stable accross cultures" but more pronounced in more gender-equal societies, so the difference are either (likely) biological, or else caused by society but in a counter-intuitive way.
finder83 6y ago
When the rules are to "sit still" and "be quiet", yes, probably so. Boys are diagnosed with ADHD at a rate of 12.9% vs 5.6% for girls [1]. I've heard many counselors and psychologists (in my counseling program) suggest that many cases are misdiagnosed. Sit in any classroom or ask any teacher who their problem children are, and they're almost always boys. They're louder, more violent, more likely to disobey, and have a harder time sitting still. Are all boys a problem? No, of course not. I imagine a lot has to do with home balance, the involvement of two parents, etc. Are all girls good? No, of course not. But statistically there is a difference. This is true until they settle down in their mid to late twenties...just look at insurance rates. Maybe it's not biological and is cultural, but it's true from a very young age through young adult that boys are less able to sit still, be quiet, and listen. And school is structured in a way that punishes those traits, and we as a culture medicate boys to make them calm down. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html
- endisneigh 6y ago
  I don't disagree with any of your assertions, but it remains a mystery how women then are excluded from top jobs if they do better in middle school through college and are less likely to be diagnosed with something that would impair their job performance.
  - scarmig 6y ago
    Landing a "top job" is a zero sum game: on top of skill and intellect, you've also got to put in more labor and hours than anyone else to get there. For a large constellation of reasons, women are more likely to choose to put extra hours into childcare, and men are more likely to choose to put extra hours into the kind of market labor that lends itself to reaching those top tier jobs.
  - DC1350 6y ago
    Young women now earn more than young men on average. Most high paying jobs go to people near the end of their career who are part of a different generation. I think it’s too early to know if young women are still discriminated against in the workplace.

hitpointdrew 6y ago

>At work, while these kind of rules exist, it's typically okay to break them, and performance is mostly rated on actual impact, not pointless rule-following. Exactly this. Doing something simply because "it's a rule" and doing something where you see actual impact/results is world of a difference.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
The word for the former is "authoritarian." Relationships are defined by power imbalances, hierarchy, and superficial displays of conformity, not by outcomes.