3 ms·

The clearest statistics which (may) demonstrate this point are that 8% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, and only 6.8% of incarcerated people are women. There are

by nickff 5y ago

The clearest statistics which (may) demonstrate this point are that 8% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, and only 6.8% of incarcerated people are women. There are far more men in prison than leading successful companies.

woodruffw 5y ago
It occurs to me that "men are socialized to be aggressive (and are rewarded for aggression, unlike women), and aggressive social traits translate well to both criminal and business enterprises" has equal explanatory power but is significantly more parsimonious than the variability hypothesis.
- pgcj_poster 5y ago
  This is obviously correct, at least with respect to prisoners. It also does not require that male aggression be socialized—it holds equally well if it's innate.
  - belorn 5y ago
    Aggression as a word is socially context dependent. People can be competing aggressively at a donation drive about who can donate the highest amount of money to charity. The distinction between innate vs socialized becomes a bit muddy when dealing with humans.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Sure. But again, parsimony: we have lots of evidence for aggressive male socialization (including decreasing aggressive socialization as society becomes more egalitarian), and relatively little reproducible evidence for innate male aggression.
    - wskinner 5y ago
      Decreasing aggressive socialization as society becomes more egalitarian would seem to be evidence for the _opposite_ of "aggressive male socialization". And that points to the baseline level of male aggression being higher than it is in egalitarian societies.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        > Decreasing aggressive socialization as society becomes more egalitarian would seem to be evidence for the _opposite_ of "aggressive male socialization". It's evidence for an opposite social trend, not evidence of the total absence of aggressive socialization either presently or historically.

by nickff 5y ago

woodruffw 5y ago

It occurs to me that "men are socialized to be aggressive (and are rewarded for aggression, unlike women), and aggressive social traits translate well to both criminal and business enterprises" has equal explanatory power but is significantly more parsimonious than the variability hypothesis.

pgcj_poster 5y ago
This is obviously correct, at least with respect to prisoners. It also does not require that male aggression be socialized—it holds equally well if it's innate.
- belorn 5y ago
  Aggression as a word is socially context dependent. People can be competing aggressively at a donation drive about who can donate the highest amount of money to charity. The distinction between innate vs socialized becomes a bit muddy when dealing with humans.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Sure. But again, parsimony: we have lots of evidence for aggressive male socialization (including decreasing aggressive socialization as society becomes more egalitarian), and relatively little reproducible evidence for innate male aggression.
  - wskinner 5y ago
    Decreasing aggressive socialization as society becomes more egalitarian would seem to be evidence for the _opposite_ of "aggressive male socialization". And that points to the baseline level of male aggression being higher than it is in egalitarian societies.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      > Decreasing aggressive socialization as society becomes more egalitarian would seem to be evidence for the _opposite_ of "aggressive male socialization". It's evidence for an opposite social trend, not evidence of the total absence of aggressive socialization either presently or historically.