14 ms·
Finally, teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. Indeed, it appeared that it was not “diversity” (having equal numbers of men and women) that ma
by simula67 12y ago
Finally, teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. Indeed, it appeared that it was not “diversity” (having equal numbers of men and women) that mattered for a team’s intelligence, but simply having more women. This last effect, however, was partly explained by the fact that women, on average, were better at “mindreading” than men.
I wonder how this article would have been received if it stated : 'Teams with more men performed better. This can be explained by the fact that men, on average, are better at solving certain problems than women'. I almost never hear about a scientific study where they discover that men are better than women at something.
- solve 12y agoHaving highly-skilled women is a status symbol for companies in some cities, particularly in NYC. They're simply harder and more expensive to attract - e.g. women without children get paid 30% more than men with the same education in NYC. In other words: More success -> able to attract and afford more of the expensive status symbols like high-skilled women. Not too sure about a cause and effect in the other direction though.
- nl 12y agowomen without children get paid 30% more than men with the same education in NYC. I've never heard that before, and some quick research doesn't seem to back it up. US wide, recent female graduates with the same education as men earn 82% of their salary.[1] [1] http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/graduating-to-a-pay-gap-the-earnings-of-women-and-men-one-year-after-college-graduation.pdf http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/graduating-to-a-pay-gap-th...
- toolz 12y agoThat study doesn't take into account children, which are a huge factor, I would imagine. In households with children it is common for the woman to assume the role as the primary caregiver while the man assumes the role of the provider. As such, I imagine the woman likely feels less pressure and has less time to pursue a higher pay, while inversely the man feels pressure to increase his pay to fulfill his assumed role in the family.
- pc86 12y agoThe point was about NYC in particular, so US-wide statistics are not particularly relevant. And the original point was also about highly skilled workers without children. Your article is a study about 1 year after graduation (from undergrad).
- dogweather 12y ago> female graduates ... earn 82% of their salary That's wrong. By the AAUW's own numbers, the women in their study earned 93% of the men's salaries. Get the PDF. Scroll nearly to the end, look for the infographic and text with the 93% number. Personally, then, I split it in the middle, and I'd guess that an unbiased researcher might discover that women earn 96.5% of what men do. The 82% number which the report pushes much more strongly is the difference _before_ womens' choices are taken into account. The sad and disturbing part is that the AAUW (and most of modern feminism?) is pushing bad data for political gains and unfair preferences.
- nl 12y agoActually the OP's own reference uses the 80% figure too[1]. Wikipedia says between 93% and 96% after controlling, though this isn't for graduates.[2] It is worth noting that it shows a reverse pay gap in a very limited circumstance (some cities, under 30 with no kids). [1] http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274... [2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap#United_States http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap#United_States
- forgotAgain 12y agowomen without children get paid 30% more than men with the same education in NYC. Can you provide your source for this?
- solve 12y agoSorry, I stand corrected. It's only 20% higher for young women than men in NYC. http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274... To my original point -- lots of status symbol trends are conflating the cause and effect analysis of why teams with women are more successful. Decent analysis won't be simple, and the analysis is a total failure if they simply ignore this strong factors.
- forgotAgain 12y agoYour source does not suggest that the cause of the salary differential has anything to do with smart women as business status symbols. The article states that the most likely source of the difference is education, that the women are better educated and therefore have higher salaries. Further it holds true more so in cities that have a knowledge based economy.
- lostcolony 12y agoI, too, would like a citation on this (not that I disbelieve you, but I am curious what data and methodology were used to come up with it).
- im3w1l 12y agoAre you comparing women without children against men in general, or women without children against men without children?
- Jimmy 12y ago>I almost never hear about a scientific study where they discover that men are better than women at something. Maybe women are just better than men at everything?
- meric 12y agoWhat about teams of, say, construction workers or lumber jacks?
- upvote-hero 12y agoIt probably wouldn't have been posted.
- balabaster 12y agoThat's because controversy and polarization are the two biggest propaganda techniques to sell papers. Everyone knows that women are better at some things than guys and vice versa - men can't have babies and breast feed. Women can't have babies without sperm. Everything else is kind of a free for all
- kghose 12y agoA few decades ago there were papers and popular reports like that. They were fashionable then. This is what is fashionable now. It will change back. Then back again.
- juliangregorian 12y agoI did kind of feel as though they buried the lede when I read that part. Oh, communication and emotional intelligence make for better group dynamics? Snooze. Wait, women are categorically better group members, and are better at "mindreading"? Why is this not being researched further?
- kendallpark 12y agoI thought I'd add a few tidbits here on gender differences. I play women's football and coach high school guys football. Football is one of the most teamwork-dependent sports out there. Everyone has to be doing his job every single play. There's no way for one player to carry the team. Before I started coaching guys' football, I had heard consistently from other coaches in my women's league that women are way easier to coach than men in the game of football. Reasons given included less attitude, less individualism, less ego, more willing to work together, etc. When I started coaching high school ball, this was exactly the case. So much of my time was wasted beating the individualism out of these boys and getting them to play for each other, not themselves. Maybe it's that football attracts a certain type of male. But I think women might be more naturally disposed to working on a team than men on average.
- Clever321 12y agoI'm pretty sure Manning and other great QBs were capable of carrying entire teams. Not to argue your point, with which I agree, but just saying :)
- pageld 12y agoI'm going to say sure, great players can make their teams better. Much more so in fact. However it takes more than just one person to be able to win games. Look at Favre. Great in Green Bay, dismal on the Jets, pretty darn good in Minnesota. Differences were the teams/line/wr's were better in Green Bay and Minnesota. If you are getting sacked every third play, you aren't going to be able to carry your team like in other sports. Also Adrian Peterson (before all the legal issues) was amazing before last year. All of a sudden parts of the offensive line of MN starts imploding and he goes from best in the league to 'just' really good. If it only takes 2 players on a team to bring a player from almost breaking one of the greatest records in football to average, there is something to be said there. Note I'm a vikings fan, hence my MN examples.
- kelseyfrancis 12y agoI don't see how even an exceptional quarterback can be effective if the offensive line and other backs don't block consistently well, or if the receivers don't consistently run the right routes, escape their coverage, actually catch the ball, and run well with it after the catch, or if the running backs don't find the holes the line must create, make good cuts, deflect tackles, and never fumble, or if the place kicker and/or punter don't consistently deliver when one of those things goes wrong, or if despite doing all that stuff right the defense never makes a stop.
- tensafefrogs 12y agoThe study measured the ability to "mindread" and that sentence simply states that the women in the study performed better in that test. It's not a generalized statement about women.
- jberryman 12y agoWhat's your point?
- atom-morgan 12y agoIsn't the idea that you can say one but not the other somewhat concerning?
- jberryman 12y ago> the idea that you can say one but not the other If that was the parent's point then I wish he would have simply said that so that I could have disagreed, rather than whatever weaselly thing he wrote.
- onezeno 12y agoI don't think you'd even get published for presenting any result that runs counter to the feminist orthodoxy in academia. Or that any career-minded researcher would ever take the risk of being labeled as misogynist. With that said, the result itself is interesting enough. We know intuitively that women tend to make consensus decisions, and men are more individualist. That consensus building leads to measurable results in the quality of group decisions is very interesting. I wonder how those results would hold in nonWestern cultures, where men are group-oriented already. Keep in mind that there is a slight bit of bias built in to the study. It provides evidence women are more adept at making group decisions (confirming our intuition), but would leave us to assume that a good group decision is the best decision. What about the decision of a single leader (where we'd expect men to have an advantage)? So an interesting follow-up to this study might be to compare the quality of group versus individual decisions.
- snowwrestler 12y agoThe reason that articles seem to skew toward women in their overt descriptions of ability is that the prevailing presumption for decades has been that men are better at everything in business.