3 ms·

But even if we consider it wrong that "society" conditions men and women to behave differently, there's nothing wrong with companies promoting more people that

by tomp 12y ago

But even if we consider it wrong that "society" conditions men and women to behave differently, there's nothing wrong with companies promoting more people that are already more aggressive, which turns out to be men more often. I think it's the purpose of the companies to earn money, not to change the society; actually, I actively don't want them to influence the society too much (their influences are too powerful already), except through advancing the technology (again, within the frameworks that the civil society sets up).

kaitai 12y ago
How about the fact, though, that more conservative financial practices often result in better long-term results for established firms? If you're in a startup that you don't mind blowing up or running into the ground, promote the more aggressive, but if you want to continue an established business, that's the wrong strategy. For links to some investment studies, see http://www.thestreet.com/story/13018257/1/who-had-bigger-investment-returns-in-2014-women-or-men.html http://www.thestreet.com/story/13018257/1/who-had-bigger-inv... , http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/behavioral-economics-show-that-women-tend-to-make-better-investments-than-men/2013/10/10/5347f40e-2d50-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/behavioral-economics-...
- tomp 12y ago
  Talking money is definitely better than other types of persuasion, especially when it comes to companies. Having said that, I wouldn't put too much confidence in the articles you posted; the effects in the first one are tiny, and for one year only, and the beginning of the second one is ripe with sexist stereotypes (I didn't bother to read the whole one). Also, as with all economic/psychological research, the results are to be trusted only if they can be demonstrated over a very long period of time, by multiple researchers (and even then it's not of equal validity as a controlled scientific experiment). Having said that, I don't necessarily reject your hypothesis; I'm sure that people will be putting money to it, and if it's true, someone will be reaping profit.

by tomp 12y ago

kaitai 12y ago

How about the fact, though, that more conservative financial practices often result in better long-term results for established firms? If you're in a startup that you don't mind blowing up or running into the ground, promote the more aggressive, but if you want to continue an established business, that's the wrong strategy. For links to some investment studies, see http://www.thestreet.com/story/13018257/1/who-had-bigger-investment-returns-in-2014-women-or-men.html http://www.thestreet.com/story/13018257/1/who-had-bigger-inv... , http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/behavioral-economics-show-that-women-tend-to-make-better-investments-than-men/2013/10/10/5347f40e-2d50-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/behavioral-economics-...

tomp 12y ago
Talking money is definitely better than other types of persuasion, especially when it comes to companies. Having said that, I wouldn't put too much confidence in the articles you posted; the effects in the first one are tiny, and for one year only, and the beginning of the second one is ripe with sexist stereotypes (I didn't bother to read the whole one). Also, as with all economic/psychological research, the results are to be trusted only if they can be demonstrated over a very long period of time, by multiple researchers (and even then it's not of equal validity as a controlled scientific experiment). Having said that, I don't necessarily reject your hypothesis; I'm sure that people will be putting money to it, and if it's true, someone will be reaping profit.