"Girls consistently outperform boys academically. And yet, men nonetheless hold a staggering 95 percent of the top positions in the largest public companies. What if those same habits that propel girls to the top of their class — their hyper-conscientiousness about schoolwork — also hold them back in the work force?... So how do we get hyper-conscientious girls (and boys, as there certainly are some with the same style) to build both confidence and competence at school?... Th[e] experience — of succeeding in school while exerting minimal or moderate effort — is a potentially crucial one. It may help our sons develop confidence, as they see how much they can accomplish simply by counting on their wits. For them, school serves as a test track, where they build their belief in their abilities and grow increasingly at ease relying on them. Our daughters, on the other hand, may miss the chance to gain confidence in their abilities if they always count on intellectual elbow grease alone."
From "Why Girls Beat Boys at School and Lose to Them at the Office/Hard work and discipline help girls outperform boys in class, but that advantage disappears in the work force. Is school the problem?" by the clinical psychologist Lisa Lamour. That's at the NYT, where the highly rated comments are very resistant and want to talk about sex discrimination in the workplace and the demands of childcare.
I'm interested in this subject of the downside of conscientiousness. My tag for it is "scrupulosity."
February 8, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
258 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 258 of 258I think this Paul Graham essay is relevant here:
http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
Blogger Howard said...
Tim: why do billionaires hate Trump when he awarded them the most fabulous tax cut ever?
Good question for you to ponder, Howard. Maybe they don’t pay taxes the same way you and I might, and so the impact on their wealth is negligible compared to the wealth that is to be gained by favorable treatment of things like, let’s just say “net neutrality.”
Net neutrality was a sop to people like Alphabet who had built empires worth many many billions of dollars on infrastructure, the networks, they they neither built nor owned. How do they protect their wealth? Simply have their cronies in the govt seiz control and safeguard their interests!
What people swimming in money most crave in government is that its officials can be bought. That’s why they went all in for openly venal Hillary Clinton, and Barrack Obama who spent the plurality of his days fundraising among them.
If the left really cared about the issues they pretended to champion in the net neutrality debate, they would have demanded search engine neutrality. Try and get a movement like that started when Alphabet controls the vast majority of web searches.
Blogger Howard said...
Tim: why do billionaires hate Trump when he awarded them the most fabulous tax cut ever?
“Reject first! Ask rhetorical questions later!” - Jonathon Haidt describing the way liberals argue.
The quoted paragraph from Lisa Lamour doesn't make sense.
There is no reason to believe that being good at schoolwork should translate into a job running a corporation. There is no reason to believe that the men who do end up running these corporations did worse than the average girl at their schoolwork. You are comparing a very small group of outliers (corporate executives) with the 50% of humanity that is female.
This is not a valid comparison. Perhaps if she were a man, Lisa Lamour would not have made this stupid mistake.
Bill Gates dropped out of college to start Microsoft.
A girl would never do that! She would stay in college, and work diligently to get a 4.0 average! Therefore, the girl should have all of Bill Gates' success and money.
That is what Lamour is saying.
She is a first-class moron.
This entire arguement is really silly! Girls do better in school then boys - who cares? Then the article goes further and cites that, women are not represented well in large companies. BTW, none of you feminists really know what you are talking about. If you go back in time, during the '50s and '60s very few CEOs had MBAs let alone went to college. Today, they have to because people doing the hiring and advising use it as a yardstick (which is pure B.S.), but it is still B.S., except for technical jobs, which a CEO is not. There was a day when a college graduate only hailed from wealthy families and went to college because they were to lazy and did not need to work. Finally, colleges just B.S. everyone about the value of degrees. Having hired 1,000s of college graduates my experience leaves me jaded about the value of a college degree - with the exception of technical fields.
Neither the Senate nor House version of pending legislation cuts the tax rate on capital gains and dividend income — even though, at 23.8%, it remains historically high and among the highest in the industrialized world.
I think that Howard thinks that billionaires get a paycheck on Friday just like he does, except bigger.
Of course the facts don’t back that up, but don’t worry, Howard will be back tomorrow with some other outright wrong claim as if today never happened.
Tim,
He's at least reading the thread before commenting lately.
A "progressive" quality all can appreciate.
I know walter. He is one of the better trolls.
But I couldn’t resist this last one:
Bezos, meanwhile, took home a salary of only $81,840 last year.
I bet that Trump tax cut had him really swimming in it! It’s almost as if he takes an extremely modest salary for tax reasons! Naaah!
Well..once he sheds a few homes via divorce, the mortgage payments and prop taxes will be much less burdensome.
He'll get by...
Shocking news from the New York Times! Boys and girls are still different.
Jordan Peterson has described the psychological trait of agreeableness and contrasted it with disagreeableness, which more accurately predicts success. He believes a woman's relationship with an infant is a driver of female agreeableness -- you have to be agreeable to get along with a demanding infant. Thus evolution biases women to be more agreeable so they'll succeed in taking care of the children.
Males on average are more likely to be disagreeable. It makes many of them unhappy but it makes some highly successful, which increases their reproductive chances and helps favor the trait.
This makes total sense to me, and is supported by experience.
Part of the agreeableness/disagreeableness is culture/nurture. And part is definitely biology. As adults, both men's and women's behavior changes when testosterone or estrogen levels change.
Society encourages women and girls to be caring and nurturing (though some feminists seem to want women to be more like men, often while complaining about men not being more like women). Head exploding stuff. Boys are highly encouraged (even today) to be daring and independent.
Both men and women have a huge range - men and boys are quite capable of being loving, gentle with weaker/younger people, caring and conscientious. You can't raise boys without seeing their ability in these areas. Some boys have more innate ability than others, but it's almost always there.
And women/girls are quite capable of becoming independent, tough, risk-takers. One of the women I work with is like this, sometimes to the detriment of the project. But I also value her contributions - it's more a question of which mode works for the current situation.
Having hired 1,000s of college graduates my experience leaves me jaded about the value of a college degree - with the exception of technical fields.
Ask Griggs vs Duke Power.
College took the place of IQ testing.
College took the place of IQ testing.
It's not a guarantee, but I can't imagine a HS graduate doing the kind of work my team does (software development/testing/requirements analysis/technical writing). It's possible, but not likely.
Howard,
"Fear of failure, fear of painting outside the lines, fear of admitting ignorance are all part of what separates American Exceptionalism from the rest of the world. Objective failure analysis is the key to making shit work well. It's not just women whom struggle, it's men from rigid authoritarian countries too."
This is actually what American education has turned into. I challenge you to inquire about how it goes in your typical public school. And it has become more constricted than it has ever been in authoritarian countries. There are reasons why Cal Tech is full of Asians.
Your view of the present is obsolete. You assume that which was true of the past continues. It doesn't. Your education system has been blasted into extremities of conformism and intellectual suppression by the culture that produces all its teachers and administrators.
just got back from shiloh battlefield (72 degrees!), so i assume someone beat me to this, but:
"Girls consistently outperform boys academically. BECAUSE, women nonetheless hold a staggering 95 percent of the top positions in the largest public schools
fixed it for ya!
It's funny when people use "whom" to sound smart and fuck it up.
tim in vermont is completely right about tax rates.
These are largely irrelevant to people like Warren Buffet and Jeff Bezos.
They can just arrange things to avoid recognizing income.
And this was even more so in the days of 70% top rates.
Tax rates are much more important to the top 10%, than to the top .01%
For the last seven years, I have done some mentoring for a competitive robotics team, made up of high school students from a variety of backgrounds. The organization was founded (and is run with an iron hand) by a woman who created it specifically to address what she felt was the insufficient support for women in technology. There is an explicit (albeit somewhat benign) bias towards the girls in the group.
What I have seen echoes this article. The girls, many of whom are quite smart, are deeply conscientious, hard working, and superb at following directions. They also contribute virtually nothing to anything that requires creative thinking or abstraction, and are worse than useless when it comes to leadership. The guys in the group are ill-disciplined at times, often have serious issues with authority, and manage to consistently outperform the far better prepared, harder working girls.
We compete against teams nationwide, and I see exactly the same pattern...the girls are solid worker-bees, and the guys are the wildly creative ones who are barely housebroken. Every competition we see a few all-girls teams touted as 'so impressive', and when it comes to competition, they rarely crack the top 20%, despite the obvious quality of much of their work.
Now, I freely grant that this sort of design-heavy techie stuff is hardly representative of the real world, it is also quite instructive. If you need middle managers and don't mind a static organization with very little growth, women are fine. If you need to transcend the grind, well...
"Althouse pinpoints the difference. In general: Men confidently take risks. Women don’t have confidence nor do they take risks."
Althouse : It doesn't have to be that way.
Yeah, it kinda does have to be that way. There’s no evolutionary payoff for women in being risktakers. For men there is. You have twice as many female ancestors as male ones. Men, unlike women, are born with an excellent chance of leaving no offspring. Take no risks, you stay at zero. Male animals take more risks than female ones because evolutionary arithmetic has shaped them to be that way. Why do you think all those male deer, male elephant seals and male lions risk life and limb to beat the **** out of each other for a tiny chance of getting their end away ? Cos if they don’t, they’re done.
Which is why the 95% of business big wigs are male. Not only do you need to be smart and hard working, you need to be willing to take a chance. Join that risky start up. Switch jobs. Move to Texas. Take your crazy idea to the top – or to a competitor - if your immediate boss is blocking it. Don’t cave in a price negotiation with a major client, when if you lose the contract you lose your job. Make a decision NOW, before all the facts you wanted are in. All these things are risky, and lots of men who do them will fail and lose their jobs or lose promotions. But men who won’t take those risks won’t get to the top. Playing safe will do no better than keep you safely in the middle of the pack.
There’s no comparison with girls doing well in school, even ignoring the different skill sets. There are tens of millions of girls doing well in school. There are a few tens of thousands of “men at the top” in business. These men are not representative of men as a whole. They’re selected for brains, hard work, and risk taking. And then by Lady Luck. There are far fewer female risk takers so virtually all women don’t even get to find out whether their gamble is going to be favored by chance or not. If you don’t bet you can’t win.
There is a strong social message to women to be pleasing, to be liked, to find love and to give love.
Because, on average, long standing social messages are heavily influenced by biology. Human culture develops to point women in a direction that will make them succeed as women – ie as mothers. The pill is only sixty years old. There was no career route to success for women for the first 99.97% of Homo Sapiens’ history. In the end it’s all about babies. Everything else is decoration. Females have had one route to successful baby making - males have had a different route, a route that rewards well judged risk taking. Evolution has had 200,000 years to wire that into human brains. And that's just the top layer of sprinkles on a few hundred million years of evolved sex differention in behavior in our more remote ancestors.
Asian-Americans tend to be very conscientious students who earn high grades. In the workplace, they often complain that they're not seen as leaders and are less likely to be promoted to management. There's a glass (or bamboo?) ceiling. (This is complicated by the fact that many Asians in the U.S. workforce speak English as a second language.)
Our robotics teacher always likes to have a couple girls on the team. They are hard workers and if they are at a competition and require any kind of assistance he sends the cutest girl over to ask another team for help. Because the guys never want to admit they need help and guys on the other teams wouldn't help them anyway. But if a girl asks, well...
Cassandra said...
It's not a guarantee, but I can't imagine a HS graduate doing the kind of work my team does (software development/testing/requirements analysis/technical writing). It's possible, but not likely.
I'm pretty sure all of your employees are HS graduates, since almost all college graduates are HS graduates. (A few might have a GED, instead.)
The college graduates just spent another 4-8 years in the prime of their life earning another credential before they were "allowed" to work, by other people with college degrees.
I have an engineering degree. Vanishingly little of my day to day work requires specific knowledge from my engineering classes.
My degree really says "this person has mental ability of the correct magnitude and type (problem solving.)" It could be replaced with an IQ test and a Myers-Briggs-ish personality test.
Many of my co-workers have had other credentials (non-engineering STEM degrees, or engineering degrees from another discipline.)
And females comprise more than 50% of college students.
Perhaps school has less to do with the real world than was previously thought.
if they are at a competition and require any kind of assistance he sends the cutest girl over to ask another team for help. Because the guys never want to admit they need help and guys on the other teams wouldn't help them anyway. But if a girl asks, well...
I used to live in a building with about sixty condos, and a developer was planning to put up a higher building next door. We objected to the relevant local government committee, and decided, having a very weak case on law and substance, to try putting up the cutest female resident to make our case at the hearing. Disaster - the committee chair turned out to be a gay man. All her flutterring eyelashes and tight jeans were worthless. Fortunately we were in a very marginal district and having kicked up a stink persuaded the local councilman that it wasn't worth his while teeing off a hundred voters. That one worked. Moral of the story - do your homework ! If you're going to engage in corruption, find out the sexual orientation of the person you're trying to corrupt.
Blogger Tony said...
Mark Shields many years ago talked about how the smart and lazy make better leaders than the smart and conscientious according to the "von Molte grid."
"All progress is made by a lazy man looking for an easier way" - Robert Heinlein/Lazarous Long
"Whenever I have a difficult job to do I look for the laziest man I can find. I know he'll find the easiest way to do it." Walter Chrysler (Of Chrysler cars)
"Be Lazy" John Henry http://www.changeover.com/lazy.html
John Henry
Except for 2 semesters for my son, when he was starting in an English language school, my kids had straight As K-12 and both Magna Cum Laude from college.
My son used to drive my daughter crazy. He would come home, go in his room and come out 20-30 minutes later with his homework all done. My daughter, 2 years ahead of him, would spend 2-3 hours a night doing her homework. She used to complain about why she had to study so much harder than him. I don't think he is any smarter than she it.
Same school, same classes, mostly same teachers.
Both have done very well professionally.
My wife, who is a HS teacher in another school also used to complain about my son's homework. She would tell him he was not studying hard enough. I would argue with her telling her that of course he was studying hard enough and not to complain unless his grades slipped. All complaining would do would be to annoy him that that would cause his grades to slip.
John Henry
Ann Althouse said...
I continued mostly that way until 9th grade when I noticed I'd gotten a couple Bs and it was just out of not making a point out of getting straight As. So I made a point of insuring that no class (not even gym) had even a risk of getting a B. I had all As after that and was the valedictorian of my high school class.
IOW- you were a slacker. But you recognized that, admitting you would not be the type of person to succeed in the very best law firm. The difference between valedictorian and salutatorian when my youngest graduated HS was- she took business math senior year, my son took calculus. She's going to college on a full academic scholarship- she's a FEMALE who graduated #1 in her class! He's going to school on a 3 year AROTC scholarship. He's paying for his education with service time. Both participated in sports, neither was a standout. Both did mastermind, student government, and all the other school things. Outside of school- he was an Eagle Scout, and received an award called Hands of Christ from the diocese. She did- nothing. In ten years I'll let you know who's more successful in their professional life. Of course, she may not have one at all. To quote Lee Moore: "Human culture develops to point women in a direction that will make them succeed as women – ie as mothers." There is an inverse correlation between a woman's career success and having children. The more successful a woman is in a business/professional career- the less likely she is to have a child, much less children. We have five. My wife's profession since child #1 has been stay at home mom. Not so surprisingly, all our kids are doing well in life. They don't have standing appointments with their shrinks or their "spiritual advisers". It's really amazing how having a mother at home they can rely on, along with a father supporting the mother and the kid, helps make a well adjusted adult out of a kid. My wife has been an outstanding success in her chosen profession.
My HS back in the early 1970s did class ranking differently. I like the way they did it. GPA wasn't the be all end all. You took a 3 credit class- and got an A, 4X3, 12 points. 4 for an A, 3 for a B, 2 for a C, 1 for a D. You took a challenging 3 credit class and got a B? 9 points. But you took an extra 1 credit classes and got an A- 4 points. Makes up for that 3 point loss. Someone couldn't take the bare minimum number of classes and graduate #1. You had to load your schedule up- and all the good students did- and THEN get good grades. But a single B wouldn't kill your class ranking. There were all sorts of one quarter specialty courses. Like military history. City planning. Cooking. Teachers could design one quarter classes THEY wanted to teach, and as long as it had a way of being graded academically, it could pretty much be approved. Aad the classes were enjoyable, because only kids who were interested in that subject would actually be in the class.
For women willing to take risks--and sacrifice family life--the rewards are out there. It's not true that you can 'have it all'. Lindsey Vonn comes to mind. She is a fearless competitor and, though she is now on the brink of retirement and has destroyed her body beyond repair, she is the winningest US alpine skier of all time.
I remember vividly when I was a girl — maybe in 6th grade, when my cartooning of the teacher peaked — that I was highly verbal and having great fun with it when a boy said to me: "No one will ever marry you."
@Althouse, and you let that get to you? FOR SHAME! My wife had her own mother tell her that no one would marry her unless she hid her intelligence and didn't let potential boyfriends know how smart she was.
We're coming up on our 45th wedding anniversary. I was utterly captivated by a woman so obviously intelligent. I am so DAMNED lucky to have met someone who is both lovely and scary smart.
John Henry,
I think we've had this discussion before. At a previous job I cut 6 work days a year out by switching from a smooth V belt that cost 60 cents to a cogged V belt that cost twice as much. I had to do the math for the bean counter to show him how buying one belt a year for$1.20 was cheaper than 4 belts at 60 cents. Replaced sleeve bearing motors at $69 with ball bearing motors at $79 that lasted more than twice as long. Small circulating pumps with pump seals with sealed rotor pumps. Each change I made was designed to make my job easier and in the long term reduce costs.
Bureaucrats actually don't appreciate it when you reduce costs. Reduces their budget making them less "successful" since bureaucratic success is measured by budget size.
Observations that I have not already seen upthread that may have some bearing on this discussion.
(1) Who thinks mean girls stop being mean when they leave high school? Women knife the young, pretty, and talented females in the back all the time, every chance they get. I've seen it again and again. Hell, back in the 1980s I interviewed at a firm where the two founders thought it was hilarious that their executive secretary drove off the young female engineers they hired. I couldn't end that interview fast enough.
(2) I can't be bothered to read a Times article, but if the author's thesis is that school does a bad job of preparing women for the real world, then I am 100% in agreement. They also do a crappy job of preparing men, but somehow we men tend to be more resilient.
(3) In many fields it can fairly be said that women are, on average, better than men, but that the very best are usually men. One noted bridge author wrote that "women are better but men are the best." Applies all over.
(4) When you have two individuals in a partnership working on advancing one career, that one career is obviously more likely to work out better than when you have two individuals in a partnership advancing two careers. The net may be that the two careers work out better for the couple, but it will be harder to compete against the case when there are two brains advancing a single career.
Girls are not 'cooperative'. They are every bit as competitive as boys. They are just more subtle about it.
I have been told that left handed people are both smarter, and more successful, and/or creative
That bit of information is accepted as a naturally occurring difference
But just attempt to say males and females are different, and all hell breaks out.
Of course the difference is identity politics and the power of politicians to buy votes by promising to right a wrong that doesn't exist, so making progress in fixing the problem cant be measured. A perfect political scam.
Girls are better with school busywork than boys. Boys are better at math when left alone to their own devices, outside of the reach of the 'teachers'. These same borderline autistic boys then go on to found companies like Instagram and Facebook. Meanwhile those girls graduate summa cum laude from Harvard in basket weaving studies and get plum jobs at Facebook. For 'reasons'.
As I scroll through all this, Scouts have started all girl troops this week.
And there is a reason why there are separate troops for boys and girls, and the comments here show some of the reasons. Primarily, boys and girls are different!
And another big reason. U.S. Scout leaders studying other nation's troops with mixed sexes noticed something. The adults in the troop, both male and female leaders, invariably provided more help and guidance to the girls and pretty much left the boys without help and guidance. If your organization is supposed to help kids, and has both boys and girls, it should help both of them. Turns out the best way to do that is separate them as adolescents.
Gospace,
I was just having that same discussion about costs, and putting it in my written recommendations.
People aren't willing to spend, say, 15% more to get a machine that is 2% more efficient even though the extra 2% means an extra week per year of production (2%=40 hourz, single shift)
The extra $150,000 ob the purchase price is visible.
The extra output is hard to see.
John Henry
Gospace,
Ot here but I'll be happy to discuss it if you want to email me.
One of the reasons bureaucrats don't like what you and I do is because it screws up traditional accounting methods.
Search "lean accounting" for more info.
Brian Maskell has a lot of good stuff for download on his site.
John Henry
The greatest moment in high school is realizing that you can skip, that you can quietly walk out of the building and walk home. Amazing. Something like being in prison for a decade and finding the door unlocked.
On Laziness and More:
I have had pretty decent success in the multiple career paths I have taken: Writer: youngest editor (age 21) of a medium-sized weekly newspaper 28,000 circulation that I started myself; cook (was just a part-time job but after I sold the paper to Scripps-Howard, I needed to do something): became a certified chef eventually (years later) being a F&B at a resort hotel right after owning my small waterfront cafe; became a letter carrier with the USPS, made supervisor in 6 months and ended the last five years of my 15 year career with them as a Postmaster of a fairly large city; Trainer/teacher -- corporate trainer, government trainers, legal advocate for the USPS, adjunct professor at my local community college. Maybe a few more avenues.
Why so many? And why did I not ascend further in specific career paths?
Lazy. Big-time lazy. Procrastinator. Being an alcoholic didn't help. That forced some changes when my character defects came to the surface. But coming up on 25 years sober this April and I am comfortable in my own skin and enjoyed my various "jobs". I don't regret any of it. Its been a great ride.
THEOLDMAN
I skipped a great portion of my senior year. 59 days in Biology and got a D. I was voted Most Likely to Succeed by my classmates but failed to graduate with them as I was a half credit short. I skipped Shakespeare classes and found out you cannot BS your way through an essay test if you DIDN'T read the play.
THEOLDMAN
The mistake girls make is thinking that life is like school. It is not. If you spend your life coloring within the lines and sucking up to the teacher, you are not prepared to innovate, to start a business, to deal with chaos.
Corporate taxes were slashed and billionaires own most stocks. Duh
Whom is buying off Trump? Campaign loans from Oligarchy Laundry. National Enquirer, MBS...
Was at skateboard park today. Three dozen men and boys. No fawns.
How many great poker players are women?
How many great chess players are women?
Those activities cannot be matters of discrimination.
The money cannot be faked.
Bureaucrats actually don't appreciate it when you reduce costs. Reduces their budget making them less "successful" since bureaucratic success is measured by budget size.
Very true, Gospace. However, even in the business world there is slim incentive to finish a project under budget.
Geez, Markus, can't hold a job, can you?
Sort of like me. I've done a bunch of different stuff in my life.
Now if I could just focus on one thing...
I wouldn't have it any other way. Neither would you, I expect.
If we were kids today we'd probably be diagnosed with ADD and fed amphetamines (a/k/a Adderall) until our ears turned green.
John Henry
The article is written by idiots, it compares average grades of all males and females (averaging over all subjects and all students) and then wonders top men in some professions do better than top women.... this is incredibly dumb analysis. Why not compare top 1% students among men and women, compare their test scores in science and math, and then correlate this to achievement of top scientists? I bet the difference will go down significantly.
Multiple issues with the study....
1. It compares average grades among all students, and then compares it with achievements of top performers. In other words, it compares different groups of people.... a better study would have looked at top 1% students and then compared them with top corporate performers.
2. It looks at average grades, without distinguishing their relevance. Imagine two students, both got As in math and science, but the first got a better grade in PE and liberal arts. Does it mean we have to expect the first one to be a better physicist?
3. How about looking at what they major at in college? A girl who got all As in a liberal arts college versus a guy who got As and Bs in MIT electrical engineering school. Who is more likely to be a top performer in a technical company?
4. Imagine a girl who gets all As and a boy who is a B student, devoting all his time to programming and computers. Who is more likely to launch a company like Microsoft or Apple?
5. Pregnancy, staying at home moms. What percentage of top performers (men and women) take time off for pregnancy, stay at home with a child?
6, last but not least, shouldn’t this study be used as evidence that today’s grading in schools and colleges are sexually biased?
In short, the study was not done in scientific way.
One more piece of data:
“At the high-end of math performance, high school males significantly outperformed their female peers on the 2016 SAT math test by a ratio of 1.60-to-1 for scores between 700 and 800 (and 1.84-to-1 adjusted for the number of test-takers), and that outcome for superior male math performance on the high end of the distribution has persisted for more than four decades.”
http://www.aei.org/publication/2016-sat-test-results-confirm-pattern-thats-persisted-for-45-years-high-school-boys-are-better-at-math-than-girls/
Blogger Scott said...
For the last seven years, I have done some mentoring for a competitive robotics team, made up of high school students from a variety of backgrounds.
And so forth . . .
I agree with Scott, but I think that it is more helpful to think of men as being as being aggressive, sometimes to a fault, and women as being less agressive, sometimes to a fault.
Men and women need need each other. It is irritating that feminists want equality with men. "Equality" means that they want to be the same as men. Look it up, that's what "equal" means.
Feminism sells itself as a reckoning after millenia of unjust subjugtion. In fact it is a reaction to the state of women in early modernism, when there were no longer servants to manage, and many of the tasks of household management had been automated. If a family does not require a woman to be a homemaker, what does a family need a woman for? Without the sex appeal, she is a spindly, mutilated male.
Althouse : I'm interested in this subject of the downside of conscientiousness.
Me too. In Big 5 terms, conscientiousness breaks down into orderliness and industriousness.
What's the downside to orderliness ? It takes time and effort. The upside is that it saves time and effort later eg in finding things, completing tasks efficiently. So there's an optimal position on the orderliness line, in terms of economy of effort, that will differ task by task, situation by situation. Since we can't be computing this optimal position every five minutes (cos time and effort calculating) we have to fall back on our personality, to do a rough and ready job.
What's the downside to industriousness ? Well again it's a time and effort thing. What we want is results. Lots of input for modest results is inefficient. So skating by maximising results for minimum input is good. But even if we know how to get away with minimising effort per unit of result, we still get more result with more effort. Again we have a case by case judgement call - is this thing worth the effort ? Can I get it with less effort ? And since case by case judgements cost time and effort in themselves, we have to fall back on our personality.
One thing that is instructive to me - a very lazy non-conscientious person - is that if it's something I want to do and enjoy doing, then I can put in hours of hard work without feeling that it's work. Whereas if I don't want to do it, even five minutes is torture and I'm immediately thinking - how can I get out of this ? So it seems to me that industriousness has less to do with the capacity for hard and concentrated work, and more to do with a feeling of guilt that in moments of leisure, you ought to be doing something useful. That is not a feeling that ever engulfs me.
Lewis : I think that it is more helpful to think of men as being as being aggressive, sometimes to a fault, and women as being less agressive, sometimes to a fault
Yes and no. There's a very large overlap between men and women on the aggressive/agreeable spectrum, so most people, men and women are not too far apart. But at the extremes, most very agreeable people are women and most very aggressive people are men. So when we get to "to a fault", it's a bunch of women who don't stand up for themselves at all, are always doing things for other people, and end up being taken advantage of. And it's a bunch of men who cruise the top of the law firms and invvestment banks like sharks, preying on anything they meet; and their low IQ cousins who populate our jails.
Whom [sic] is buying off Trump? Campaign loans from Oligarchy Laundry. National Enquirer, MBS...
Howard the educated fool fails to consider that the obvious answer is “nobody.” He is doing what he believes is best for people who work for a living, and the evidence to date says he’s correct.
Blogger Howard said...
Corporate taxes were slashed and billionaires own most stocks. Duh
Do billionaires own more stocks than 401Ks?
Post a Comment