Do Women Give Up Competing More Easily? Evidence from the lab and math Olympiad
aeaweb.org
aeaweb.org
I have observed this difference myself anecdotally, it is sometimes almost comical in young males to have completely unearned confidence in math and technical skills. I have always thought this is tied to normal effects of testosterone.
So everything's a competition, for many males.
How did society educate men to compete on everything ? Why would it ?
And on the other hand, women have low levels of testosterone.
But we know one area where they tend to strongly compete: competing on a mate.
And it's interesting: Just a whiff of a woman close to ovulation is enough to stimulate another woman's testosterone levels, along with her desire to compete.[1]
[1]https://www.livescience.com/39902-women-smell-competition.ht...
You can read more about it by getting into Tournament Theory, but the basic gist is this: "winners" get paid more than their output is worth, "losers" less, but the average participant's compensation tends to be proportional to the average value of work. It's useful when the difficulty of measuring output is so burdensome to make piece-work uneconomical.
There's other categories where the pay incentives are necessary. Taking on physically dangerous, unpleasant, or taxing work (eg, oilfield workers), or doing jobs that require a large investment in skill development (doctors, software developers). If you don't have the pay differential, a lot of important jobs just won't get done.
>Is it really worth chasing when the end goal is trying to label individuals based on a set of predetermined qualities?
It absolutely makes a big difference when it comes to public policy. If the unequal outcomes are because one sub-group is more willing to take the risks we want to avoid or develop the skills we don't have time to learn, it's extremely counterproductive to try to fix those outcomes. The inequality is the price we pay to get people to do things they'd rather not. Backtracking on these incentive gradients is short-sighted at best.
I disagree a lot of people seek a higher ranking job because of power. Once they have the power they give themselves more.
Would you rather clean bathrooms or tell others when to clean them for the same pay?
Maybe, but those are not the sorts of people you want in high-ranking jobs, as a general rule. So it still makes sense to explicitly reward competence as an alternative.
https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-women-participate-in-pro...
It's not about what's best for a species. It's about which individual breeds how much before death.
And looking at it from that point of view makes it even more straightforward. Especially if you consider that historically approximately 80% of males died without having offspring.
If a gene in a male has a higher standard deviation than in a female, this can all be explained at the gene level.
This comes to mind:
"Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth, and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and Openness to Ideas.
Contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures.
Contrary to predictions from the social role model, gender differences were most pronounced in European and American cultures in which traditional sex roles are minimized. Possible explanations for this surprising finding are discussed, including the attribution of masculine and feminine behaviors to roles rather than traits in traditional cultures."
How is it contrary? I don’t know a single evolutionary theorist who denies impact of culture on behavior.
But the scientific evidence shows innate differences between genders.
There are studies out there showing gender differences between human babies (boys and girls) and even between baby chimps.
I would consider saying that gender differences are solely or even mostly society based as science denial.
I merely wrote that differences between men and women are not only biological but also based on social structures.
You start by saying that you agree with this and then you make our own statements.
I am incredulous about how linking a study from a scientific journal is evidence of science denial.
But my point on science denial was that saying that it is all or mostly society based still stands.
It is a good thing that nobody here said that then.
>We use lab experiments and field data from the Dutch Math Olympiad to show that women are more likely than men to stop competing if they lose. In a math competition in the lab, women are much less likely than men to choose competition again after losing in the first round. In the Math Olympiad, girls, but not boys, who fail to make the second round are less likely to compete again one year later. This gender difference in the reaction to competition outcomes may help to explain why fewer women make it to the top in business and academia.
Hence a further deeper study would be inciteful. Did those who did not try again, try something else and shift focus and how well did they do in that new focus. That would be the biggest question.
It is believable that there are sex and age based differences in the distribution of risk taking as a result of both culture and biology. Bias for or against an individual based on these tendencies is wrong when used to pre-judge that person.
What about the outcome bias for people or groups with differing risk tendencies?
Is it morally necessary to compensate for different risk strategies? Which ones and to what degree? Which sources of cause should get this privilege and which shouldn't?
There is a vocal group that insists that any disparity in outcome needs to be corrected, at least for their preferred groups.
There is another that insists that it is immoral to punish (in any way) the hard work and other characteristics that lead to success outcomes.
No, I'm not making any overarching claims to be taken up and enforced by a government or similar entity. And diversity of most sorts has value in a population.
Actually, my biggest take away from all this is that it is even more important to stop framing things as zero-sum competitions and more as collaborations where an individual can find a space fitting of their grit, skills and interests.
http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mas...
I'm not familiar with the programming language nor the file format.
In addition, a 2016 draft of the paper appears to be available here (found by searching for the paper's title): https://site.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj8706/f/buser-y...
Ungated PDF is here:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Do-Women-Give-Up-Compe...
My advice to you is to avoid bureaucratic/academic language that is nearly devoid of meaning. For example, "there [are] often aspects of human capital that can only be seen on the level of organization and not the individual" and "it has the potential to reduce oversight by leveraging a variety of perspectives."
T. Buser, H. Yuan, ``Do women give up Competing more easily? Evidence from the Lab and the Dutch Math Olympiad,'' 2016-11-10. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/7151108/Buser_and_Yuan_2016.pdf
First few exams and I had WAY better marks than all of them, lol.
(As a side effect of this, one could predict that approaches to mitigation of impostor syndrome (which there are a few of) will be especially helpful if you're concerned about improving women's representation. Somewhat ironically though, the "ideological echo chamber" that is most active in pursuing these goals is not always very open to such notions!)
Someone who is well aware of how complex a subject is can find a given class to be easy, which would imply they are not under the Dunning-Kruger effect. Confidence alone is not sufficient.
Edit: that they ended up with lower marks due to not studying due to overconfidence due to the earlier ease of the topic seems like it would fall under Dunning-Kruger.
Is that the wise thing to do? Looking at you guys.
Is your claim simply that we overweight it?
So, learning and practice? Or how do you distinguish between what someone should and shouldn't be able to achieve?
That all seems very flawed and reductionist.
Who decides where someone is "supposed to" end up?
Um, how are people who give up earlier more deserving?
My read (could be wrong) of what you wrote is that you may value potential/innate talent more than achievement/work. Which you are, of course, free to do. Personally, I value achievement/work over potential/innate talent.
Which rather implies that men who get degrees in engineering tend to carry on into working in engineering because they lack the imagination to do something else.
What about the option that they really want to do engineering.
Also I get a ton of joy from STEM-based personal projects that wouldn't be possible if I didn't level up my skills through work and play
There are other fields which are also fun (obviously), but STEM has all the really cool puzzles and weird edge cases that a certain type of personality really likes.