Cracking the Male Code of Office Behavior
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
This sounds like a wildlife researcher entering protected habitats to observe a rare species under natural conditions. It also betrays the underlying assumption that men and women are two completely different species that live in completely separate worlds. Throughout the article that assumption is never challenged.
> The male brain has the enviable ability to essentially switch off emotions when desired — in part because it’s hard for a man to think clearly in the face of emotion.
Big news: everybody does that, no matter what gender they are. It's called compartmentalization, without it people would not be able to function. Emotional reactions and analysis are pushed off to a future point in time whenever more pressing concerns are at hand. That's a basic mental triage technique and everybody can do it. There are also many people who _never_ do it, and in my experience there was no significant gender difference to that behavior.
> When men see a worker taking criticism personally, seeming to push too hard for his or her ideas, or having a personality conflict, they automatically view that worker as less business-savvy and less experienced, or as someone who operates on emotion, not logic.
Paragraphs like this make excellent statements for people who like evolutionary psychology, but they're simply not rooted in fact. In my experience, most "Type A" personalities who do like to dish out harsh personal criticism like it's a bodily function simply cannot take the same when it is directed at them. Likewise, the perception of business-savvyness is probably always linked to the perception of sameness: successful businesspeople attribute superior skills to people whom they perceive as similar to their own personality. And again, I observed no significant difference between sexes here. Regarding the unspoken assumption of public displays of male toughness: I've seen tough jock-types sitting under their desks crying just because someone had looked at them funny.
> The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn’t designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man’s brain does, a woman can — if she chooses — force a calm demeanor when she is starting to feel defensive.
That's a lie. This statement has nothing to do with science.
All in all this article is a standard set of misleading statements, "obvious" assumptions and outright lies. It's designed to be popular on the net while providing less than no value for readers interested in team dynamics.
That's a lie. This statement has nothing to do with science.
Can you point in the direction of something that proves or disproves that statement? I've witnessed a lot of anecdotal evidence that women don't do as well at compartmentalization as men. I didn't make much of it until I also read a book that points it out ("Viva La Diferencia" by Pilar Sordo) as one of the differences between typical male and typical female behavior.
All in all, it seems that the typical behavioral patterns are different enough between males and females, so I'm interested in evidence both for and against it. Your categorical statement makes it look like you can produce some of that evidence.
Like I said, that's a _very_ popular opinion and it sells a lot of books. It's also something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn’t designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man’s brain does
You ask me to prove my assertion that this is not based science, and of course I can mostly point to the fact that the supposed science the article is talking about was itself not cited anywhere. So I have to prove a negative, but the article gets a pass with disguising a blanket statement as science just because it resonates better with popular world views?
There is no actual biological or medical evidence supporting the article's claims. Pop psychology studies of this matter are hampered by the simple fact that they're unable to distinguish cultural from biological mechanisms. Evolutionary psychology is also considered a pseudoscience because it's based on starting with equating popular assumptions to self-evident truths and then going out to find evidence to support these arbitrary claims, while ignoring everything else.
Like I said, that's a _very_ popular opinion and it sells a lot of books.
I agree that it's popular. What I'm trying to find out is how much of it is just an opinion and how much is proven. There certainly seems to be a behavioral pattern out there.
It's also somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
What do you mean by "somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy"?
You ask me to prove my assertion that this is not based science, and of course I can mostly point to the fact that the supposed science the article is talking about was itself not cited anywhere. So I have to prove a negative, but the article gets a pass with disguising a blanket statement as science just because it resonates better with your world view?
No, not really. It seems I wasn't clear enough with my question. I wasn't asking you to prove your "assertion that this is not based science". When you said "That is a lie", I saw what seemed to be categorical denial of the claim that men and women have different capacity for compartmentalization and I was intrigued enough by your vehemence to ask you to point me to what made you so sure.
The article didn't "get a pass" because it never even entered into my side of discussion at all.
There is no significant difference in functional brain structure or organization to suggest these differences are hard-wired. In fact, most of the brain is still considered a black box and basic research is still occupied with finding out how the basic building blocks interact. Sadly, that leaves people who's job it is to examine learned behavior with a lot of room to assert biological predisposition in an attempt to make their (often amateurish) statistical findings more substantial. They get away with it, too, mainly because their opinions are so popular, and their popularity growths with the number of studies appearing in mainstream press in support of the majority world view.
> There certainly seems to be a behavioral pattern out there.
There are many different behavioral patterns out there and what you get to experience depends largely on the country, cultures and subcultures you are embedded in. I'm not denying that behaviors exist, I'm just speaking out against abusing science to falsely attribute underlying biological causes to behavior that is very likely more learned than innate.
> What do you mean by "somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy"?
I mean the traditional view of gender behavior (which has recently once again become the modern view) is not only imprinting people with a specific bias but also causes humans to behave accordingly. It thus becomes a self-sustaining system, because the more people believe it to be true, the more they behave accordingly, and the more they gather evidence in support of the underlying values. It's a cycle, and confirmation bias does the rest of the work.
> When you said "That is a lie", I saw what seemed to be categorical denial of the claim that men and women have different capacity for compartmentalization and I was intrigued enough by your vehemence to ask you to point me to what made you so sure.
Ah, OK, I misunderstood you there. The statement made in the article is not supported by hard science, as far as I know. This is what prompted me to claim the implication that gender behavior is rooted in well-documented scientific observations and models is indeed a lie. Of course, there are many behavioral studies carefully designed show ...pretty much anything you could ever want. But that's not the equivalent of hard science. That's statistics with an agenda.
Interestingly enough, there was a popular meme in mainstream media about scientific results "wearing off", i.e. becoming less true over time. The results in question used to document this alleged property of the universe were mostly - wait for it - pop psychology studies with agendas behind them. It's telling that these people would rather assume intelligent malice exerted by the universe than admitting their studies were bogus to begin with. These studies are mostly human behavior studies that basically equate popular opinions with universal truths, and then those researchers are shocked, shocked! to find out their results don't hold up over time.
Yes, that's pretty spot on, for me at least. (I'm male)
At times I know I can be overly blunt and appear insensitive - in the vast majority of cases I'm not trying to make a value judgement, just calling it how I see it. Thus, getting an emotional response back is somewhat shocking - to exaggerate for effect:
A: "Two plus Two is Four"
B: "OMG really!?! You're a horrible person for thinking that!"
A: "Um, I'm confused... what's wrong with you?"
Those that create subjective work, like designers and musicians, often latch onto their solutions with an emotional vigor. It’s as if they view their work as some part of themselves.
If you're a good artistic / creative person with that sort of mind, it pretty much is.
If you find yourself being manoeuvred against like that, find a female cow-orker to deal with it for you. Real women will destroy those who stoop to that tactic like a guided missile.
These rules aren't subconscious, are they? I was quite explicitly told that letting personality issues get in the way of business is bad for business (meaning everyone in the business) and that, for the sake of everyone around me, I should get over myself and work with other people. And it seems that someone pushing too hard for their own ideas has ego issues and would also be bad for the business as a whole.
Learning to not take criticism personally is a great life skill that everyone should have!
"For a man"? Wouldn't it be hard for, you know, anyone, man or woman, to think clearly if they're over-emotional at the moment?
The same is true for men of course. While most of us refrain from emotions at work, any man who's had a fight with his wife knows he's been just as irrational when the emotions run high.
The important take away: emotions aren't valuable at work.
> The expectation that people shut down personal feelings at work has become one of men’s subconscious, “unwritten rules.” When men see a worker taking criticism personally, seeming to push too hard for his or her ideas, or having a personality conflict, they automatically view that worker as less business-savvy and less experienced, or as someone who operates on emotion, not logic. (I was shocked to discover that most men view negative emotion as a signal that logic has ceased.)
and this:
> So when we raise our hand in a meeting and ask directly, “Bob, why did you choose that pricing?” we are just asking for information. Bob, on the other hand, may be angrily thinking, “I can’t believe she is challenging my judgment in front of my team.”
How come when women take criticism personally and respond emotionally and men don't get it (as in example 1) it's a problem, but when women are blunt about their questions and men respond emotionally (as in example 2) it's not the exact same problem? Looks like a double standard that plays on the "women are emotional, men are not" myth to me.
One example that comes to mind is that some women will actually cry at work. For males that aren't used it, this can be a major WTF moment and they'll take it as a major sign of instability or irrationality. In fact, it is just a coping mechanism and it does not have the same meaning or weight as it would for a man to cry.
In other words, if a woman cries at work, the equivalent behavior for man would be an aggressive retort or a temporary withdrawl from the situation. For women, this might seem like the man is a being a jerk-- but, like crying, it is coping mechanism.
Is that clearly science?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Cracking+the+Male+Code+of+Off...