…are science deniers:
Ms. Benenson explains that there’s an “inherent conflict in unrelated females’ relations with one another.” They very much want one another’s support—as coalition partners and for help with childcare—but “they must invest first and foremost in their families.” In fact, because we are driven to pass on our own genes or at least those of people closely related to us, it really doesn’t make evolutionary sense for a woman to invest in an unrelated woman, except as a form of self-protection.
How this plays out among women leads to some “very confusing” (and often ugly) relationships, with women as covert competitors, using tools including gossip and social exclusion to push down other women, especially any who dare to stand out.
Men, on the other hand, are direct and domineering with one another from boyhood on in a way that women are not. Men come together in groups, while women form dyads—groups of two. Men love competition and contests to see who’s best, whereas women get insulted if one woman seems to be asserting herself as better than the others.
In fact, research finds that women bond through sharing their failures and vulnerabilities—an essential bit of information that helps explain what Sandberg merely laments: women’s not proclaiming their greatness in the workplace and not finding it natural to just march right up and “sit at the table.”
Although Ms. Sandberg, like other business advice writers, repeats the stereotype of women as “communal,” it is actually men who evolved to be cooperators in a way that women, ever-vigilant that another woman might get one over on them, did not. When men aren’t fighting each another, they are quick to band together against a common enemy. Or, after kicking each other’s asses, they’ll go and have a beer.
Sure, it’s 2015, and we’re marching through the workplace with iPhones instead of pawing in the underbrush for berries, but this evolved psychology is still driving us, and it’s to the detriment of the women who read Ms. Sandberg’s book that it is ignored instead of taken into account.
People should be treated as individuals, not members of groups, but it’s foolish to deny the intrinsic differences between men and women. In a sense, they’re almost different symbiotic species.
Your skeptic’s hat looks good on you — maybe you should put it on.
So, you’re a science denier, too?
I can’t tell if you’re making fun of the climate change debate or if you’re just being intellectually inconsistent. How persuaded were you by what the article described as “a near mountain of research”?
I find it quite plausible. I find the position that there are no differences between men and women other than genital configuration absurd, even insane.
Ten seconds of googling found sharp criticism of the research in question, as you’d expect if you are in the sciences.
http://www.science20.com/curt_rice/why_are_women_so_uncooperative-131154
It appears to me that you are uncritically swallowing claims in the popular press because they are backed by “scientific research”, (a near mountain’s worth!) in just the way that people accept claims in the popular press about climate change (claims supported by a whole mountain range of research!1!)
Of course there’s sharp criticism of it. I’d be shocked if there weren’t, given how politically incorrect it is.
The research is criticized for its methodology, not its politics.
Don’t be too hard on Bob, he’s been carefully studying and learning how to lean in for awhile now and is convinced it’s benefited him greatly. This one clearly hit a nerve.
No, my response has nothing to do with “lean in”.
When I read the words “it really doesn’t make evolutionary sense…”, my biology BS meter maxed out. I’m surprised you aren’t applying even a tiny fraction of the skepticism you apply to climate change research.
I’m not saying I agree with this particular study. I’m saying that people who think there aren’t significant differences between men and women, as a result of evolution, are nuts.
Things I don’t want to read on Rand’s blog:
my biology BS meter maxed out.
@Bob-1
Define “science.”
What makes a person, a “scientist”?
Maybe somewhat related: one difference between men and women explained to me by my girlfriend many moons ago was that a woman having a problem, say in a relationship, didn’t really care about the practical advice offered by a male friend, even though it made perfect sense, but preferred to wallow in the empathy she got from a female friend. “Oh, I know just how you feel, let me tell you about my similar experience,” kind of thing.
Look up “learning by analogy” and “case-baed reasoning” if you want to learn more about this.
““case-baed ” ==> “case-based”
So you are saying there are differences, or there aren’t?
I’m always amused by tabula racists. Feminism tells us that women are less violent and more empathetic, but the second a study comes out hinting at a difference between the sexes, the tabula rasa theory rears its ugly head.
Are you going to answer Jon’s question, Bob-1? On the Dark Lord’s blog (that’ll be Vox Day for the uninitiated), failure to answer an easy yes or no question will get you banned.
Jon: “So you are saying there are differences, or there aren’t?”
R7 Rocket: “failure to answer an easy yes or no question ”
Ha ha ha! You think this reduces to an easy yes or no question? The question isn’t whether men and women are different, the question is how they are different, especially given that individuals will be different from each other regardless of gender.
The idea here was that someone was a “science denier”, that someone else did “a near mountain of research”. So, naturally, I thought it was on-topic to talk about the actual scientific research. I don’t think it is appropriate reflect on your intuition or what you think is “insane”. Instead, one should learn about experiments and think about what the experiments might mean, if anthing.
Also consider the claim: ” In fact, because we are driven to pass on our own genes or at least those of people closely related to us, it really doesn’t make evolutionary sense for a woman to invest in an unrelated woman, except as a form of self-protection.”
First, why would this be different for men?
Second, is it even true? I have a reading suggestion for you, one that you might find interesting regardless of any political axes you might otherwise want to grind.
Have a look at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operation_(evolution) In particular look at section 9, which is titled ” Evolutionary mechanisms which suggest that reciprocity is the result of, rather than the cause of the evolution of cooperation”
Isn’t that intriguing?! Have a look!
The too long didn’t read version: fitness signals can lead to counter-intuitive behavior.
@Bob-1
The question asked if differences (big or small) existed between men and women. Yes or no. Chris Gerrib was asked on Vox Day a similar easy to answer question. He answered with a long twisty answer (a typical gamma male answer) that ignored the question. His gamma male ass got shit-canned on Vox Day’s blog.
And I noticed that you refused to define “science” and define who a “scientist” is.
I see nothing objectionable in how wikipedia defined science in the first two paragraphs of its article on the subject. I suspect you want me to say that science is a process, not a body of knowledge, and yes, I do think that.
Anyone who uses science can be considered a scientist – science is for everyone to use. I suspect you want me to say that science isn’t reserved for professionals, and yes, I do think that, too.
I used google to find out how “gamma male” is defined.
Gamma Male
A person who rejects status and authority, believing that thinking for oneself is possible and desirable, and valuing freedom most.
But you didn’t mean it that way, did you? I’m sorry you are squandering a chance to have an interesting conversation.
Actually I think your desire for any interesting conversation was succinctly revealed at the very top of this thread with the lazy and intellectually vapid dismissal of the source link, using “skeptic hat” and attempting to draw a parallel with global warming.
As our host has stated, the position that there are no differences between men and women other than genital configuration is absurd, even insane. You don’t like that for some reason. Got it.
Acknowledging the fact that men and women are different would be heresy against Bob-1’s religion.