Re:We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical int...
by zeveb on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @02:57PM
(#12003796)
> My theory is that this is tied to (In the US) men being more tolerant of taking risks, which leads to being more tolerant of failure, which leads to being able to more easily "dust oneself off."
There are some pretty obvious evolutionary psychology reasons for men to take more risks. Whether evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of just-so stories or not, that's another discussion.
Re:We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical int...
by cauterized on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @04:04PM
(#12004386)
There are plenty of enculturation reasons too. Doesn't need to have an evolutionary or biological basis.
Re:We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical int...
by generalledger on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @05:16PM
(#12004888)
I don't know if this is true, but intuitively it seems that something is more likely to be ingrained in a culture if there is already a biological basis for the behavior.
Re:We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical int...
by cauterized on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @07:35PM
(#12005644)
I still strongly question that. For instance, it could be that our double-standard expectations of women create more cognitive dissonance - which might impact confidence or give women a sense that whichever choice they make will be judged as "wrong". Or perhaps girls are less likely to be given the benefit of the doubt when they make mistakes in childhood - teaching them to be less resilient or risk-taking - without there being any biological reason to judge them more harshly.
Re:We built voice modulation to mask gender in technical int...
by killface on Wednesday June 29, 2016 @05:35PM
(#12005007)
Failing is also how you succeed. You learn all the ways to fail, then try to avoid that. You can't fail unless you try. You won't be willing to try if you are terrified of failure.
The key thing is stop treating failure like some sort of personal fault (or to stop teaching kids or women to internalize it as a fault). It's why stuff like telling kids you're proud of how hard they worked is generally better than telling them how smart they are. Reward the work, the risk taking, even the failing. It's how you get stronger.
This conclusion (imo) should have been bolded. I disagree that getting women to "dust themselves off" is an easier fix than if there were inherent bias against women in interviewing.
My theory is that this is tied to (In the US) men being more tolerant of taking risks, which leads to being more tolerant of failure, which leads to being able to more easily "dust oneself off."
I'd imagine if you looked at women in this study who played competitive sports, they would be less likely to leave the platform.
Risk-aversion might also contribute to women being less likely to ask for a promotion, raise, or negotiate salary.
I disagree that "dusting yourself off" as being an easy fix similarly for why I think "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" is not an effective way to elevate people out of poverty. There are more cultural biases to overcome than a simple behavior change.