"...What happens if you look at sex differences in personality and interest by country? Are the differences bigger in some countries and smaller in others? Would the differences between men and women be larger or smaller in wealthier countries? In more egalitarian countries? The answer: the more egalitarian and wealthier the country, the larger the differences between men and women in temperament and in interest. And the relationship is not small. The most recent study, published in Science (by researchers at Berkeley, hardly a hotbed of conservatism and patriarchy) showed a relationship between a wealth/egalitarian composite measure and sex differences that was larger than that reported in 99% of published social science studies. These are not small-scale studies. Tens of thousands of people have participated in them. And many different groups of scientists have come to the same conclusions, and published those results in very good journals.
Given that differences in temperament and interest help determine occupational choice, and that differences in occupational choice drives variability in such things as income, this indicates that political doctrines that promote equality of opportunity also drive inequality of outcome.
This is a big problem — particularly if the goal of such egalitarian policies was to minimize the differences between men and women. It’s actually a fatal problem for a particular political view. The facts can be denied, but only at the cost of throwing out social science in its entirety and a good bit of biology as well. That is simply not a reasonable solution.
The best explanation, so far, for the fact of the growing differences is that there are two reasons for the differences between men and women: biology and culture. If you minimize the cultural differences (as you do with egalitarian social policies) then you allow the biological differences to manifest themselves fully...."
RE: The more egalitarian, the more men and women differ
To elaborate on how greed and risk aversion drive career choices, consider the computer industry.
Before 1970, the computer industry was actually majority female. But the field took off in the 80s. Demand for workers skyrocketed, so salaries had to increase to draw in workers. By the late 90s, an average 22 year old with an electrical engineering degree from a decent school would fetch 80k-100k in salary. Because men are greedier than women, men were much more motivated by the higher salaries than women.
Also, the tech industry had a lot of startup firms. Much of the worker's pay was in the form of stock that would be useless if the firm folded. Very risky. Women, who on average are more risk averse than men, were less likely than men to choose the field because of this form of pay.
As a result, men joined the computer industry in huge numbers, and women did not. By the early 1990s it was the most male dominated white-collar industry. It still is today.
RE: The more egalitarian, the more men and women differ
(12-19-2018 12:49 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: To elaborate on how greed and risk aversion drive career choices, consider the computer industry.
Before 1970, the computer industry was actually majority female. But the field took off in the 80s. Demand for workers skyrocketed, so salaries had to increase to draw in workers. By the late 90s, an average 22 year old with an electrical engineering degree from a decent school would fetch 80k-100k in salary. Because men are greedier than women, men were much more motivated by the higher salaries than women.
Also, the tech industry had a lot of startup firms. Much of the worker's pay was in the form of stock that would be useless if the firm folded. Very risky. Women, who on average are more risk averse than men, were less likely than men to choose the field because of this form of pay.
As a result, men joined the computer industry in huge numbers, and women did not. By the early 1990s it was the most male dominated white-collar industry. It still is today.
I take exception to your characterization of maximizing earning potential as greed. While some may indeed be greedy, my desire to earn money to provide for my family and support the charitable causes I believe in, does not make me greedy.
RE: The more egalitarian, the more men and women differ
(12-22-2018 01:13 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:
(12-19-2018 12:49 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: To elaborate on how greed and risk aversion drive career choices, consider the computer industry.
Before 1970, the computer industry was actually majority female. But the field took off in the 80s. Demand for workers skyrocketed, so salaries had to increase to draw in workers. By the late 90s, an average 22 year old with an electrical engineering degree from a decent school would fetch 80k-100k in salary. Because men are greedier than women, men were much more motivated by the higher salaries than women.
Also, the tech industry had a lot of startup firms. Much of the worker's pay was in the form of stock that would be useless if the firm folded. Very risky. Women, who on average are more risk averse than men, were less likely than men to choose the field because of this form of pay.
As a result, men joined the computer industry in huge numbers, and women did not. By the early 1990s it was the most male dominated white-collar industry. It still is today.
I take exception to your characterization of maximizing earning potential as greed. While some may indeed be greedy, my desire to earn money to provide for my family and support the charitable causes I believe in, does not make me greedy.
Ignore charity for a moment and assess only your consumption: if you consumed half of your current level of consumption, you'd still probably be in the top 1% of the world. If that's not greedy, what is?
When I visited rural Ireland in 2012, I ran into a family who told me that their grownup son just got back from working on a fishing boat. He wanted to build a house for his wife, so he took a job to earn money. He quit when he saved enough to buy the house. I was struck by the casual assumption that unless he's earning money for a particular purchase, a man's place is at home with his family.
RE: The more egalitarian, the more men and women differ
Greed is a natural human condition. It is often attributed to capitalism, but that is in error. Greed exists in human nature, so it exists in any economic system. As Milton Friedman so eloquently pointed out to Phil Donaue, were the Soviet commissars not greedy?
The difference is that capitalism harnesses greed for good instead of trying to eliminate it. Under capitalism you do best, in the long run, by producing a quality product and selling it at a reasonable price. Under fascism or socialism or communism, you do best by gaming the system, which is why those systems do not work in the long run.
RE: The more egalitarian, the more men and women differ
(01-03-2019 11:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Greed is a natural human condition. It is often attributed to capitalism, but that is in error. Greed exists in human nature, so it exists in any economic system. As Milton Friedman so eloquently pointed out to Phil Donaue, were the Soviet commissars not greedy?
The difference is that capitalism harnesses greed for good instead of trying to eliminate it. Under capitalism you do best, in the long run, by producing a quality product and selling it at a reasonable price. Under fascism or socialism or communism, you do best by gaming the system, which is why those systems do not work in the long run.
Exactly!
I'm a finance professor. I show my classes the following clip and ask them if they agree with it. Then I tell them that I disagree with it. Then I say EXACTLY what you just said.