Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I do not know what is required of the person to become an upper-level
    manager, but from my experience on average men are brighter than women.
    Still it probably is not one of the criterias. 
    
    Liza

    Gee, Dan.  You're just having a *grand* time lately, aren't you!
    
    (*8

    Re: .1
    
    I think I can agree that brightness is probably not one of the
    criteria for succeeding in management :-)
    
    Mary

    >on average men are brighter than women
    
    ??????????????????????????????????????
    
    Stunned,
    D!

    
    gosh, i must be getting dyslexic. i read it as 'women brighter
    than men' (which is, of course, true :^). oops.
    

    RE: "Men are brighter than women."
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    [Doesn't deserve a response.]
    
    
    

    
>    > I do not know what is required of the person to become an upper-level
>    > manager, but from my experience on average men are brighter than women.
>    > Still it probably is not one of the criterias. 
>
....................
    
>    The second clause of that same sentence says clearly and only that it
>    is the writer's personal experience that men are brigher than women if
>    the "average" is considered meaningful.  There is nothing here, either,
>    that indicates any possible difference in the criteria for promotion to
>    VP level.
 
	Actually, if you read the second clause, it says that Liza has 
	experience on average men.
 
   
 >   In short, there is not the slightest possibility of a valid English
 >   interpretation of .1 such that a difference in severity of the criteria
 >   for men and women is even mentioned - unless by stretching the point,
 >   one might assume that the whole reply taken together implies that a
 >   woman can be promoted by, perhaps, displaying talents other than
 >   intelligence.  I really prefer not to consider that .1 means this.
  

	A sentence with 59 words is obviously been written to obfuscate.

	Dumbfounded of Reading.

    re .1, yes, and men are so big & strong, too....
    
    Lorna
    

    Why bother discussing in great detail the possible semantic
    interpreations of a sentance written in .1, when you could simply...ask
    the author!!!
    
    (I thought the sentence was pretty clear...but you guys seems to feel
    there is some ambiguity, and it seems better to ask than to guess.)
    
    D!

    Not to mention, they'll take care of us poor, defenseless women, won't
    they?
    
    Karen

    'nother side-tracked discussion ...

    
    Re -1
    
    What he said.
    
    'gail

    re: .1 
    
    > from my experience on average men are brighter than women
    
    I'm not gonna flame because that's Liza's experience and she stated
    it as such.
    
    But here's what I've heard on the subject, (can't remember any sources
    though).
    
    Research on intelligence has shown that there is no significant
    difference in the mean intelligence of men vs. women, but there
    is a significant difference in the standard deviation.  The s.d.
    for men is higher than for women.
    
    This means that on average men are not brighter than women, but
    they are more deviant. :-)
    
    Mary
    
    
    

    Another remark I heard made on TV some time ago (yes, well I usually
    write basenotes in EF91 after watching TV but this one seemed
    interesting here :-)):
    
    Prof. Galjaard (don't ask me what he does these days) said there was a
    correlation between functioning of male and female managers in
    different organisations. On the whole it seemed that men were "better"
    in hierarchical organisations, whereas women were "better" in flat
    organisations. He pleaded to look at these sort of correlations and
    appreciate that there were differences in men and women that might
    better not be stamped out but rather taken advantage of.
    
    Musing on this (I don't know whether he's right) I figure a flat
    organisation works just as good as a hierarchical but if you have a
    majority of managers of either sex the organisation would adapt to
    that. For as far as I know, most organisations nowadays are still
    hierarchical and that would be, according to Galjaard's theory, a
    disadvantage to women. If he's right it would explain quite a lot,
    showing the vicious circle.
    
    Comments?
    
    Ad

  I could guess that one reason women might not, as a general case, function
as well in a hierarchal organization is that they tend to be more consensus
building and in hierarchal organizations you sometimes just have to "sh*t
or get off the pot."  Mind you, I don't know if there really is a statistical
blip that does indicate women are better at consensus building than men.  It
hasn't been my experience that any particular gender is better at it than
the other.

Jim

    Well, I just got another copy of the Who's Who in Digital list
    (as of December 21, 1990).
    
    It was interesting to notice (from the basenote) that Charlotte
    Frederick reports to *two* people.  Further, she is now the only
    Vice President who reports to a manager (Charlie Christ) rather
    than solely to another Vice President (or to K.O. himself).
    
    						Ann B.

    
    I have not realised my very short note would cause such a heated 
    discussion.
     
    1. My English is not perfect as you have undoubtedly noticed
       /my native language is Rissian/.
    2. Men are brighter than women academically - that's what I meant.
    
    3. From my experiance - being a pure math major and having been educated
    in the Soviet Union's one of the best math academic colleges, 
    I had plenty of time and opportunity to watch the phenomenon.
    
    
    4. In the Soviet Union the State made a point 70 years ago to treat
    women the same way as men (I would gladly use very strong words on
    this occasion, if nad any. As I said English is not my native language)
    so there could be no question about unequal treatment of men and 
    women from birth to death. At least I have seen none.
     
    5. Do not think men are smarter or better than women. Hope I used
    my adjectives explicitly. 
    
    6. I've been a woman for the past 35 years and still enjoy it. 
    
     Thank you for listening, any comments are welcome.
    
    Liza
    

    Liza,
    
    I think the difficulty is not that your English is imperfect, but
    that you have not been part of the, how-should-I-label-it, American
    social matrix.  Since the start of the feminist movement in this
    country (over twenty years ago), people have been learning the ways
    in which women have been discouraged from showing their minds,
    discouraged from using their minds, and discouraged from receiving
    any valued rewards for using their minds.
    
    Since you weren't around from the beginning, you missed learning
    many of the sneaky tricks that were used and have been found out.
    Here-and-now the assumption is that you know about them, so no one
    talks about them.  This works just as well as deliberately trying
    to keep them secret!  In sum: From the time a child is born, it is
    taught and trained in ways that promote the success of men, and
    handicap women.  The `mere' fiat of the Soviet government that
    women and men be treated alike would not work -- because the Soviet
    government (like everyone else) had not yet learned all the subtleties
    of how women and men are treated differently.
    
    Would anyone like to comment on the idea of a tutorial note on the
    basic women-men "stuff" feminism has brought to light over the past
    few decades?
    
    						Ann B.

    A tutorial note is a good idea as long as it is merely commentary and
    presentation, and debates can rage elsewhere.  Too much energy has been
    spent here trying to "tutor" already....
    
    -Jody
    

    ye cats,  I'm completely in agreement with .25:
    
>   In making this statement, you have defined the stereotypical male roles
>   (breadwinner, athlete, et cetera) as success and the stereotypical
>   female roles (homemaker, artist, et cetera) as failure....
    
>   The truth is that what children are taught are not just limiting for
>   women; they are limiting for all people.  And that teaching is not just
>   limited to sexual roles; people are limited in all manner of expression
>   and behavior -- that which is different from the norm is discouraged in
>   many, many forms, not just sexual stereotypes.
    
>       				-- edp
    
    Yes, the definitions are sexist, but more than that they just buy into
    the concept of 'success' in our society. To some extent, my own burdens
    have been made heavier by this concept, since I have chosen to try to
    do parts of both sexes' stereotypical roles.
    Men and women both have made the point that often,
         the women's movement has tried to achieve equality in the men's
    world of success (the stereotypical def) rather than to remove the
    stereotyped defs that restrict both men and women.  I see some movement
    in the latter direction, thank goodness.
    
    That said, what .23 said is still true: girl and boy children are
    taught and trained in ways that promote success as defined by society,
    and those ways still tend to restrict us to stereotypically defined
    roles, and the 'successful' roles are the male ones.
    
    So don't ever say again, "only a housewife" or "she doesn't work" for a
    woman at home raising children.  And don't look askance at a man
    running a daycare center (as is our current one).
    
    Sara
    
    totally unrelated comment: I hate this editor.

    re .25
    
    I agree that one can become a successful homemaker.  However, that
    success is not valued as much as that of a scientist, doctor, lawyer,
    architect, engineer, etc.
    
    As for artists, for example, how many *American* male dancers have
    achieved success?  That training begins at an early age, when boys tend
    to be developing their interest in sports.  How many of those boys
    would be teased for showing an interest in dance?
    
    It all depends on how success is measured and how talent is developed. 
    Would that it could be gender and race blind.
    
    
    Judi

    I define success for myself.

    My definition of success is in 529.9.
    
    I still hold by what I wrote in this note:  Girl-children and
    boy-children are both raised in ways that create successful men.
    For example: A housewife-in-training is assured that her goal
    is to make her husband (sic)� comfortable, satisfied, etc., and
    *thereby* become successful and happy and good stuff like that.
    His goal is to be happy; her goal is to make him happy.  'Nuff said.
    
    Like I said:  This is among the basics, as covered in _The_Feminine_
    _Mystique_ by Betty Friedan.  (I'll bet it's also in _The_Second_Sex_
    by Germaine Greer but (blush) I've never read it.)
    
    						Ann B.
    
    � No comments from the Peanut Gallery, please.  :-)

    Germaine Greer?

    notes collision

    
    RE: .23
    
    People can not be encouraged or discouraged to show their minds or
    the lack of it. Galua was handicapped by birth, education, surroundings
    but it did not prevent him from founding one of the most fascinating
    branches of mathematics in his early teens. The same goes for
    Sophia Kovalevskaia. 
    By the way I've read information that was supposed to educate me on
    based-on-sex-discrimination subject. Don't you think you are spending
    more time fighting for your rights than actually using them? 
    
    Liza    

    RE: .33
    
    > Don't you think you are spending more time fighting for your rights
    > than actually using them? 
    
    Interesting observation, Liza.  That's the great American pastime.
    Thanks for your insight.  It's not often that we get to hear the
    opinion of someone who is not culturally and emotionally immersed.
    
    IMHO, Americans are obsessed with rights.  We spend more time worrying,
    complaining, arguing about being controled than we do about taking
    control of ourselves.  Litigation is rampant in America.  Courage is
    rare.
    
    Mary

Re: .27

> I agree that one can become a successful homemaker.  However, that
> success is not valued as much as that of a scientist, doctor, lawyer,
> architect, engineer, etc.

Valued by whom? The problem is not necessarily that of the intrinsic value of
the various professions, but of the subjective value we place on them, and that
we STILL divide them into "women's work" and "men's work". I measure success by
how happy the person is - I am a hedonist in the old fashioned philosophical
sense of the word.

Re: .33

> Galua was handicapped by birth, education, surroundings
> but it did not prevent him from founding one of the most fascinating
> branches of mathematics in his early teens.

And getting killed in a stupid macho duel... (By the way, in the U.S. we spell
his name "Galois".) Likewise my hero Srinivasa Ramanujan - who taught himself
mathematics from a book and, practically singlehandedly, founded modern
number theory.

> Don't you think you are spending more time fighting for your rights than
> actually using them?

Ah, that's the great American Puritan ethic at work again. You aren't allowed to
*enjoy* anything. It has to be for some higher ideal... Likewise, you are never
allowed to be satisfied.

I'm not certain, but perhaps you were trying to say that men achieve more
scholastically, for whatever reason, and so are disproportionately rewarded? I
believe this to be true - and believe that this is one of the subtle roots of
sexism in our society. It starts early, and the differences are multiplied as
time goes on.

On the other hand, half breed mongrels like me are smarter than the rest of
you - hybrid vigor doncha know.

	-- Charles

>    If a company promoted only geniuses to senior positions ...
    
    -edp!  get real!
    
    :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 

	I seem to have grown up in a different environment to this.....

	My mum and dad bought up my sister, myself, and my brothers to be
	independent.

	So when we wanted to set up on our own, we could do so without any
	help from anyone else.

	From the practical side of sewing on buttons, mending fuses, cooking, 
	ironing, wall-papering, painting, balancing a cheque-book, complaining
	about faulty goods/workmanship...........
	It was quite useful really, we did all the chores around the house, not
	just the boring ones.

	In school my parents encouraged us to do what we enjoyed most, for me 
	that was anything to do with numbers,science, and sport, for my sister,
	art,needlework, and marquetry, for one of my brothers it was metalwork 
	and woodwork, for the other it was anything to do with caring for 
	people (he is now a mental nurse). 

	None of this was forced on us.

	As I went to an all-girls school, I was never taught that girls can or 
	can't do a,b,or c better than boys, I assumed that people could do as 
	much or little as they wanted, or were able.
	
	The only influence here might have been on my brother, as my mother is
	a nursing officer, and on my sister, as my father is a cabinet maker.
	
	Heather	

    re Heather, you are lucky to have been raised the way you were.  Many
    of us weren't.  Some children are encouraged to believe that they are
    so stupid that they couldn't achieve even the most average success no
    matter how hard they might try.
    
    re .33, perhaps the reason that some people in the US (or elsewhere)
    continue to fight for (women's) rights is because some people believe
    that there are more to rights than that which affects mathematical
    geniuses.  As has been said before in various ways in this notesfile,
    equality between the sexes is not when female geniuses have the same
    opportunities for success as male geniuses.  It is when the average
    female schmuck has the same opportunity for success as the average male
    schmuck and that is still not the case in the USA.
    
    Lorna
    

    <--(.36)
    
    Eric, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning in this.  To me, the only
    implication of men having a higher SD is that men of any given
    intelligence will test out over a wider range than women, ie that it is
    less easy to figure out a man's "real" score from his test score than
    to figure out a woman's "real" score from her test score.  To take your
    example, if men have s=16, then a man who would test at IQ 100 under
    ideal conditions (ie, 100 is his "real" score) might test anywhere from
    84 to 116, whereas a woman with the same "real" score would test in the
    range 85..115, ie 15 points either way rather than 16.
    
    Could you explain your reasoning a bit more?
    
    							=maggie

    Woops, bit of a statistical miscommuniation.
    
    Could be - standard deviation from the mean.  That's what -edp was
    referring to.  This higher the standard deviation from the mean, the
    "wider" the bell curve, and therefore the more people that occur on the
    extremes.  Therefore if women had a smaller deviation from the mean,
    then there would be fewer female geniuses, and likewise fewer female
    morons.  (I did noticed -edp's bias in that he discusses the
    implications on the higher-than-average end of the scale without
    discussing the implications on the lower-than-average end of the
    scale.)
    
    On the other than, could be standard deviation in measurement, meaning
    how far off, on average, the measured result is from the "real result"
    (although in the case of IQ, what is the "real result"?)  The only way
    to test this sort of standard deviation would be to give the test to
    people multiple times. If women had lower standard deviations, it would
    mean that women would bemore likely to get the same score the second
    (and third, etc.) times round on the test than men.
    
    So which is it?  I dunno.  Just pointing out that either could be
    correct depending on the data.
    
    D!

Re .39: It is never late to learn instead of dwelling on the past,
complaining and begging for opportunity to succeed. 

There is something I do not understand, though. Women want to be recognised
in men-dominated society. They want to be successful according to the 
standards determined by men. Where is women's creativity and initative? 
Why they can not invent their own standards and sets of values instead of 
borrowing? 

    re .42, I wasn't "complaining and begging."  I was merely offering my
    opinion.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re .42, "Where is women's creativity and initiative?"
    
    Unrecognized!
    

    
    re:.42
    i believe many people, yea even in this notesfile, are trying
    very hard to 're-invent' the standards by which people are valued
    in our society. it's a rather tricky manouever when there are
    powerful people and institutions that have a vested interest in
    the status quo.
    

    Re: .36
    
    > Have you considered the mathematical implications of this?
    
    Yes.  My M.S. degree is in Applied Math.  But I found the humorous
    implications to be more *fun* than the mathematical implications.
    
    And yes, it was the s.d. from the mean, i.e. the central tendency of
    the scores.  But as D! pointed out, the same would hold true at the
    low end as well.
    
    > I would be interested in knowing what the standard deviations are
    > alleged to be.
    
    Like I said, can't remember any sources.  It's something I heard or
    read in an Education course as an undergrad.  Don't even know if it
    was a reputable study, but it makes for a helluva good pun IMHO.
    
    Mary

Of course, we are also assuming that

-- the test is an unbiased estimator of IQ.
-- the test is predictive at the +2 SD level.
-- higher IQ (at the +2 SD level) makes one more suitable for
   vice-presidential roles.  (Try explaining *that* to Dan Quayle!)

There's a pretty good body of information about gender/age/ethnic biases
in IQ tests.  For example the analogy question
	mercenary::soldier == hack::writer
was answered correctly by twice as many men as women on a recent SAT test.

IQ tests do not appear to measure negotiation skills, communication skills,
or wisdom (as opposed to knowledge) -- all of which seem to be more
necessary at the vice-presidential level than math/verbal/spatial ability.

IQ tests establish some of their spread by giving priority to quick,
correct answers (rather than correct answers that were given more thought).
I would suspect this would lead to superficial decisions when complex
problems (with no "right" answer) are to be dealt with -- another reason
not to choose a high-IQ person for a decision-making task.

Furthermore, at the +2 and +3 standard deviation level, I suspect that
only a few incorrect answers will have a large effect.  I.e., it might
be the case that 100 correct answers out of 100 gives you an IQ of 200,
while 99 out of 100 gives you an IQ of 150.  Thus, I would tend to
mistrust anyone who chooses a 150 IQ person over a 140 IQ person
"because of that person's higher IQ," suspecting that the 150 IQ person
is really a 140 IQ person who made a single lucky guess.

Martin.

    The other related question that comes to mind here is test calibration; 
    i.e., what was the IQ of the test writers?  I've seen theories that 
    say that above a certain point people's IQ scores begin to slide 
    backwards somewhat, because they "over-think" their answers (mind you, 
    I've always wondered how they test this), and that therefore any
    scores beyond a certain point should be considered equivalent.  If this
    is true, the standard deviation at the high end may not be as meaningful
    as statistics would lead us to believe.

	Sharon

 

<    We rarely hear about the great
<    idiots of history.  (Political leaders excepted.)
<    				-- edp

Now this is a hall of fame comment if I ever heard one. Well said. liesl :*)

    Re: .51
    
    Rats! liesl, you beat me to it.  A real hall of famer.
    
    Eric, I like your sense of humor.  :-)
    
    Mary

re: .54, .55:
	  Yes, IQ tests are unbiased indicators of IQ, since IQ is defined
     as what an IQ test says the IQ is.  (Actually, "intelligence" is
     defined as "what an IQ test measures," but it works out the same.)

Oops.  I sort-of knew that, but was trying to distinguish between
the number that results from an IQ test and real-world intelligence,
suggesting that I'm not convinced that IQ tests accurately measure
intelligence.

By the way, in addition to standard deviation, one should also look
at higher-order measurements (skewedness, kurtosis).

-- skewedness measures whether the distribution is symmetric around the
   mean: i.e., are there more folk below 80 IQ than there are above 120 IQ.

-- kurtosis measures how "pointy" the distribution is.

Martin.

    re -.57
    	As mentioned previously there was an article in the Atlantic last
    year that discussed success at work.  How they defined success I don't
    know, and the same for where they got their numbers.  But anyway, they
    said that the single best predictor of success at work was IQ as
    measured by standardized tests with a corelation of ~.5.  The next best
    predictor was educational level achieved with a corelation of ~.1.  In
    other words, and employer would do better by giving an IQ test, than
    looking at resumes, experience or education.
    						JOhn
    

	Nobody's ever thought that people who do well in IQ tests are the people
	who enjoy them, and the more you enjoy them, the better you score.

	I used to do as many as I could get my hands on - I used to do the
	same with crossword puzzles and theorems.

	Now, some bright spark decided to give us IQ tests, and grade us into
	streams, and also whether we did latin - or something else.


	Well, I had no problems being graded in the top streams for maths and 
	science, they were problems fo me to sort out.
	
	But I was hopeless at Latin, and French, well learning a language that
	no-one speaks, and if anyone can figure out how you find out the sex of
 	a table, or a car, or a carpet.........
	or work out how "familiar" you have to be to use Tu, then maybe I'd
	have been better off.
	
	Heather
	

    
    
From:	NAME: BRUCE J RYAN @CORE            
	FUNC: CORPORATE CONTROLLER            
	TEL: 223-8302                         <RYAN.BRUCE J AT A1 at CORA @ CORE>
Date:	09-Sep-1991
Posted-date: 09-Sep-1991
Precedence: 1
Subject: LYN BENTON - VICE PRESIDENT                                            2
To:	See Below

         I am pleased to announce the promotion of Lyn Benton to Vice 
         President.
         
         In this capacity, Lyn will be responsible for the integration 
         of the business unit plans, implementation of the New 
         Management System, and corporate financial planning and 
         analysis.
         
         Lyn has been with Digital since 1979 and has distinguished 
         herself in a series of positions as Manufacturing Plant 
         Controller in Westminster, Group Controller Small Systems 
         Manufacturing, and Finance/Operations Manager Low End Systems.  
         Before joining Digital, she was manager of operations analysis 
         at the Foxboro Company.  Prior to this, Lyn held senior 
         management positions at several other manufacturing companies.  
         She holds an undergraduate degree from Northeastern University 
         and an MBA from Babson College.
         
         Lyn has demonstrated leadership and professionalism in all her 
         work at Digital.  Please join me in congratulating Lyn on her 
         promotion and wish her continued success in the future.