Oh, I’m sorry, John, wasn’t that what you were saying? No?
On average, the women made as much as the men under either system (individual or group money games). But when they were offered a choice for the next round – take the piece rate or compete in a tournament – most women declined to compete, even the ones who had done the best in the earlier rounds. Most men chose the tournament, even the ones who had done the worst.
Because men are stupid and need to glorify their egos, and women are content with their lot.
Or maybe because women aren’t encouraged to be competitive, because it’s incredibly “intimidating” and “unfeminine” and unless she’s a lesbian, she’ll never get laid again.
Oh, sorry, not your conclusion John?
The men’s eagerness partly stemmed from overconfidence, because on average men rated their ability more highly than the women rated theirs.
Because men are stupid and egotistical, and women are raised with a sense of modesty and Christian self-abasement.
Oh, wrong again.
“Even in tasks where they do well, women seem to shy away from competition, whereas men seem to enjoy it too much,” Professor Niederle said. “The men who weren’t good at this task lost a little money by choosing to compete, and the really good women passed up a lot of money by not entering tournaments they would have won.”
You can argue that this difference is due to social influences, although I suspect it’s largely innate, a byproduct of evolution and testosterone.
::insert sloooooow screeeaaam:::
Oh, yes, testoserone, that happy hormone. Let’s try this out. Put a bunch of menstrating women in a room with a group of men. This is the time of the month when men’s body chemistry is most similiar to women’s, hormone-wise.
See what changes.
OK, pump women full of testoserone, so they grow a beard and get an enlarged clitoris, and then run the experiment again.
Still the same?
Gee, I wonder what the problem could be then!
OK, sit a few female-to-male transexuals down with some men who were born with —
Gee, tougher to control other factors for that one, huh? And a smaller sample.
Why is it that everytime somebody argues about “some” men succeeding above and beyond “some” women, that the issue of testoserone comes up? How about the family background of the applicant, how about looking at the amount of confidence their parents inspired in them, or looking at their birth order? Why always concentrate on the sex?