I can’t quite tell if there is any data to support the commonly quoted difference between men and women’s speaking budgets. It’s one of those things that’s so commonly bandied about that you’d think you could easily find data on it. But you can’t. And what you can, is pretty specious. In fact, it looks pretty much ‘just plain wrong’ when I read it. But there is another explanation; it certainly does appear that men and women speak more in different **contexts**. One thing we know that helps us understand those contexts, is that men have more friends than women, but women have closer relationships than do men. Men tolerate greater diversity of value judgements in their friends. Women tolerate less diversity of value judgments in their friends. Or perhaps better stated, men and women view the source of loyalty that defines friendship as coming from different behaviors: cooperation in pursuit of opportunities for shared gain, versus care-taking which requires bearing costs on behalf of the other. For this reason fear of ostracization is lower in men, and higher in women. Add onto that the men not only feel more comfortable taking risks, but enjoy and seek taking them — albiet the level of risk varies substantially. But conversational risk is very low among men. We think it’s better to hear a bad idea than fail to hear all the ideas. Women are more cautious because they are more sensitive to variation in opinion. In my anecdotal experience, in business meetings and debates, men speak far more words than women. In social settings, and in personal conversations, women speak more words than men. Men seem to enjoy participating in competitive conversations. They even artificially create nonsense-conflicts just to have something to debate: they talk about sports teams, companies, politics, technologies, cars and tools etc. Each as a vehicle for debate. They prefer the abstract to the experiential, and a limited number of contextual changes. Women seem to prefer gradual subtle conversations across multiple contexts where they can build consensus and thoroughly understand one another’s viewpoints in the process. The result of these different preferences is more of a difference in velocity than anything else. Women tend to ‘get there’ using their conversational style just like men do, but more slowly. Like everything else, men are built for speed. The extraneous is removed by evolution. It certainly seems like most woman I’ve been in a relationship with has greater capacity for speech than I do — and I’m pretty talkative. But I suspect that it’s a difference in the content and circumstance not the number of words. I”m not the only man who thinks it’s odd that his mate must revisit her dreams in the morning, and her daily conversations at night. It’s common knowledge among men that we must learn that skill. But it’s good for a relationship when men learn how to feign interest in these things that we lack the emotional bandwidth to appreciate and comprehend. Listening is an exercise in providing what the other person needs, and what she needs is not comprehension and problem solving – it’s to ensure we’re committed to one another, and for her to organize her emotions by way of speaking them in the same way that men organize our ideas by visualizing them. Chatter after all, is negatively correlated with successful hunting. Communication during hunts and war is visual, not verbal. Besides, that female revisitation of emotions is why women help us with our emotional problems when we have them: they’re more experienced at dealing with them. Our compensation for lacking those tools, is that mechanical devices, consumer electronics, and politics are not opaque to our comprehension. But I’m not sure which gender gets the better deal. We forget that we all start out female, and that the template for human beings is female, and that males are highly specialized versions of females. Testosterone shuts all that ‘unnecessary’ emotional processing off for males in the womb so that we can worry about doing dangerous things and making tools, and inventing pretty much everything, without worrying about the needs of children or the danger that other women might ostracize us in a time of weakness, when we and our children need communal support to survive. Applying that word budget to writing: I”m writing about 8K words a day on average now, with an average low of 5K, an average high of 10K, and a max of 25K on rare occasions. I’m not sure what that means. I know that if I dont talk to people all day, I write more, and vice versa. I also know that if I am writing for a competitive argument I write more than if I write in the explanatory neutral voice. But I also need to chat more than does my spouse. We are the product of our genes. The universe is fascinating. Life is a miraculous luxury. And every breath of it is worth savoring.
Theme: Sex Differences
-
WORD BUDGETS: Writing vs Speaking, and the Male vs Female myth. I can’t quite te
WORD BUDGETS: Writing vs Speaking, and the Male vs Female myth.
I can’t quite tell if there is any data to support the commonly quoted difference between men and women’s speaking budgets. It’s one of those things that’s so commonly bandied about that you’d think you could easily find data on it. But you can’t. And what you can, is pretty specious. In fact, it looks pretty much ‘just plain wrong’ when I read it.
But there is another explanation; it certainly does appear that men and women speak more in different **contexts**.
One thing we know that helps us understand those contexts, is that men have more friends than women, but women have closer relationships than do men. Men tolerate greater diversity of value judgements in their friends. Women tolerate less diversity of value judgments in their friends. Or perhaps better stated, men and women view the source of loyalty that defines friendship as coming from different behaviors: cooperation in pursuit of opportunities for shared gain, versus care-taking which requires bearing costs on behalf of the other.
For this reason fear of ostracization is lower in men, and higher in women. Add onto that the men not only feel more comfortable taking risks, but enjoy and seek taking them — albiet the level of risk varies substantially. But conversational risk is very low among men. We think it’s better to hear a bad idea than fail to hear all the ideas. Women are more cautious because they are more sensitive to variation in opinion.
In my anecdotal experience, in business meetings and debates, men speak far more words than women. In social settings, and in personal conversations, women speak more words than men. Men seem to enjoy participating in competitive conversations. They even artificially create nonsense-conflicts just to have something to debate. (sports teams etc). Women seem to prefer gradual subtle conversations where they can build consensus.
The result of these different preferences is more of a difference in velocity than anything else. Women tend to ‘get there’ using their conversational style just like men do, but more slowly. Like everything else, men are built for speed. The extraneous is removed by evolution.
It certainly seems like most woman I’ve been in a relationship with has greater capacity for speech than I do — and I’m pretty talkative. But I suspect that it’s a difference in the content and circumstance not the number of words. I”m not the only man who thinks it’s odd that his mate must revisit her dreams in the morning, and her daily conversations at night.
But it’s good for a relationship when men learn how to feign interest in these things that we lack the emotional bandwidth to appreciate and comprehend. Listening is an exercise in providing what the other person needs, and what she needs is not comprehension and problem solving – it’s to ensure we’re committed to one another, and for her to organize her emotions by way of speaking them the way men organize our ideas by visualizing them. Chatter after all, is negatively correlated with successful hunting. Communication during hunts and war is visual, not verbal. Besides, that female revisitation of emotions is why women help us with our emotional problems when we have them. They’re more experienced at dealing with them. Our compensation is that mechanical devices and politics are not opaque to our comprehension. But I”m not sure which gender gets the better deal.
We forget that we all start out female, and that the template for human beings is female, and that males are highly specialized versions of females. Testosterone shuts all that ‘unnecessary’ emotional processing off for males in the womb so that we can worry about doing dangerous things and making tools, and inventing pretty much everything, without about the needs of children or the danger that other women might ostracize us in a time of weakness, when we and our children need communal support to survive.
Applying that word budget to writing: I”m writing about 8K words a day on average now, with an average low of 5K, an average high of 10K, and a max of 25K on rare occasions.
I’m not sure what that means. I know that if I dont talk to people all day, I write more, and vice versa. I also know that if I am writing for a competitive argument I write more than if I write in the explanatory neutral voice.
We are the product of our genes. The universe is fascinating. Life is a miraculous luxury. And every breath of it is worth savoring.
Source date (UTC): 2012-04-16 09:44:00 UTC
-
A Heretical Question? Do Women Have Too Much Power?
GIVENS: Given that women control access to sex and access to reproduction. Given that women have a different mating strategy from men. Given that women determine the outcome of elections. Given that women prefer anti-liberty policies. Given that in the modern economy women are more easily employable than men. (Or rather, that the distribution of women is heavier in the middle, to the disadvantage of men in the lower two quintiles.) Given that women are financially capable of raising children on their own, and are doing so in record numbers. Given that the only sector in which women do not dominate is in the upper quintile of intellectual ability, and therefore the upper incomes in the private sector. Do women not have both in logic and in practice, the power to effectively enslave men by legislative means? Women evolved in order to manipulate one group of men in order to gain control of another group of men. The agrarian order changed that for a short time. Women evolved to seek the best alpha mates that they could obtain, then use sex to gain the resources and cooperation of beta males, once they have their children. Men could cooperate politically because they only differ in ability. But women differ from men in that they do not seek liberty to succeed in order to obtain access to sex and reproduction. Women already control access to sex and reproduction. So can men and women cooperate in a democratic order if it is possible within that political order to conduct involuntary transfers?
-
A Heretical Question? Do Women Have Too Much Power?
GIVENS: Given that women control access to sex and access to reproduction. Given that women have a different mating strategy from men. Given that women determine the outcome of elections. Given that women prefer anti-liberty policies. Given that in the modern economy women are more easily employable than men. (Or rather, that the distribution of women is heavier in the middle, to the disadvantage of men in the lower two quintiles.) Given that women are financially capable of raising children on their own, and are doing so in record numbers. Given that the only sector in which women do not dominate is in the upper quintile of intellectual ability, and therefore the upper incomes in the private sector. Do women not have both in logic and in practice, the power to effectively enslave men by legislative means? Women evolved in order to manipulate one group of men in order to gain control of another group of men. The agrarian order changed that for a short time. Women evolved to seek the best alpha mates that they could obtain, then use sex to gain the resources and cooperation of beta males, once they have their children. Men could cooperate politically because they only differ in ability. But women differ from men in that they do not seek liberty to succeed in order to obtain access to sex and reproduction. Women already control access to sex and reproduction. So can men and women cooperate in a democratic order if it is possible within that political order to conduct involuntary transfers?
-
END OF THE SUCCESS GAP? “The success gap for women age 40-44 declined significan
http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/erose/hypergamy_solew.pdfTHE END OF THE SUCCESS GAP?
“The success gap for women age 40-44 declined significantly in the 1980’s and 1990’s. In fact, according to some measures, the gap has disappeared.
Hypergamy has declined as well. What has changed is that marriage rates for the less educated have declined precipitously, although the patterns differ for blacks and for whites. I also track education-marriage and education-motherhood profiles.”
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-29 18:53:00 UTC
-
HYPERGAMY? I think this is more of a numeric artifact produced by declining marr
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/03/puerto-rico-hypergamy-fact-of-the-day.htmlREDEFINING HYPERGAMY?
I think this is more of a numeric artifact produced by declining marriage rates, and an error in over-attribution of status to income. Women are not ENTIRELY money motivated, just as men are not ENTIRELY motivated by physical attraction.
1) Hypergamy is not synonymous with mating with alphas, only ‘the best she can get’. Or ‘better than she is used to’.
2) If male status signals are less dependent upon income, then they will be more dependent upon physical traits, relationships and behavior. In other words, men who are underemployed will find alternate means of signaling.
The eastern european and Mediterranean (PIGS) males manage to do this effectively already. So do african american males. They exaggerate masculine traits which cast higher income males as effeminate. In other words, traditional masculine traits and physicality compensate for income signals.
I don’t know why this is surprising. Males vary more than females in ability. There are always ‘unfit’ males that women must ‘marry down’ or ‘mate down’ with. Simply because without polygamy or serial marriages, some portion of women must always ‘settle’ because of the scarcity of ‘good’ men.
3) This change is occurring only in the lower classes. And only relates to marriages not mates.
4) The combined burden of unemployed and unemployable males and dependent females will have a higher impact on the state’s finances and the polity than any change in mating patterns. THis will further undermine the institution of marriage and individual accountability (as Murray suggests.)
But in essence, I think as economists we overrate income. It’s just one of the available signals. And since women and men have different reproductive strategies, and since men vary more than women in ability, it is quite possible for men to adapt without impact to traditional masculine and feminine gender concepts that are outside of the economic sphere.
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-29 18:45:00 UTC
-
END OF HYPERGAMY? I don’t think so. A redefinition of marrying up is more likely
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1439197717/ref=tsm_1_fb_lkTHE END OF HYPERGAMY?
I don’t think so. A redefinition of marrying up is more likely instead. I do think that there is a permanently unemployable lower class of men that will choose to demonstrate their masculinity in more masculine ways — as do Mediterranean and african american men. That said, we’ve reached the balance point in the economy, with women replacing lower quintile men — thus accurately reflecting IQ distributions between the genders.
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-29 18:40:00 UTC
-
PJ Lifestyle » Why Do Ads that Diss Women Get Removed while Ads that Diss Men are Funny?
Jim Macnamara, author of Media and Male Identity: The Making and Remaking of Men did a PHD Dissertation looking at men and the media and found the following:The study involved collection of all editorial content referring to or portraying men from 650 newspaper editions 450 broadsheets and 200 tabloids, 130 magazines, 125 TV news bulletins, 147 TV current affairs programs, 125 talk show episodes, and 108 TV lifestyle program episodes from 20 of the highest circulation and rating newspapers, magazines and TV programs over a six-month period. Media articles were examined using in-depth quantitative and qualitative content analysis methodology.The research found that, by volume, 69 per cent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavourable compared with just 12 per cent favourable and 19 per cent neutral or balanced. Men were predominately reported or portrayed in mass media as villains, aggressors, perverts and philanderers, with more than 75 per cent of all mass media representations of men and male identities showing men in one of these four ways. More than 80 per cent of media mentions of men, in total, were negative, compared with 18.4 per cent of mentions which showed men in a positive role.The overwhelmingly negative reporting and portrayals of men in mass media news, current affairs, talk shows and lifestyle media was mainly in relation to violence and aggression. Violent crime, including murder, assault, armed robberies and attacks such as bashings, accounted for almost 40 per cent of all media reporting of male violence and aggression, followed by sexual abuse 20.5 per cent, general crime 18.6 per cent and domestic violence 7.3 per cent.Some people think the negative portrayal is “no big deal.” But it is a big deal. This portrayal of men is dangerous to society as it causes people to stereotype men and see them as dangerous perverts. Men are reacting to this stereotype by going on strike, avoiding interactions with women and children; they no longer work with kids, volunteer as often or get married as readily for fear of a legal or cultural backlash. Many are “going Galt.” These are not positive developments for society. So, yes, negative portrayals of men are a big deal.
via PJ Lifestyle » Why Do Ads that Diss Women Get Removed while Ads that Diss Men are Funny?.
-
PJ Lifestyle » Why Do Ads that Diss Women Get Removed while Ads that Diss Men are Funny?
Jim Macnamara, author of Media and Male Identity: The Making and Remaking of Men did a PHD Dissertation looking at men and the media and found the following:The study involved collection of all editorial content referring to or portraying men from 650 newspaper editions 450 broadsheets and 200 tabloids, 130 magazines, 125 TV news bulletins, 147 TV current affairs programs, 125 talk show episodes, and 108 TV lifestyle program episodes from 20 of the highest circulation and rating newspapers, magazines and TV programs over a six-month period. Media articles were examined using in-depth quantitative and qualitative content analysis methodology.The research found that, by volume, 69 per cent of mass media reporting and commentary on men was unfavourable compared with just 12 per cent favourable and 19 per cent neutral or balanced. Men were predominately reported or portrayed in mass media as villains, aggressors, perverts and philanderers, with more than 75 per cent of all mass media representations of men and male identities showing men in one of these four ways. More than 80 per cent of media mentions of men, in total, were negative, compared with 18.4 per cent of mentions which showed men in a positive role.The overwhelmingly negative reporting and portrayals of men in mass media news, current affairs, talk shows and lifestyle media was mainly in relation to violence and aggression. Violent crime, including murder, assault, armed robberies and attacks such as bashings, accounted for almost 40 per cent of all media reporting of male violence and aggression, followed by sexual abuse 20.5 per cent, general crime 18.6 per cent and domestic violence 7.3 per cent.Some people think the negative portrayal is “no big deal.” But it is a big deal. This portrayal of men is dangerous to society as it causes people to stereotype men and see them as dangerous perverts. Men are reacting to this stereotype by going on strike, avoiding interactions with women and children; they no longer work with kids, volunteer as often or get married as readily for fear of a legal or cultural backlash. Many are “going Galt.” These are not positive developments for society. So, yes, negative portrayals of men are a big deal.
via PJ Lifestyle » Why Do Ads that Diss Women Get Removed while Ads that Diss Men are Funny?.
-
The Real Reasons There Aren’t Many High-Earning Female CEO’s And Business Owners
The Real Reasons There Aren’t Many High-Earning Female CEO’s And Business Owners http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/03/23/the-real-reasons-there-arent-many-high-earning-female-ceos-and-business-owners/
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-24 02:36:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/183381755426897920