An earlier post talked about the susceptibility of either sex to emotion and ego.
This post is about susceptibility too. To stress.
We are interested in two characteristics of stress-inducers.
a. Persistence: Whether it is continuous or a one-time thing.
b. Intensity: Whether it is very powerful or not so powerful.
My hypothesis is that men can handle continuous stress more easily compared to women, but only small to medium intensity stress-inducers at that. They shall break down that much more easily when faced with very high intensity stress.
And while women cannot handle continuous stress, they have a better ability to withstand very high stress-impulses.
An analogy would be a rubber block and a ceramic block. The rubber block, like a woman, bends even to small continuous impulses, unlike the “stronger” ceramic block. But drop either from a height, and the ceramic block breaks into a thousand pieces, whereas the rubber block is intact.
And the answer to the question in the title of the post is thus:
Men would make better managers. And women would make better spouses who “stand behind” their manager husbands advisors.
Apologies in advance.
Bear with me as I publicize my just-created blog:
http://poodlesofindia.blogspot.com/
Your visit and comments will be most appreciated.
Wow… you’re better than astrologers. Forget 12 sun signs; you’ve just managed to lump 3 billion people into one category!
Wow… you’re better than astrologers.
Boost is the secret of my energy.
you’ve just managed to lump 3 billion people into one category!
aw, I wouldn’t take credit for that. Apparently some God guy did that. Or evolution for the atheistically inclined.
No seriously, I was talking about the average case here. About the male/female stereotype if you will. There are many exceptions, but by and large it’s true.
Women do have more presence of mind on an average, and men are more thick-skinned towards stress. Some allege that’s coz men don’t think, but let’s not get into that here.
About the male/female stereotype if you will.
Exactly.
No seriously, I was talking about the average case here.
There is no such thing.
There are many exceptions, but by and large it’s true.
Women do have more presence of mind on an average, and men are more thick-skinned towards stress.
Based on your survey of about 6 billion people? Or simply another case of anecdotal evidence?
Madman,
1. for a meaningful statistical result, it’s not necessary to survey all 6 billion people. The mathematical wonders of random sampling come to our aid.
2. our every-day thinking is based on stereotypes. Which is a good thing coz we’d not be able to function intelligently without it.
Humans are humans mainly because of their inductive powers, not coz of their deductive powers.
3. The hypothesis I forwarded is admittedly empiricist. I do not venture any reason for it other than that is what I observed on average.
From your statement that “no such thing as a stereotype exists”, I suspect you suffer from
a common misconception about statistics.
You presume that just because there are n = 6×10^6
people, any result on average behavioral differences between the sexes has to be statistically insignificant. I’d suspect the converse that it is with a larger group that clear statistically significant differences between the sexes could possibly emerge.
Basically, it makes so much less sense to talk about a stereotype/average-case if there are only 10 people!
I do not for a second doubt the veracity of Random Sampling, as my career is dependent on it.
Otherwise I must say – your theory is ‘ad hoc’ at best, chauvenistic at others. I can understand(though not agree with) if you say “Women generally deal with irritating people/situtations better” because they used to being hit on by testosterone driven men a.k.a dogs in heat.
But your theory does not even have an anecdotal backing. Tell us who had dealt with stress, and how much better – for I strongly suspect you are basing your “theory” on personal experience or the lack of it ;).
testosterone driven men a.k.a dogs in heat.
Actually, only females get into “heat”.
In the animal kingdom, the males then seek out and hit on the said female in heat. In the human kingdom, with its pollution and all that, men to be on the safe side, hit on women at all times.
I strongly suspect you are basing your “theory” on personal experience
noooo. I’m basing my theory on divine insight.
My or the lack of it part should have normally stopped such divine insight quips 😉
7*6,
For a population of six billion, to have a representative sample would mean surveying around 1-2 million people from different societies, cultures, races, religions etc. Please inform me when you have completed such a worldwide study. Till then please do not use the word “empirics”.
Your hypothesis is not empricist, it’s normative. All hypotheses are. You conclusions could be “empricist” depending on the methods used to arrive at them. Right now, all you seem to be doing is some touchy feely “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” stuff. Readable, and could be funny as well. But please do not expect it to be taken seriously.
Readable, and could be funny as well. But please do not expect it to be taken seriously.
Guys, all I did was a limited-sample empirical study and used my divine human insight to venture a hypothesis. I do not make any further claim as to its veracity.
Mathematicians do it all the time – they call it conjectures. And these conjectures are respected.
You guys were supposed to think about whether
this hypothesis applies to your environs or not – not question my occult[1] methods of arriving at my hypothesis. Because it is a hypothesis. Albeit one with divine insight.
[1]limited-sample-empirical
My or the lack of it part should have normally stopped such divine insight quips 😉
Ah, you easily say normally, but have you conducted a sample of around 1-2 million people from different societies, cultures, races, religions etc.? How else can you possibly conclude that that is what people would’ve done eh? Eh?
Thanks Nilu once again 🙂 for providing an example to our readers of an inductive hypothesis.
With a sufficiently large sample, you could deduce that with high probability the hypothesis is true.
Or you could use divine/human insight and induce your hypothesis.
Contrary to what people might think, most of our thinking is inductive. Ask any AI person why computers with all their deductive prowess are still so moronic. I think I shall have a post on this.
My “normal” was not related to sampling/statistic but to logic.
And my major is quite close to AI 😉
Oh dear… 42 is digging her own grave. 😉
With a sufficiently large sample, you could deduce that with high probability the hypothesis is true.
That’s a logic contradiction. If you’re using “high probability”, that is inductive logic. To “deduce” something, you’d have to be 100% certain of it.
Surveying a sample size of 1-2 million people and forming a conclusion would still be inductive in nature.
(There are larger questions of what kind of survey method would be reliable since you’d have to depend on many thousands of different opinions – not fact – of how people handle stress, but we’ll set those aside for now.)
See, I have no problem if you want to say that in your experience, women are blah blah while men are blah blah. But your post simply made a hasty generalisation, and then attempted to make it sound pseudo-statistical by using phrases like “on average”. It is that bit that I objected to. (As any reader of How to Lie with Statistics knows, “averages” are one of the most abused statistical measures on the planet.)
I can say right now that my experiences working with women have been different, and that includes women bosses. And that’s really my point.
My “normal” was not related to sampling/statistic but to logic.
This was so obvious that I don’t know how 7*6 didn’t get it.
Lastly, “empiricist” is a noun, not an adjective. I think you’re looking for “empirical”
(And “empirical” is not the same as “scientific”)
(I love arguing logic, 7*6, and I’m a geek. The Cartel has some fine logicians and statisticians in it. So if you pick a fight, you’ll get one 😉
ah poor madman, here is your whipping:
If you’re using “high probability”, that is inductive logic. To “deduce” something, you’d have to be 100% certain of it.
You are getting confused in your giggling fit. You see, I can logically deduce a precise probability statement – a statement that follows from probability axioms. E.g. Given 2 coin tosses, with one head, one tail, I can logically deduce that: Given above sample, probability of head is 1/2.
My “normal” was not related to sampling/statistic but to logic.
This was so obvious that I don’t know how 7*6 didn’t get it.
What should also have been obvious was that I did not presume Nilu’s normal to be a statistical gaussian or whatever. I presumed “normally” in his remark to mean “generally”. I mean, to quote somebody, “this was so obvious that I don’t know how they didn’t get it”. Seriously, nothing else but the connotation of generally makes sense in my earlier comment! And nothing else but “generally” makes sense in Nilu’s comment too!
And talking of obvious, I find it comical that given a post with a casual observation I made – with a clear indication that it was my hypothesis
– people are arguing about representative samples and normative samples and whether my “empirical methods” were sound enough to look at 1-2 million samples.
(I love arguing logic, 7*6, and I’m a geek. The Cartel has some fine logicians and statisticians in it. So if you pick a fight, you’ll get one 😉
*grin* I don’t think the fight, if at all, would be fair really. I don’t believe in carnage I mean.
then attempted to make it sound pseudo-statistical by using phrases like “on average”. It is that bit that I objected to.
Not to continue the carnage, but if that was a genuine doubt –
I said that . it was my hypothesis that . on average . women . are yada…
I really don’t think there is a more innocuous way of saying it. If you think I had smuggled in statistical scientific soundness claims in the above statement, might I suggest a tin-foil hat. From what I hear, it’s also pretty useful against them pesky aliens smuggling in their darned scientific signals into our dandy atmosphere.
Given a choice between Sex and Speech Coding, a guy(or a gal) would “normally” choose Sex.
Please let me know 42, how “generally” can substitute “normally” here. I meant normal and not general.
And as Madman points out – the next thing I know, I might have to state why 7*6 = 6*7= 42(and maybe why not as well 😉 )
Please let me know 42, how “generally” can substitute “normally” here. I meant normal and not general.
I believe, or want to at any rate, that the readers of this blog aren’t as confused as they are trying hard to show, so I shall presume it’s some moon-phase thing and try to chug along.
I think you mean to say “normally” = “obviously”
and generally = “usually” and the two aren’t the same. A moment’s thought should clarify your confusion, but since I’m nice and stuff, here is a linguistics lesson –
In the sentence, “one normally drinks tea instead of poison”, I hope you realize that the meaning of the word “normally” ISNT “logically” or
“obviously”. It is still “following the norm”, “generally”, “usually”. Sometimes the norm seems obvious and logical. But that doesn’t imply that you’ve said it’s obvious and logical. You’ve still only said that it’s following the norm.
Here is the dictionary
meaning of the word normally if it helps matters.
And since the moon-phase thing might still be on, let me also point out the lack of the word logically in there.
Ravi,
I do not know how the Cartel is taking this, but may I request that you remind the guest blogger to stop defending the indefensible and lowering the standards of this page?
Nilu, you’re the one who argued (with me and Yazad) that Yazad shouldn’t “censor” his comments section in the “spirit of libertarianism”. Have you changed your mind?
Nilu, … Have you changed your mind?
He has a mind?
That is the exact reason why this “comment” was made in public domain and not in private – with the intended result being this, and not a ban!
Thank you – I stand vindicated!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
women have never been good managers. First let the women be free.
Only one who is free can be good or bad.
I think capitalist as well socialists will agree to that.
So no fuss over it for now and no STRESS as well.
One of the most imp requisite of being a good manager is to be available at times of need. Men can well spare themselves for this kind of job. On the other hand, women can’t be that much promising in this regard.
Women, generally speaking do not make good managers as I have observed frequently in my career in administration. As a general rule, the position of a manager entails dealing with people.
I do not believe women are chemically equiped to deal with high stress situations, therefore they should not be placed in situations where quality ‘people skills’ are necessary, whether this be addressing customers or colleagues. The temptation to ‘snap’ and ‘go off on one’, for want of a better phrase is very great when dealing with frustrating situations, something which men do tend to handle better than women.
Women do however possess excellent technical and organisational skills which can be invaluable concerning the logistical aspect of business and administration.
i wanna know about brief explaination with refrence,effects, conclusion on the topic “do women make good managers”
Company profits sliding? The key may be to have more female managers.
A new university study has found profits are likely to rise under a female management team because women are more intuitive and can better suppress negative emotions.
The study, conducted by the Centre for Neuro psychology at Melbourne’s Swinburne University, found women who had higher emotional intelligence and intuition were more likely to display good leadership traits.
Emotional intelligence was defined as the ability to identify and manage emotions and includes suppressing negative emotions like frustration and fostering positive emotions.
PhD student Luke Downey who authored the study said women generally had a higher emotional intelligence and intuition than men, making them more likely to be good managers.
“It would give them some advantage over male managers,” Mr Downey said.
The study looked at 176 women in management positions around Australia and divided up leadership into three types: transformational, laissez-faire and transactional.
Transformational leaders were best able to articulate a clear vision for the future and could better control their feelings and understand the emotions of others.
Leaders of this type were likely to have happier staff and give them individualised attention, Mr Downey said.
“Generally if you have happy staff and more productive staff, it leads to higher profits,” he said.
Laissez-faire leaders had lower emotional intelligence and offered little support to subordinates, while transactional leaders were autocrats who relied on strategies like exchanging work conditions for outcomes.
But the news for men in management positions may not be all bad.
Mr Downey said there was nothing to stop men also displaying traits like empathy towards staff and putting aside their negative emotions too.
Felspar says: “Women do however possess excellent technical and organisational skills which can be invaluable concerning the logistical aspect of business and administration.”
Your bias is showing. Who cares about being good at the technical and organization skills? No one gives a crap about that. If you really feel that men are better managers than women, don’t hire women at all. Because doing the crappy technical and organizational skills means nothing to real change and progress.
I think women are not good managers, because they cant do the work with full interest, they don’t have self confidence, also they don’t have any practical knowledge… Womens are good in getting the marks above 90 but they didn’t get the knowledge…