Huge Sample Study on Sex Differences finds major differences.

eGremlin
eGremlin

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886918301521?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb

The present study reports on the scope and size of sex differences in 30 personality facet traits, using one of the largest US samples to date (N=320,128). The study was one of the first to utilize the open access version of the Five-Factor Model of personality (IPIP-NEO-120) in the large public. Overall, across age-groups 19–69years old, women scored notably higher than men in Agreeableness (d=0.58) and Neuroticism (d=0.40). Specifically, women scored d>0.50 in facet traits Anxiety, Vulnerability, Openness to Emotions, Altruism, and Sympathy, while men only scored slightly higher (d>0.20) than women in facet traits Excitement-seeking and Openness to Intellect. Sex gaps in the five trait domains were fairly constant across all age-groups, with the exception for age-group 19–29years old. The discussion centers on how to interpret effects sizes in sex differences in personality traits, and tentative consequences.

Attached: rwLr1sW.jpg (189 KB, 1200x863)

All urls found in this thread:

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886918301521?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb
cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/sex-differences-in-human-mate-preferences-evolutionary-hypotheses-tested-in-37-cultures/0E112ACEB2E7BC877805E3AC11ABC889
youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

Imagine being punished for bringing up something that has a d=0.58 difference based on sex from very large sample size study. The libtards have gone too far with squelching discussion of reality.

Attached: 7AjwEAqZ-400x400.jpg (20 KB, 400x400)

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

Well, it's very interesting, but major problem is that we still don't know reasons of this difference. Should we explain it by genes factors or raising, or both of them?

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

we can't let the data just sit

Was it from a big bang or from a God creating us?

happy_sad
happy_sad

Let's take it another way

If women have to be more agreeable, naive, optimistic, and submissive to power than should that result in an environment where males generally control more power in the society?

To begin to deconstruct the Data into Environment vs Biology would require more carefully crafted tests. Such as comparing people of similar biology but in different cultures or upbringing and seeing the relative sex differences based on that.

The problem is liberals especially will look at results like OP and then say they are wrong because they don't account for environment and culture. Instead of discrediting a real result just keep an open mind and let it sit for a while.

Yes, we can go endlessly down the "Why" spiral in whatever direction and meaning you want. That is relatively pointless. Let the study and it's scope exist on it's own and accept the results. It did not state "This was 100% biological" so there is no reason to attack the study already just because it hurts your feelings.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

I don't attack it. Ok, there is distinguish between men and women, who would guess. Without understanding reasons we can't nor fix this difference, nor prove that this difference is biological and sjw can go fuck yourself.

Methshot
Methshot

Yes, we can't ask why endless, but it doesn't mean, that we should stop right now

WebTool
WebTool

If women have to be more agreeable, naive, optimistic, and submissive to power than should that result in an environment where males generally control more power in the society?
Even though women on average demonstrate these traits, we shouldn’t take it as every women having them. Stereotypes exist and have their place because of averages like this, but there will still be the outliers from the mean who can do just as good, or even better than, the average male in a male role.
We should acknowledge that male and female roles exist within society and be fine with numbers like 90% engineers being men, but we should treat every individual based on their merit alone. The culture of trying to make up for perceived cultural grievances and bridging the gap within industries will only lead to a weaker society, as seen with the collapse of that Miami bridge.

Nojokur
Nojokur

in a large US sample
aay lmao

into the trash it goes

significant claims require significant data to back it up
the sample size is in no way representative of any populations other than WEIRD ones

look at this study instead for how to properly investigate universal sex differences
cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/sex-differences-in-human-mate-preferences-evolutionary-hypotheses-tested-in-37-cultures/0E112ACEB2E7BC877805E3AC11ABC889

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

Who's the duckface loli?

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

People use "why" to delude themselves into ignoring results. We see these results on the difference between men and women. At least accept that.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

300,000 samples
If we are wondering what are the sex differences in USA today this is what we would use.

The cause, other cultures, etc are for different questions.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

I guess this means that all those feminists will pack it in, acknowledge that sex differences aren't a social construct, admit that their movement was wrong all along, and apologize to men for being such cunts for the last one hundred years before kindly getting back in the fucking kitchen then, right? Glad that's all over with. :^)

StonedTime
StonedTime

Id just assume environment and blame men while using a lot of obscure terms because the discipline has turned into a language and political game

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

Yep, despite the cataloged differences across society I would blame it on company culture. I also would not allow anyone to say it's anything but 100% because of white male patriarchy. Even if the results are found in elsewhere in the world.

happy_sad
happy_sad

Well, you are wrong. "Why" isn't delude us, obviously there is only one way to be honest to yourself - always ask why. And, btw, I didn't say, that this study was wrong, I just said, that existence of this difference not a big secret. But it can be explained and by assumption, that "patriarchate" create this difference and we should continue increasing gender diversity quote, and by assumption, that gender differences are biological and we can't change anything. The fact of differences mean nothing nowdays.

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

"Women in America are more agreeable than men."

Is this statement false if it is because of culture?
Is this statement true if it is because of biology?

Does the reason why is is true actually change the statement's validity?

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

The point I'm trying to prove is that there are people who will say, "Women in America are more agreeable than men" is a false statement because it is caused by culture and not biology. Meanwhile usually providing zero supporting evidence except a hypothetical that it could be.

so the statement, "Women in America are more agreeable than men" while true suddenly becomes an evil utterance. All because people use the "Why" to discredit a result when in fact logically such a thing is completely idiotic and wrong.

The reason why doesn't change the results.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

Who the fuck even cares anymore, why is this study even a thing? Why not just stop acknowledging and funding this bullshit? Why entertain anything that calls itself a science but actually just bases itself off of statistics? At best anything based on statistics can SUGGEST correlation.

Let's be done with it, anything that does not involve proving causation is not a fucking science, and bearing it's name or suggesting legitimacy otherwise is deception and manipulation punishable under related laws to either, end of story?

Evilember
Evilember

You can always go to a different level of abstraction. Those things you think are the last level are not.

youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

Try to learn something. You do understand levels of abstractions right?

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

What does d 0.50 mean? t. brainlet

whereismyname
whereismyname

"let's stop researching statistics they're not helpful okay?"
I have never, quite literally never, seen a more brainlet post on any board here

Soft_member
Soft_member

It has its uses but things like psychology that are supposedly only a science because statistic is tacked on in some hamfisted poorly executed twist to suggest mechanisms, links and efficacy is joke, it's not science if the methodology does not ultimately tests and proves a mechanism of action but only suggests.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

A huge amount of analysis can be performed on data sets. A huge amount of scientific research is done on just that.

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

It's about predictive functions. Just like any science. We can get easy looking functions for things like gravity because of the scales of objects but at smaller levels it becomes incredibly complex.

In this case we are looking at a high level of abstraction sort of like Newtonian physics in physics.

Meaning the predictive function created is guesses on male vs female results on these tests.

In this manner it does work as a way to predict what will happen. It will beat random chance and provide predictive power for reality on this specific issue. Similar to newtonian physics it doesn't explain the low level reasons. We always have to understand the scope and abstraction level we are working in. Hence classical physics vs quantum physics. Both are useful.

Such high level abstraction prediction functions are useful for instance with GWAS to discover areas of the genome to investigate further while looking for biological functions.

Understand that EVERYTHING we do in science is based on creating predictive models with some amount of power better than random guessing. The "Why" is never actually answered, we just are left with more questions.

If you want to know the psychological inclinations of a women this study would give you a predictive model better than random guessing or relying on personal intuition.

Techpill
Techpill

And that is perfectly fine in the domains of physics, biology, chemistry, math, medicine and engineering.

Psychology, economy, sociology, law, and such domains tacking on 'science' based purely on selective and manipulative portrayal of data through statistics, not so much.

Skullbone
Skullbone

gonna delete this cuz it's ass.

Basically all science is doing is trying to creat predictive models. The "Why" is actually not important and not answered for most things. Why also leads to endless recursion of more why questions.

This study is specific to a scope and level of abstraction. It creates a legitimate predictive function.

Also these inquiries lead to those recursive never ended why questions. For instance a GWAS that locates some portion of the genome is then used to look for the underlying biological function within the reduced search area, greatly speeding up discovery and understanding.

For instance the OP data could be used in a metastudy along with similar studies across different cultures and environments to learn even more.

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

This is why as large as possible sample sizes are hugely important. The 25 person sample size psychology studies that get published and referenced in 500 pop sci articles are the problem.

This one has a good sample size and simply posts the results. "Manipulative portrayal" is just wrong.

Firespawn
Firespawn

This. The sample was only in the US, and also

The discussion centers on how to interpret effects sizes in sex differences in personality traits, and tentative consequences.

Access to the discussion is needed.

Fuck you

SniperGod
SniperGod

I need to know why. If it's biological I can disagree with the results. If its cultural I can agree with the results

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

It's a measure of statistical effect size, it's called Cohen's d I think

RavySnake
RavySnake

In this case yes, even so at best it 'suggests a trend' and to what end? How will this knowledge pay off? Do these conclusions result in better ability to manipulate based on demographics? Roles?

What is the point of this study? What can it be used for?

Why?
Because you are vested in the position that there is no significant biological difference? If not then by what logic?

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

Why do you want to know the differences between men and women on personality tests

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

I need to know why. If it's biological I can disagree with the results. If its cultural I can agree with the results
No

I agree with the results no matter what. I predict that there is probably a combination of both biological and societal components. The interesting part is the deeper analysis of those two things. Stop being retarded.

FastChef
FastChef

don’t gather data because you don’t already know how to interpret it
don’t try and use data to make predictions because the predictive ability isn’t perfect

Attached: ED641B6E-FCFA-44A1-AD68-B5B2B55ACB91.jpg (26 KB, 419x351)

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

Oy vey, the Boyim Know!

Attached: 1f7.jpg (34 KB, 342x400)

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

No matter how hard you cry it's still poor science.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

feminists and women in general will never allow science to get in the way of their ideology, even if it makes them more miserable than their oppressed great grand mothers generations.

Snarelure
Snarelure

look goys I went to uni. Look how reasonable I am.
your pathetic

TechHater
TechHater

we can all agree that steriotypes dont apply to all women and that personality traits arent a sure way to categorize all women(just most). But one thing social constructionists and egalitarians have ignored in their crusade to make women and men the same is rigid Sexual selection. No one seems to care that despite this crusade and comprehensie change in roles of both men and women, women and men still attracted to roughly the same things as their ancestors. Dominant corporate high flying women are still attracted to dominant men with higher status and resources than themselves. Men are still attracted to young women with typical "female traits". Some have argued that part of the reason the west is having a marriage crisis is because social constructionists, who have made great strides in making women more like men and men like women, have ignored the sexual aspects of gender roles. And now we are facing the consequences of social constructionists and gender egalitarians war on gender roles in the low secular birth rates.

eGremlin
eGremlin

your pathetic
His pathetic what?

whereismyname
whereismyname

/r/catalog#s=eddit

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

If Hitler was right I will kys boohoo muh racism

Attached: affect-in-my-logic.png (242 KB, 680x285)

w8t4u
w8t4u

we found a pattern that explains why some things happen
but let's not use that because i know this one girl who isnt like that

Shut the fuck up

hairygrape
hairygrape

Attached: 1521921973354.jpg (128 KB, 1235x486)

Ignoramus
Ignoramus


Feminists, gender egalitarians and social constructionists would never touch sexual/mating preferences of western women or sexual Dimorphism with a ten inch pole. Just look at the average woman spouting bullshit about how men and women should all embrace new gender norms, and yet in their personal lives, they still end up marry men who make more than them and they glorify dominant men as you can see with the popularity of Fifty shades of Grey . Blatant hypocrisy of empowered women would require too much effort to defend. The same group of women who say men should accept women in powerful position would laugh at men who want to be caretakers at home, and they would never consider marrying men with less status and earning potential than themselves, let alone effeminate men, unless he's of course Chad. Gender egalitarian principles stops at the vagina and wedding vows for the average empowered woman. They just want to have their cake and eat it too at the expense of men.

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

Yeah! We should force everyone to fulfill their proper gender roles, by force!

Lunatick
Lunatick

with the exception for age-group 19–29years old
thus are soyboy millenials

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

Sex gaps in the five trait domains were fairly constant across all age-groups, with the exception for age-group 19–29years old.

That's a fairly big age group that isn't being consistent with the rest of the findings.

Booteefool
Booteefool

they should do a study on the wetness of water next

Male and females are radically different because of their biology and millennia of divergent evolutionary pressure

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

If women have to be more agreeable, naive, optimistic, and submissive to power than should that result in an environment where males generally control more power in the society?
I would surmise it leads to a more inequal society. You won't have class battle with women fighting. It's too ugly.

So we are likely to see a mixed, mostly male ruling class, and a middle class and working of women, with marginalized men at the bottom.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star


Well it's either that or we get true egalitarianism where men arent penalised by hypocritical women for fulfilling traditionally female roles. Unless you're looking forward to an extreme reactionary neopatriarchal movement in the near future which would erase all the benefits of feminism and egalitarianism because women and feminists simply didn't want to deal with the fact that men today aren't benefiting from egalitarianism?
Men are tired of trying to fulfil male gender roles, which is becoming difficult to do as women take well paying traditionally male jobs, and as blue collar jobs disappear whilst they see women have their cake and eat it too, in a victimhood culture which blames them for all the ills of the world. Men are going to reach a tipping point.

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

Holy shit. People like you need to be shot

whereismyname
whereismyname

how many tax dollars went to this perverts wet dream study ?

Lunatick
Lunatick

another gigantic waste of time and effort so retarded perverts and power crims and money cons can excuse themselves 100% of the time sucking the souls out of the populace

Attached: cultinfo.gif (1.6 MB, 544x304)

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

There is literally and unironically NOTHING wrong with forcing gender roles. The appx. 5% of people who it hurts can simply be executed.
Make a single argument that isn't "muh freedom" against it.

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

The libtards
Youre on the wrong board
/pol/

takes2long
takes2long

not recognizing your own trolls
Come on now...

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

As always.

ZeroReborn
ZeroReborn

t. butthurt woman

RumChicken
RumChicken

Haha I can't wait until artificial wombs.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

Imagine my shock!

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

he´s unironically an authority-worshipping coward
Europeon detected.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

Some differences peak in the 19-29 range. Such as neurotic differences. You have to look at the full thing.

eGremlin
eGremlin

Explain to me why forcing innate gender roles, which is conducive to a functional society, is bad just because a small minority of people will be hurt and we have to give up the objectively false notion of the blank slate/social constructionist ideology?

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

forcing
innate

The only forcing is the current economic situation in America forcing both parents to work full time. The forcing is against their innate desire to spend time with children.

w8t4u
w8t4u

Attached: libtard.jpg (64 KB, 590x510)

idontknow
idontknow

Instead of doing what? Having 10 kids and "spending time" with them by using their labor to farm?

likme
likme

I can't help but throw in some anti-left propaganda. It's very sad that such a close-minded group of people are so anti-science like libtards are. Thankfully history will prove them wrong.

Harmless_Venom
Harmless_Venom

The point is to tell the truth, not worry about policy

Soft_member
Soft_member

I’m studying engineering, and there are females who are getting distinctions and males who are barely passing. Who do you think should be offered a job if both applied?

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

This has nothing to do with OP data. In a statistical distribution you should expect some % of males to more agreeable than the average woman.

If we are looking at individual situations then you wouldn't use the OP data for anything that useful. If you are looking at 1 million women and 1 million males then it will start mattering.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

Oh wow it's literally nothing.

Attached: Cohens-d.png (17 KB, 225x225)

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

d=0.25 is 56% of one sex scoring higher than the other sex
d=0.50 is 70% of one sex scoring higher than the other sex.

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

So it seems to me that feminists don't exactly argue that both sexes are exactly the same.

It seems to me that the difference in sexes even suggested by this study still means that there is a statistically significant amount of people who don't score higher than the other sex - and that's pretty much worth accomodating, and we should talk the mechanisms of action in the first place.

LuckyDusty
LuckyDusty

Kek. The difference when d= 0.5 makes a massive difference at an elite level. Look at the x-axis on those graphs. Imagine that the elite level can be limited to the very far right of the x-axis. The purple line clearly occupies that elite part of the far right more way more than the yellow.

This is why slight differences in the median average of an ability in different demographics can manifest as massive over/underrepresentation at an elite level.

Lunatick
Lunatick

d=0.25 is 56% of one sex scoring higher than the other sex
d=0.50 is 70% of one sex scoring higher than the other sex.
I don't know how the english language works or what cohen's D is so I will just make shit up.

56% are higher than the mean
70% are higher than the mean

Outliers are more effected by a mean difference than people in the center.
This is literally the statement furthest from the truth you could make. If the two sample sizes have the same standard deviation every part of the curve is shifted the same distance.

Does trying to prove one's own superiority make people dumber on Veeky Forums? Sample size of two says yes.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

Outliers are more effected by a mean difference than people in the center.
That is not what I said! Read what I said carefully and look at the graph.

When I said massive difference at an elite level I meant that you were, for example, picking 10 of the best athletes from two populations of 100 million people with a d = 0.5. Where sample A was, on average, more fit than sample B. If you were to find the 10 most fit people out of the total 200 million then they would all be from sample A.

This is why certain demographics are massively overrepresented at certain Olympic sports.

5mileys
5mileys

doesn't understand what d difference means
suddenly gets uppity when he's contradicted
shoo fly, don't pester me

likme
likme

When agreeableness and neuroticism become Olympic sports your post will start mattering in this thread.

Playboyize
Playboyize

You don't understand language.

"Than the other sex" implies mean. Just like "Women score higher than men" doesn't imply "Every women's score was higher than every men's score"

Your parsing is the fault, not my statements.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

*Sigh* When we are talking about representation at the elite levels of business, such as CEOs, then the same effect will apply. A population with a slightly higher median average confidence and slightly lower neuroticism will be massively overrepresented at the top for a small number of CEO jobs.

This is one of the reasons that men occupy most of the positions at the highest ranks of a company. I was using the Olympics as an analogy.

Fuzzy_Logic
Fuzzy_Logic

A population with a slightly higher median average confidence and slightly lower neuroticism will be massively overrepresented at the top for a small number of CEO jobs.
[citation needed]

Supergrass
Supergrass

I have just explained the reasoning behind this here

The only assumption I am making is that neuroticism is a very negative trait to have that will impede one's ability to become a CEO. However, I think it is a very reasonable assumption that most people would agree with.

Picking a small number of the highest performing people from two combined large populations with a slight difference in median ability will mean that most of the people picked will be from the group with the slightly higher median ability.

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

it is a very reasonable assumption that most people would agree with.
[citation needed]

Lunatick
Lunatick

Do you think that neurotic people would make good CEOs?
I did not claim that females' median higher neuroticism rating is the sole cause of the overrepresentation of men as CEOS. I was suggesting that it was a factor.

MPmaster
MPmaster

Do you think that neurotic people would make good CEOs?
I never thought psychopaths would make good CEOs but the statistics back that theory up.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

I never thought psychopaths would make good CEOs
High or low neuroticism has nothing to do with psychopathy.

I think my hypothesis that the higher median neuroticism in women is a factor in females' underrepresentation at the CEO level is reasonable and I have successfully defended it.

Inmate
Inmate

You defended your hypothesis with literally nothing. At least the psychopathy thing has a researched statistical backing. You might as well claim that the person's favorite color matters with how much you actually "backed up" and "defended" your hypothesis.

hairygrape
hairygrape

You mean someone with psychopathic personality traits makes a good CEO. An actual psychopath would have spent their life in and out of jail since they were 15 years old.

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

I don't know what a psychopath is
Ok now I understand where you are coming from.

Emberburn
Emberburn

I don't know what a psychopath is
Ok now I understand where you are coming from.

Firespawn
Firespawn

Your image of a psychopath is based on popular fiction. Don't blame me for using the term correctly.

WebTool
WebTool

No, your image of a psychopath is based on popular fiction. You probably think that episode of House with the psychopath patient is an accurate representation. Psychopathy is a massive hindrance to success in society, but having regulated psychopathic personality traits can be advantageous.

CouchChiller
CouchChiller

A person's favourite colour has no bearing on their ability to be a CEO.
My idea was just a hypothesis. I could be right and could be wrong; I was just suggesting that the slight difference in median neuroticism between men and women could be a strong factor in the latter's underrepresentation.

No need to get your panties in a twist.

FastChef
FastChef

Don't watch house.

I just pulled this theory out of my ass no need to point out I have no evidence for it.

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

Go back to /pol/ nobody cares about how you're angry at politically left individuals

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

Leftists trying to meme

Booteefool
Booteefool

essentially admitting you can't help turning everything into politics
Literally go back to /pol/ then

w8t4u
w8t4u

If scientific community wasn't unbelievably left-leaning on these issues that would be a valid point.

likme
likme

If the unscientific community wasn't unbelievably right leaning on these issues that would be a valid point.

hairygrape
hairygrape

Just because other people do stupid shit means I should also do stupid shit!

Methshot
Methshot

I think he angry that he got fired for his memo; he is not angry that some people are left wing.

The reason a lot of young men on the internet are turning to the right these days is just because the right seems more subversive; so many people with power seem to want to ban and shut out some of the most innocuous centre-right ideas.

I personally don't really care about transgenderism; I you want to be a woman that is fine by me. However, if the government mandates that I MUST say that they are a woman then they can fuck off.

If the government mandated by law that everyone must say that the sky is blue then I would aggressively say it was red.

Snarelure
Snarelure

The sad denial.

Attached: typical-sci-intellect.jpg (306 KB, 1734x850)

Techpill
Techpill

I would totally do things to the girl in OPs pic
And by things, I mean nothing
And by nothing, I mean I'm a huge waste and wish I was dead

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

Grow your hair out and braid it then you can do things to yourself and imagine you are doing them to the girl in OP's pic.

FastChef
FastChef

be fine with numbers like 90% engineers being men,

That is pretty lousy of the west though considering other cultures have way more number of women in Stems outside the west.
45% of scientific researchers in Latin America are women and Iran pumps out a ton of Mathematics, comp Sci and engineering women.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

You’re fucking obtuse. A slight difference in the median values of two populations creates dramatic differences in the extreme sides of those populations. Reread his olympic analogy. Citation needed? Citation needed? Citation needed? Oh you just said a word, can you rigorously define it and then rigorously define every word you used to define it? Fucking retard.

Emberfire
Emberfire

45% of scientific researchers in Latin America are women and Iran pumps out a ton of Mathematics, comp Sci and engineering women.
youtube.com/watch?v=tiJVJ5QRRUE
tl;dw the shittier a country is the more men in nursing and women in engineering

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

Yes to both of you. Like the second guy said, who cares what the percentages are, nature is as mature is, but we should base our judgments purely on merit. Stereotypes do come from averages, and there are always outliers on both ends. But you'd have to imagine, that if women are gen generally more agreeable and submissive, then being in a managerial spot may cause enough cognitive dissonance that they quit or fail, only those >75% women will thrive.

Evilember
Evilember

Imagine living with a nose that's larger than your fucking forehead.

Firespawn
Firespawn

It's a new generation where gender roles are less prevalent

Firespawn
Firespawn

Statistics are good at narrowing down to things that might be causal, so it gives researchers ideas of things to further research directly.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

This entire time you've been mocking him for doing something that you yourself are doing far more aggressively, not to mention you did it first.

Massive hypocrite with no self-awareness. You may as well have been talking shit about yourself the whole time for how ironic you're being.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

certain gaps peaked in the 18--29 range

Read the actual data, that age is actually increased gaps

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

look at data,some peak differences are in that age range dunce

TurtleCat
TurtleCat

but who really gives a shit about this soft science crap? The numbers they are comparing are "personality trait scores"

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

You seem pretty mad.

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

tl;dw the shittier a country is the more men in nursing and women in engineering

Was that in the video because it's 38 minutes long

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

Stereotypes do come from averages

not really. A fuckton of them come from people projecting that on others then enforcing it.

MPmaster
MPmaster

rebcunts trying to understand

iluvmen
iluvmen

bonobos have females in power

hairygrape
hairygrape

What animal invests more energy into pregnancy?

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit