Science Says ‘Lean In’ Is Filled With Flawed Advice, Likely to Hurt Women

[Axulus]

The problem starts with her book’s title, unreservedly advising women to “lean in”—to boldly assert themselves at the office—without detailing the science that lays out the problems inherent in that.

Ms. Sandberg goes clueless on science throughout her book; for example, never delving into what anthropological research suggests about why women are not more supportive of one another and why it may not be reasonable for a woman to expect other women in her workplace to be supportive of her in the way men are of other men and even women.

Joyce Benenson, a psychologist at Emmanuel College in Boston, doesn’t have Sandberg’s high profile, but she’s done the homework (and research) that’s missing from Sandberg’s book, laying it out in a fascinating science-based book on sex differences, “Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes.”

...

Ms. Benenson explains that there’s an “inherent conflict in unrelated females’ relations with one another.” They very much want one another’s support—as coalition partners and for help with childcare—but “they must invest first and foremost in their families.” In fact, because we are driven to pass on our own genes or at least those of people closely related to us, it really doesn’t make evolutionary sense for a woman to invest in an unrelated woman, except as a form of self-protection.

How this plays out among women leads to some “very confusing” (and often ugly) relationships, with women as covert competitors, using tools including gossip and social exclusion to push down other women, especially any who dare to stand out.

Men, on the other hand, are direct and domineering with one another from boyhood on in a way that women are not. Men come together in groups, while women form dyads—groups of two. Men love competition and contests to see who’s best, whereas women get insulted if one woman seems to be asserting herself as better than the others.

In fact, research finds that women bond through sharing their failures and vulnerabilities—an essential bit of information that helps explain what Sandberg merely laments: women’s not proclaiming their greatness in the workplace and not finding it natural to just march right up and “sit at the table.”

Although Ms. Sandberg, like other business advice writers, repeats the stereotype of women as “communal,” it is actually men who evolved to be cooperators in a way that women, ever-vigilant that another woman might get one over on them, did not. When men aren’t fighting each another, they are quick to band together against a common enemy. Or, after kicking each other’s asses, they’ll go and have a beer.

Sure, it’s 2015, and we’re marching through the workplace with iPhones instead of pawing in the underbrush for berries, but this evolved psychology is still driving us, and it’s to the detriment of the women who read Ms. Sandberg’s book that it is ignored instead of taken into account.

Read more: http://observer.com/2015/05/science-says-lean-in-is-filled-with-flawed-advice-likely-to-hurt-women/

 

[repoman]

Some aspects are true, if played up a bit.

 

[untermensche]

Science is not a thing that says anything.

And this is not science.

Human behavior is very far from being reduced to science.

 

[Axulus]

Science is not a thing that says anything.

And this is not science.

Human behavior is very far from being reduced to science.

It's not "reduced to" science - however, science can inform us about behavior.

What are your thoughts about the last section of the article here? Furthermore, why would anyone take up Sandberg's advice if, as you believe, there is no science behind it?

Ms. Sandberg on male versus female ambition: “Men are continually applauded for being ambitious and powerful and successful, but women who display these traits often pay a social penalty. Female accomplishments come at a cost.”

Science says: Men are comfortable with hierarchies and taking the lead in a way that women are not. Women want everybody to be equal. Ms. Benenson writes, “Girls do not rehearse leadership skills with one another. They take great care not to overtly boss one another around” (with the exceptions being during play when one of them is pretending to be the mother or teacher).

Ms. Sandberg is puzzled: “Men have an easier time finding the mentors and sponsors who are invaluable for career progression.”

Science suggests: If you’re a woman looking within your own company for a mentor, try to find one who is male, because men are comfortable with competitors in a way women are not. If you want a woman to mentor you, your best bet is probably finding one outside your company, who may not see you as such direct competition.

A Sandbergian fantasy: “Women will tear down the external barriers once we achieve leadership roles.”

Science says: A woman might tear down the external barriers so she can get in—and then throw them right back up so other women can’t.

Ms. Sandberg’s discomfort with recognition: In keeping with scientific findings suggesting that women evolved to self-protectively avoid standing out, it is unsurprising that Sandberg writes of being horrified to learn that Forbes had ranked her as the fifth most powerful woman in the world, right after German chancellor Angela Merkel and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “Far from being powerful,” she explains, “I felt embarrassed and exposed.” Acccordingly, years before, Sandberg was recognized by her business school as a Henry Ford Scholar for having the highest first-year academic record. The award, a cash prize, had been split amongst six other high-achieving students, all men. Only one of these awardees—Ms. Sandberg—kept her prize a secret.

Sandberg shows her ignorance on the science on sex differences: “Are there characteristics inherent in sex differences that make women more nurturing and men more assertive? Quite possibly. Still, in today’s world where we no longer have to hunt in the wild for our food, our desire for leadership is largely a culturally created and reinforced trait. How individuals view what they can and should accomplish is in large part formed by our societal expectations.”

The science Ms. Sandberg missed about “societal expectations”:: …our societal expectations which were formed by our genes, which shape our physiology, our psychology, and, in turn, our culture. Sure, there will always be outliers—such as female execs who are extraordinarily kind and helpful to other women on the way up—but putting out a book of business advice that contains hundreds of pages of largely imaginary notions about human psychology is mainly helpful for book sales, not for the women who are snapping it up.

 

[fromderinside]

Sure, it’s 2015, and we’re marching through the workplace with iPhones instead of pawing in the underbrush for berries, but this evolved psychology is still driving us, and it’s to the detriment of the women who read Ms. Sandberg’s book that it is ignored instead of taken into account.

Read more: http://observer.com/2015/05/science-says-lean-in-is-filled-with-flawed-advice-likely-to-hurt-women/

I support untermenche a little here. What became humans branched off from what became chimps about 12 million years ago. So looking at pastoral primarily herbivore behavior as a model for humans is kind of misleading. Even the hunting examples of primates didn't move far from Roots suggesting little tolerance for climatic change. Humans a a demonstrably migratory animal. It may be this attribute and the other attributes necessary for migratory attribute to succeed that determines the social evolution of men. We're more like wolves in migratory terms.

As A. Clark Arcadi enunciates in http://as.cornell.edu/departments/anthro/faculty/upload/2006-Arcadi__Species-resilience.pdf "Species resilience in Pleistocene hominids that traveled farand ate widely: An analogy to the wolf-like canids" our social behavior may reflect traits similar to wolves ans doe our evolution. I present the argument the author generates with some snipping to save space. One can get the whole paper from the link.

Species resilience in Canis and Homo

The relatively brief appearance of C. dirus (the dire wolf, about 30,000-10,000 ya) marks the only fairly clear period during which two contemporaneous wolf species were present in the fossil record, and some workers nevertheless consider C. dirus a large regional variant of C. lupus (reviewed in Nowak, 1979, 2003: 240). Fossils identified as modern C.lupus date to the late Middle Pleistocene in North America(Kurte´n and Anderson, 1980: 171) and Eurasia (Nowak,1992; Agustı´ and Anto´n, 2002). Hence, the previous emphasison interspecific fertility in modern canids to illuminate possiblehominid species relationships (e.g., Holliday, 2003) hasneglected the equally interesting possibility that wolves area model of resilience to allopatric speciation in a large terrestrial mammal.

Later hominids share with wolves the suite of behavioral characteristics that makes species resilience in the latter possible.The behavioral parallels between wolves and hominids thus represent strong theoretical support for the hypothesis that Pleistocene Homo evolved multiregionally as a single,widely dispersed, polytypic species ... The central proposition of this argument is that a large bodied, nutritionally demanding, adaptively flexible, eurytopic species would not have had the opportunity to speciate. This is because genetic differentiation would not have been necessary to colonize the new ecological spaces open to expanding Homo populations, and sustained vicariance would have been unlikely even if temporary periods of climate-driven isolation occurred during transcontinental colonization (Hewitt, 1999; Dennell, 2003). ...

Although it is clear that Pleistocene Homo comprised many distinctive morphotypes, both over time and contemporaneously,examination of the wolf-like canids suggests that caution is warranted in drawing species-level distinctions based on morphological variation. Likewise, the canid analogy suggests that caution is warranted in attributing the relatively low genetic variation documented among modern humans ... to recent common ancestry .... In both wolves worldwide and coyotes in North America ... low genetic variation has been linked to persistently high levels of geneflow (Wayne et al., 1995). In view of the analogously eurytopicand mobile nature of Pleistocene Homo, the wolf-likecanids provide a compelling demonstration of how gene flow could have stifled hominid, and eventually modern human, genetic diversity ...

Resilience to speciation versus competitive exclusion

The use of a canid analogy to support a single species interpretation of Pleistocene Homo evolution differs fundamentally from the theoretical argument for Lower Pleistocene single species evolution proposed by Wolpoff (1971). The analogy to the wolf-like canids focuses on the conditions that favor, or do not favor, genetic divergence between parent and daughter populations. By contrast, citing the competitive exclusion principle, Wolpoff (1971) argued that there would not have been ecological space for two Lower Pleistocene hominid species to coexist because of the ecological overlap inferred from their reliance on tool use for hunting and defense.Both models envision broad habitat tolerance for hominids.But the key difference between the two approachesis that Wolpoff (1971) attempted to show why two culture bearing hominid species could not have existed sympatrically, whereas the canid analogy asks whether under conditions of allopatry, which are assumed to have occurred periodically throughout human evolution as a consequence of normal and climate-driven dispersal and population movements (cf. Grubb,1999), hominids would have speciated to begin with.

Significantly, persuasive theoretical objections to Wolpoff’s(1971) single-species hypothesis do not apply to the species resilience hypothesis described here. Rather, they tend to support it. In his critique of Wolpoff’s (1971) argument, Winterhalder’s (1980, 1981) key insight was that hominid cultural abilities would have increased, not decreased, the potential for sympatry between competing hominid species, because the ability to make and use tools would have dramatically increased the potential of hominid populations to partition real ecological niches and, consequently, to coexist. By the same token, Winterhalder’s (1980, 1981) analysis of culture and niche partitioning supports the species-resilience interpretation based on the canid analogy, because if culture increased the potential for niche partitioning, it would by definition have increased hominid eurytopy. Following this reasoning, behavioral not genetic, variation would have made colonization of new environments possible, further reducing the likelihood of vicariance and speciation.

Just sayin... there are other ways of playin.....

Where are the big boys?

 

[untermensche]

It's not "reduced to" science - however, science can inform us about behavior.

What are your thoughts about the last section of the article here? Furthermore, why would anyone take up Sandberg's advice if, as you believe, there is no science behind it?

Human roles do not seem to be "hardwired".

What is hardwired is that larger animals tend to dominate, especially if they are prone to violence.

Thus we have tens of thousands of years of male domination.

But if animals are free from the threat of violence then other characteristics can dominate.

And there is no way to know which traits any male or female may have beyond a general trend for males to be larger and stronger.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

There are problems with the whole "lean in" thing, but you will have to work your way through quite a few of those problem before you get to "women are hardwired to not cooperate with one another."

 

[Derec]

Science is not a thing that says anything.

And this is not science.

Human behavior is very far from being reduced to science.

 

[Axulus]

There are problems with the whole "lean in" thing, but you will have to work your way through quite a few of those problem before you get to "women are hardwired to not cooperate with one another."

Good point. However, the book which the article is based on does sound fascinating and provocative.

"Brave, thoroughly documented, and written with unusual clarity, Warriors and Worriers
explains more about the fundamentals of gender differences - and the meaning of human
nature - than a library of conventional social science." -- E. O. Wilson, University Research Professor Emeritus, Harvard University


"We have been lead to believe that girls are empathetic creatures who value female friendship above all else and that boys are competitive beasts unable to form deep and lasting bonds with other males. In Warriors and Worriers, Benenson and Markovits formidably demonstrate that girls are, in fact, designed by evolution to compete with each other for reproductive resources while boys are designed to form tightly knit and forgiving groups to defend collectively their reproductive assets. We have ignored this truth that we see every day in play groups, at schools, in board rooms, and at faculty meetings. But now we have Warriors and Worriers to explain in conversational language what made life so hard as teenagers and what haunts us as adults - that girls and women are really the competitive ones while boys and men are actually very good at being social. What an amazing paradigm shift, and one that makes so much sense." -- Meredith Small, Professor of Anthropology, Cornell University

"We all know men and women are different. In Warriors and Worriers, Joyce Benenson tells us the ultimate reason why they are. Men and women have evolved and developed different psychologies, men to identify enemies and defend against them and women to care for and worry about their children. In this highly readable and authoritative book, Benenson shows how biology and environment interact over the life span to produce male and female minds and why -- not just how -- men and women are different. This is an important book for anyone interested in sex differences, and admit it, we all are." -- David F. Bjorklund, Professor of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University

http://www.amazon.com/Warriors-Worriers-The-Survival-Sexes/dp/0199972230

 

[dystopian]

It's not "reduced to" science - however, science can inform us about behavior.

What are your thoughts about the last section of the article here? Furthermore, why would anyone take up Sandberg's advice if, as you believe, there is no science behind it?

Science says: Men are comfortable with hierarchies and taking the lead in a way that women are not. Women want everybody to be equal. Ms. Benenson writes, “Girls do not rehearse leadership skills with one another. They take great care not to overtly boss one another around” (with the exceptions being during play when one of them is pretending to be the mother or teacher).

I really couldn't get past this section, as it seems to say this is somehow innate to men and women when it's clearly culturally determined. How can I say this? Because in Dutch businesses men are *not* comfortable with hierarchies and taking the lead; and instead want everyone to be equal. In a Dutch business, chances are even the lowliest employee will call his boss by his first name. There's often no clear divide between those in leadership positions and everyone else. The decision-making process is, wherever possible, based on reaching a consensus, rather than someone stepping in and making an executive decision. Whole books have been written warning people not to assume that their American business (or other hierarchical driven cultures) attitudes translate well into Dutch business, or vice versa.

So... if it's clear that the male behavior described is just a cultural matter; I'd have to assume the same is true for anything described about women.

 

[Axulus]

It's not "reduced to" science - however, science can inform us about behavior.

What are your thoughts about the last section of the article here? Furthermore, why would anyone take up Sandberg's advice if, as you believe, there is no science behind it?

I really couldn't get past this section, as it seems to say this is somehow innate to men and women when it's clearly culturally determined. How can I say this? Because in Dutch businesses men are *not* comfortable with hierarchies and taking the lead; and instead want everyone to be equal. In a Dutch business, chances are even the lowliest employee will call his boss by his first name. There's often no clear divide between those in leadership positions and everyone else. The decision-making process is, wherever possible, based on reaching a consensus, rather than someone stepping in and making an executive decision. Whole books have been written warning people not to assume that their American business (or other hierarchical driven cultures) attitudes translate well into Dutch business, or vice versa.

So... if it's clear that the male behavior described is just a cultural matter; I'd have to assume the same is true for anything described about women.

You'd assume wrong. There are many scientific papers that provide evidence that some of it is genetic/evolutionary based. I point to you to the reviews by prominent scientific minds of a book that presents this evidence:

"Brave, thoroughly documented, and written with unusual clarity, Warriors and Worriers explains more about the fundamentals of gender differences - and the meaning of human nature - than a library of conventional social science." -- E. O. Wilson, University Research Professor Emeritus, Harvard University

"We have been lead to believe that girls are empathetic creatures who value female friendship above all else and that boys are competitive beasts unable to form deep and lasting bonds with other males. In Warriors and Worriers, Benenson and Markovits formidably demonstrate that girls are, in fact, designed by evolution to compete with each other for reproductive resources while boys are designed to form tightly knit and forgiving groups to defend collectively their reproductive assets. We have ignored this truth that we see every day in play groups, at schools, in board rooms, and at faculty meetings. But now we have Warriors and Worriers to explain in conversational language what made life so hard as teenagers and what haunts us as adults - that girls and women are really the competitive ones while boys and men are actually very good at being social. What an amazing paradigm shift, and one that makes so much sense." -- Meredith Small, Professor of Anthropology, Cornell University

"We all know men and women are different. In Warriors and Worriers, Joyce Benenson tells us the ultimate reason why they are. Men and women have evolved and developed different psychologies, men to identify enemies and defend against them and women to care for and worry about their children. In this highly readable and authoritative book, Benenson shows how biology and environment interact over the life span to produce male and female minds and why -- not just how -- men and women are different. This is an important book for anyone interested in sex differences, and admit it, we all are." -- David F. Bjorklund, Professor of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University

http://www.amazon.com/Warriors-Worriers-The-Survival-Sexes/dp/0199972230

 

[barbos]

Yeah, that's genetic/pre-wired/nature. And when left-leaning people say it's all cultural/nurture I ask them what about gays? nurture too? Cause I know they can't say it's nurture, because that's what Christians think and clearly wrong

 

[Juma]

Yeah, that's genetic/pre-wired/nature. And when left-leaning people say it's all cultural/nurture I ask them what about gays? nurture too? Cause I know they can't say it's nurture, because that's what Christians think and clearly wrong

But gays is a bad example: gays are exactly as heterosexuals except in one thing, partner gender. Its just like different in taste about say grapefriuts: like/dont like.

The stereotypical "gay behaviour" is just act and would exactly as common in heterosexuals as in homosexuals if there werent this common prejudice on how gays act.

 

[dystopian]

You'd assume wrong. There are many scientific papers that provide evidence that some of it is genetic/evolutionary based. I point to you to the reviews by prominent scientific minds of a book that presents this evidence:

No, what you've pointed to does not provide sufficient or even particularly credible evidence for the claims presented. You've just presented a book, by a single author, whose ideas run counter to much of the established consensus on these matters. One of the central premises of her book for instance is the male warrior hypothesis; a hypothesis that is scientifically controversial and which is widely criticized. Without this hypothesis, the rest of the claims fall apart. The scientific community is nowhere near establishing the causes, origins or even the exact kind of differences between the genders, and no book (however popular or well-reviewed, which in this case doesn't seem to be very) is going to change that.

If you're going to present a book itself as evidence, then why not also present the books that put forth alternative explanations?


The problem isn't that evolutionary pressures can not affect psychology. They do. The problem also isn't that there are certain innate differences between the genders. There are, although their exact nature very much remains a matter of debate.

The problem is that on the one hand, some people (such as Benenson) try to exaggerate the differences or assume that the differences they observe locally are universal (or if the same differences exist in different places that they share the same causes), and seek to explain them through primarily evolutionary means which fit preconceived notions about the genders. And on the other hand, there's people who, in the pursuit of equality, try to reconcile reality with the belief that men and women are identical beyond 'superficial' external differences. Both groups of people tend to ignore the vast swaths of human history and cultures during/in which gender roles fall well outside of their pet models, or try to dismiss these as 'exceptions that prove the rule'. But exceptions do not prove the rule, they disprove it.

I have no issue with the claim that there are differences between genders that exist as a result of evolutionary pressure. I just take exception to specific claims about what those differences are and the explanations given for their existence.

Anyone who claims to have some definitive insight into gender differences is just trying to sell you something; be it a book or an ideology. Because as it stands currently, the evidence tends to be all over the place and doesn't clearly point one way or the other.

 

[barbos]

Yeah, that's genetic/pre-wired/nature. And when left-leaning people say it's all cultural/nurture I ask them what about gays? nurture too? Cause I know they can't say it's nurture, because that's what Christians think and clearly wrong

But gays is a bad example:

No, gays is an excellent example.

gays are exactly as heterosexuals except in one thing, partner gender. Its just like different in taste about say grapefriuts: like/dont like.

Are you claiming there is a sexual differences with respect to grapefriuts?
You are actually totally and completely wrong here.
Grapefruits liking/disliking is actually genetic too. Supertasters (which I happened to be) dislike grapefruits because they are genetically more sensitive to bitter taste which in turn was caused by evolutionary pressure to avoid poisonous plants.

The stereotypical "gay behaviour" is just act and would exactly as common in heterosexuals as in homosexuals if there werent this common prejudice on how gays act.

Gays are hardwired to be gay, and women are hardwired to be women.

 

[Juma]

But gays is a bad example:

No, gays is an excellent example.

gays are exactly as heterosexuals except in one thing, partner gender. Its just like different in taste about say grapefriuts: like/dont like.

Are you claiming there is a sexual differences with respect to grapefriuts?
And you are actually totally and completely wrong here.
grapefriuts liking/disliking is actually genetic too. Supertasters (which I happened to be) dislike grapefriuts because they are genetically more sensitive to bitter taste which in turn was caused by evolutionary pressure to avoid poisonous plants.

The stereotypical "gay behaviour" is just act and would exactly as common in heterosexuals as in homosexuals if there werent this common prejudice on how gays act.

Gays are hardwired to be gay, and women are hardwired to be women.

Yes, but being gay says nothing on behaviour except on partner gender preference.

Of course it is in the genes but that was not my point.

 

[barbos]

No, gays is an excellent example.

gays are exactly as heterosexuals except in one thing, partner gender. Its just like different in taste about say grapefriuts: like/dont like.

Are you claiming there is a sexual differences with respect to grapefriuts?
And you are actually totally and completely wrong here.
grapefriuts liking/disliking is actually genetic too. Supertasters (which I happened to be) dislike grapefriuts because they are genetically more sensitive to bitter taste which in turn was caused by evolutionary pressure to avoid poisonous plants.

The stereotypical "gay behaviour" is just act and would exactly as common in heterosexuals as in homosexuals if there werent this common prejudice on how gays act.

Gays are hardwired to be gay, and women are hardwired to be women.

Yes, but being gay says nothing on behaviour except on partner gender preference.

Really? Are you saying "flamboyant hair stylist" stereotype is not in any way deserved?
And Is not it too convenient to have exceptions in your theory?
Lets apply your approach to Hitler:
With exception being murderous racist demagogue Hitler was a normal human being, right?

Of course it is in the genes but that was not my point.

So are psychological traits of women and men.

 

[Juma]

Are you saying "flamboyant hair stylist" stereotype is not in any way deserved?

Yes, of course.

So are psychological traits of women and men.

Maybe, but that is not my point. Just that gays was a very bad example.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Good point. However, the book which the article is based on does sound fascinating and provocative.

"Brave, thoroughly documented, and written with unusual clarity, Warriors and Worriers
explains more about the fundamentals of gender differences - and the meaning of human
nature - than a library of conventional social science." -- E. O. Wilson, University Research Professor Emeritus, Harvard University


"We have been lead to believe that girls are empathetic creatures who value female friendship above all else and that boys are competitive beasts unable to form deep and lasting bonds with other males. In Warriors and Worriers, Benenson and Markovits formidably demonstrate that girls are, in fact, designed by evolution to compete with each other for reproductive resources while boys are designed to form tightly knit and forgiving groups to defend collectively their reproductive assets. We have ignored this truth that we see every day in play groups, at schools, in board rooms, and at faculty meetings. But now we have Warriors and Worriers to explain in conversational language what made life so hard as teenagers and what haunts us as adults - that girls and women are really the competitive ones while boys and men are actually very good at being social. What an amazing paradigm shift, and one that makes so much sense." -- Meredith Small, Professor of Anthropology, Cornell University

"We all know men and women are different. In Warriors and Worriers, Joyce Benenson tells us the ultimate reason why they are. Men and women have evolved and developed different psychologies, men to identify enemies and defend against them and women to care for and worry about their children. In this highly readable and authoritative book, Benenson shows how biology and environment interact over the life span to produce male and female minds and why -- not just how -- men and women are different. This is an important book for anyone interested in sex differences, and admit it, we all are." -- David F. Bjorklund, Professor of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University

http://www.amazon.com/Warriors-Worriers-The-Survival-Sexes/dp/0199972230

Yeah, and back in high school, Nicky Tate sounded fascinating and provocative in the backseat of his '67 mustang, but I didn't believe him either.

 

[repoman]

Ideologues of either end of the spectrum need to stay out of this type of scientific study.

I am more interested in how to have the mean, dark nature of people not need to come out. Feeling secure enough to not have to front or back stab your peers.