MPs more likely to respond to women's requests, driven by female legislators bias against men

[ruby sparks]

It's about, as you say, 'fibbing'. If people don't really prefer black and Asian women, why are they lying and saying they do? Why are they concerned about being "right on"? Why is it regarded as more socially desirable to be biased towards black and Asian women versus white men? And further, why is it regarded as more socially desirable if in fact the majority of people do not hold such a position?

Could be a variety of reasons. These days, it's better to be seen as right on. Maybe it often was in the past, but I think it's heightened now. And/or, maybe some do actually think they should be more right on, as in they aspire to it, or know in their hearts that it's more noble. Others might be deluding themselves that they are as right on as they think they are (humans tend to think highly of themselves, as a common bias).

I would say that, if most people do not hold the position but it is regarded as socially desirable to say you do, then there is heavy cultural influence from establishment media pushing the viewpoint that it's better to prefer black and Asian women to white men--an establishment media that does not, then, reflect the mainstream in American society.

I'm not sure we could put those proportions on it. I think it's plausible that some might fib in that direction. Yes, it's partly media, because that's part of the political (with a small p) climate. I'm not sure about it only being mainstream media. Non-mainstream, 'left' media too. Go to a dinner party nowadays, and say that all other things being equal, you prefer to vote for a white man than a black woman, and you might get a frosty reception. Unless you're safe in the company of like-minded people, which I imagine is not as common as it used to be.......

 

[ruby sparks]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Emily Lake]

I think I understand some of that. In a nutshell, you confuse them, to weed out what they really think?

Anyhows, let's say it at least partially worked in this case. Would that mean that many people (in this study, most, overall) do actually prefer black/female candidates?

I suppose the next questions are (a) if so, why, and (b) whether it is a good or a bad thing.

If I took this survey, I myself might (I'm not certain) come out favouring a female candidate (or a black or other minority female candidate over a white man let's also say). Or, maybe that's just me virtue-signalling, and the conjoin test would weed me out.

But let me indulge in the vanity that I did favour females. If asked why, I'd say that I think more women in positions of power is a good thing, because (a) I think they might be better in the job and (b) they are and have been underrepresented. I wouldn't pick a woman just because she's a woman, obviously, but if all other things seemed fairly equal, I might. And to be honest, it's my impression that things aren't necessarily often equal, for me, because it's my impression that women say more things that I like to hear. As to blackness, I think it might be more (b) that might sway me.

I think a matriarchy is at least something we should try out.

Assuming that the survey is well designed, I can speculate and provide my opinion on (a) why and (b) whether it's a good or bad thing.

Regarding (a), there's always an element of interpretation involved. I would be inclined to say that it may not be that people favor women, so much as that they disfavor old white men. Been there, done that, hasn't worked all that well, we need some new perspective. Some of it could also be virtue signaling, and some of it could be a sincere desire to see a shift in representation of women and minorities overall. I think a lot of people in the US feel like the government isn't doing it's job - they're not representing the people, they're not seeing to our well being. There are any number of possible explanations for that... but the most obvious pattern is that congress is packed full of old white men, where the population is significantly more diverse. There's good reason to think that old white men don't really have an anchor with which to sympathize and resonate with the experiences of women or minorities. It's not necessarily that they don't want to, it's that they can't. They are unfamiliar with those experiences, they have no frame of reference.

With respect to (b), I personally think it would be a good thing. I don't have any inherent preference for a woman or a minority, but I do think that greater diversity would be a benefit for the US as a whole.

 

[ruby sparks]

...... but the most obvious pattern is that congress is packed full of old white men....

I KNOW. How did that even happen?*

I look at Trump. And then I look at Biden.....and I think, 'really, these are considered the best two?' They both look like they might soon need a zimmer frame and a hearing aid, and someone to feed them pureed food. To be fair, Bernie Sanders was worse. I know they have a lot of life experience, but can they actually remember it?

(* rhetorical).

There's good reason to think that old white men don't really have an anchor with which to sympathize and resonate with the experiences of women or minorities. It's not necessarily that they don't want to, it's that they can't. They are unfamiliar with those experiences, they have no frame of reference.

Sure. And it's not just women's or minority issues I would cite. Lack of familiarity with poverty , or the 'working class' (possibly even the 'middle class') might be another. Young people's issues (including the planet) is another one of several. If only Greta Thunberg was black and running for president.....

 

[laughing dog]

I already did, in post #3.

No, you did not - your sample is cherry picked (it excludes non-Democrats).

That could possibly explain women winning more often when they run, but it would not explain the voter bias in the experiment. The experiment in the OP did not examine actual candidates but hypothetical ones, and it (as much as practicable) disguised the intentions of the experimenters.

The experiment is flawed in my view because there is no way to determine if the respondents are evaluating the hypothetical candidates solely on their hypothetical attributes instead of imagining actual candidates in comparison.

I imagine they don't find it as appealing, on the whole, as men.

And why is that?

No, the data are not cherry picked. There is an overall effect of women being more likely to win congressional seats when they run for them. That overall effect is driven by Democrats and minor parties, because Republican women have a slightly smaller chance of succeeding than Republican men.

When you exclude Republican Women from the group of women candidates, the data is cherry picked.

 

[Metaphor]

No, you did not - your sample is cherry picked (it excludes non-Democrats).

No, the sample does not exclude them. There is a bias toward black and Asian female and the bias is driven by Democrats.

The experiment is flawed in my view because there is no way to determine if the respondents are evaluating the hypothetical candidates solely on their hypothetical attributes instead of imagining actual candidates in comparison.

No doubt, but then the question remains: why do people imagine black and Asian women candidates to be better than white male candidates?

And why is that?

I don't know. It's probably many different reasons adding together to form a group difference.

When you exclude Republican Women from the group of women candidates, the data is cherry picked.

They are not excluded. When they are included, the difference still remains overall.

 

[laughing dog]

No doubt, but then the question remains: why do people imagine black and Asian women candidates to be better than white male candidates?

Perhaps because they imagine the white male candidates to be as shitty as the actual ones they see.

I don't know. It's probably many different reasons adding together to form a group difference.

Well, perhaps you should think about it. One is that historically women candidates have been judged more harshly on their looks and voice than men.

[

 

[Metaphor]

Perhaps because they imagine the white male candidates to be as shitty as the actual ones they see.

So, that is your answer? White male politicians are "shitty", and black or Asian female politicians are higher quality?

If somebody, like the Republicans in the sample, said they find black and Asian female politicians "shitty", would you be so willing to attribute this to their lived experience of shitty politicians?

 

[Arctish]

I think I understand some of that. In a nutshell, you confuse them, to weed out what they really think?

Anyhows, let's say it at least partially worked in this case. Would that mean that many people (in this study, most, overall) do actually prefer black/female candidates?

I suppose the next questions are (a) if so, why, and (b) whether it is a good or a bad thing.

If I took this survey, I myself might (I'm not certain) come out favouring a female candidate (or a black or other minority female candidate over a white man let's also say). Or, maybe that's just me virtue-signalling, and the conjoin test would weed me out.

But let me indulge in the vanity that I did favour females. If asked why, I'd say that I think more women in positions of power is a good thing, because (a) I think they might be better in the job and (b) they are and have been underrepresented. I wouldn't pick a woman just because she's a woman, obviously, but if all other things seemed fairly equal, I might. And to be honest, it's my impression that things aren't necessarily often equal, for me, because it's my impression that women say more things that I like to hear. As to blackness, I think it might be more (b) that might sway me.

I think a matriarchy is at least something we should try out.

Assuming that the survey is well designed, I can speculate and provide my opinion on (a) why and (b) whether it's a good or bad thing.

Regarding (a), there's always an element of interpretation involved. I would be inclined to say that it may not be that people favor women, so much as that they disfavor old white men. Been there, done that, hasn't worked all that well, we need some new perspective. Some of it could also be virtue signaling, and some of it could be a sincere desire to see a shift in representation of women and minorities overall.

I think this raises an interesting point. What do people imagine when they're asked about voting for white men vs. black or Asian women?

Are they thinking of which they prefer, Mitch McConnell or Carol Moseley Braun? Do they imagine a race between Devin Nunes and Mazie Hirono? Do they relish the thought of a woman of any race or ethnicity defeating Donald Trump?

Or are people thinking in a more abstract way about diversity and social change?

Or are they just parroting the current popular opinion on Twitter, and if you ask them again in a year they might give you a completely different answer?

I think it would take more than a survey or two spaced out over a couple of years to even begin to sort that out.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't have any inherent preference for a woman or a minority, but I do think that greater diversity would be a benefit for the US as a whole.

Which I personally would agree with.

Within reasonable limits. I wouldn't be expecting equality or even proportionality (by demographic) of outcomes, because there may be many reasons (personal preferences for example) that certain people and certain types of people either go into or progress in this or that field of work.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps because they imagine the white male candidates to be as shitty as the actual ones they see.

So, that is your answer? White male politicians are "shitty", and black or Asian female politicians are higher quality?

If one thinks the one's country is in poor shape and one notices it has been run and is still being predominantly run by white men, that a change might be a good gamble.

If somebody, like the Republicans in the sample, said they find black and Asian female politicians "shitty", would you be so willing to attribute this to their lived experience of shitty politicians?

If my country had been and still is being predominantly run by black and Asian female politicians, then yes. Since that is not the case, I would attribute it to their party's acceptance of racism.

 

[KeepTalking]

I think I understand some of that. In a nutshell, you confuse them, to weed out what they really think?

Anyhows, let's say it at least partially worked in this case. Would that mean that many people (in this study, most, overall) do actually prefer black/female candidates?

I suppose the next questions are (a) if so, why, and (b) whether it is a good or a bad thing.

If I took this survey, I myself might (I'm not certain) come out favouring a female candidate (or a black or other minority female candidate over a white man let's also say). Or, maybe that's just me virtue-signalling, and the conjoin test would weed me out.

But let me indulge in the vanity that I did favour females. If asked why, I'd say that I think more women in positions of power is a good thing, because (a) I think they might be better in the job and (b) they are and have been underrepresented. I wouldn't pick a woman just because she's a woman, obviously, but if all other things seemed fairly equal, I might. And to be honest, it's my impression that things aren't necessarily often equal, for me, because it's my impression that women say more things that I like to hear. As to blackness, I think it might be more (b) that might sway me.

I think a matriarchy is at least something we should try out.

Assuming that the survey is well designed, I can speculate and provide my opinion on (a) why and (b) whether it's a good or bad thing.

Regarding (a), there's always an element of interpretation involved. I would be inclined to say that it may not be that people favor women, so much as that they disfavor old white men. Been there, done that, hasn't worked all that well, we need some new perspective. Some of it could also be virtue signaling, and some of it could be a sincere desire to see a shift in representation of women and minorities overall.

I think this raises an interesting point. What do people imagine when they're asked about voting for white men vs. black or Asian women?

Are they thinking of which they prefer, Mitch McConnell or Carol Moseley Braun? Do they imagine a race between Devin Nunes and Mazie Hirono? Do they relish the thought of a woman of any race or ethnicity defeating Donald Trump?

Or are people thinking in a more abstract way about diversity and social change?

Or are they just parroting the current popular opinion on Twitter, and if you ask them again in a year they might give you a completely different answer?

I think it would take more than a survey or two spaced out over a couple of years to even begin to sort that out.

For me, if I am presented today with two candidates who are identical, except for the fact that one is a man, and the other is a woman, I am going to pick the woman. The reason being that men are currently more represented at all levels of government, and I would like to see that evened out a bit. Of course, in reality, I am never presented with two candidates who are identical, except for gender, so it really does not matter much, I will be making the choice based on other factors.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tit... for... tat.

Three finance professors said in a new research paper that although the average male financial advisor engages in three times more misconduct than female advisors, females are punished more severely and are less likely to find employment if they lose their jobs.

Life is complicated and can not be extrapolated for a single study.

Or to put in another way... stop fucking whining about how women blah blah blah.

As thoughtful and well articulated as this post is, I'm afraid I don't take instruction on what interests me and what I will post about.

But thank you for your input.

Well, you didn't actually read the link, so I'm not certain why you'd thank me for the input you didn't want to ingest because it flies in the face of your bias.

 

[Metaphor]

If one thinks the one's country is in poor shape and one notices it has been run and is still being predominantly run by white men, that a change might be a good gamble.

How sad for you that you think America is in poor shape.

If my country had been and still is being predominantly run by black and Asian female politicians, then yes. Since that is not the case, I would attribute it to their party's acceptance of racism.

In other words, even if they've personally experienced poor black and Asian female politicians, that's irrelevant. They're just racists.

 

[Metaphor]

As thoughtful and well articulated as this post is, I'm afraid I don't take instruction on what interests me and what I will post about.

But thank you for your input.

Well, you didn't actually read the link, so I'm not certain why you'd thank me for the input you didn't want to ingest because it flies in the face of your bias.

I think it's clear why I thanked you, isn't it? I am grateful that you gave a clear, considered, and thoughtful engagement of the material in the OP, as you always do Jimmy.

 

[Emily Lake]

For me, if I am presented today with two candidates who are identical, except for the fact that one is a man, and the other is a woman, I am going to pick the woman. The reason being that men are currently more represented at all levels of government, and I would like to see that evened out a bit. Of course, in reality, I am never presented with two candidates who are identical, except for gender, so it really does not matter much, I will be making the choice based on other factors.

I tend to think this is a large factor in that survey. Of course, that's my opinion, and based predominantly on interactions with other people, and is not particularly scientific.

 

[ruby sparks]

For me, if I am presented today with two candidates who are identical, except for the fact that one is a man, and the other is a woman, I am going to pick the woman. The reason being that men are currently more represented at all levels of government, and I would like to see that evened out a bit. Of course, in reality, I am never presented with two candidates who are identical, except for gender, so it really does not matter much, I will be making the choice based on other factors.

I tend to think this is a large factor in that survey. Of course, that's my opinion, and based predominantly on interactions with other people, and is not particularly scientific.

Self-reported survey responses to hypotheticals do not seem to be the most reliable type of data for a variety of reasons. The other study cited, about responses to requests for assistance from politicians, is better in this regard I think, in that it at least shows what people actually do rather than what they merely say they would do in a hypothetical scenario. And in the case of that study, it seems women generally get slightly more responses (from the exact same requests). I am assuming that they did not get more responses that were unhelpful, because in that case, 'more responses' would not be the best metric of itself .

There is nothing to suggest that. I am only being whimsical.

 

[laughing dog]

If one thinks the one's country is in poor shape and one notices it has been run and is still being predominantly run by white men, that a change might be a good gamble.

How sad for you that you think America is in poor shape.

Is that level of ignorance about the USA common for people in your part of the world?

In other words, even if they've personally experienced poor black and Asian female politicians, that's irrelevant. They're just racists.

I worry about your reading comprehension, because "I would attribute it to their party's acceptance of racism." does not necessarily mean "They're just racists".

 

[Toni]

I don't have any inherent preference for a woman or a minority, but I do think that greater diversity would be a benefit for the US as a whole.

Which I personally would agree with.

Within reasonable limits. I wouldn't be expecting equality or even proportionality (by demographic) of outcomes, because there may be many reasons (personal preferences for example) that certain people and certain types of people either go into or progress in this or that field of work.

And you believe that those reasons are based upon the postential political aspirants gender or race? I’m not sure what you are getting at.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't have any inherent preference for a woman or a minority, but I do think that greater diversity would be a benefit for the US as a whole.

Which I personally would agree with.

Within reasonable limits. I wouldn't be expecting equality or even proportionality (by demographic) of outcomes, because there may be many reasons (personal preferences for example) that certain people and certain types of people either go into or progress in this or that field of work.

And you believe that those reasons are based upon the potential political aspirants gender or race?

Gender, yes, as a caveat (which is what my remark about reasonable limits and not expecting equality of outcomes was). But I would not and am not saying anything as simplistic as 'personal preferences are based on gender'. That would obviously be going too far. But I would not exclude the possibility, hence the suggested example of personal preferences a reason, of there being some differences by gender, and there seems to be some evidence for it, in terms of career choices generally I mean (I haven't seen evidence for politics specifically). As to race, no I would not tend to think there are differences in preference by race because of race. Perhaps there are, I don't know, but I'm not aware of any evidence for it.