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

[dystopian]

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

Are you saying that it *is* deserved? Cause that would require a good deal of ignorance.

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?

Well... yes?

What, are you claiming there was something about him physically different from the rest of us?

 

[barbos]

Yes, of course.

You mean it's deserved?

So are psychological traits of women and men.

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

That's not a point, that's a statement.

 

[Juma]

You mean it's deserved?

No. Of course not.

 

[rousseau]

The most important business principles aren't gender specific:

- be attractive and look old/dignified
- sound smart
- be smart
- small ego
- make friends
- get shit done
- be assertive but friendly

I doubt Sandberg has best intentions in mind behind the book. She's capitalizing on her name / position and exploiting a niche to make money. That said, I don't have the slightest clue of what she's actually written so can't really comment, but anything that strays outside of what I've written above likely isn't great advice.

 

[credoconsolans]

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/

What?

Women are cooperative. Thought that was long proven. Family groups made up of women are usually the core of most families. Men may come and go, but the females remain. Of course, take a woman out of a cooperative female group and put her into a male dominated structure - like climbing the ladder at most corporations and she begins to adopt the behavior of those around her (men). Suddenly her behavior is no longer like a woman's group and everyone wonders why women in the high echelons of corporate America don't help other women.

The real question is why men at the executive corporate level don't help each other.

 

[Nexus]

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

Having now lived in a city with probably over 50% gay men for over a decade, no that stereotype is not deserved. No more than a man that looks and acts like a republican politician should be assumed to be homosexual.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Exceptions do not disprove the general rule. It could very easily be (and likely is) the case that the Dutch have manufactured a cultural climate in business based upon ideology that dampens natural tendencies. IOW, contrary to those culturalists, variation is not support cultural determinism, but merely refutes 100% uni-causal biological determinism, which is almost always a strawman position anyway. I can lock you in a cellar without food and you will not eat. That doesn't mean that eating isn't a natural behavior you are biologically disposed toward.

It is likely that there are some degree of biological dispositions that differ between men and women, and that what varies between cultures is whether they latch onto and accentuate these (as in the US) or create customs that oppose them. Typically the practices that are more common among cultures are those that go with or accentuate the natural tendencies, but biological predispositions never implies that learned cultural practices cannot counteract and inhibit them. Just look at sex.

 

[Unbeatable]

I notice this article is categorized on the site as an "Opinion" piece.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Sorry, but this is completely false. There are many psychological and neurological differences between hetero and homosexual men, with the latter being more similar to hetero females in several neurological aspects. Those brain regions where differences exist do control sexual behavior but also impact much more than that and thus strongly suggest neuro-based psychological differences that go well beyond the gender of one's chosen sex partner.

The hair stylist shtick is a cartoonish exaggeration of the differences, but the current science suggest that there is a kind of feminization of the homosexual male brain.

Speaking of which "feminization of the brain" is a real, valid, and often used term in neuroscience because male and female brains differ in many ways, which is why it is beyond any reasonable doubt that they differ in many of the psychological and behavioral dispositions, regardless of the fact that learning and culture also shape those and can accentuate or inhibit those biological tendencies, much like environment can do so for well established tendency toward drug addition and alcoholism.

 

[dystopian]

Exceptions do not disprove the general rule. It could very easily be (and likely is) the case that the Dutch have manufactured a cultural climate in business based upon ideology that dampens natural tendencies.

Except we're not really that unique in our business practices. And there's no ideology or manufacturing involved; the cultural traits I'm talking about aren't artificial, it's grown that way over many centuries. The same traits I'm talking about today could already be identified in the 16th century and earlier; indeed, they probably extend several thousand years into the past. Even a casual understanding of Dutch history would make it clear they are born in large part from what could be considered evolutionary pressures if they'd taken place over longer periods of time: they are to a very large extent, after all, driven by geographical/climate factors that force cooperation and the setting side of pride; failure to cooperate or swallow one's sense of superiority over one's neighbors would result in a little thing called drowning to death. Cultural attitudes changed accordingly, reinforcing what nature had established as the most efficient way to survive.

So, is this culture dampening natural tendencies? On the face of it, this doesn't seem likely to me, we're not fundamentally different from other society, we just aren't as hierarchically obsessed. People like to point to dominance-based linear hierarchy in chimpanzees as evidence for that sort of thing being the natural state... but those people overlook the fact that bonobo's which are closer cousins to us than chimpanzees, have little to no linear hierarchy.

It is likely that there are some degree of biological dispositions that differ between men and women, and that what varies between cultures is whether they latch onto and accentuate these (as in the US) or create customs that oppose them. Typically the practices that are more common among cultures are those that go with or accentuate the natural tendencies, but biological predispositions never implies that learned cultural practices cannot counteract and inhibit them. Just look at sex.

I simply question the specific claims about what is and is not biologically predisposed. It's far too easy for people to just happily assume that X is the natural tendency while Y is not. There are undoubtedly biological dispositions that differ between genders; but I'm not particularly inclined to assume there's any fundamental truth to such trite stereotypes as those so often espoused.

 

[dystopian]

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.

Sorry, but this is completely false.

Let me guess, you haven't been around many gay men, have you?

If you had, you would know that what's completely false is the notion that gay men are in any way more inclined to feminine behavior. Only a small percentage of gay men act like that. Pointing to supposed similarities between homosexual and heterosexual female brains is all well and good (though how universal those similarities are among the gay population is questionable), but at no point does any expert suggest that because of those similarities, gay men act more feminine as a rule. You're talking about part of the brain that has to do with sexual attracted; but it does NOT control personality and mannerisms. If your interpretation were correct, the gay populace at large would behave very differently.

 

[arkirk]

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/

So what is your idea? Girls need to get back to taking care of dolls and stay the fuck out of decision making? What a totally sexist idea! Most of what modern MAN does in the society which we have built is contraintuitive, learned, and extremely wasteful and competitive. So men, grow up and compete viciously with each other on the basis of ideology and the winner gets to buy the loser a beer.

 

[Juma]

because male and female brains differ in many ways,.

But they are exactly the same in much more aspects.
And how big are these differences really? There is a huge spectrum on both sides and to say that the these distributions doesnt overlap is definitely misleading.

 

[Axulus]

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

So what is your idea? Girls need to get back to taking care of dolls and stay the fuck out of decision making? What a totally sexist idea! Most of what modern MAN does in the society which we have built is contraintuitive, learned, and extremely wasteful and competitive. So men, grow up and compete viciously with each other on the basis of ideology and the winner gets to buy the loser a beer.

You are using the same logical fallacy as those religionists who say that evolution means we should implement social darwanism or Nazism.

Science only tells us what is, not what ought to be. You should recognize this logical fallacy and try to stamp it out from your thinking.

 

[fromderinside]

I simply question the specific claims about what is and is not biologically predisposed. It's far too easy for people to just happily assume that X is the natural tendency while Y is not. There are undoubtedly biological dispositions that differ between genders; but I'm not particularly inclined to assume there's any fundamental truth to such trite stereotypes as those so often espoused.

Yet, there are scientists actively seeking to understand how we got to where we are. they seem to be doing it with some consistency in peer reviewed literature. Its those opinion piece blurbs that make stories political. Someone has an ax to grind so one finds a scintificy article in a paper and cite quotes from it as evidence for their point.

My position is to keep science out of politics. That way useless and meaningless citations of sciency stuff doesn't become part of 'the science' on a matter. Humans are migratory predatory hunter gatherers. Established. Comparisons with primates who aren't predatory, aren't migratory, don't fit in the discussion when compared to men's social behavior as hunter gatherers. Standing on a cliff and saying "I simply question the specific claims about what is and is not biologically predisposed" following sciency 'evidence' is inappropriate argument about whether the material in question is either primarily genetically linked or primary local behaviorally linked.

It makes sense to argue about whether social evolution among species who exhibit similar characteristics and evolution pathways exhibit common social attributes. It does not make sense that just because a species share a lineage with another species that whatever that other species exhibits as social behavior is similar to what humans exhibit as social behavior because of that lineage linkage. What has gone on since the separation of the species appears to be more relevant in studying change in social behavior patterns. That is current social patterns of species who have not followed similar ecological histories should yield separate social patterns, not similar social patterns.

Thank you.

Now back to the politics of your ax grind.

Don't worry I'll splash cold water on your faces if you keep it up. It might even be accusing you of being evangelicals of some sort.

 

[arkirk]

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.

...And the "nurture' part of the formula has been flubbed badly by many cultures since before the time of Moses.

 

[Bronzeage]

Sorry, but this is completely false.

Let me guess, you haven't been around many gay men, have you?

If you had, you would know that what's completely false is the notion that gay men are in any way more inclined to feminine behavior. Only a small percentage of gay men act like that. Pointing to supposed similarities between homosexual and heterosexual female brains is all well and good (though how universal those similarities are among the gay population is questionable), but at no point does any expert suggest that because of those similarities, gay men act more feminine as a rule. You're talking about part of the brain that has to do with sexual attracted; but it does NOT control personality and mannerisms. If your interpretation were correct, the gay populace at large would behave very differently.

Most people have no idea how many gay men they have been around.

Right after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, about 50,000 people landed in Baton Rouge, all looking for a place to live. They needed basic furniture for setting up housekeeping, a bed, a dresser and maybe a kitchen table. The local moving companies were overwhelmed, and they wouldn't show up for less than $400. My store always offered delivery to our customers, at a reasonable cost. One day a customer asked if I could deliver a sofa bought at another store. This became a new business.

I put high rails on the truck, and it looked like something out of the Grapes of Wrath, but we could haul enough furniture to set up an apartment, including the mattresses. I have a friend named John who went in with me on this small hauling business. John is gay, but he's also dead butch. None of my shop girls knew he was gay, until someone said something. We did well while the boom lasted, usually getting two or more jobs a day. I would introduce myself and then introduce my partner, John. It never occurred to me that "partner" can have other meanings until one day a friend called John and said, "I saw you and your new boyfriend loading a truck yesterday. He's hot."

 

[arkirk]

I simply question the specific claims about what is and is not biologically predisposed. It's far too easy for people to just happily assume that X is the natural tendency while Y is not. There are undoubtedly biological dispositions that differ between genders; but I'm not particularly inclined to assume there's any fundamental truth to such trite stereotypes as those so often espoused.

Yet, there are scientists actively seeking to understand how we got to where we are. they seem to be doing it with some consistency in peer reviewed literature. Its those opinion piece blurbs that make stories political. Someone has an ax to grind so one finds a scintificy article in a paper and cite quotes from it as evidence for their point.

My position is to keep science out of politics. That way useless and meaningless citations of sciency stuff doesn't become part of 'the science' on a matter. Humans are migratory predatory hunter gatherers. Established. Comparisons with primates who aren't predatory, aren't migratory, don't fit in the discussion when compared to men's social behavior as hunter gatherers. Standing on a cliff and saying "I simply question the specific claims about what is and is not biologically predisposed" following sciency 'evidence' is inappropriate argument about whether the material in question is either primarily genetically linked or primary local behaviorally linked.

It makes sense to argue about whether social evolution among species who exhibit similar characteristics and evolution pathways exhibit common social attributes. It does not make sense that just because a species share a lineage with another species that whatever that other species exhibits as social behavior is similar to what humans exhibit as social behavior because of that lineage linkage. What has gone on since the separation of the species appears to be more relevant in studying change in social behavior patterns. That is current social patterns of species who have not followed similar ecological histories should yield separate social patterns, not similar social patterns.

Thank you.

Now back to the politics of your ax grind.

Don't worry I'll splash cold water on your faces if you keep it up. It might even be accusing you of being evangelicals of some sort.

Is this in reference to the Chimp girls treating twigs like babies?

 

[ronburgundy]

Sorry, but this is completely false.

Let me guess, you haven't been around many gay men, have you?

If you had, you would know that what's completely false is the notion that gay men are in any way more inclined to feminine behavior. Only a small percentage of gay men act like that. Pointing to supposed similarities between homosexual and heterosexual female brains is all well and good (though how universal those similarities are among the gay population is questionable), but at no point does any expert suggest that because of those similarities, gay men act more feminine as a rule. You're talking about part of the brain that has to do with sexual attracted; but it does NOT control personality and mannerisms. If your interpretation were correct, the gay populace at large would behave very differently.

Nope. Unlike you, I rely upon valid science to inform me about reality, not personal anecdotes from small non-representative samples using completely invalid and unreliable methods of measurement. I am talking about parts of the brain that control numerous basic and non-sexual aspects of human cognition and behavior. It doesn't mean that they are prone to act like cartoonish stereotypes of women (because even most women do not act this way). It does mean numerous biologically based psychological differences between gay and straight men, some of them similar to the biologically based differences between men and women (the actual differences supported by the science). The issue is that brain features as basic as hemispheric symmetry, inter-hemisphere connectivity, and blood flood in the amygdala, and areas that impact personality, emotions, reactions to emotions, language processing, spatial and directional skills, etc..

There is a growing large body of scientific evidence that is the basis for my claims and which shows your claims to be blind faith ideology and anti-science.

 

[dystopian]

Yet, there are scientists actively seeking to understand how we got to where we are. they seem to be doing it with some consistency in peer reviewed literature.

No, they don't. The field is far too disagreeing on what explanation is the right one for there to be much consistency across the board.

My position is to keep science out of politics. That way useless and meaningless citations of sciency stuff doesn't become part of 'the science' on a matter. Humans are migratory predatory hunter gatherers. Established. Comparisons with primates who aren't predatory, aren't migratory, don't fit in the discussion when compared to men's social behavior as hunter gatherers.

Except they do since humans are *not* migratory predator hunter gatherers anymore. Furthermore, if one wants to posit evolutionary causes for psychology, then one really should look at the species that are genetically *closest* to us; which are bonobos. Bonobo intelligence is also closer to that of humans than that of chimpanzees.

It makes sense to argue about whether social evolution among species who exhibit similar characteristics and evolution pathways exhibit common social attributes. It does not make sense that just because a species share a lineage with another species that whatever that other species exhibits as social behavior is similar to what humans exhibit as social behavior because of that lineage linkage. What has gone on since the separation of the species appears to be more relevant in studying change in social behavior patterns.

This seems an odd thing to say since you were just defending comparisons with hunter-gatherer primates on the basis that we used to be hunter-gatherers... even though we clearly aren't anymore and we've changed a great deal since our separation with those species.

Besides, while a change in behavior can initially be thought of as either cultural or biological in drive, after enough time passes the distinction may become non-existent. Biology informs culture, but since biology is subject to change and adaptation; culture, if maintained over time, also shapes biology.