Men and women really are *much* more alike psychologically than different but we notice subtle differences more than we notice similarities which we just take for granted.
That's why height is easier to use to demonstrate the point, yes. No-one denies it or claims its subjective.
-
-
It's an OK starting point, but it's really easy to jump from height to personality traits and get an overly strong sense of how much observed difference can be confidently attributed to nature. Humans aren't good at ambiguity and overweight known factors given the opportunity.
-
I'm not suggesting jumping or assuming. You'd need to go with the evidence of psychological difference which is getting updated all the time.
-
I'm suggesting more as a daily heuristic that it makes sense to consciously underrate (though not ignore, of course) the extent to which individual differences are gender based in order to try and minimize the overall error in our attribution.
-
On a daily basis, go for individuality every time. On the level of understanding gender differences, go with the evidence on gender differences.
-
I guess I'm less confident than you about how easy it is to disentangle the two.
-
I'm not confident of this at all. Hence having a thread about the problem of people having all or nothing takes on this rather than recognising that we are overlapping populations with trends. Where do you think we disagree?
-
I think the evidence for differences is real but vastly overstated and that even when looking at group level differences it's far too easy to attribute stuff to biology. For example, at Google they aren't drawing from the population as a whole, they are drawing from the extreme
-
I think some people overstate it and some understate or even deny it. That's what I'm talking about right now.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.