A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About(throwww.com)
throwww.com
A Truth About the Glass Ceiling No One Wants to Talk About
http://throwww.com/a/68c
107 comments
There's a line in the John Adams miniseries where the Continental Congress had just selected Washington to lead the army. Ben Franklin turns to Adams and says: "he was bound to lead something; he's the tallest man in the room".
Apocryphal, sure. A clever mnemonic, you bet.
Apocryphal, sure. A clever mnemonic, you bet.
Of course it's also possible that height and attractiveness are correlated with competence (e.g. because healthy diets as children influence all three attributes), in which case we'd expect to see more tall/attractive people promoted even in a meritocracy (though perhaps not to the observed degree).
In the developed world I would hope that virtually everyone has good enough health/nutrition and thus variation in height and appearance is due more to genetics.
I would guess (based just on observing people in the New York subway) that around 20% of people, at least in the USA, do not have education/income/some other contributing factor to provide a healthy diet for their kids. And they themselves were likely even worse off as kids.
Quick googling result: http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-incom...
Quick googling result: http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-incom...
Agreed, diet is a poor explanation for developed countries. What seems more likely is that the discrimination start earlier, in college or high school where athletic students have an easier time going to the best colleges simply because they are good at a sport (assuming height is correlated to being good at a sport popular in college)
I doubt this is very explanatory.
Height is doubtless correlated with athleticism, but it's fairly weakly correlated. Except in basketball, when you see a group of athletes, you'll tend to see a range of heights. A little taller than average? Sure. But not immensely so.
And then, athleticism is doubtless correlated with admission to elite universities, but, again, only weakly so. The top tier and second tier universities like to see some extracurricular activities on your record, but "being good at cross country running" is far from a sure-fire way to get into Harvard. The REALLY good athletes don't go to top-tier academic universities, and don't get corporate jobs -- they're on the pro athlete track.
You might get into Harvard due to being a good football player but not good enough to go pro, even if you were not otherwise academically capable of going to Harvard. But, first, you're now talking about a small percentage of Harvard students. Second, I'd like to see some data before I'd concede that IF you're clearly not elite-university quality academically, BUT you get in on your athletic merits, AND you go into a corporate track job, THEN you end up with an elite career path.
So, long story short: Is there probably some advantage to height through the path you suggest? Yes, probably some measurable advantage. Is it enough to explain the pretty substantial advantage that tall men enjoy according to the literature? I can't see how. It's passing through too many weak correlations.
Height is doubtless correlated with athleticism, but it's fairly weakly correlated. Except in basketball, when you see a group of athletes, you'll tend to see a range of heights. A little taller than average? Sure. But not immensely so.
And then, athleticism is doubtless correlated with admission to elite universities, but, again, only weakly so. The top tier and second tier universities like to see some extracurricular activities on your record, but "being good at cross country running" is far from a sure-fire way to get into Harvard. The REALLY good athletes don't go to top-tier academic universities, and don't get corporate jobs -- they're on the pro athlete track.
You might get into Harvard due to being a good football player but not good enough to go pro, even if you were not otherwise academically capable of going to Harvard. But, first, you're now talking about a small percentage of Harvard students. Second, I'd like to see some data before I'd concede that IF you're clearly not elite-university quality academically, BUT you get in on your athletic merits, AND you go into a corporate track job, THEN you end up with an elite career path.
So, long story short: Is there probably some advantage to height through the path you suggest? Yes, probably some measurable advantage. Is it enough to explain the pretty substantial advantage that tall men enjoy according to the literature? I can't see how. It's passing through too many weak correlations.
That's only valid in the US though. Sports does not give you a direct way to a good university in Europe (at least, mainland Europe).
And the difference between universities are by far not as big over here in Europe. (In addition to the sibling comment)
You might be surprised how common hunger and malnutrition are even in places like the United States.
The link is still there in the developed world, though perhaps not in the way you'd think: studies have shown that poorer people are more likely to be overweight. One is left to speculate as to why, but clearly if attractiveness is linked to later performance in life, then many of these people would start off at a further disadvantage as a result.
e.g. just this week http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21158087
e.g. just this week http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21158087
>>One is left to speculate as to why
There is no need for speculation, since we already know the answer: fast-food is both affordable and calorie-dense, which is why lower-income people consume it and become overweight.
Ever noticed how many fast-food restaurants there are in lower-income neighborhoods?
There is no need for speculation, since we already know the answer: fast-food is both affordable and calorie-dense, which is why lower-income people consume it and become overweight.
Ever noticed how many fast-food restaurants there are in lower-income neighborhoods?
>since we already know the answer: fast-food is both affordable and calorie-dense //
Fast-food is not affordable in the UK. It's substantially more costly than preparing your own food. There is no way that we could afford to eat fast-food more than a couple of nights per week; then we'd have to cut the quality of food on other nights considerably.
McDonalds for one adult costs about what we spend on a meal for 4 cooked at home (not including energy costs).
That said friends we have friends on benefits who eat fast food regularly. How they afford it I don't know. They have the heating on all day (with windows open, in winter) and things too, it's all a mystery to me.
Fast-food is not affordable in the UK. It's substantially more costly than preparing your own food. There is no way that we could afford to eat fast-food more than a couple of nights per week; then we'd have to cut the quality of food on other nights considerably.
McDonalds for one adult costs about what we spend on a meal for 4 cooked at home (not including energy costs).
That said friends we have friends on benefits who eat fast food regularly. How they afford it I don't know. They have the heating on all day (with windows open, in winter) and things too, it's all a mystery to me.
Are you sure, on a calorie basis? McDonald's is far more calorie dense than anything a sane human could make at home.
I was going more on a regular meal portion than an analysis of calorie content, fat, salt, additives and such.
FWIW a medium bowl of noodles is 2MJ (according to WolframAlpha; tea tonight, but we had pork left-overs in ours +0.5MJ [or so, not on WA]), Big Mac is listed as 2.2MJ + 1.3MJ for fries.
So that's only 40% more calories.
Big Mac and fries is ~£3.50 in the UK.
Our food was about 35p per portion plus the pork which I'd say was 75p + cooking and cleanup costs [40p?].
On that basis we'll say £1.50 vs £3.50 for 40% more calories as a gross estimate.
So I'm not sure but ...
FWIW a medium bowl of noodles is 2MJ (according to WolframAlpha; tea tonight, but we had pork left-overs in ours +0.5MJ [or so, not on WA]), Big Mac is listed as 2.2MJ + 1.3MJ for fries.
So that's only 40% more calories.
Big Mac and fries is ~£3.50 in the UK.
Our food was about 35p per portion plus the pork which I'd say was 75p + cooking and cleanup costs [40p?].
On that basis we'll say £1.50 vs £3.50 for 40% more calories as a gross estimate.
So I'm not sure but ...
I thought it was because the UK rains money on people, free housing and the like.
I would add, the chemistry of stress. Fast food is a counter-stressor, chemically. the body responds to the presence of fatty/salty/sweet/high-carb etc food in a metabolic way.
Sure, but making that argument is entering a mined field. You could as well say that skin color is correlated with intelligence because (I'm just making this up) living in Africa was easier than in harsher climates so their brains got smarter.
Btw, it's easy to see if your hypothesis is correct. Just check the heights of graduate males of tough university programs such as medical research, physics, mathematics etc. I belive that the distribution of their heights will be closer to the population average than the heights of CEO:s, top politicians and other "high-status" jobs. I belive it is because those positions isn't selected to solely on merit, but also on charisma or vaguely defined "leadership qualities."
In my experience, with lots of developers and engineers I've worked with, there is no height bias among them. Tall and short engineers and everyone in between. However, upper management and the sales guys are generally tall guys. Now, assuming that height is positively correlated with intelligence, and assuming that engineers are smarter than management and sales people, that observation makes no sense. :) You would expect to see extra tall engineers (because they need the extra brainpower) and shorter management and sales people.
Btw, it's easy to see if your hypothesis is correct. Just check the heights of graduate males of tough university programs such as medical research, physics, mathematics etc. I belive that the distribution of their heights will be closer to the population average than the heights of CEO:s, top politicians and other "high-status" jobs. I belive it is because those positions isn't selected to solely on merit, but also on charisma or vaguely defined "leadership qualities."
In my experience, with lots of developers and engineers I've worked with, there is no height bias among them. Tall and short engineers and everyone in between. However, upper management and the sales guys are generally tall guys. Now, assuming that height is positively correlated with intelligence, and assuming that engineers are smarter than management and sales people, that observation makes no sense. :) You would expect to see extra tall engineers (because they need the extra brainpower) and shorter management and sales people.
Or indeed, height/attractiveness could be (almost certainly are) correlated with self-confidence and assertiveness. Which is obviously something of a chicken/egg thing.
I don't think confidence or assertiveness cause height
Heh. Indeed. The chicken-and-egg thing being, "If people like tall or attractive people, and that causes confidence or assertiveness, when tall or attractive people are promoted, is that because other people like them, or because they are confident and assertive?"
You can only take the height thing so far. From the OK Cupid data you link to it appears that there is a sharp falloff for men right after 6'6". I suspect that's the point where "wow! you're tall" kicks in and attractiveness turns to curiosity.
And yet, height isn't as tightly correlated with future earnings as height at the age of 16. Source: http://www.economist.com/node/1099333
At my company, the senior male executives are much taller than average. There is only a single male executive of mere average height.*
Nothing to see here. Just diet and environmental factors in our grand meritocracy, surely.
*EDIT: Removed semi-personal information.
Nothing to see here. Just diet and environmental factors in our grand meritocracy, surely.
*EDIT: Removed semi-personal information.
For whatever it may be worth (probably nothing), I am a relatively short guy who is not particularly attracted to men, but if I really think about it, I think I have a preference to taller men, just in terms of first impressions. I think I associate height with being "more grown up".
I have been taller than my father for many years now, but I think the extent to which I consider him more of an "adult" than myself is comparable to how I consider men who are taller than me as well.
I have been taller than my father for many years now, but I think the extent to which I consider him more of an "adult" than myself is comparable to how I consider men who are taller than me as well.
similarly, I'm 6'2" and almost all my male friends have been taller than me since early high school. This correlation has given me the first impression that any male under 6 feet is not a person.
> I'm slightly apprehensive (terrified) about commenting on this topic or any relating to gender/race because it seems like the bar for public crucifixion is somewhat low
This is very true. I sometimes like to play devil's advocate, take up an unpopular side of an argument just to see how people react to an intelligent opponent.
I highly suggest trying this. It sharpens your perspectives; helps you think about your own biases, dogmas and blind spots. (I personally recommend trying to be somewhat anonymous, i.e. this account is my only HN username, so I'm not anonymous as far as people knowing that this current comment and all of my past comments have been made by the same real person. But this username isn't linked to my other online presences or real-life identity. Saying controversial things can be bad for your reputation.)
Taking unpopular positions -- most of the time things I don't believe, but sometimes things I do -- also opens your eyes to precisely how much we rely on name-calling -- racist, sexist, homophobe, terrorist -- to selectively frame issues and shut down discussion.
This is very true. I sometimes like to play devil's advocate, take up an unpopular side of an argument just to see how people react to an intelligent opponent.
I highly suggest trying this. It sharpens your perspectives; helps you think about your own biases, dogmas and blind spots. (I personally recommend trying to be somewhat anonymous, i.e. this account is my only HN username, so I'm not anonymous as far as people knowing that this current comment and all of my past comments have been made by the same real person. But this username isn't linked to my other online presences or real-life identity. Saying controversial things can be bad for your reputation.)
Taking unpopular positions -- most of the time things I don't believe, but sometimes things I do -- also opens your eyes to precisely how much we rely on name-calling -- racist, sexist, homophobe, terrorist -- to selectively frame issues and shut down discussion.
I think this is a double edged sword. Anecdotal I've noticed that people who fit certain attractive ideals do rocket up the ladder faster, but seem to flame out (not burn out) faster.
Rather than attribute this to a "lights that burn twice as bright..." I think it can be attributed to being moved up into positions faster than their own competency is ready for.
Those few that can make it by competency and grit alone seem to be the ones that do last up into the higher ranks.
Ask yourself this, how many male fortune-500 CEOs could be thought of as extremely good looking.
A second anecdote: I used to spend a great deal of time working with the military, and the running joke was that Lt. Colonels and Colonels all seemed to be 6'1", while the Generals above them were all very short.
Rather than attribute this to a "lights that burn twice as bright..." I think it can be attributed to being moved up into positions faster than their own competency is ready for.
Those few that can make it by competency and grit alone seem to be the ones that do last up into the higher ranks.
Ask yourself this, how many male fortune-500 CEOs could be thought of as extremely good looking.
A second anecdote: I used to spend a great deal of time working with the military, and the running joke was that Lt. Colonels and Colonels all seemed to be 6'1", while the Generals above them were all very short.
Unless these studies were controlled for gender - and it appears that they were not - height is just one more factor which both men and women have to contend with. And if that's the case, then attractiveness is still a lopsided standard which women deal with more.
Interestingly, I just spoke with a colleague yesterday who admitted (without shame) that he recently campaigned (successfully) to have an attractive female hired into his group. I asked him about her qualifications, and he said she seemed capable, but not exceptional. He stressed that, at least to him, her appearance outweighted her abilities.
Incidents like this make me wonder if some sort of anonymous interviewing could be implemented in certain industries, and whether the benefits associated with mitigating prejudices would outweigh the intangible benefits associated with getting to know someone as a whole person during the hiring process.
Incidents like this make me wonder if some sort of anonymous interviewing could be implemented in certain industries, and whether the benefits associated with mitigating prejudices would outweigh the intangible benefits associated with getting to know someone as a whole person during the hiring process.
Google, for example, does not have teams make hiring decisions for teammates.
I honestly hope you acquainted your colleague with HR.
That's completely unacceptable behavior. (And I know that I personally wouldn't want that job if those had been the hiring criteria)
That's completely unacceptable behavior. (And I know that I personally wouldn't want that job if those had been the hiring criteria)
Not to mention that incidents like this debase the efforts of (possibly attractive) women whom are trying to compete on merits instead.
As far as I'm concerned blatant positive discrimination such as this should be treated as harshly as af it were negative discrimination based on race.
As far as I'm concerned blatant positive discrimination such as this should be treated as harshly as af it were negative discrimination based on race.
Here are the female CEO's of the fortune 500.
Meg Whitman, HP (#10)
Virginia Rometty, IBM (#19)
Patricia A. Woertz, Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) (#28)
Indra K. Nooyi, PepsiCo, Inc. (#41)
Irene B. Rosenfeld, Mondelez International
Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin (#58)
Ellen J. Kullman, DuPont (#72)
Phebe Novakovic, General Dynamics (#92)
Carol M. Meyrowitz, The TJX Companies, Inc. (#125)
Ursula M. Burns, Xerox Corporation (#127)
Sheri S. McCoy, Avon Products Inc. (#234)
Deanna M. Mulligan, Guardian (#250)
Debra L. Reed, Sempra Energy (#266)
Denise M. Morrison, Campbell Soup (#334)
Ilene Gordon, Ingredion Incorproated (#390)
Heather Bresch, Mylan (#396)
Kathleen M. Mazzarella, Graybar Electric (#451)
Mary Agnes (Maggie) Wilderotter, Frontier Communications (#464)
Gracia C. Martore, Gannett (#465)
Marissa Mayer, Yahoo (#483)
Beth E. Mooney, KeyCorp (#499)
Ironically despite being low on this list Marissa Mayer is by far one of the most recognisable, probably because as an attractive woman it's a good brand for Yahoo.
Just in my opinion, but the most interesting thing the article brought up is the attractive lawyer being fired for being incompetent. It seems like a company could get great talent by assessing women independently of their looks and hiring appropriately.
Meg Whitman, HP (#10)
Virginia Rometty, IBM (#19)
Patricia A. Woertz, Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) (#28)
Indra K. Nooyi, PepsiCo, Inc. (#41)
Irene B. Rosenfeld, Mondelez International
Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin (#58)
Ellen J. Kullman, DuPont (#72)
Phebe Novakovic, General Dynamics (#92)
Carol M. Meyrowitz, The TJX Companies, Inc. (#125)
Ursula M. Burns, Xerox Corporation (#127)
Sheri S. McCoy, Avon Products Inc. (#234)
Deanna M. Mulligan, Guardian (#250)
Debra L. Reed, Sempra Energy (#266)
Denise M. Morrison, Campbell Soup (#334)
Ilene Gordon, Ingredion Incorproated (#390)
Heather Bresch, Mylan (#396)
Kathleen M. Mazzarella, Graybar Electric (#451)
Mary Agnes (Maggie) Wilderotter, Frontier Communications (#464)
Gracia C. Martore, Gannett (#465)
Marissa Mayer, Yahoo (#483)
Beth E. Mooney, KeyCorp (#499)
Ironically despite being low on this list Marissa Mayer is by far one of the most recognisable, probably because as an attractive woman it's a good brand for Yahoo.
Just in my opinion, but the most interesting thing the article brought up is the attractive lawyer being fired for being incompetent. It seems like a company could get great talent by assessing women independently of their looks and hiring appropriately.
With image links so you can judge for yourself whether the conclusions of the article hold true or not.
Personally I don't think so. Whilst I wouldn't describe any of these hugely succesful women as unattractive, I think they would compare to the attractiveness ratings of male CEOs (also a bit above average).
Meg Whitman, HP (#10) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Meg+Whitman&tbm=isch
Virginia Rometty, IBM (#19) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Virginia+Rometty&tbm=i...
Patricia A. Woertz, Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) (#28) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Patricia+A+Woertz&tbm=...
Indra K. Nooyi, PepsiCo, Inc. (#41) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Indra+K+Nooyi&tbm=isch
Irene B. Rosenfeld, Mondelez International https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Irene+B+Rosenfeld&tbm=...
Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin (#58) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Marillyn+Hewson&tbm=is...
Ellen J. Kullman, DuPont (#72) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ellen+J+Kullman&tbm=is...
Phebe Novakovic, General Dynamics (#92) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Phebe+Novakovic&tbm=is...
Carol M. Meyrowitz, The TJX Companies, Inc. (#125) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carol+M+Meyrowitz&tbm=...
Ursula M. Burns, Xerox Corporation (#127) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ursula+M+Burns&tbm=isc...
Sheri S. McCoy, Avon Products Inc. (#234) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sheri+S+McCoy&tbm=isch
Deanna M. Mulligan, Guardian (#250) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Deanna+M+Mulligan&tbm=...
Debra L. Reed, Sempra Energy (#266) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Debra+L+Reed&tbm=isch
Denise M. Morrison, Campbell Soup (#334) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Denise+M+Morrison&tbm=...
Ilene Gordon, Ingredion Incorproated (#390) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ilene+Gordon&tbm=isch
Heather Bresch, Mylan (#396) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Heather+Bresch&tbm=isc...
Kathleen M. Mazzarella, Graybar Electric (#451) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Kathleen+M+Mazzarella&...
Mary Agnes (Maggie) Wilderotter, Frontier Communications (#464) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Mary+Wilderotter&tbm=i...
Gracia C. Martore, Gannett (#465) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gracia+C+Martore&tbm=i...
Marissa Mayer, Yahoo (#483) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Marissa+Mayer&tbm=isch
Beth E. Mooney, KeyCorp (#499) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Beth+E+Mooney&tbm=isch
Personally I don't think so. Whilst I wouldn't describe any of these hugely succesful women as unattractive, I think they would compare to the attractiveness ratings of male CEOs (also a bit above average).
Meg Whitman, HP (#10) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Meg+Whitman&tbm=isch
Virginia Rometty, IBM (#19) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Virginia+Rometty&tbm=i...
Patricia A. Woertz, Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) (#28) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Patricia+A+Woertz&tbm=...
Indra K. Nooyi, PepsiCo, Inc. (#41) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Indra+K+Nooyi&tbm=isch
Irene B. Rosenfeld, Mondelez International https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Irene+B+Rosenfeld&tbm=...
Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin (#58) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Marillyn+Hewson&tbm=is...
Ellen J. Kullman, DuPont (#72) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ellen+J+Kullman&tbm=is...
Phebe Novakovic, General Dynamics (#92) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Phebe+Novakovic&tbm=is...
Carol M. Meyrowitz, The TJX Companies, Inc. (#125) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Carol+M+Meyrowitz&tbm=...
Ursula M. Burns, Xerox Corporation (#127) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ursula+M+Burns&tbm=isc...
Sheri S. McCoy, Avon Products Inc. (#234) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Sheri+S+McCoy&tbm=isch
Deanna M. Mulligan, Guardian (#250) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Deanna+M+Mulligan&tbm=...
Debra L. Reed, Sempra Energy (#266) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Debra+L+Reed&tbm=isch
Denise M. Morrison, Campbell Soup (#334) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Denise+M+Morrison&tbm=...
Ilene Gordon, Ingredion Incorproated (#390) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Ilene+Gordon&tbm=isch
Heather Bresch, Mylan (#396) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Heather+Bresch&tbm=isc...
Kathleen M. Mazzarella, Graybar Electric (#451) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Kathleen+M+Mazzarella&...
Mary Agnes (Maggie) Wilderotter, Frontier Communications (#464) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Mary+Wilderotter&tbm=i...
Gracia C. Martore, Gannett (#465) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Gracia+C+Martore&tbm=i...
Marissa Mayer, Yahoo (#483) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Marissa+Mayer&tbm=isch
Beth E. Mooney, KeyCorp (#499) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Beth+E+Mooney&tbm=isch
This does not prove anything. Even if fewer smart but less attractive females were hired due to the discrimination we would still expect to see intelligent women that did get hired, attractive or not, end up making it.
Of course to test the theory the attractiveness should be judged based on their appearance at about age 22 and the judgement made by men 5-15 years older who were making the hiring judgements at the time.
As a whole, I think that's definitely a good-looking group of women.
The only way we're going to resolve this is some manner of blind comparison data gathering like the ancient "hotornot" dotcom from a decade or so ago, assuming the only people interested enough to provide data aren't already so interested in the topic that they recognize the CEOs on sight.
>despite being low on this list Marissa Mayer is by far one of the most recognisable, probably because as an attractive woman it's a good brand for Yahoo
Or it could be because she used to do PR for google (#73), and she's in our industry.
Or it could be because she used to do PR for google (#73), and she's in our industry.
> Ironically despite being low on this list Marissa Mayer is by far one of the most recognisable, probably because as an attractive woman it's a good brand for Yahoo.
Or publicly pulling a highly recognizable face from Google is really good for Yahoo!.
Or publicly pulling a highly recognizable face from Google is really good for Yahoo!.
Is the author here? If so, a note:
> What does this have to do with the glut of female leaders?
"Glut" is the wrong word; it means too many. You might replace it with "lack", "dearth", or "paucity".
> What does this have to do with the glut of female leaders?
"Glut" is the wrong word; it means too many. You might replace it with "lack", "dearth", or "paucity".
Another funny fact about the 'halo effect' discussed here: when rating individuals for aptitude on a variety of tasks, straight men have a positive bias towards attractive women, whereas straight women have a negative bias towards attractive women (a kind of 'jealousy' phenomenon). This jealousy phenomenon seems less apparent when it's straight men rating men.
Or perhaps, women knowing that women often get promoted on their looks, and aware that good looking women tend to have a warped interaction with reality, are doing the right thing by nuking their chances.
There have been several eye opening AMAs on reddit where people had things like gender changes, or went from attractive women to not attractive, and suddenly realizing that they had essentially been in a bubble.
Heck I was just discussing this recently with a Neuro Science PHD student and she had had the same realization - coming in to work one day she needed help carrying stuff, and multiple people volunteered to help along her way. She reached work telling her co-workers that reality was amazing and that her faith in Humanity had been restored.
A colleague pointed out that thats not normal - and asked her what sex all the volunteers were - they were universally male.
Attractive women tend to end up in a bubble of sorts, and it has a distorting impact on their interaction and expectations of normal behavior.
There have been several eye opening AMAs on reddit where people had things like gender changes, or went from attractive women to not attractive, and suddenly realizing that they had essentially been in a bubble.
Heck I was just discussing this recently with a Neuro Science PHD student and she had had the same realization - coming in to work one day she needed help carrying stuff, and multiple people volunteered to help along her way. She reached work telling her co-workers that reality was amazing and that her faith in Humanity had been restored.
A colleague pointed out that thats not normal - and asked her what sex all the volunteers were - they were universally male.
Attractive women tend to end up in a bubble of sorts, and it has a distorting impact on their interaction and expectations of normal behavior.
These kinds of biases are also interesting and definitely are present everywhere.
And yet, people are still so eager to buy in to the (often) self-serving meritocracy myth.
Haha, for sure.
I believe in meritocracies, but am well aware that what people do, say, and say they do is often 3 separate continents.
If you have any thoughts on my other post in this thread, I'd be interested to read.
I believe in meritocracies, but am well aware that what people do, say, and say they do is often 3 separate continents.
If you have any thoughts on my other post in this thread, I'd be interested to read.
I recall reading about a similar prejudice in the promotion of men. In the case of men it's height not prettiness.
EDIT: simonsarris beat me by 3 minutes wit better data, so I'll throw in another data point. In the past 25 presidential elections the taller or tying candidate won 19 times. Before that it is more even, perhaps because it was harder to see the differences.
EDIT: simonsarris beat me by 3 minutes wit better data, so I'll throw in another data point. In the past 25 presidential elections the taller or tying candidate won 19 times. Before that it is more even, perhaps because it was harder to see the differences.
How many were ties? 19/25 is already a smallish margin.
This is true. There is indeed a biological explanation for many of these behaviours. We are programmed to believe that tall men would infer strong mating partners, or someone to avoid in the case of a male.
For females, it is quite similar. Women who possess certain qualities appear more attractive and we generally look more favourably upon them in society.
This problem is indeed real, but it is perhaps more subconscious then we wish to believe.
For females, it is quite similar. Women who possess certain qualities appear more attractive and we generally look more favourably upon them in society.
This problem is indeed real, but it is perhaps more subconscious then we wish to believe.
Beware of using biology to explain behaviours when those behaviours re-enforce the status quo. Evolutionary psychology is struggling to seem legit and using it to make 'that's just how things are' statements sound scientific is not helping at all.
You're barking up the wrong tree if you think sex selection for height and attractiveness are anything but biological in origin.
Does anyone know of a study on this that breaks down the effect between different types of leadership positions? In particular, I am wondering if positions that involve sales or otherwise interacting with the customers or general public exhibit this phenomenon more strongly than engineering or "internal" positions.
The reason I say this is that it would help identify where the problem really lies. If it affects all categories of work equally, then I would be more likely to say that organizations themselves are basing decisions on attractiveness. On the other hand, if this is affecting people who interact with the public to a greater degree than those who do not, I would point to a broader problem: that perhaps such people are simply more successful at their jobs, because their attractiveness is an asset in their work (which would make a solution pretty tricky).
The reason I say this is that it would help identify where the problem really lies. If it affects all categories of work equally, then I would be more likely to say that organizations themselves are basing decisions on attractiveness. On the other hand, if this is affecting people who interact with the public to a greater degree than those who do not, I would point to a broader problem: that perhaps such people are simply more successful at their jobs, because their attractiveness is an asset in their work (which would make a solution pretty tricky).
So the theory presented here is:
=
Attractive women are disproportionately hired and promoted.
Many of these attractive women are not intelligent enough for upper management therefore there is a limit to how high these women reach in an organization.
At the same time, less attractive women languish in the lower rungs, far below their intellectual potential.
Furthermore, this phenomena does not affect men because they are judged based on their ability.
=
Well, there seems to be a lot of assumptions baked into this theory, but one I think is most likely to sink it is this one: Attractive women are, on average, less intelligent and capable than their less attractive counterparts. Seems a bit prejudicial to me.
Edit: You all are right, of course -- I shot from the hip. While it would be relatively easy to fill a single position with someone who is both attractive and intelligent, when taken across a workforce (assuming it is a widespread practice -- widespread enough to skew the curve) you would end up with a smaller pool when taking anything but intelligence into account.
I've got to wonder, though, how ubiquitous it is when hiring for skilled positions that can eventually lead to management and how much those types of factors differ compared to men?
=
Attractive women are disproportionately hired and promoted.
Many of these attractive women are not intelligent enough for upper management therefore there is a limit to how high these women reach in an organization.
At the same time, less attractive women languish in the lower rungs, far below their intellectual potential.
Furthermore, this phenomena does not affect men because they are judged based on their ability.
=
Well, there seems to be a lot of assumptions baked into this theory, but one I think is most likely to sink it is this one: Attractive women are, on average, less intelligent and capable than their less attractive counterparts. Seems a bit prejudicial to me.
Edit: You all are right, of course -- I shot from the hip. While it would be relatively easy to fill a single position with someone who is both attractive and intelligent, when taken across a workforce (assuming it is a widespread practice -- widespread enough to skew the curve) you would end up with a smaller pool when taking anything but intelligence into account.
I've got to wonder, though, how ubiquitous it is when hiring for skilled positions that can eventually lead to management and how much those types of factors differ compared to men?
It's a speculative article, but it does address your last point:
"In no way am I suggesting that attractive women are necessarily incompetent. But I am saying that the greater emphasis on looks we place on women shrinks the pool of exceptional leaders we might get tomorrow."
"In no way am I suggesting that attractive women are necessarily incompetent. But I am saying that the greater emphasis on looks we place on women shrinks the pool of exceptional leaders we might get tomorrow."
The assumption is that women selected for attractiveness are, on average, less intelligent than women selected for intelligence. That doesn't mean attractive women are less intelligent than unattractive women.
Yes. More generally, the principle here is you can only optimize for one thing.
I'm glad someone pointed out that reasoning flaw right away.
>Attractive women are, on average, less intelligent and capable than their less attractive counterparts. Seems a bit prejudicial to me.
That's not the argument being made. The author is only claiming that hiring by a metric other than competence will lead to worse hires than hiring by competence alone.
It would be like if you hired the people with the shortest first names. Unless short names happened to be correlated with job performance, you're essentially picking names out of a hat. Pointing this out doesn't mean you think people with short names are less intelligent.
That's not the argument being made. The author is only claiming that hiring by a metric other than competence will lead to worse hires than hiring by competence alone.
It would be like if you hired the people with the shortest first names. Unless short names happened to be correlated with job performance, you're essentially picking names out of a hat. Pointing this out doesn't mean you think people with short names are less intelligent.
> Well, there seems to be a lot of assumptions baked into this theory, but one I think is most likely to sink it is this one: Attractive women are, on average, less intelligent and capable than their less attractive counterparts. Seems a bit prejudicial to me.
No, that's not what's being postulated.
Let's stipulate for a moment that attractiveness and intelligence are completely independent. Imagine you have a pool of 1000 men and 1000 women with a standard distribution of looks and ability. Let's say you hire the top 10% of the men in terms of ability, and you also hire the top 10% of women in terms of attractiveness. When it comes time to promote your executives based on ability, you will have 10 men in the top one percent of ability to choose from, as opposed to 1 woman with the same qualifications.
No, that's not what's being postulated.
Let's stipulate for a moment that attractiveness and intelligence are completely independent. Imagine you have a pool of 1000 men and 1000 women with a standard distribution of looks and ability. Let's say you hire the top 10% of the men in terms of ability, and you also hire the top 10% of women in terms of attractiveness. When it comes time to promote your executives based on ability, you will have 10 men in the top one percent of ability to choose from, as opposed to 1 woman with the same qualifications.
From my interpretation, that wasn't an assumption of the theory. All else being equal, there is presumably a similar distribution of intelligence among attractive females as there is among less attractive females.
However, due to attractiveness having a heavier weight than ability in the hiring decision, you hire disproportionately from the full distribution of attractive female candidates, rather than just the "above-average" sides of both distributions. This leaves an artificially scarce supply of female employees competent enough for upper-management level.
In contrast, if men are hired more on competency and less on looks, then you're not arbitrarily splitting your candidate pool into two distributions - one of which (the unattractive) you are very unlikely to hire from - and you're likely to hire all competent males vs. some competent and a few that really shouldn't have been hired but looked good.
However, due to attractiveness having a heavier weight than ability in the hiring decision, you hire disproportionately from the full distribution of attractive female candidates, rather than just the "above-average" sides of both distributions. This leaves an artificially scarce supply of female employees competent enough for upper-management level.
In contrast, if men are hired more on competency and less on looks, then you're not arbitrarily splitting your candidate pool into two distributions - one of which (the unattractive) you are very unlikely to hire from - and you're likely to hire all competent males vs. some competent and a few that really shouldn't have been hired but looked good.
I agree with the synopsis of the presented theory. I also agree that it would be prejudicial to assume that attractive women are less intelligent and capable than their less attractive counterparts. However, I don't see how that assumption is baked into the theory.
Even if, on average, the more-attractive candidates were more intelligent and capable (purely for the sake of the argument), the theory presented seems to support the notion that, despite the hypothetical averages, there would still be a pool of less attractive, highly-qualified candidates held back. It seems to me that, if that were true, they would, under the presented theory, be replaced by attractive candidates who in fact do not qualify for upper management.
Even if, on average, the more-attractive candidates were more intelligent and capable (purely for the sake of the argument), the theory presented seems to support the notion that, despite the hypothetical averages, there would still be a pool of less attractive, highly-qualified candidates held back. It seems to me that, if that were true, they would, under the presented theory, be replaced by attractive candidates who in fact do not qualify for upper management.
I interpreted the essay differently.
The article claims that, early on in the hiring process, women get filtered based on attractiveness. As they move up in the organization, they then get filtered based on ability.
So, the reason that we see so few female CEOs is that the survivors have been filtered for attractiveness and ability, while the men have only been filtered based on ability.
Sounds plausible to me, but I'm not in good a position to say.
The article claims that, early on in the hiring process, women get filtered based on attractiveness. As they move up in the organization, they then get filtered based on ability.
So, the reason that we see so few female CEOs is that the survivors have been filtered for attractiveness and ability, while the men have only been filtered based on ability.
Sounds plausible to me, but I'm not in good a position to say.
IIRC data correlations from The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (with data sets based on ~15,000 adolescents) showed that those who are rated very unattractive averaged an IQ of 94.2 where as those rated very attractive averaged 100.7. Interestingly Male IQ's differed by 8 points, where as women's differed by an average of 6 points.
The fact is there are conditions, specifically Down's, that have an effect on both physical development and mental development.
I think saying attractive women are disproportionately hired and promoted is misleading, because we're now ignoring actual social factors at work rather than simply attractiveness.
If we're going to look at stereotypes then lets look at why female CEO's exhibit male-typical personality traits, and associate that with the known tendency of employers to hire people they can relate to. Or the "catty" female stereotype. Or numerous other stereotypes that aren't actually contrary to evidence, because evidence says hiring women for attractiveness is exactly what employers should be doing, because on average it works.
The question the original article begs to question is "are employers hiring less skilled attractive employees over more skilled unattractive employees" and the article didn't answer it beyond pandering to the "ditzy blonde" stereotype of women in the office.
I think things like second generation college students perform better and that education may not cross gender gaps as effectively, correlated with less women being second generation college graduates is going to have a bigger impact on the supply of competent women into the higher echelons of a work force than men hiring with their dicks.
Today women tend to outnumber men in colleges, which in 40 years time might mean that this wave of second/third generation female graduates might also be dominating our CEO seats.
I'm pandering to a half dozen stereotypes here for the exact reason that we presently know nothing on why we have fewer females in top positions.
The fact is there are conditions, specifically Down's, that have an effect on both physical development and mental development.
I think saying attractive women are disproportionately hired and promoted is misleading, because we're now ignoring actual social factors at work rather than simply attractiveness.
If we're going to look at stereotypes then lets look at why female CEO's exhibit male-typical personality traits, and associate that with the known tendency of employers to hire people they can relate to. Or the "catty" female stereotype. Or numerous other stereotypes that aren't actually contrary to evidence, because evidence says hiring women for attractiveness is exactly what employers should be doing, because on average it works.
The question the original article begs to question is "are employers hiring less skilled attractive employees over more skilled unattractive employees" and the article didn't answer it beyond pandering to the "ditzy blonde" stereotype of women in the office.
I think things like second generation college students perform better and that education may not cross gender gaps as effectively, correlated with less women being second generation college graduates is going to have a bigger impact on the supply of competent women into the higher echelons of a work force than men hiring with their dicks.
Today women tend to outnumber men in colleges, which in 40 years time might mean that this wave of second/third generation female graduates might also be dominating our CEO seats.
I'm pandering to a half dozen stereotypes here for the exact reason that we presently know nothing on why we have fewer females in top positions.
Couple hidden assumptions:
1) Intelligence is a single digit number which can be optimized for, and (even more incredibly unlikely) the interview / hiring process is capable of properly determining and ranking applicants in a ridiculously short amount of time and effort.
2) Beauty (see above, although this isn't as strong of an argument).
I would say based on decades of observation, other than eliminating perhaps the absolute bottom 10% of the population, the overall hiring process especially the interview process is utterly ineffective at determining intelligence or effectiveness. On the other hand, internal promotions either select for that, or brown nosing.
This made the original article rather comical when it claimed hundred of women applied and they seriously think they'll be able to select the smartest?
Clearly, given the proven ineffectiveness overall of corporate hiring process, the average IQ of new hires is going to average 100 or so, regardless if the women are hot or not. So the question becomes given two individuals both IQ of 100 or whatever other ranking system you'd prefer, why do the hot women not get promoted but the men are promoted?
1) Intelligence is a single digit number which can be optimized for, and (even more incredibly unlikely) the interview / hiring process is capable of properly determining and ranking applicants in a ridiculously short amount of time and effort.
2) Beauty (see above, although this isn't as strong of an argument).
I would say based on decades of observation, other than eliminating perhaps the absolute bottom 10% of the population, the overall hiring process especially the interview process is utterly ineffective at determining intelligence or effectiveness. On the other hand, internal promotions either select for that, or brown nosing.
This made the original article rather comical when it claimed hundred of women applied and they seriously think they'll be able to select the smartest?
Clearly, given the proven ineffectiveness overall of corporate hiring process, the average IQ of new hires is going to average 100 or so, regardless if the women are hot or not. So the question becomes given two individuals both IQ of 100 or whatever other ranking system you'd prefer, why do the hot women not get promoted but the men are promoted?
I have a suspicion that there's a cognitive bias at play here, whereby men unconsciously overrate the competence of attractive women and underrate the competence of unattractive women. While I have no evidence to back it up, it does a better job of passing the sniff test than the implicit assertion that men are consciously hiring unqualified women simply because they're attractive.
>a cognitive bias at play here, whereby men unconsciously overrate the competence of attractive women [...] //
Only men?
I don't consider it likely but it seems mathematically possible that men are entirely even handed on the appearance of women but that women are highly partial to more attractive women. That would mean that as more women entered higher echelons of companies there would be more bias towards hiring attractive women [for top positions]. If the effect was greater amongst more attractive women - like stereotypical high school girl groups of Hollywood movies - then the effect would quickly magnify until only the most attractive women were allowed, by other women, to attain top positions.
I'm not at all saying this is the case but just questioning whether there's a basis in science for your apparently pinning the apparent bias on men [alone].
It also strikes me that perhaps the person writing the story is attracted to power. That would make those women appear more attractive than they otherwise might. A further possibility is that after attaining positions with good wages they then were able to acquire the ability to stay (or become) more attractive - basically flipping the cause and effect.
Only men?
I don't consider it likely but it seems mathematically possible that men are entirely even handed on the appearance of women but that women are highly partial to more attractive women. That would mean that as more women entered higher echelons of companies there would be more bias towards hiring attractive women [for top positions]. If the effect was greater amongst more attractive women - like stereotypical high school girl groups of Hollywood movies - then the effect would quickly magnify until only the most attractive women were allowed, by other women, to attain top positions.
I'm not at all saying this is the case but just questioning whether there's a basis in science for your apparently pinning the apparent bias on men [alone].
It also strikes me that perhaps the person writing the story is attracted to power. That would make those women appear more attractive than they otherwise might. A further possibility is that after attaining positions with good wages they then were able to acquire the ability to stay (or become) more attractive - basically flipping the cause and effect.
I questioned whether or not to include women, and elected not to because I simply don't know enough about how their minds work. In addition, most of the people making the hiring decisions are currently men, so the influence of a cognitive bias in women on the overall makeup of the pool of employees would be considerably less than one in men. It may well be that the same bias exists in both men and women, but I strongly suspect it does in men, whereas I have no idea if it does in women.
I feel compelled to include a link to Roy Baumeister's "Is There Anything Good About Men?": http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm. It is possible that there are fewer women in the upper echelons of business because evolutionarily women didn't have to take as many risks as men in order to reproduce. So men are biologically programmed to take risks, and either spectacularly succeed or spectacularly fail. Hence there are more male CEOs, but there are also more male homeless, for example.
how dare you bring biology into a gender debate. it was well established decades ago that a billion year old evolutionary trait is no longer relavent.
Born into the most visible of minorities, I grew up comfortably and amongst the majority while being unable to change how I looked, or pick the family I was born into, or the color of my skin.
The single thing I've seen over and over:
The only way ignorance is destroyed is when we take a minute to turn a stranger into a person by first acknowledging their existence as a member of our human family, and if possible learning a little about them and realizing, they're not that different than us.
Some truths I've yet to disprove about Glass Ceilings:
You can generally only bet on people to pay attention to glass ceilings that also affect them. Too many people don't understand, nor can they empathize very well with those who do.
I've learned to generally ignore every word anyone ever says about diversity of any kind in an organization and only pay attention to the actions.
If their diversity isn't already reflected in management, there's little chance they'll get there.
Discovering Glass Ceilings:
It doesn't seem misleading to feel those who are equally capable but an identifiable minority have to be twice as good in as twice as many ways as others to get half the respect. You get the idea.
I've spoken as an expert for a particular enterprise and government grade tool across North America. Imagine the biggest corporations and government departments in one room. Get some nice exposure, recognition, people even keep in touch..
Still, my oldest clients are the best, teach me so much about life and living, and I couldn't ask for anything more as I move forward.
Glass ceilings as fuel:
I figure getting where you want to go with hardwork is fine. It only helps build my entrepreneurial hustle.
Sometimes there's a few more bridges for me to build if someone hasn't dealt with someone who is "like them".
On the whole, I find this helps me build my ability to connect to people's needs that much better
To those who find glass ceilings:
Decide if you want to break through it. You can. (Often if you're not the first, you will be the last to try).
On the other hand, if you're that high caliber, you can probably start your own organization (and probably should). It's not to say going on your own is any easier -- you just have more ability to find the people who see life and the world like you do. Life is crazy anyways, having better people around makes the extremely tough balance out with the extremely good.
I understand this may be heavy maybe for some, but life with depth is where meaning and fulfillment is.
If anyone wants to chat about this and is afraid of being painted as a *-ist, feel free to contact me offline or reply here. If it makes you feel more comfortable, I can offer immunity/protection for what may seem like poorly worded questions (but are often well intended).
The single thing I've seen over and over:
The only way ignorance is destroyed is when we take a minute to turn a stranger into a person by first acknowledging their existence as a member of our human family, and if possible learning a little about them and realizing, they're not that different than us.
Some truths I've yet to disprove about Glass Ceilings:
You can generally only bet on people to pay attention to glass ceilings that also affect them. Too many people don't understand, nor can they empathize very well with those who do.
I've learned to generally ignore every word anyone ever says about diversity of any kind in an organization and only pay attention to the actions.
If their diversity isn't already reflected in management, there's little chance they'll get there.
Discovering Glass Ceilings:
It doesn't seem misleading to feel those who are equally capable but an identifiable minority have to be twice as good in as twice as many ways as others to get half the respect. You get the idea.
I've spoken as an expert for a particular enterprise and government grade tool across North America. Imagine the biggest corporations and government departments in one room. Get some nice exposure, recognition, people even keep in touch..
Still, my oldest clients are the best, teach me so much about life and living, and I couldn't ask for anything more as I move forward.
Glass ceilings as fuel:
I figure getting where you want to go with hardwork is fine. It only helps build my entrepreneurial hustle.
Sometimes there's a few more bridges for me to build if someone hasn't dealt with someone who is "like them".
On the whole, I find this helps me build my ability to connect to people's needs that much better
To those who find glass ceilings:
Decide if you want to break through it. You can. (Often if you're not the first, you will be the last to try).
On the other hand, if you're that high caliber, you can probably start your own organization (and probably should). It's not to say going on your own is any easier -- you just have more ability to find the people who see life and the world like you do. Life is crazy anyways, having better people around makes the extremely tough balance out with the extremely good.
I understand this may be heavy maybe for some, but life with depth is where meaning and fulfillment is.
If anyone wants to chat about this and is afraid of being painted as a *-ist, feel free to contact me offline or reply here. If it makes you feel more comfortable, I can offer immunity/protection for what may seem like poorly worded questions (but are often well intended).
have to be twice as good in as twice as many ways as others to get half the respect
To have a really open discussion about this I think it's important to mention the disconnect between what people think is important and what get's people promoted. One of the least obvious examples is a willingness to leave.
To have a really open discussion about this I think it's important to mention the disconnect between what people think is important and what get's people promoted. One of the least obvious examples is a willingness to leave.
Absolutely. Great point. It certainly doesn't happen alone in the one scenario I mentioned, but can otherwise too.
Generating more value than which you are paid is the ultimate measure.
The poisonous corporate cultures of winning favor and loyalty and trying to silver tounge their way up the ladder on the backs of others.
Generating more value than which you are paid is the ultimate measure.
The poisonous corporate cultures of winning favor and loyalty and trying to silver tounge their way up the ladder on the backs of others.
To me, the main point has to do with the unseen consequences / victims. It's similar to situations where the government creates winners in an industry, where people applaud the act of job creations, but nobody sees the lost opportunities elsewhere because they are not easily identifiable.
>In reality, she was not qualified for the job. Literally hundreds of other women had applied, many of whom would have been more competent. The real injustice was not hiring one of them in the first place.
>In reality, she was not qualified for the job. Literally hundreds of other women had applied, many of whom would have been more competent. The real injustice was not hiring one of them in the first place.
I'm no expert, but this hasn't convinced me yet:
1. The author shows one anecdotal example of the effect being claimed, and then claims that it's a large factor based again, on wholly anecdotal factors. 2. The author uses as evidence that two CEOs that they can think of are attractive. I don't need to go into the statistics to point out how ridiculous this is. 3. Of CEOs who are women, there aren't any exceptional levels of beauty present, v everywhere else in the world. 4. There are several more likely explanations for this effect than this one. 5. That attractiveness is correlated with pay doesn't mean that attractiveness is being selected for. It can also imply that self-confident people are more likely to be successful, which I believe studies have shown in the past. 6. While claiming not to, this article feeds into the narrative of 'attractive women must be stupid,' by implying that attractive women, having clearly been selected for their attractiveness, will tend to be less intelligent.
I'm not saying this isn't something that happens. I'm stating that I'm not convinced attractive women getting hired is a primary problem, rather than, perhaps, sexism in hiring and promoting practices, which has been demonstrated at just about every level of employment.
1. The author shows one anecdotal example of the effect being claimed, and then claims that it's a large factor based again, on wholly anecdotal factors. 2. The author uses as evidence that two CEOs that they can think of are attractive. I don't need to go into the statistics to point out how ridiculous this is. 3. Of CEOs who are women, there aren't any exceptional levels of beauty present, v everywhere else in the world. 4. There are several more likely explanations for this effect than this one. 5. That attractiveness is correlated with pay doesn't mean that attractiveness is being selected for. It can also imply that self-confident people are more likely to be successful, which I believe studies have shown in the past. 6. While claiming not to, this article feeds into the narrative of 'attractive women must be stupid,' by implying that attractive women, having clearly been selected for their attractiveness, will tend to be less intelligent.
I'm not saying this isn't something that happens. I'm stating that I'm not convinced attractive women getting hired is a primary problem, rather than, perhaps, sexism in hiring and promoting practices, which has been demonstrated at just about every level of employment.
"While claiming not to, this article feeds into the narrative of 'attractive women must be stupid,' by implying that attractive women, having clearly been selected for their attractiveness, will tend to be less intelligent."
This is not the right way to read it. The article is saying that if your promotion process selects the men with the most merit, but where the appearance of women takes precedence over their merits, the women who make it to higher levels will be less likely to have strong merits than the men (due to different selection criteria). It is not saying that attractive women are less likely to be intelligent, it is saying that they will be competing against men who were selected for their talents (including intelligence).
This is not the right way to read it. The article is saying that if your promotion process selects the men with the most merit, but where the appearance of women takes precedence over their merits, the women who make it to higher levels will be less likely to have strong merits than the men (due to different selection criteria). It is not saying that attractive women are less likely to be intelligent, it is saying that they will be competing against men who were selected for their talents (including intelligence).
Perhaps I'm not being clear enough; I'm aware that wasn't what was being argued,but it did very little to dispel that narrative, which it plays into. Still, looking back, it seems to be a somewhat overblown critique.
I didn't feel that it explicitly addressed how an individual should be running their promotion process, but I could have missed something.
I didn't feel that it explicitly addressed how an individual should be running their promotion process, but I could have missed something.
This is a ridiculously hard issue to discuss, especially with anyone who identifies with a group they feel has been victimized. Which can stretch to almost anyone these days.
The only thing I wanted to add here is that the article & subsequent discussion seems to be about whether or not it's acceptable for men/women/other to be judged based on anything except their competence. I think that's what can make this topic tricky - because companies, in my (admittedly limited) experience don't just hire based on competence.
Most people would think it was acceptable not to hire someone because they didn't "fit" with the company's culture. Maybe they were a jerk, maybe they were hugely arrogant, maybe they didn't shower, maybe they showed up in a three-piece suit to your shorts and flip-flops interview, whatever it is. So really this whole discussion ought to be about what things are acceptable to discriminate against to determine "fit" and what things aren't.
Which I think requires taking a look at what it means to assess someone for "fit" - because I can see how easy it is for "attractiveness" to be a part of that definition. So should it not be? What should - and on what grounds? I think the discussion becomes subjective quite quickly...which is what makes it all so hard to discuss.
The only thing I wanted to add here is that the article & subsequent discussion seems to be about whether or not it's acceptable for men/women/other to be judged based on anything except their competence. I think that's what can make this topic tricky - because companies, in my (admittedly limited) experience don't just hire based on competence.
Most people would think it was acceptable not to hire someone because they didn't "fit" with the company's culture. Maybe they were a jerk, maybe they were hugely arrogant, maybe they didn't shower, maybe they showed up in a three-piece suit to your shorts and flip-flops interview, whatever it is. So really this whole discussion ought to be about what things are acceptable to discriminate against to determine "fit" and what things aren't.
Which I think requires taking a look at what it means to assess someone for "fit" - because I can see how easy it is for "attractiveness" to be a part of that definition. So should it not be? What should - and on what grounds? I think the discussion becomes subjective quite quickly...which is what makes it all so hard to discuss.
The author mentioned only two top females Marissa Mayer and Belinda Stronach. How about the very successful Chanda Zaveri we just had a post about? http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130126/jsp/calcutta/story_164...
I'm not saying looks don't affect interviews, I think they do, but I'd like to see a little more investigation and a little less assumption.
I'm not saying looks don't affect interviews, I think they do, but I'd like to see a little more investigation and a little less assumption.
She's smokin'.
Sounds like she founded the company with money she earned as a talented student, rather than rising through the ranks of an existing company (where hiring and promotion bias takes effect).
Not entirely sure that Belinda Stronach fits, either -- having Frank for a father was a bit of a hand up, I'd think.
I haven't had a long career but I've heard quite a few times "Hey, we'll have a girl onboard!". My initial concern is usually, I'll admit (is she cute?) but I don't like to look like an asshole so I ask "Is she good?". Almost everytime, someone tells me that "it doesn't matter".
So yes, the article is right, some women get hired for their looks regardless of what they do.
So yes, the article is right, some women get hired for their looks regardless of what they do.
I think change will be exponential. For example, look at the change in the makeup of Canadian provincial premiers. All 10 premiers were men 20 years ago, but now:
Ontario: Kathleen Wynn (Last weekend)
Quebec: Pauline Marois (September 2012)
Alberta: Alison Redford (October 2011)
British Columbia: Rita Johnston (1991), Christy Clark (March 2011)
In my experience, all women that could advance and take a senior/executive/managerial positions declined to do so,because the increased responsibilities that would come with their new position were too much, especially since most of them were young and had a child within the last 5-6 years. It was the case for 100% women I know, both my friends and in my family.
Part of the problem is that we mostly don't know how good managers do what they do (and they don't either).
Their knowledge is tacit. And we have to make a tacit judgement when hiring -- which means that memes about gender necessarily exert an unquantifiable influence.
Their knowledge is tacit. And we have to make a tacit judgement when hiring -- which means that memes about gender necessarily exert an unquantifiable influence.
What's the point of hiring based on attractiveness? What's the probability of one actually getting the drawers?
Everyone can't be Keith Rabois you know....
Well, here's a dilemma for you: if you were hiring someone for a position in sales, and I told you that attractive women were more likely to make "the deal" than unattractive women, would you exclude attractiveness from your hiring criteria?
250 words and he said nothing.
I'm getting so sick of tripe like this that thinks men and women want the same things in their lives and careers. I would like to know:
- Of the working men and women, how many actually want these executive positions?
I'm getting so sick of tripe like this that thinks men and women want the same things in their lives and careers. I would like to know:
- Of the working men and women, how many actually want these executive positions?
Anecdotal, but in my experience smart girls are uglier and cute girls are stupider.
This is verified by comparing 2 groups: nightclub girls and science research nerd girls.
As a group the nerd girls are uglier on average, because there are several severely plain nerd girls, though an individual nerd girl may be very attractive.
As a group the disco girls are stupider on average, because there are several severely ditzy disco girls, though an individual disco girl may have brains.
I believe the reason for this is that it takes effort to make yourself attractive, just as it takes effort to make yourself smart, so there is a trade off.
This is verified by comparing 2 groups: nightclub girls and science research nerd girls.
As a group the nerd girls are uglier on average, because there are several severely plain nerd girls, though an individual nerd girl may be very attractive.
As a group the disco girls are stupider on average, because there are several severely ditzy disco girls, though an individual disco girl may have brains.
I believe the reason for this is that it takes effort to make yourself attractive, just as it takes effort to make yourself smart, so there is a trade off.
There is a flaw in your methodology. You are comparing a group of preselected smart girls with a group of preselected pretty girls. Neither is a representative sample of the population.
3 Questions then:
A) Do you disagree with my position on effort?
B) How else is one going to encounter this phenomenon in real life?
C) How should I correctly test the hypothesis?
A) Do you disagree with my position on effort?
B) How else is one going to encounter this phenomenon in real life?
C) How should I correctly test the hypothesis?
Gather an unbiased representative sample of the population. Rate their intelligence and appearance. Plot a graph.
I'll also make the following observations. Girls in a club may appear dumber than they are because they're drunk and having silly fun. Girls in a research lab are quite possibly wearing less makeup than they would wear to a club. It's entirely possible you're looking at the same set of girls, but aren't recognizing that fact because the effects of environment and context are so transformative.
I'll also make the following observations. Girls in a club may appear dumber than they are because they're drunk and having silly fun. Girls in a research lab are quite possibly wearing less makeup than they would wear to a club. It's entirely possible you're looking at the same set of girls, but aren't recognizing that fact because the effects of environment and context are so transformative.
"Girls in a research lab are quite possibly wearing less makeup"
Well I think that's my point. The girls in the club put in quite a lot of effort in makeup and dress, and are tottering around in high heels, to make themselves more attractive. (I've seen girls put themselves through comical levels of suffering merely for the sake of wearing heels.)
The girls in the research lab are probably instead putting that effort into reading research papers to make themselves better informed. They may well be wearing lab safety gear.
"It's entirely possible you're looking at the same set of girls"
Maybe, somehow I doubt researchers have the time to get out of lab though.
Well I think that's my point. The girls in the club put in quite a lot of effort in makeup and dress, and are tottering around in high heels, to make themselves more attractive. (I've seen girls put themselves through comical levels of suffering merely for the sake of wearing heels.)
The girls in the research lab are probably instead putting that effort into reading research papers to make themselves better informed. They may well be wearing lab safety gear.
"It's entirely possible you're looking at the same set of girls"
Maybe, somehow I doubt researchers have the time to get out of lab though.
Re C: you could stand in a place that attracts what you consider to be an unbiased clientèle, ask women if they'll take a test, give them an IQ test (or establish highest level of education or similar). Score them on looks somehow. Compare results and test for correlation.
Or you could take a group with similar intelligence (eg a university class group) and have them rated for looks, compare the result curves with the expected results in general population and look for skew or spread variations.
Or you could take a group with similar intelligence (eg a university class group) and have them rated for looks, compare the result curves with the expected results in general population and look for skew or spread variations.
You are very off track.
All the evidence I've ever come across points to the opposite conclusion: there is a positive correlation between beauty and intelligence.
A few seconds of googling turned this up: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundament...
I've seen actual journal articles on the matter as well. Facial symmetry is influenced by genetics, the oxygenation of the womb, as well as other factors. A lot has to go right for a person to have a beautiful face and a lot has to go right for someone to have a high IQ. It shouldn't be remotely surprising that they are correlated.
Judging by your incredibly stereotyped conceptions of "disco" girls the limited dating experience you had was probably a few decades ago. Judging by your silly, evidence free post you might not be particularly smart or attractive.
Better put in some effort on both.
All the evidence I've ever come across points to the opposite conclusion: there is a positive correlation between beauty and intelligence.
A few seconds of googling turned this up: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundament...
I've seen actual journal articles on the matter as well. Facial symmetry is influenced by genetics, the oxygenation of the womb, as well as other factors. A lot has to go right for a person to have a beautiful face and a lot has to go right for someone to have a high IQ. It shouldn't be remotely surprising that they are correlated.
Judging by your incredibly stereotyped conceptions of "disco" girls the limited dating experience you had was probably a few decades ago. Judging by your silly, evidence free post you might not be particularly smart or attractive.
Better put in some effort on both.
'Judging by your incredibly stereotyped conceptions of "disco" girls'
Go down to eg Thai Square nightclub in Trafalgar Square, London UK on midnight Friday or Saturday and tell me what you see.
'silly, evidence free post'
I never claimed evidence, I claimed anecdotal experience. Go down to the EE PhD labs in eg Imperial College, London UK, any time of the day, any time of the week, and tell me what you see. I bet you the girls in there would be offended by comparison to the Thai Square girls.
'you might not be particularly smart or attractive'
Stay off the ad-hominems asshole.
Go down to eg Thai Square nightclub in Trafalgar Square, London UK on midnight Friday or Saturday and tell me what you see.
'silly, evidence free post'
I never claimed evidence, I claimed anecdotal experience. Go down to the EE PhD labs in eg Imperial College, London UK, any time of the day, any time of the week, and tell me what you see. I bet you the girls in there would be offended by comparison to the Thai Square girls.
'you might not be particularly smart or attractive'
Stay off the ad-hominems asshole.
Explain Meg Whitman...
If you do a google image search for "pictures of fortune 500 ceos" you will see that most of the women coming up are just as ugly as the men. I think this has more to do with the industry attracting people who are ugly on the inside and by the time they get to the top they just say "fuck it" and let their monstrousness show.
Anyway, and I apologize in advance if I derail the topic, but I think there's a semi important distinction to qualify this discussion, because I do think the discussion applies just as much to men as it does to women.
Casually attraction does seem like less important of a factor for men, but in data that seems to be because height is vastly important instead. So much so that a woman's attractiveness is not congruent to a man's attractiveness, but his height.
I find this to be true casually and it certainly has some scientific backing[1]. In online forum threads (okay fine, AskReddit) and female friends have nearly universally expressed less interest in short males precisely because they are short.
In fact, I think if you replace "attractive women" with "tall men" you have a slightly better scientific basis for this article, because we can base it on studies and not the author's perceptions of attractiveness.
10% of Russel 3000 CEOs are women, and similarly 10% of (original source doesn't say) CEOs are below average height. Wikipedia says[1]:
> A survey of Fortune 500 CEO height in 2005 revealed that they were on average 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) tall, which is approximately 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) taller than the average American man. 30% were 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m) tall or more; in comparison only 3.9% of the overall United States population is of this height.[11] Similar surveys have uncovered that less than 3% of CEOs were below 5 ft 7 in (1.70 m) in height. Ninety percent of CEOs are of above average height.
[1] See especially the "unsolicited messages per week, by height" graph: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-biggest-lies-in-online...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_discrimination#In_busine...