Evidence? Pah, We Don’t Need No Steenkin’ Evidence!

10
1154

What a delightful encapsulation of all that is wrong with the modern world:

Across the public and private sectors and in every branch of society (increasingly even at the beleaguered Garrick Club), it is accepted that the contributions of both women and men are vital, not just to deliver fairness, but to allow for as wide a range of views as possible in the interests of good decision-making. It makes no sense to allow schools to prevent the cultivation of that approach. Research that suggests single-sex schools “outperform” is not just an irrelevance but meaningless. Research showing that single-sex workforces outperformed mixed groups would be immediately rejected. We would insist that the wrong questions were being asked.

Reality is that thing outside the window to be ignored when it conflicts with our prejudices.

The truly interesting thing being that of course such research has been done. Think of Harriet Harman’s comment about Lehman Sisters.

In which she was, for once in her life, correct. An all female workforce in a bank would be less risk taking than an all male workforce. Because this is how humans work, women – on average and all that – tend to be more risk averse than men. This is just a truth about the species we belong to.

The truly important thing here being that we can compare either of those single sex environments to a mixed one. And the reality – reality note, the thing we must, even if we desire not to, interact with – is that mixed sex environments are more risk taking than either of the possible single sex ones.

Something which does bring its amusements of course. The financial crash can therefore be blamed on allowing women into the dealing rooms. Even if it’s less than politics to even muse that this might be so.

Leave such provocations aside though. We have evidence that mixed and same sex environments perform differently with respect to risk. We should reject this because the wrong questions were asked, or incorporate it into our view of the world?

The claim being made is that we must reject – which tells us what’s wrong with the world today. It’s not willing to work with the grain of reality which is why there are so many splinters getting stuck in the societal arse.

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
6 Thread replies
18 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
john77Michael van der RietJimBalamBarks Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Esteban
Guest
Esteban

Seems that an all male environment would be more risk taking than a mixed one?

Spike
Guest
Spike

The preconceived notion that women are “just like us but with tits” (unless they are birth-assigned males) is like the notion that minorities are “just like us but darker” (except Rachel Dolezal). In fact, any group difference that is significant gains its significance through different culture and history that might lead to different average results.

Contributions of SOME women are vital. The assertion that women-as-a-class have to be treated identically, or we lose the contributions of all women, is crap.

John B
Guest
John B

And sex segregation at schools was routine during the first 200 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution – the greatest surge in social and economic progress in the history of Mankind.

And wasn’t there much agitation to get women out of workforces of dangerous and arduous occupations, like coal mining?

I don’t see a mixed workforce working on the bin lorries or oil drilling rigs.

Balam
Guest
Balam

I’m totally unconvinced that a female leadership would be less likely to send other people’s children to war.

Michael van der Riet
Guest
Michael van der Riet

They’re not scared of the sight of blood.

john77
Guest
john77

Margaret Thatcher was, at the time, the least belligerent of female leaders (after Golda Meir, Mrs Bandanaraike and both competing leaders of Bangladesh) to rule/have ruled a country.
Going back in history one wouldn’t want to be a conscript in the armies of Boudicca or Maud (maybe of Good Queen Bess as she won); Queens Anne and Victoria fought many more wars than their predecessors and successors combined.
One of the reasons why Winston Churchill said “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war” is that he had seen comrades hacked to death – a privilege not vouchsafed to female political leaders.