« Economists, stories & mechanisms | Main | Finance & human capital »

September 02, 2009

Comments

reason

Ceterus parabus strikes again.
But where does that leave methodological individualism?

Luis Enrique

I wonder if there are instances where the presence of women decreases the male tendency to act masculine, or whether the presence of women always increase displays of masculinity, regardless of context.

Tim Worstall

There's been a paper on that last point. Mixed sex environments increase risk taking in both men and women (I think it was because they rasie testosterone levels in both).

jameshigham

When the game was played in single-sex groups, men gave away a similar proportion to women - 28.1% vs. 27.9%. This suggests there is no gender difference in the degree of altruism.

It would be nice to have some money to give away in a game.

Zorro

"If so, then Harriet Harman’s claim that mixed-gender groups make better decisions might be plain wrong."

If Harriet Harman said that then the opposite is true. Case closed. (Not because she's a woman, because she's Harriet Harman)

georges

So girls are more likely to achieve academically in single-sex classes, while boys are more likely to achieve in mixed classes...

ad

"They asked participants to state their gender on a questionnaire before the game, and put men and women into mixed groups."

That is two changes, not one. And it is purely an assumption that priming was the only, or even a major, effect of the changes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad