100% She says she should learn more, when in fact she's already committed, because she's making an effort to meet you half-way. You're mistaking considerate good manners for .... well I'm not sure what, because then you have a hypothetical female thinking she already has the answer and then admitting she was wrong after a single article. Which happens, I guess, though it's more likely that a know-it-all will simply adjust her rhetoric to include the new material, while a social dabbler will share the revelation with anyone who'll listen and a studious type will look for six more points of view before deciding which to accept. While this: is not at all common in my experience. Reading an article that disagrees with their position, most men will call the author an idiot, They'll change their position or admit they didn't know enough only if the author was someone they already consider an authority. Do you know any humans?
Wouldn't you expect that to depend on the question? There are things you don't need a whole lot of information about. "Should minimum wage earners be taxed higher than millionnaires?" Uh - No. Three conservative textbooks later - still No. and things you do "Should we renegotiate a 1972 trade treaty with a country that's changed governments twice since then?" I'll get back to you.
In democratic countries they change governments all the time. 1972 was before I existed; I really have know idea of what you're talking about.
The problem with his post (the one you’re replying “what?” to, Beer) is he singled out women as having the issue, but implied that men would not make the same mistake. I can’t imagine generalizing men, in that same way. But to each their own. *shrug*
It was in response to Seattle's suggestion that women form political opinions on insufficient information. My counter-suggestion is that women (some men, too) may need information for some political decisions, while others are a matter of conscience, rather than knowledge. I offered a random example of each type. I thought you were responding to the same post; no intent to confuse.
Of course, however the subject was the TPP trade agreement. She has sure she was against it but knew nothing about it or about past trade agreements. She also wasn't a fan of China but didn't realize that the TPP was an Asian trade agreement that didn't include China.
And she went on to inform herself? Fine. A man might do the same. Or either one might toe the party line, regardless. Or either one might stick with their gut-reaction.
Except that is not what I did. You call any such replies "sexist" even though you switched the subject to imply that the Briggs-Myers test was why women are sometimes paid less than men. You pointed out that "women" were "Feelers" and "men" were "Thinkers" in that test. That's not sexist ? but my comments are? I said that some women "feel" that they have an answer to an issue when they don't and that some men would just say they didn't know. Yes, of course, some men are well known to have the answer to everything whether they do or not. I can say some people are just looking to be offended and yet I'm not implying that everyone is just looking to be offended.
No, she didn't. This is also a pattern (as with Wegs). And some men are feelers and some women are thinkers. Why didn't you point that out when Wegs made her comments? Taking comments too literally in a forum is generally a mistake, don't you think? There isn't space to qualify every comment. Don't look to be offended and you probably won't be. You asked if I knew any humans. Should I take that literally?
I stated that the test unintentionally resulted in women being considered feelers and not thinkers. I was sharing what I’ve read in articles and if that’s happening, how it could be used in hiring processes.
And I was sharing my experiences with several women who are opinionated but not knowledgeable in that subject (not to lecture).
I thought you said she did. My misread.I also got the impression that the one example was being extrapolated to the whole sex. Now I see it's 'several' opinionated, uninformed women. That might explain your generalization from personal experience, even though it doesn't correspond to my experience. I believe I did cover my disagreement with the whole thinker/feeler classification. Whoever made the comments. Maybe so, but the alternative is interpreting, and that can lead - imo - to much bigger mistakes than responding to what's actually on the screen. I'm rarely offended; I often differ. If you like. With more emphasis on "know" than "humans". It's the generalization by gender that I object to - both on principle and by preference.
So, your interpretation is that you think it likely that I don't know anyone? Maybe you're not very good at this?
Agree. But I'm an introvert who pretty much could live happily without any direct human contact at all. Nothing happier than a good film, good food, and a good bottle of wine. On my own! Have never, and will never, do karaoke, or deliberately make a fool of myself. Unless very inebriated. And if "required" to at work (e.g. as part of an ill-thought out team exercise) will be far more likely to point out the discrimination in such activity and make a fuss of it than do the activity. #Standing up for the rights of shy people not to feel embarrassed or exposed in front of others! (Yeah, probably needs a slightly more pithy #hashtag than that!) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
< sidebar > I will make an attempt to be less aggressive. I would be sad if you stopped communicating with me. That being said, we are discussing hot issues, I won't be so soft as to let (what I see as) faulty or ambiguous arguments go unchallenged. (That would be patronizing.) This is a science forum, and there are a lot of other pedantic people here, so I get used to a rather rigorous debating style. Most discussions are debates between opposing stances. Although some are merely conversational. I will try to treat them differently. This one became a debate, in my view, when the assertion was made that it was gender-biased. I saw flaws in the arguments presented. I'm not going to just let such assertions pass unchallenged. This is a good example. If you're of a mind, I'll explain my rationale. Maybe it'll help in a mutual understanding. What you said was "I took it before being hired..." That could mean you took it as part of the interview process. But it could also mean you took it long before ever getting hired - as in: on your own, nothing to do with getting hired at that particular job. I was not sure which one you meant. They are categorically different to me. The former raises alarms; the latter does not. So I asked for clarification - before expressing my alarm. So, I am not questioning you, as if you got it wrong. I am simply looking for clarification - reducing what I see as two possible interpretations down to one. I apologize for coming across as brusquely as I do. You've been nice. That being said, what won't want do is handle you with kid gloves in issues under debate - challenging you less than I might challenge others. If that's not acceptable, then yeah, we may have a problem. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! < /sidebar >
OK, so you'll surely score near 100% on the introvert scale. Distinctly different personality than, for example, me, or Jeeves.
Dave, as I recall, you live in the UK or Australia (correct me if I'm wrong). It's not uncommon here (U.S.) to have to take a test during the interview process that may have some such questions (Briggs-Myers) on it. Usually it's a hybrid. I've rarely had to take such a test but I have had to on occasion. They may be trying to figure out if you are good working on your own, or persistent at sales, or depending on the job they could be looking for a very precise person. The type of test Wegs is describing isn't uncommon as part of the hiring process. It would rarely be a full pledged Briggs-Meyers test but it could be I suppose.
