Job preferences could be at the heart of the much-talked-about declining fortunes of men. Dirty, dangerous jobs like coal mining are in decline while human oriented jobs are on the rise. It’s not as if all men are attracted to the dirty, dangerous jobs, but many men are probably unmotivated to pursue jobs that require a ton of interpersonal interaction.
Perhaps "Animate vs Inanimate" would be a better description than People vs Things.
That way one could include Veterinary Medicine (AKA Cute Furry Things) which has completely reversed in 50 years and now one of the largest gaps in college (80% Female).
Never mentioned by those claiming women are held back in STEM by "Patriarchy" rather than preference as it is one of the starkest counter-examples.
Yep, potentially a good re-labelling. I’d want to see evidence, though, that the interest-in-people construct actually predicts women’s greater interest in cute furry things.
I’m not denying that they are more interested. But it’s not necessarily the case that the trait measured by interest-in-people inventories explains that difference. It could be something else.
Good point.. For precision, perhaps one needs to define certain group characteristics of "abstract and inanimate objects" on the one side and whatever is the opposite of that.
One might find that the preference for humans and animals is rooted in similar instincts or characterisrics.
Thanks for sharing this study. Clear evidence that boys and girls gravitate toward different kinds of occupations, and that efforts to create interest where none exists will likely not work.
I wonder if a more cognitive (system I) variable could be involved. I'll call it the “like me” variable. One that seems important to adolescents everywhere, including Switzerland (I assume), and one that might reinforce or mediate the gender difference.
Maybe girls and boys unconsciously choose apprenticeships because they believe they'll work with more girls or boys in that job, and/or they use gender as a proxy to assume that people in those jobs are more generally like them.
It would be interesting to see the same kind of study using other perceived “like me” variables: how many like-me friends subjects have in certain jobs, how many like-me people they know in those jobs, or how they perceive like-me representation in certain jobs. Perhaps even look at things like race, ethnicity, region, etc. to see whether this is a gender effect or a broader “like me” effect.
It seems very human to gravitate to a job where we expect to work with people like us. More so for an adolescent whose judgment and understanding of the world is not fully developed.
Hi Scott. I think it’s very likely that that kind of thing is going on, and that it would make the gender gaps somewhat larger than they’d be if occupational interests were the only factor.
I remember reading about a study that given a choice of toys, female juvenile rhesus monkey preferred dolls while the males preferred other toys. I believe the finding failed to replicate however
There just seems to be more and more evidence that the more freedom to choose, the more dichotomous preferences become.
Like the old egalitarian study. Removing social constructs leaves only biological tendencies. And they found where there weren’t overlaps in interests, the differences were massive.
These types of emotional, scientific findings is what has landed James Nuzzo in trouble. Which is asinine.
I guess this sort of study is necessary to affirm lifelong observations all of us, excepting Blank Slate dogmatists, have.
Yep, the finding squares with many people’s everyday beliefs. But everyday beliefs often turn out to be wrong, so it’s important to do the research!
Job preferences could be at the heart of the much-talked-about declining fortunes of men. Dirty, dangerous jobs like coal mining are in decline while human oriented jobs are on the rise. It’s not as if all men are attracted to the dirty, dangerous jobs, but many men are probably unmotivated to pursue jobs that require a ton of interpersonal interaction.
I think that’s very likely a contributor.
Perhaps "Animate vs Inanimate" would be a better description than People vs Things.
That way one could include Veterinary Medicine (AKA Cute Furry Things) which has completely reversed in 50 years and now one of the largest gaps in college (80% Female).
Never mentioned by those claiming women are held back in STEM by "Patriarchy" rather than preference as it is one of the starkest counter-examples.
Yep, potentially a good re-labelling. I’d want to see evidence, though, that the interest-in-people construct actually predicts women’s greater interest in cute furry things.
I’m not denying that they are more interested. But it’s not necessarily the case that the trait measured by interest-in-people inventories explains that difference. It could be something else.
Good point.. For precision, perhaps one needs to define certain group characteristics of "abstract and inanimate objects" on the one side and whatever is the opposite of that.
One might find that the preference for humans and animals is rooted in similar instincts or characterisrics.
Thanks for sharing this study. Clear evidence that boys and girls gravitate toward different kinds of occupations, and that efforts to create interest where none exists will likely not work.
I wonder if a more cognitive (system I) variable could be involved. I'll call it the “like me” variable. One that seems important to adolescents everywhere, including Switzerland (I assume), and one that might reinforce or mediate the gender difference.
Maybe girls and boys unconsciously choose apprenticeships because they believe they'll work with more girls or boys in that job, and/or they use gender as a proxy to assume that people in those jobs are more generally like them.
It would be interesting to see the same kind of study using other perceived “like me” variables: how many like-me friends subjects have in certain jobs, how many like-me people they know in those jobs, or how they perceive like-me representation in certain jobs. Perhaps even look at things like race, ethnicity, region, etc. to see whether this is a gender effect or a broader “like me” effect.
It seems very human to gravitate to a job where we expect to work with people like us. More so for an adolescent whose judgment and understanding of the world is not fully developed.
Hi Scott. I think it’s very likely that that kind of thing is going on, and that it would make the gender gaps somewhat larger than they’d be if occupational interests were the only factor.
I remember reading about a study that given a choice of toys, female juvenile rhesus monkey preferred dolls while the males preferred other toys. I believe the finding failed to replicate however
Yeah, I believe two studies found that result and one study failed to. All had small sample sizes, so the issue is still up in the air, IMO.
There just seems to be more and more evidence that the more freedom to choose, the more dichotomous preferences become.
Like the old egalitarian study. Removing social constructs leaves only biological tendencies. And they found where there weren’t overlaps in interests, the differences were massive.
These types of emotional, scientific findings is what has landed James Nuzzo in trouble. Which is asinine.