How Men and Women See the Workplace in the Social Imagination...

How Men & Women See the Workplace Differently: They go to the same meetings, have the same colleagues, strive for the same promotions. So why are their perspectives—and experiences—so dissimilar?

By Nikki Waller: 9/27/16

Men and women work side by side, tackling the same business problems, sitting through the same meetings and walking the same hallways.

But a new study on working women suggests that the common ground ends there. Men and women experience very different workplaces, ones in which the odds for advancement vary widely and corporate careers come in two flavors: his and hers.

Data show that men win more promotions, more challenging assignments and more access to top leaders than women do. Men are more likely than women to feel confident they are en route to an executive role, and feel more strongly that their employer rewards merit.

Women, meanwhile, perceive a steeper trek to the top. Less than half feel that promotions are awarded fairly or that the best opportunities go to the most-deserving employees. A significant share of women say that gender has been a factor in missed raises and promotions. Even more believe that their gender will make it harder for them to advance in the future—a sentiment most strongly felt by women at senior levels.

My Commentary: Indeed, men and women being biologically different do experience the world and the workplace differently. However, this wsj article does not say exactly why. What they do say or offer is some data from a study which looked at their perceptions of the workplace through the rat race lens  rather than the 'real' reason why they 'men/women' actually 'see' the workplace differently. 

The real platform of departure for understanding the difference is much deeper. Certainly, money and prestige drive both genders into the workplace; but, in order to truly understand differences in how they see the workplace one has to get at the root cause... and that is to firstly recognize that men and women are in fact different socio-biological entities! To prove this, lets look at another article put out by ngn. 

Men and Women Really Do See Things Differently: Differences may be rooted in hunting, gathering.

By James Owen for National Geographic News: 9/6/12.

Men and women really don't see eye to eye, according to a new study.

Females are better at discriminating among colors, researchers say, while males excel at tracking fast-moving objects and discerning detail from a distance—evolutionary adaptations possibly linked to our hunter-gatherer past.

The study, led by Brooklyn College psychology professor Israel Abramov, put young adults with normal vision through a battery of tests.

In color experiments the men and women tended to ascribe different shades to the same objects. The researchers think they know why.

"Across most of the visible spectrum males require a slightly longer wavelength than do females in order to experience the same hue," the team concludes in the latest issue of the journal Biology of Sex Differences.

Since longer wavelengths are associated with "warmer" colors, an orange, for example, may appear redder to a man than to a woman. Likewise, the grass is almost always greener to women than to men, to whom verdant objects appear a bit yellower.

The study also found that men are less adept at distinguishing among shades in the center of the color spectrum: blues, greens, and yellows.

Where the men shone was in detecting quick-changing details from afar, particularly by better tracking the thinner, faster-flashing bars within a bank of blinking lights.

The team puts this advantage down to neuron development in the visual cortex, which is boosted by masculine hormones. Since males are flush with testosterone, in particular, they're born with 25 percent more neurons in this brain region than females, the team noted... evolution at Work?

The vision findings support the so-called hunter-gatherer hypothesis, which argues that the sexes evolved distinct psychological abilities to fit their prehistoric roles, the team says.

Noting that men in the study showed "significantly greater sensitivity for fine detail and for rapidly moving stimuli," the researchers write that their hunter forebears "would have to detect possible predators or prey from afar and also identify and categorize these objects more easily."

Meanwhile, the vision of female "gatherers" may have become better adapted recognizing close-at-hand, static objects such as wild berries.

John Barbur, professor of optics and visual science at City University London, noted that females are often "worse off in terms of absolute chromatic [color] sensitivity than males."

But when it comes to noticing subtle differences among shades of a color, women do tend to come out on top, as they did in Abramov's experiments, said Barbur, who wasn't part of the new study.

My Commentary: Indeed, men and women are different socio-biological entities. They were created that way (or evolved that way for the evolutionary minded). Now, if men win more promotions, more challenging assignments its because they, according to the science of evolution, showed "significantly greater sensitivity for fine detail and for rapidly moving stimuli. 

And, if women perceive a steeper trek to the top, its because they may have become better adapted to recognizing close-at-hand, static objects such as wild berries. This is the socio-biology at work and for a purpose. Women as much as men exhibit their natural instincts in dynamic social relationships. 

Without a doubt, the steeper trek perception women have is directly correlated to their ability to move slower or cautiously in order to perceive close at hand static objects which means that women see the workplace in the same way. And, thus they approach the workplace differently from men. Women have a different mindset. So, its not that they really are being treated unfairly but more likely they are not able to defend their position to men in the 'rat race' workplace as being useful and profitable. 

If they could defend this attribute of the steeper trek perception, it still may not be appreciated in a fast paced challenging 'rat race' workplace... which does not necessarily take its time to look at the long term affects in view of the needed short term gains. 

You can argue that both men and women are valued differently in the workplace and that can and should be appreciated but the world of work 'rat race' which is the paramount reality according to Albert Schultz, is not patient. It demands results because money/cost effectiveness and profit wait for no one... especially, in a global reality where many cultures have men in the workplace and use men more often than women in the workplace to get ahead in the rat race. 

 

PS... This difference between men and women both biological and social has been noticed. 

    In 2015, a Marine Corp Study concluded that gender integrated (men and women) combat formations did not move as quickly or shoot as accurately; and, that women were twice as likely as men to suffer combat injuries. That study was rejected. Why? Because it did not comport with the Obama administration's political agenda. That same year, the Dept. of Defense opened all combat jobs in the U.S. military to women and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter committed to "gender-neutral standards" to ensure that female service members could meet the demanding rigors involved in quantifying for combat. Since then, the Army has been working for a decade to put in place the gender -neutral test promised by Carter. But after finding that women were not scoring as highly as men and under fierce pressure from advocacy groups, the Army threw out the test. Now, there is no test to determine whether any solider can meet the fitness requirements for combat...~ Thomas Spoehr, director of the Center for National Defense at the Heritage Foundation. 

ONLINE SOURCES:

https://graphics.wsj.com/how-men-and-women-see-the-workplace-differently/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/120907-men-women-see-differently-science-health-vision-sex

Agreement Reality is the only Reality in the Social Imagination...

If I haven't said it enough or made it clear and simple about the fact that we live in agreement reality, then I will make that attempt once again. Agreement reality is the place in our social imagination where the information we receive is either agreed on or discarded. 

That which is agreed on or not is based on our existing social information agreement reality (in the social imagination) and how solid or fragile it is. And, yes... we can grow in our information agreement as much as we can grow in disagreement. 

It all starts with mother and then father and so on... Mother imparts the information agreement reality she exists in (at that time) and hopefully it is supported and or complimented by father and so on...

So many intellectuals: scientists, philosophers, academics as well as theologians, contemplate 'reality'. Those that are scientists and or amateurs, always go for the math, the numbers, the hard core stuff in order to define reality. But, they fail to ever really find it because they agree on the wrong stuff. They fail to grasp that reality is only what we make... what we decide to agree on.

Sure, a lot of math and physics are agreed on and those agreements have supposedly gotten man a lot farther... but farther in what/where? No really anywhere ... unless we agree that farther in terms of agreement reality. 

But, essentially, we really only go farther into questioning and or doubting what is real and if that happens and it does often... then what we agreed on previously is no longer good enough. Once a theory or equation takes us to where we imagine we want to go... someone or something else comes along with a desire toward a different agreement... direction in agreement information reality. 

That 'new' direction only goes somewhere when others fall away from their previous agreements and latch onto the new ones. And, that happens only when their is a social advantage in changing agreement as in a new level of prestige or a new 'euphoric' experience in finding news ways to agree. 

If you want an illustration then think about language. In every language, there is meaning but only because there is agreement. What is agreed on? That the information shared is useful enough that we consider it as meaningful. They names and places and histories within a language are all subject to that process... information agreement reality which takes place only in the social imagination... in the mind of one and many who agree. 

So, what does that mean? It means that there are many realities existing in the many different information agreement realities in the social imaginations of many. Sounds weird but its not. 

Reality is found everywhere for everyone in the place where you can find it... in the social imagination. Each framed by information that is either agreed on or discarded as nonsense or useless. Its easy to manipulate information and the social imagination ... so be careful what you agree on because it could become the next or new reality in your social imagination!

Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” ~ John 6:29.

How We Love Our Selves... in the Social Imagination!

 

Scientists Probe Human Nature--and Discover We Are Good, After All...

By Adrian F. Ward on November 20, 2012

    When it really comes down to it—when the chips are down and the lights are off—Are we naturally good? That is, are we predisposed to act cooperatively, to help others even when it costs us? Or are we, in our hearts, selfish creatures?

    This fundamental question about human nature has long provided fodder for discussion. Augustine’s doctrine of original sin proclaimed that all people were born broken and selfish, saved only through the power of divine intervention. Hobbes, too, argued that humans were savagely self-centered; however, he held that salvation came not through the divine, but through the social contract of civil law.

    On the other hand, philosophers such as Rousseau argued that people were born good, instinctively concerned with the welfare of others. More recently, these questions about human nature—selfishness and cooperation, defection and collaboration—have been brought to the public eye by game shows such as Survivor and the UK’s Golden Balls, which test the balance between selfishness and cooperation by pitting the strength of interpersonal bonds against the desire for large sums of money.

    But even the most compelling televised collisions between selfishness and cooperation provide nothing but anecdotal evidence. And even the most eloquent philosophical arguments mean nothing without empirical data.

    A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively.

    This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. 

    With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?

    To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.

    The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. 

    The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all.

    The researchers followed up these correlational studies with a set of experiments in which they directly manipulated both this apparent influence on the tendency to cooperate—processing speed—and the cognitive mechanism thought to be associated with this influence—intuitive, as opposed to reflective, decision-making. In the first of these studies, researchers gathered 891 participants (211 undergraduates and 680 participants from a nationwide sample) and had them play a public goods game with one key twist: these participants were forced to make their decisions either quickly (within 10 seconds) or slowly (after at least 10 seconds had passed). 

    In the second, researchers had 343 participants from a nationwide sample play a public goods game after they had been primed to use either intuitive or reflective reasoning. Both studies showed the same pattern—whether people were forced to use intuition (by acting under time constraints) or simply encouraged to do so (through priming), they gave significantly more money to the common good than did participants who relied on reflection to make their choices. This again suggests that our intuitive impulse is to cooperate with others.

    Taken together, these studies—7 total experiments, using a whopping 2,068 participants—suggest that we are not intuitively selfish creatures. But does this mean that we our naturally cooperative? Or could it be that cooperation is our first instinct simply because it is rewarded? After all, we live in a world where it pays to play well with others: cooperating helps us make friends, gain social capital, and find social success in a wide range of domains. 

    As one way of addressing this possibility, the experimenters carried out yet another study. In this study, they asked 341 participants from a nationwide sample about their daily interactions—specifically, whether or not these interactions were mainly cooperative; they found that the relationship between processing speed (that is, intuition) and cooperation only existed for those who reported having primarily cooperative interactions in daily life. This suggests that cooperation is the intuitive response only for those who routinely engage in interactions where this behavior is rewarded—that human “goodness” may result from the acquisition of a regularly rewarded trait.

    Throughout the ages, people have wondered about the basic state of human nature—whether we are good or bad, cooperative or selfish. This question—one that is central to who we are—has been tackled by theologians and philosophers, presented to the public eye by television programs, and dominated the sleepless nights of both guilt-stricken villains and bewildered victims; now, it has also been addressed by scientific research. Although no single set of studies can provide a definitive answer—no matter how many experiments were conducted or participants were involved—this research suggests that our intuitive responses, or first instincts, tend to lead to cooperation rather than selfishness.

    Although this evidence does not definitely solve the puzzle of human nature, it does give us evidence we may use to solve this puzzle for ourselves—and our solutions will likely vary according to how we define “human nature.” If human nature is something we must be born with, then we may be neither good nor bad, cooperative nor selfish. But if human nature is simply the way we tend to act based on our intuitive and automatic impulses, then it seems that we are an overwhelmingly cooperative species, willing to give for the good of the group even when it comes at our own personal expense.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-probe-human-nature-and-discover-we-are-good-after-all/

I am so glad that you have taken the time to read through this article. It can be either be taken as a positive or negative view of human nature... but in fact, it is neither. Why? Because, there are too many flaws in the premise of the research conducted and the given hypothesis which is obviously bent toward a 'good' or cooperative outcome that as a 'good' thing in itself as the true basis for every human action. 

Something is missing. Before, I tell you what that missing link is, let's agree that we like to think we are good but the fact is we cannot be 'good' according to any man's version of 'good'. What we think of as good is the idea of our self being a good person and since we like that idea... we are thus inherently selfish (loving our self first) and that's not objectively or inherently good. 

Now, you could make the argument that its good to be selfish if based on the idea of liking yourself. How could you like others if you didn't like yourself... exactly? So, being cooperative is really an act of loving yourself. Its human nature. When others like us first, we feel more cooperative. That's why compliments work and positive feedback in the office because we see ourselves subjectively good even if we are really objectively bad. 

Adolf Hitler, who ordered the execution of some eight million people and was responsible for the deaths of many millions more, was said by his secretary Traudl Junge to have had an agreeable, friendly, and paternal manner. He hated cruelty to animals: he was a vegetarian, adored his dog Blondi and was inconsolable when Blondi died.

Pol Pot, the leader of Cambodia whose policies killed maybe a quarter of his country’s people, was known to his acquaintances as a soft-spoken and kindly teacher of French history.

Joseph Stalin was a loving father. His daughter Svetlana, recalls the pride with which Stalin watched her driving a car, a skill he didn't possess. "He sat next to me, beaming with joy. My father couldn't believe I knew how to drive." And, yet many people thought Joseph Stalin was a monster on an epic scale who sent millions of "class enemies" to their graves. And, yet to a considerably smaller band of his enduring admirers, he was the man who saved the world from the far worse fate of Nazi tyranny [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/29/stalin-my-father]. 

Let’s not forget that Stalin was an ally during WWII. So, did the US align with a monster or a good guy?  In most written material about Stalin, he was seen as always amazingly calm and never shouted or swore. In effect, he was a model gentleman-inmate, not obviously the kind of person who would later annihilate millions for political convenience [ibid].

Yes, those who appear to be objectively, 'bad' human beings can have a gentle side; and thus, we hesitate to empathize with their kindness for fear of seeming to rationalize or excuse their crimes. Such men remind us, however, of a curious fact about our species. We have a perplexing combination of moral tendencies. We can be the nastiest of species and also the nicest [https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/humans-good-evil-primatologist-looks-ancestors-answer/20303/].

 

The truth in the social imagination is that we as a creation can never fully understand our actions completely in this fallen world ... we exist in a state of decay. What? Yes, just read my previous blog in which physicists and other researchers tell us its a natural condition of the universe.  Our being good or what might appear as cooperative or nice is not because we are inherently good but because we exist in a fallen world (state of decay/entropy) we act solely based on our being selfish or being in love with our self more than being in love with anyone else. This is fueled by the fundamental anxiety which is the fear of death.

We will always act that way necessarily to sustain the self... what appears as noble or heroic is a means of showing how much we are in love with our self... that heroic behavior is in fact a show of superior love of self so much so that what appears as sacrificial to an on looker is basically an act of self gratification in self love. 

This is proven in our social imagination which exists in agreement reality. We live with those who agree with us... and if we don't we would prefer it. For example, as soon as young adults can move out of the house they do so with the mindset that they are going to build a better world (for themselves) or they declare that they are going to live they way they want to! All our life, we seek agreement. Why? Because, it satisfies the love of self. When we find agreement in others in that they agree with us, we fall in love with our self all over again. How else would the 'selfie' have been born?

Does the research and title of this article prove that we are 'good' after all? It does not. But, if we agree that everyone loves the self first then based on that premise... all are good according to every single self. 

Jesus said, Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as you love your self ~ Mark 12: 30-31. Why love God first and with all your heart, soul, mind and strength?  Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." Mark 10:18.