[HN Gopher] Sex Differences in Adolescents' Occupational Aspirat...
___________________________________________________________________
Sex Differences in Adolescents' Occupational Aspirations
Author : Bostonian
Score : 60 points
Date : 2021-10-29 16:04 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (psyarxiv.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (psyarxiv.com)
| Bostonian wrote:
| The preprint was cited by Alex Tabarrok in the Marginal
| Revolution blog:
| https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/10/se...
| [deleted]
| exporectomy wrote:
| 100 years later, we're rediscovering what we already knew. Common
| story in social sciences. Coming up next, Jews are smarter than
| blacks. Oh no, not yet! It's still taboo to even think that! But
| maybe in a few decades, the overton window will shift and
| researchers will allow themselves to study that honestly.
| dang wrote:
| We already asked you to stop posting flamewar comments, and
| this is an extreme case, so I've banned this account. You've
| also been using HN primarily for ideological battle and that's
| not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for.
| Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| rubidium wrote:
| This just in: men and women are biologically different (at the
| statistical, population level). Shouldn't affect individual level
| policy. But any metric of equal outcome is misguided.
| john_moscow wrote:
| We just ended up with a rather perverse definition of equal
| outcome. What you may intuitively want to do as a society is
| maximize everyone's happiness. Which is hard to quantify, so
| you go and try to eliminate things that typically make people
| unhappy. Being denied the things you want because of the
| factors you don't control is surely a big depression maker. Not
| "go study better and you'll pass the exam", but "fuck off, I
| don't like your face", pardon my French.
|
| So how did we solve it? We made a faceless inappealable
| uncriticizable statistics-driven system designed to tell the
| majority of people to shut up and cull their ambition.
|
| And you know how we ended up here? Every society has a certain
| amount of people with ambition to power. They want to tell
| others what to do. They want to make decisions affecting
| others. That's fine, that's human psychology. That's why the
| previous generations started companies, studied hard
| disciplines, took risks, and found their place in the society
| with the perfect effort/power balance just for them. Except,
| this doesn't work anymore with the "economies of scale" where
| there's a bunch of CEOs and investors, but everyone else is a
| replaceable drone.
|
| So there's an incredible power vacuum in the Western society.
| People are desperate for roles in life that will give them
| meaning and power - ability to make decisions affecting other
| people. The corporations have PR departments and centrally
| owned media companies that steer this force clear of colliding
| with their financial interests. So, it effectively turned into
| a cold civil war. Want to change something in the society? Go
| get a 5-figure loan on a social justice degree, and then
| exercise your power by telling majority of the people to hate
| themselves, and enjoy no retaliation.
|
| Kinda like every war. On both sides of a conflict there are
| regular people with friends, children, families, hobbies. But
| they are too busy demonizing the other side, and eager to be
| foot soldiers in someone else's game. Someone whos mansion is
| located far from the front line and whos kids will sit at the
| board of a munitions manufacturer, rather than in a trench on a
| battlefield. I don't know how we're gonna get out of this mess.
| godelski wrote:
| I think that is a very difficult conclusion to draw. There are
| a lot of factors in there that are impossible to control. We
| can't really isolate cultural and historical trends. Yes, we
| can measure a difference that significantly correlates with
| sex, but it is a bit naive to draw causal conclusions.
|
| But I still agree that equal outcome metrics are misguided. It
| is too lazy of a metric and statistics will mess it up very
| quickly with such things as Simpson's or Berkson's paradoxes.
| These are far too easy to fall prone to. Besides that, the
| question seems to be more about if the reason for these
| differences are due to biology or society (rather, which one is
| more significant), not that the differences don't exist (i.e.
| causal). But coming up with good metrics to determine what is
| going on is difficult. I do not think a metric should become a
| target though, and we have to be more careful in nuanced in our
| approach.
| ryanwhitney wrote:
| "Despite the long-term and widespread study of the sex
| differences in interest in people-oriented as compared to
| things-oriented occupations, there is no consensus on the
| sources of these differences."
| baron816 wrote:
| Seems like more research is still needed, but it's not hard to
| imagine policy makers or regulators developing quotas and
| mandates around tech companies hiring women. _If_ women are
| indeed statistically less interested in working as engineers,
| governments shouldn't, for example, require companies match
| hiring of women to the proportion of their population (not that
| anyone is actually considering this).
| vhgbh87 wrote:
| I believe you are making a conclusion that neither the article
| nor science in general makes. The differences in preference are
| exhibited, but whether they have a biological root (and what
| outcomes we should target) do not have strong evidence.
| Out_of_Characte wrote:
| Male and females constitute the largest difference you could
| have in a species. This preprint affirms what all previous
| work in this space has found; if you try to minimise the
| cultural/enviromental differences between men and women, you
| maximise their biological differences.
|
| "These sex differences were larger in countries with a higher
| level of women's empowerment."
|
| "We explain this counter-intuitive finding through the
| indirect effect of wealth. Women's empowerment is associated
| with relatively high levels of national wealth and this
| wealth allows more students to aspire to occupations they are
| intrinsically interested in"
|
| Though I think the preprint's reasoning about the influence
| of wealth is just bad. Especially if you try to reason that
| wealth and better education is causing alot of women to
| become nurses instead of doctors.
| tylerhou wrote:
| > "These sex differences were larger in countries with a
| higher level of women's empowerment."
|
| There are confounding factors here, though -- it's not like
| the only variable being changed between two countries is a
| woman's empowerment.
|
| See also, Simpson's paradox.
| exporectomy wrote:
| I suspect a 2nd factor is competitive vs well-defined. CEO
| for example is people-oriented but 70% male. Maybe because
| it's also competitive.
| pessimizer wrote:
| My brother and I are also biologically different. It says
| nothing about expected outcomes that we are _distinct._ When
| you say that an expectation of equal outcome is misguided, you
| 're sneaking in a conclusion about the nature of those
| biological differences.
|
| If the biological difference were a large facial birthmark that
| caused people to treat us differently (although we're otherwise
| identical twins), would you accept a statistically equal
| outcome between groups of people with and without facial
| birthmarks as a sign of a lack of discrimination against people
| with facial birthmarks?
| xupybd wrote:
| You can only make claims at a population level. So if you
| picked 1000 women at random and a 1000 men at random you
| would probably find more women have a preference for x and
| more men have a preference for y.
|
| I don't know what x and y are but if being passionate about
| either led to higher paying career choices you'd see a
| difference in average wage between the groups. At the
| population level.
| mcguire wrote:
| You do have to wonder what makes for a higher paying
| career, though.
| fossuser wrote:
| My hypothesis is that the nature of sexual selective
| pressures is what is more likely to create differences
| between the groups. This wouldn't really apply in the
| birthmark case (unless it was some sort of secondary sexual
| characteristic).
|
| Either way, society should allow for equal opportunity even
| if there are differences in average interest between groups
| since the variation within a group is larger anyway. It just
| means not seeing the same outcome doesn't necessarily mean
| something has gone wrong.
| mcguire wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what outcome _would_ mean something has
| gone wrong? 75%? 90%?
| xnyan wrote:
| That's kind of the opposite of the conclusion of the article.
| Now, the conclusions of the article (cultural, social and
| political differences have a huge impact on what what men and
| women do) may be incorrect, and you may be more correct, but
| it's a little incongruent to say (I'm paraphrasing here)
| "Biological differences explain the differences in career
| outcomes between men and women."
|
| Outside of some very specific situations (aka muscle mass
| dependent jobs like carrying heavy loads on your back) I'm not
| aware of any scientific evidence that supports a biological
| cause of career outcome divergence in women vs men, but if you
| have some literature or other information I'm always willing to
| admit that I'm wrong in light of new information.
|
| On the other hand, there is an ocean of scientific data that
| cultural, social and political conditions have a huge impact on
| what jobs men and women do.
|
| EDIT: there is actually one argument for biological differences
| explaining divergent outcomes that I find convincing: for the
| vast majority of human history, the state's monopoly on the use
| of violence has been either nonexistent or far weaker as
| compared to today. Men have had an advantage on the use of
| violence due to average muscle mass and bone density being
| higher than women. Technology (firearms, surveillance, etc) has
| made this disparity of power in capacity for violence less and
| less relevant.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Ge.
| ..
|
| These have been shown to directly affect statistical
| likelihood of career choice.
| xnyan wrote:
| From your link:
|
| "men in highly developed world regions were less neurotic,
| less extraverted, less conscientious and less agreeable
| compared to men in less developed world regions"
|
| If these personality traits are influenced by what country
| you are born it, would it not support the the non-
| biological argument?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| It should be considered in setting or reviewing individual
| level policy if said policy assumes no difference
| clusterfish wrote:
| Even without getting hung up on the "biological" qualifier,
| that's groundbreaking news to some people, you know. The people
| who insist that not having 50% females in any occupation is
| them being underrepresented because they're repressed and
| discriminated against. (Never heard that female dominated
| occupations are discriminatory though, I wonder why)
|
| Then this translates into laws, policies and scholarships that
| effectively discriminate against men.
|
| Don't know what you mean by "individual level" policy but a lot
| of policy needs to change.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _Don 't know what you mean by "individual level" policy but
| a lot of policy needs to change._"
|
| The long-standing beliefs, policies, laws, and scholarships
| that assume a woman in a male-dominated profession is an
| abomination and represents a loss of a good job to a
| deserving man.
| clusterfish wrote:
| These are either non-individual laws/policies, or personal
| beliefs/biases, but not both "individual level" and
| "policies" at the same time.
| john_moscow wrote:
| There's a very very very obvious dollar value attached to
| these policies. By discouraging the workforce from having
| families and kids (let alone single-income households) you
| effectively eliminate their main long-term expenses and
| reduce the pressure on the wages. You then start substituting
| the declining population with immigrants from countries with
| lower standard of living, and you've hit the jackpot. Your
| profits go up, your stock goes up, your salary expenses stay
| the same.
|
| This wouldn't fly 60 years ago when the economy was much more
| decentralized. There was no single large entity (or related
| group of entities) that would benefit from such policies. If
| you run a small business and personally know every employee,
| you wouldn't think of such a thing. This bodes well in the
| current model where every child-free worker is an extra $50K
| lifetime value for their employer, translating into 5 extra
| cents per share.
| renewiltord wrote:
| The supposed paradoxical increase of this effect with increasing
| wealth has been replicated fairly often with the only real
| opposition I've noticed being that sociocultural incentives
| dominate.
|
| That is, if you aren't going to starve, the most important thing
| is what other people think. The closer to starving you get the
| less important that becomes.
|
| Anyway, that's the hypothesis explaining the difference. What
| research out there explores that hypothesis? Otherwise, this
| seems like just more of the same revealing that there are
| differences in participation.
| noptd wrote:
| >That is, if you aren't going to starve, the most important
| thing is what other people think.
|
| This seems like too strong of a claim to make without any
| supporting evidence.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The study authors draw a conclusion that wealth allows people
| to choose work that more reflects their intrinsic interest.
| To my mind, that's a claim at least as worthy of skepticism
| as the claim that wealthy people choose social-status-
| enhancing work (which differs based on gender due to cultural
| norms).
| snek_case wrote:
| >That is, if you aren't going to starve, the most important
| thing is what other people think.
|
| IMO that hypothesis is politically biased. It implies that
| men/women in wealthier societies are trying harder to conform
| to gender norms. Blames societal norms for the difference.
|
| The simpler and less dehumanizing alternative is that people in
| wealthier countries are more free to live life however they
| want. There are less constraints.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > The simpler and less dehumanizing alternative
|
| Occam's razor is great, but it's probably not a reasonable
| assumption to make on a system as fundamentally complicated
| as human behavior.
|
| How _would_ we control for the possibility that as wealth
| increases, the dominant effect in a person 's life _isn 't_
| social status (which could be enhanced by gender-norm
| conformity)?
| renewiltord wrote:
| Well, then, that's on me for misrepresenting it. Let's try
| again.
|
| You can see desire to comply with gender norms as a constant
| X and starvation risk Y as a variable. Appropriately scale
| each and measure X-Y. That can go positive or negative
| depending on Y without X varying at all.
|
| I want to eliminate this explanation as significantly
| causative. Where would I find evidence for that?
| jjk166 wrote:
| You're still making the assumption that the thing competing
| with starvation is compliance with gender norms (or to be
| more general, social norms).
|
| As a thought experiment, consider being trapped on a desert
| island where the only thing edible were termites. My
| starvation risk is high, so I will eat the termites.
| Eventually I get back to civilization and my starvation
| risk is much lower, and I no longer choose to eat termites.
| Is this because A) the social norms which dictate that I
| shouldn't eat termites are now more important to me, or B)
| I prefer other foods to termites?
|
| It is perfectly reasonable that under differing
| circumstances the weights we will give different factors in
| decision making vary, but that does not on its own tell us
| what those factors actually are.
| renewiltord wrote:
| I think I must be misspeaking quite a bit because I am
| not making any claims here.
|
| I am constructing a hypothesis and I want it falsified.
| The fact that it is falsifiable is a feature not a bug.
|
| The possibility of this not being the cause isn't
| interesting. That is by construction. I want to see
| evidence of what is actually the case.
|
| I want to know what the factors are. And by what weight
| in aggregate. I am not alleging that they have any
| specific value.
| Gunax wrote:
| Results are on page19.
|
| > As expected, the percentages of students aspiring to sex-
| typical occupations were higher in countries with higher levels
| of women's empowerment, r(68)=.350, p=.003. The percentages of
| students aspiring to sex-atypical occupations ranged from
| 7%[6.2%-7.8%] in Lithuania to 23%[21.2%- 24.3%] in Lebanon
| (international median of 12%). This variation correlated
| negatively with women's empowerment, r(68)=-.500, p<.001.
|
| I do not like weighing into these sorts of things too much
| because I think people tend to find whatever they are looking
| for. All it really shows is that gender preferenes are formed
| before adolescence. Whether that innate or learned is not clear.
| daveevad wrote:
| Can anyone track down the list of `sex-typical occupations` ?
|
| The thickest thread I've found is a reference to a PISA 2018
| dataset.
|
| > We investigated sex differences in 473,260 adolescents'
| aspirations to work in thingsoriented (e.g., mechanic), people-
| oriented (e.g., nurse), and STEM (e.g., mathematician) careers
| across 80 countries and economic regions using the 2018
| Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Whether that innate or learned is not clear.
|
| Unless you also consider nationality innate, it certainly
| suggests that it is learned.
| mcguire wrote:
| Are you suggesting there are no biological differences
| between Lebanese and Lithuanians?
|
| /s (although I've seen that argument here before)
| fredliu wrote:
| If you ask elementary kids today, a large portion of them would
| have the same career aspiration: to be a "youtuber".
| john_moscow wrote:
| Yep, and most of them will end up stocking shelves at Walmart
| to make living.
| myhf wrote:
| I hope for their sake that somebody manages to subcategorize
| some types of "youtuber" as people-oriented and others as
| things-oriented.
| lostdog wrote:
| I mean you could be sitting around in the '70s making up reasons
| that women aren't interested in being doctors or lawyers, and boy
| would you turn out wrong:
| https://twitter.com/familyunequal/status/1164246285953748993
|
| I think it's too early to tell right now if there's some type of
| things-interest/people-interest split among the genders. We're
| still so close to the time when women weren't allowed to have
| checking accounts, that the cultural inertia hasn't had time to
| wear off yet. I am very suspicious of researchers who claim to
| have the answer right now.
| sbelskie wrote:
| " We found that the latter correlations are mostly due to an
| increase in boys' aspirations to enter things-oriented blue-
| collar careers and a decrease in boys' aspirations to enter
| people-oriented careers in countries with greater women's
| empowerment. In contrast, the percentages of girls aspiring to
| things-oriented jobs or people-oriented jobs did not
| systematically vary with national-levels of girls' and women's
| empowerment."
| vhgbh87 wrote:
| It's probably not worth putting much stock in a preprint unless
| you are trained in evaluating this particular type of whitepaper.
|
| Even peer review is not a stamp of quality, but it at least
| signals "some set of folks have broadly reviewed this and
| consider it well constructed."
|
| Whether it's sociology or fusion or battery tech -- we shouldn't
| put _much_ value on preprint articles.
| somedude895 wrote:
| To be fair, in sociology this sort of thing might not make it
| out of preprint for certain reasons:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
| nottorp wrote:
| Isn't a preprint a way to make your article available outside
| Elsevier's paywall these days?
| cronix wrote:
| You seem knowledgeable on the subject. Have there been any
| studies that have been peer reviewed, and replicated, that have
| come to roughly the same conclusions? Or is this preprint the
| first time the subject has been studied?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Not an expert, but I believe this is a widely studied area
| with a large body of literature. I say this because I've seen
| articles with similar conclusions going back decades. You can
| probably find many by searching Google Scholar For
| Occupational sex differences or selection
| xor99 wrote:
| *any articles
| sbelskie wrote:
| Interesting thread by Matt Darling of Niskansen that is pretty
| critical of the study design and data quality of this and other
| similar papers.
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/besttrousers/status/1454150695196...
| crateless wrote:
| > Here's an model explaining the "Gender Equality Paradox" that
| doesn't rely on the crutch of assuming different preferences.
| Women pay some fixed cost for being in the labor market, in
| general. Perhaps due to discrimination, perhaps to something
| else. As such less likely to pursue a costly STEM education in
| college. However, they become more likely to pursue a STEM
| education as the returns increase. Women respond to incentives.
| The bigger the non-service sector of the economy, the more
| income there is to gain from a STEM education. As it gets
| higher (which tends to be the case in less developed countries)
| more women enter STEM programs. In developed countries the STEM
| premium is lower (Someone in a service job like a lawyer or
| accountant will do just fine).
|
| This fits the data we have available, doesn't require that we
| assume our conclusion (we just assume women respond to
| incentives), and is able to help explain other phemonena. It's
| got a lot of features we want in a good model!
|
| - Matt Darling
|
| Edit: It seems like he assumes some "fixed cost" in order to
| counter the finding that women are less likely to pursue STEM
| education.
|
| Is there something I am missing?
| clusterfish wrote:
| Is there any study to back his claim? Just assuming your
| conclusion doesn't cut it.
| jjk166 wrote:
| "women will pursue STEM careers if they paid sufficiently
| more than other jobs, but when the pay is the same they
| choose service jobs" is not really any different from saying
| "women prefer service jobs"
|
| Anything that influences a decision can be reframed as a cost
| or incentive, but without actually identifying the cost
| nothing is being explained.
| sbelskie wrote:
| I'm not sure he assuming some "fixed cost" so much as
| pointing out (or at least arguing) that such a model explains
| the data as well the "just so" conclusion. Additionally, he
| is suggesting that such a model, in which agents respond to
| incentives rather than just have "true" preferences is
| stronger.
| nottorp wrote:
| > As such less likely to pursue a _costly_ STEM education in
| college. However, they become more likely to pursue a STEM
| education as the returns increase.
|
| Is Matt Darling aware that in most European countries
| university education is (financially speaking) free or
| extremely low cost? And said cost is about the same no matter
| what you study?
|
| Edit to make it more clear: As far as I know crushing student
| debt is an US and UK thing. Not continental Europe. I have no
| idea how things go outside US/Europe though.
| mcguire wrote:
| Are you assuming that all costs are financial?
|
| (As a possible example, the only European countries with
| higher percentages of tertiary education than the US in the
| 25-34 age group are Norway, Ireland, Luxembourg, Lithuania,
| and Russia. I suppose that only 28% of Germans are
| interested in tertiary education, as opposed to 49% in
| Norway and Ireland. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_
| countries_by_tertiary_...)
| nottorp wrote:
| > Are you assuming that all costs are financial?
|
| I'm assuming he's assuming that... :)
| Nasrudith wrote:
| I think the more "developing" or "relatively recenylu
| developed" nations who have university infastructure are
| more likely to go with the more European "paid to be a
| student if you can pass the gatekeeping exams".
|
| It has less to do with any ideology and more a combination
| of mathematics and pragmatism. Namely an insufficient
| number of people who could afford even free college from
| the opportunity cost of not working full time. Even if the
| economy advanced enough that they could technically go to a
| more American model.
|
| This is meant to be broad brush "first principles
| reasoning" and includes many disparate nations and
| situations. Some may also have a sufficient percentage from
| traditionally priveledged strata who could afford it. Often
| families who were traditional bureaucratic, military, or
| priestly occupations.
| nottorp wrote:
| > the more European "paid to be a student if you can pass
| the gatekeeping exams".
|
| I don't think it goes up to "paid to be a student" most
| of the time. If you're not lucky enough to have local
| universities on your chosen subject you still have to pay
| for (possibly cheap student) lodging. Said gatekeeping
| exams may also be an extra cost if you need to pay
| someone to prepare for them.
|
| However, the financial burden overall is much smaller.
| tzs wrote:
| I remember seeing a study using PISA data (I think...) that found
| an interesting difference between boys and girls, which could
| explain much about career choices.
|
| Boys who scored very high in STEM tended to have that as the only
| area where they were at the top. In other areas they might be
| good but usually not outstanding like they were in STEM.
|
| Girls who scored very high in STEM tended were much more likely
| to have at least one other area in which they also scored very
| high.
|
| People have a tendency to choose an occupation that fits with
| something they are good at. If the aforementioned study is
| correct, we'd expect to see boys who are good at STEM subjects to
| be more likely to go into a STEM career than girls who are good
| at STEM subjects, because for the girls it is more likely that
| they also have a non-STEM subject that they are as good or better
| in than their STEM subjects.
| lordnacho wrote:
| What makes an occupation people-oriented vs things-oriented? Is a
| software developer who makes a dating app doing one or the other?
| What about the designer?
|
| Is being a doctor one or the other? You need to be able to say
| difficult things to people, and a lot of doctors will tell you
| they're doing it to help people. But doing surgery is presumably
| technical in nature.
|
| Is there an acknowledged way these categories are determined?
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| I think categories need to be more granular.
|
| 'doctors'
|
| A quick LinkedIn search for Surgeon shows that about 70% of
| surgeons in the SFBA are male.
|
| 80% of pediatricians are female.
|
| 'engineers'
|
| Prior searches showed that 90% of electrical engineers were
| male.
|
| 50% of SQE were female.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Sure, the grey zones might be hard to pick out but it does seem
| like there are some clear extremes. "Locomotive engineers and
| operators" is 92% male yet "Registered nurses" is 87% female.
| If you look at all the male-dominant and female-dominant
| occupations, there does seem to be some sort of pattern which
| (for lack of more precise terminology) seems to be well-
| described as "people-oriented" and "thing-oriented".
|
| Go through the list, look at the entries which are either <20%
| female or >80% female, and tell me if you don't see the same
| pattern:
|
| https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
| exporectomy wrote:
| Though it does seem obvious, it's pretty dangerous to go
| looking for patterns in the data. More scientific to define
| the criteria before knowing the results so you can have a
| hypothesis to test, not just an observation to make.
| piva00 wrote:
| Dangerous? That's how science... Works? You look for
| patterns, you get some data, you find more patterns, you
| create a hypothesis and you test it.
|
| What is dangerous about analysing data?
|
| Or do you mean it's dangerous to form absolute conclusions
| just on a subset of available data?
| shadowgovt wrote:
| The danger is that you will come to a conclusion that is
| objectively wrong.
|
| P-hacking is a known issue in many scientific fields. So
| is drawing conclusions from over collection of data
| without repetition of the study... As the number of data
| points you collect approaches infinity, the chance of
| finding at least one meaningful-seeming correlation
| approaches 100% because having an unlimited number of
| data points to bash against each other makes you more
| likely to observe an improbable correlation.
| dbsmith83 wrote:
| No, looking at the data is observation or analysis by
| definition...whether or not you make a prediction about it.
| Experimentation is when you make a hypothesis first (after
| observation) and then test it. Looking at data is not a
| test--it's either observation or analysis.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > Is a software developer who makes a dating app doing one or
| the other? What about the designer?
|
| Both are thing oriented because you're doing work for people as
| an abstraction, not individual people.
|
| User stories might be based on actual people, but they're
| ultimately meant as archetypes.
| exporectomy wrote:
| From TFA: "the people vs things dimension is a continuous
| scale, but in our analyses we only used categories that are
| predominantly one or the other. All things-oriented jobs have a
| clear technical component, ranging from locomotive engine
| driver to astronomer and all people-oriented jobs have a clear
| component of providing help to individuals."
|
| It also identified "face to face interactions" as a requirement
| for being people-oriented. So dating app developer is clearly
| not included.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| _What makes an occupation people-oriented vs things-
| oriented?... Is being a doctor one or the other?_
|
| I speant most of the last 18 months in and out of the hospital,
| and I noticed that doctors are more things oriented, and nurse
| practitioners are more people oriented. Even though they do the
| same job.
|
| I want the nurse practitioner when I'm feeling awful, I want
| the doctor to explain their thought process in technical
| detail. Even if it's over my head.
|
| And to be clear, I didn't read the article, but I had doctors
| and nurse practitioners of different sexes.
| tomp wrote:
| It comes down to how much you talk on the job. Probably to
| people (as opposed to, screens).
| ffggvv wrote:
| NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! its sexism! they are exactly the same!!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7RIWh-Vo0Y
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-29 23:02 UTC)