Phone-A-Friend gender for female contestants

[mrkelley23]

and not just trying to score sexist points or whatever, I might be able to point you in the direction of some links that explain the effect you've noticed. For instance, there's this:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r37733vj010p3l04/

Or this:

http://spacepioneers.msu.edu/girls_and_ ... review.htm

As a physics teacher, I am particularly interested in gender differences (sorry, Cal) in learning styles and teaching styles. There is a noticeable gap between men and women in physical sciences -- so large that it may not all be explained by teaching bias, although such certainly exists. There is so much of a gap that it may not even be societal. After that, you're into Lawrence Summers territory.

[peacock2121]

[quote=" It didn't have anything to do with my gender or height.[/quote]

No worries, fishie, people really don't think short people are stoopid.

really

[Beebs52]

Sex is what you choose. Gender we are born with, mostly.

Hey, Skooper. I just finished a most excellent book, Middlesex, by Jeffrey Eugenides, won the Pulitzer, etc. who actually says the opposite. The chromosomal, biologic markers we're born with are "sex". The imprinting, nurture, environment, etc. other than that are "gender". Semantics, of course. What you're saying and what he's saying are the same.

Great book.

Oh, and SOX404--I haven't been on the show so can't contribute to your research,other than if I were to be on the show my paf's are a mixed bag, pretty much 50/50.

[Ritterskoop]

Sex is what you choose. Gender we are born with, mostly.

Hey, Skooper. I just finished a most excellent book, Middlesex, by Jeffrey Eugenides, won the Pulitzer, etc. who actually says the opposite. The chromosomal, biologic markers we're born with are "sex". The imprinting, nurture, environment, etc. other than that are "gender". Semantics, of course. What you're saying and what he's saying are the same.

Maybe I should have said, the way I use them, sex is an activity and gender is an identity. I would include both nature and nurture in the identity.

But that's the way I prefer to use them. I don't tell other people they are wrong for using them other ways, because we generally know what people mean, so there's no problem.

[Beebs52]

Skoop, I agree with you.

It was just so weirdly coincidental that I just finished that book. And here's a thread that ties so well into my book review mode.

[SOX404Guru]

Wow, you really have an active room here. I apologize for initiating such a long string in your pristine 'Transcripts' room.

I partially accept the "excuses" many of you have made regarding why women rely heavily on men as PAFs. IMO, supplementing your knowledge base with males who can cover on non-'girlie' questions is the strongest.

Bixby17, the fear of public appearances and humiliation is a reason other analysts have given for the extremely low participation rates prior to affirmative action being introduced. I'm glad you don't suffer from these issues.

I agree that "you can prove a lot of things with statistics, but there are signficant limits as well." Feminists have routinely used statistics to "prove" the existence of gender discrimination. So what's good for the goose...

I don't wish to ruffle any feathers here (although it's the primary goal of my book); however, here are some stats which I feel are very telling with regards to gender differences in ambition, risk taking, and even intelligence: [Please do not distribute these outtakes from my book.]

The pitiful showing by women wasn’t limited to their lack of participation. It continued after they made it to the hot seat. According to the “Millionaire’s” website as of the first 600 contestants who reached the hot seat:
• Of the 82 $125,000 winners, only 11 (13%) were women
• Of the 43 $250,000 winners, only 3 (7%) were women.
• Of the 15 $500,000 winners, only 2 (13%) were women.
• Of the 8 $1,000,000 winners, none were women. No woman ever won the top prize in the primetime version.
• [TO DO: SUPPLY INFO ON NANCY IN THE SYNDICATED VERSION, AFTER A TOTAL OF # MEN WON, INCLUDING THE PRIOR & SUBSEQUENT CONTESTANTS]
• Of the $45.5 million in prize money, men won $40 million (88%).
• The average male contestant won $84,400 versus only $44,000 won by the average female contestant.

Thus, the average female contestant earned only 52 cents for every dollar earned by the average male contestant. Perhaps women in the workplace earning 77 cents on the dollar are overpaid.

Given the reasons researchers gave for women being hesitant to try to get on the show, it stands to reason that those that applied would be more confident in their abilities. Therefore, it also stands to reason that women with above average intelligence were more likely to apply than those of average or below average intelligence.

As for men, our ambition and competitive drive alone was motivation enough to apply regardless of our perceived abilities. Thus, the average Joe makes the crème de la crème of women look like sour milk.

Researchers also noted many excuses why men earned almost twice as much as women: they’re more risk-adverse; they’re more easily satisfied with winning only small or moderate amounts; they’re quicker to “pull over and ask for directions” (i.e., use lifelines in the early rounds); they have a preference to quit “as a winner” on a correct answer than risk guessing at a question in which they’re not completely confident (even when they’ve been able to narrow down the answers); and they don’t sufficiently take into consideration the risk-reward payoff at a given situation (e.g., just before, at, or just after the ‘lock-in’ question) [which is believed to be one of the reasons why the ‘lock-in’ question was reduced from $32,000 to $25,000]. A few brave researchers dared to conclude that women are just less likely to know the correct answer.

[peacock2121]

ruffle feathers?

LOL

makes me laugh

[SOX404Guru]

mrkelley23, as a teacher you need to be careful about the implications of your statements. You don't want to end up like the former Harvard President. As a physics teacher, you'll appreciate this outtake: [Again, please don't distribute these outtakes. Thank you!]

One of the most alarming examples of this oppression over dissenting voices was the forced resignation of former Harvard President, Larry Summers. During a conference called "Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities, and their S. & E. Careers" he proposed 3 possible explanations why these fields were dominated by men. One of the explanations suggested that innate differences between the sexes might help explain why relatively few women become professional scientists or engineers. Another reason he gave was discrimination by the university. Unfortunately, he should have known better and realized that discrimination is the only explanation that would be acceptable to many women. {Unfortunately, he should have known better and realized that the only three explanations that would be acceptable to feminists are: 1) discrimination, 2) discrimination and 3) discrimination.}

This is such an alarming example on two fronts: First, the subject of the conference related to the field of science. The overriding objective of science is the pursuit of truth. Scientific progress has been hindered throughout history due to the inability of powerful organizations to accept the truth despite overwhelming supporting evidence. No relevant, scientifically supported information, regardless of its controversial nature, should ever be censored from a scientific debate. To do so thwarts the advancement of scientific knowledge and leads to false conclusions. In the interest of scientific advancement, a presenter should not have to avoid or “pussy-foot” around the truth.

Secondly, the conference was hosted by an institution of higher learning; some would argue the most prestigious institution of higher learning in the world. Harvard should be the secure bastion of controversial speech and exchange of unpopular ideas. According to its own Mission Statement: “Harvard strives to create knowledge and to open the minds of students to that knowledge…. To these ends, the College encourages students to respect ideas and their free expression, and to rejoice in discovery and in critical thought…. Education at Harvard should liberate students to explore, to create, to challenge, and to lead.” Anyone who feels a member of a university should be punished for making an academically relevant statement supported by numerous academic studies should be precluded from academia. For this situation to happen at Harvard exemplifies the unbridled power feminists possess to censor the truth with the goal of protecting and perpetuating vagina view myths.

[mrkelley23]

After this book is printed, maybe you and James Watson can get together on the version explaining why Africans don't do as well on game shows, too.

The simplest explanation is that trivia knowledge and recall, along with the other, more societal characteristics you describe, tend to reside much more heavily in males. There are some interesting experiments going on right now about the nature of the brain in men and women, and I suggest you peruse them, unless you're just going for the Rush Limbaugh Book Club audience. Which, in retrospect, appears to be exactly what you are doing.

And that's your right, my friend. If I may express my opinion, no good insight has ever come from someone knowing what they wanted to prove, then looking up "facts" to try to prove it. And since I'm more interested in knowledge and insight than book sales and self-satisfaction, I couldn't write your book.

[mrkelley23]

mrkelley23, as a teacher you need to be careful about the implications of your statements. You don't want to end up like the former Harvard President. As a physics teacher, you'll appreciate this outtake: [Again, please don't distribute these outtakes. Thank you!]

One of the most alarming examples of this oppression over dissenting voices was the forced resignation of former Harvard President, Larry Summers. During a conference called "Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities, and their S. & E. Careers" he proposed 3 possible explanations why these fields were dominated by men. One of the explanations suggested that innate differences between the sexes might help explain why relatively (snip)

Did you read my message, or just apply the same impeccable logic to my groupings of words that you have to your groupings of statistics?

[MarleysGh0st]

Wow, you really have an active room here. I apologize for initiating such a long string in your pristine 'Transcripts' room.

No apology necessary. We just happened to be discussing whether we wanted the transcripts in a separate forum and whether people would find topics more easily one place or the other, yesterday. Your post just happened to arrive as a case in point. And look how busy the discussion has become, now that people have noticed it.

Anyway, as I said, we've just recently had to move to this new forum. So we're still rearranging the furniture the way we like it.

[peacock2121]

This guy is sounding like HoltDad to me.

I think I am done with this thread.

Have fun!

[mrkelley23]

This guy is sounding like HoltDad to me.

I think I am done with this thread.

Have fun!

The difference: HoltDad = arrogant, but usually well-meaning jerk with some redeeming qualities.

This guy = arrogant jerk. Jury still out on the rest.

Oh, and btw, mrkelley23 = arrogant, but usually well-meaning jerk with some redeeming qualities.

[TheCalvinator24]

This guy is sounding like HoltDad to me.

I think I am done with this thread.

Have fun!

If you mean tone, perhaps. If you mean substance, then I think you have been quite unfair to holtdad.

[mrkelley23]

This guy is sounding like HoltDad to me.

I think I am done with this thread.

Have fun!

If you mean tone, perhaps. If you mean substance, then I think you have been quite unfair to holtdad.

Well said, Cal. I concur.

[peacock2121]

This guy is sounding like HoltDad to me.

I think I am done with this thread.

Have fun!

The difference: HoltDad = arrogant, but usually well-meaning jerk with some redeeming qualities.

This guy = arrogant jerk. Jury still out on the rest.

Oh, and btw, mrkelley23 = arrogant, but usually well-meaning jerk with some redeeming qualities.

No

Just plain No.

mrkelley23= arrogant, and well-meanig jerk who sometimes gets caught up and forgets that and when he remembers, cleans up the mess he makes without running away.

[peacock2121]

This guy is sounding like HoltDad to me.

I think I am done with this thread.

Have fun!

If you mean tone, perhaps. If you mean substance, then I think you have been quite unfair to holtdad.

I meant tone and only tone.

Thanks for pointing out that I needed to clarify.

[earendel]

Wow, you really have an active room here. I apologize for initiating such a long string in your pristine 'Transcripts' room.

No problem - we're still trying to figure out the format of the Bored.

I partially accept the "excuses" many of you have made regarding why women rely heavily on men as PAFs. IMO, supplementing your knowledge base with males who can cover on non-'girlie' questions is the strongest.

Uh, oh, the word "excuses" in quotes means trouble ahead.

Thus, the average female contestant earned only 52 cents for every dollar earned by the average male contestant. Perhaps women in the workplace earning 77 cents on the dollar are overpaid.

Hoist the warning flags!

As for men, our ambition and competitive drive alone was motivation enough to apply regardless of our perceived abilities. Thus, the average Joe makes the crème de la crème of women look like sour milk.

Researchers also noted many excuses why men earned almost twice as much as women: they’re more risk-adverse; they’re more easily satisfied with winning only small or moderate amounts; they’re quicker to “pull over and ask for directions” (i.e., use lifelines in the early rounds); they have a preference to quit “as a winner” on a correct answer than risk guessing at a question in which they’re not completely confident (even when they’ve been able to narrow down the answers); and they don’t sufficiently take into consideration the risk-reward payoff at a given situation (e.g., just before, at, or just after the ‘lock-in’ question) [which is believed to be one of the reasons why the ‘lock-in’ question was reduced from $32,000 to $25,000]. A few brave researchers dared to conclude that women are just less likely to know the correct answer.

I think my wife summed it up best - women have many more important things to worry about so they don't have time to fill their heads with "useless" trivia.

You should note that one of the main reasons given for changing the method for getting on the show (phone game vs. auditions) was to increase the "diversity" of the Hot Seat contestants, i. e., bring more women on the show. I suspect another reason (aside from the time factor) for removing the Fastest Finger process was to give those without "video game reflexes" the chance to get into the Hot Seat.

[silvercamaro]

SOX, I wish you good luck with your book.

I will not likely argue with your data, assuming you've gathered your numbers accurately and done the math correctly. I do reserve the right to argue -- perhaps vehemently -- with the conclusions you may derive from that data.

For example, I believe that many women could be more successful in our professions, thus earning higher paychecks, if we too had "wives" to take care of things on the home front when longer hours and business trips are needed.

On the other hand, it may surprise you to learn that I agree that Larry Summers was driven away from Harvard for the wrong reason -- trying to initiate a logical discussion about the reasons for a genuine statistical discrepancy. In my reading, I have not seen that he ever argued that "men have superior mental capacities," which some of your suppositions seem to be perilously close to pointing.

[SOX404Guru]

Yep, I read the post and noted the Lawrence Summers reference.

You're correct in that I am going for the Rush crowd, in fact I plan on soliciting his literary agent.

You're also correct that I'm not taking a CSI approach to my research. I have conclusions which my research strives to prove. Though I am making every attempt to be intellectually honest.

Like James Watson, I am also implying that IQ differences exist. Unlike Watson, I am not addressing the issue of race because Oprah doesn't use her show to bash white people, she uses it to bash men. The theme of the book is how daytime television has created "vagina view myths."

To support my IQ "conclusion" I reference the 11/05 British Journal of Psychology meta-analysis of 22 major IQ studies throughout the world (of 24,000 students) over the past few decades. I also use the results of other major aptitude examinations to show that males are especially more intelligent in the areas that "count" math and science. You may not be able to write the book, but as a physics teacher, you'll certainly appreciate many sections of it.

[mrkelley23]

Yep, I read the post and noted the Lawrence Summers reference.

You're correct in that I am going for the Rush crowd, in fact I plan on soliciting his literary agent.

You're also correct that I'm not taking a CSI approach to my research. I have conclusions which my research strives to prove. Though I am making every attempt to be intellectually honest.

Like James Watson, I am also implying that IQ differences exist. Unlike Watson, I am not addressing the issue of race because Oprah doesn't use her show to bash white people, she uses it to bash men. The theme of the book is how daytime television has created "vagina view myths."

To support my IQ "conclusion" I reference the 11/05 British Journal of Psychology meta-analysis of 22 major IQ studies throughout the world (of 24,000 students) over the past few decades. I also use the results of other major aptitude examinations to show that males are especially more intelligent in the areas that "count" math and science. You may not be able to write the book, but as a physics teacher, you'll certainly appreciate many sections of it.

To appreciate it, I would have to read it. I've already read too much.

Have a wonderful day.

[Bixby17]

I don't wish to ruffle any feathers here (although it's the primary goal of my book); however, here are some stats which I feel are very telling with regards to gender differences in ambition, risk taking, and even intelligence: [Please do not distribute these outtakes from my book.]

The pitiful showing by women wasn’t limited to their lack of participation. It continued after they made it to the hot seat. According to the “Millionaire’s” website as of the first 600 contestants who reached the hot seat:
• Of the 82 $125,000 winners, only 11 (13%) were women
• Of the 43 $250,000 winners, only 3 (7%) were women.
• Of the 15 $500,000 winners, only 2 (13%) were women.
• Of the 8 $1,000,000 winners, none were women. No woman ever won the top prize in the primetime version.
• [TO DO: SUPPLY INFO ON NANCY IN THE SYNDICATED VERSION, AFTER A TOTAL OF # MEN WON, INCLUDING THE PRIOR & SUBSEQUENT CONTESTANTS]
• Of the $45.5 million in prize money, men won $40 million (88%).
• The average male contestant won $84,400 versus only $44,000 won by the average female contestant.

Thus, the average female contestant earned only 52 cents for every dollar earned by the average male contestant. Perhaps women in the workplace earning 77 cents on the dollar are overpaid.

Given the reasons researchers gave for women being hesitant to try to get on the show, it stands to reason that those that applied would be more confident in their abilities. Therefore, it also stands to reason that women with above average intelligence were more likely to apply than those of average or below average intelligence.

As for men, our ambition and competitive drive alone was motivation enough to apply regardless of our perceived abilities. Thus, the average Joe makes the crème de la crème of women look like sour milk.

Just curious. You cite all the percentage of high # value winners who were female. What was the total number of people in the hotseat?

By the way, I bet you are a lot of fun at parties, aren't you.

[silvercamaro]

Oh, I also meant to help you with one more bit of your statistical information.

Of the two big winners on the syndicated version of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire, 50 percent have been female. Coincidentally, she also is more successful in her profession and makes more money than the male winner, who has no known employment and aspired to "buy new socks," which I'm certain he needed.

Sometimes the facts don't help with pre-planned conclusions.

[peacock2121]

Just curious. You cite all the percentage of high # value winners who were female. What was the total number of people in the hotseat?

By the way, I bet you are a lot of fun at parties, aren't you.

Bix has such a way, doesn't she?

[earendel]

You're also correct that I'm not taking a CSI approach to my research. I have conclusions which my research strives to prove. Though I am making every attempt to be intellectually honest.

If you start with pre-formed conclusions and try to "prove" them from the data, you're not engaged in true research, it seems to me. Such an attitude means that you are likely to "cherry pick" the data to support what you already believe, despite claims to intellectual honesty.

Like James Watson, I am also implying that IQ differences exist. Unlike Watson, I am not addressing the issue of race because Oprah doesn't use her show to bash white people, she uses it to bash men. The theme of the book is how daytime television has created "vagina view myths."

No, but you are addressing the issue of gender/sex.

To support my IQ "conclusion" I reference the 11/05 British Journal of Psychology meta-analysis of 22 major IQ studies throughout the world (of 24,000 students) over the past few decades. I also use the results of other major aptitude examinations to show that males are especially more intelligent in the areas that "count" math and science. You may not be able to write the book, but as a physics teacher, you'll certainly appreciate many sections of it.

Again, by deciding what areas "count" you have prejudiced your conclusion. There are other forms of intelligence than just the part related to achievement in math or science. Not only that, but the data you are collecting from BAM says nothing about success in math or science. BAM is a trivia contest. It's based on who can remember obscure stuff learned long ago (for some, longer than others). There are very few pure math or science questions on the show. And, although you downplay the socialization aspect, it is nonetheless true that one's sex plays a role in how one is treated by teachers and peers when it comes to math and science.