This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. Janet Crawford dives into the unconscious associations that are often made with regard to gender. It’s hard not to reflect on our own unconscious associations as she talks through how our brain creates associations to help us make sense of the world. Her empowering talk speaks to men and women alike, challenging us all to help create the shift from one of blame to one of action through engagement and curiosity.
Janet Crawford is Principal of Cascadance and Founder of the Women and Innovation Lab. Combining insights from neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and experimental psychology, she helps leaders build productive, innovative and collaborative corporate cultures. With two decades of experience coaching and consulting for Fortune 500 companies, her client organizations span the who’s who of Silicon Valley and beyond. Janet holds a Masters from Stanford University and a BA from UC Berkeley.
About TEDx, x = independently organized event In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
Bias is a very natural thing we need to get adjusted to the nature and the environment and survive at last We have to understand human being. We cannot ignore the outcome from biological progress. Why do we have to remove all the difference to make the world equity just to achieve the implementation of ideology. We need to focus on the harmony not on the equity. Even though we have to pursue the human right investing our resources for mechanical gender equality is not the top priority. Almost 50 vs 50 in every fields is not possible.We don't have to make such an unatural effort to achieve 50:50. Those who are uncomfortable for differences in gender is going to make unatural effort endlessly until they get 50:50 in the fields where they are only highly valued.
But if the "Nerdy Male" decor affected the female students negatively. While the abscence of "Nerdy Male" decor didnt make any difference to the male students... doesnt that suggest that the female students were the ones who were more biased?
The idea of coffee cups and plants being "neutral" decor is after all subjective.
Also, im kind of curious to whether that study took into account the ammount of Trekkies who are female.
Bias? Or biology and science?? If the women did not want to go into computer science, then why try to force them to? Reading into the idea that is believed to be there only works against the issue. The problem isn't some type of inequality, there are other possible factors that are ignored because the people who study gender are wanting a specific result. There is a huge amount of confirmation bias in this field.
I understand where she is coming from but not all women want to work in the fields that would be male dominated.
I would never want to be a politician or work in I.T. I love protecting people but I would be too a scared for my life to be a cop.
But I would love to be a professional athlete or a poker player.
I just wish for equal opportunity, respect and professional credit.
Just because u guess on a mens picture while thinking of the word and meaning of Protection, that doesnt mean women cant protect and also doesnt mean that u should expect every man to be protective by nature. The physical and psycological differences between men and women just favor the majority of their kind for some "tasks" and "positions". I know a lot of women telling me they made only bad experiences from female Bosses. That doesnt mean women are bad in leading positions in general! But in the EU for example the big concerns were forced to raise female leading positions to 25% overall to lower the gap. So now even with equal or better qualification the woman will get the job and thats why i dont think feminism will make this world any better. The german army write on their "commercials" that women will be prefered. I know the german army didnt fight for a long time and just special ops teams got involved in anti terror missions, but why should women be rated higher then men when it comes to be a Soldier? There are far too much "nonsense" actions based on gender-equality that didnt even reach the real social problems with the gender-differences such as violance or abusing.
I wish the speaker would have gone into a little more depth on the study with the two rooms: the stereotypically nerdy one and the neutral one. Men's interests apparently were unaffected by the environment, but the women's were. Is this bias? Is it something inherent in how men and women see things due to biology differences? There was some deeper insight that could have been gleamed from that but she didn't mention it. One could infer that the problem women run into in science and technology fields is environmental, not due to how they are treated - basically "I'd enjoy lab stuff more if there wasn't all that lab stuff in the lab..."
Men have smarter brains/fysiologi/ biologically - though not said a woman can't be smart.. But she clearly have a different brain, with different intrest otherwise top companies would hire more girls.. They want to hire the best - most of on top companies hire through application - guys are more nerdy into system, and logic that has to do with machines, math, physics.. Women are more into humans, relationship etc! Its as simple as that..
I did not hear much neuroscience. I also did not hear anything about how men and women simply prefer different things on average. She went to the old saw about CEOs and the like. She did get some things right, though. But she still missed the boat big time.
Here's a bias...on average, men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people. These differences in interest have more to do with the careers that people choose more than anything else. Even with an environment of perfectly equitable opportunities...that means that if we achieve the Nirvana where nobody is ever selected for, or rejected from, an opportunity on the basis of their gender...the distributions of men and women in many fields will never be equal simply due to the fact that men and women are interested in different things.
This sounded like an interesting topic, unfortunately, it did not turn out to be about _the surprising neuroscience of gender inequality._ Our speaker, Janet Crawford, does touch on neuroscience a bit when she explains that we all cope with the influx of data by using rafts of associations. So, if two concepts have a strong association in the world that we observe then they will very likely have a similar association in our minds. This will be true even if the observed association was in an artificial social construct.
The rest of what she had to say was apparently the musings of a gender prejudiced ideologue whose field of study may ironically include bias when she cannot seem to recognize her own. Whenever anything which might not be leading to equitable outcomes for women is mentioned it does not lead to any examination of why that is the case, it just moves directly to the conclusion that it is something that must be changed. When something is brought up where men are receiving an inequitable outcome there is still no examination of why that is so, but this time the reaction is rejoicing an achievement. The achievement being that women were doing better than men in that regard.
I really am sorry for whatever it was that happened to her that left her so bitter and unhappy. It must be horrible to view the whole of society as a competition between men and women with the two basic genders locked in a zero-sum game of domination. I do not think this avenue of research can be very good for her, nor do I think that it does this field of research much good to have her speak in public about it.
I was born in Soviet Union, where women "were equal to men" they were "Men in skirts" and they were expected to work just as hard as men; hauling iron ore, chopping wood, tilling ground, inhaling deadly chimicals in labs, you name it women did it. Any and all jobs were EQUAL & no one cared if they were pregnant, breastfeeding or on your period. Soviet women became sick, barren and angry at the world... and the government covered up all the stats... the population dwindled (and is still droping)... and then, soviet empire unraveled and fell apart - thank God! Now I'm going to go hugg my husband for working like a man, so I can be a mom to our kids at home!
I like the research contanto, but um tia other hand the final statement isn't true. The society is responsible for damaging minorities, in this case, women. This is politics. The association is a performed tool.
Society, as a whole, has seriously overcompensated for gender bias. Look at the numbers of women in college and graduate school. And also look at the numbers of men in prisons. Men have abdicated their role to women.. Society is heading in a dangerous direction. The "emasculated man" is a disturbed individual who models behavior for young males to emulate.
As soon as a man or woman brings up the fact that the gender pay gap is real. They lose all credibility and me along with it.
That horse has been flogged to death and shown to be all BS. Either find a new song or get off the hobby horse, your time is up.
Humans live with primitive mindsets, that's in the core of all sexism and gender inequality. Lack of higher consciousness and deeper understanding. The more primitive a culture is, the more sexist it is. It's a fact.
Very limited information to confirm her own opinion. Said to think that this will influence any anybody. Women we always given an unfair advantage in school when I grew up 40 years ago. Studies show the knowledge a teacher has on the gender will increase there mark by a 1/3rd. I don't know any women willing to do danagous work. 97% of work place fatalities are male. Yet when we provide for family we are marginalized and told it is our duty to be sacrifice and be disposable.
There is thousands of shelters to support women to every individual male support.
I know my life would be better if I was a women. Women and children first! And send the men to the front lines of war or work!
Totally agree with her. Such nefarious and problematic forces such as rationality and "the brain" are enemies of gender egalitarianism. If the world and your brain is in opposition to her gender egalitarian views, the the world and your brain must be wrong.
I'm 3 minutes in and she hasn't stated any facts or legitimate figures, she's telling a story using lots of conjecture and false equivalency. 6 minutes in and she's talking about implicit association and how it is a negative thing because large portions of the population associate feminine traits with women and masculine traits with men; how is that a bad thing? People are different and have different characteristics and that's fine. People succeed by playing to their strengths and developing their weaknesses but, if you're 5'5 there's not a whole lot you can do if you want to play in the NBA or if you have an IQ of 100 and want to be an astrophysicist. Let the people who are good at doing the things that men or women are particularly good at do them. Women don't need to be Navy SEALS and Men don't bear children; there's nothing sexist about it.
Let's have an actual neuroscientist educate us on the neuroscience of genders. While Crawford brings up important points, perhaps a scientist will be better qualified to tackle the given subject and explain our gender-related thoughts and behaviors empirically.
Men have more pressure to earn money, therefore take said studies and said jobs.
I LOVE history...but damned, it's not exactly reliable, go into teaching? No thanks. Money not good enough.
So I became an accountant.
My sister loves children, therefore studied to work with disadvantaged children.
We need people like my sister, but I'm sure I'll be earning a lot more because I didn't follow my passion, I followed what I could tolerate and make money with.
All I hear in the media is how much sexism exists out in the workforce and in the world. However, in my 25 years of life I have YET to directly encounter it. Now, if it is SO prevalent in our society (as the media puts it) how have I not experienced it yet?
On average, men have five inches in height and more than 25 pounds more skeletal muscle than women. It's hardly surprising then that our unconscious association for 'strong' would be the male rather than the female figure, and for 'fragile' the reverse, or that, in order to advance 'gender equality' we've had to adjust the standards for physical strength in some professions to get even a small proportion of women into them.
Wouldn't it be better to simply acknowledge that, in a job that rewards physical strength, there will most likely be more men than women? There will be women who are physically strong enough, just not as many. Big-five personality testing has the mean for women at the 60th percentile for agreeableness, but for men at the 40th percentile. Why should we expect equal numbers of male and female lawyers (who benefit from disagreeableness) or therapists (the reverse)? There will still be women lawyers (speaking from experience, there ARE women who score in the bottom 10th percentile on agreeableness, believe me!) and male therapists, just not, perhaps, equal numbers.
That doesn't rule women out of any career, but it gets us away from this obsession with equality of outcome as the measure of whether we have succeeded in making the career open to women, as it should be, or whether, instead, we are afflicted with the mysterious disease of "implicit bias."
Bias is making a judgment about an individual, without adequate data. We actually all have adequate data to make judgments about "normal"* men and "normal" women. The latter are weaker. Fact. But any one woman may well be much stronger than any one man. That's where the need for data comes in. But that's not what these "implicit bias" tests measure, and the science behind them is mostly bogus.
*I am using the word "normal" here to refer to the population at or near the mean on a standard distribution curve, not to imply anything pejorative about those who fall outside that range, either above or below.
Come on women build buildings, bridges with us. Come on women lets mine coal together. Come on women why are you not fishing in full ocean or work on the height. Why you are taking safe and easy jobs instead better payed so you don't have to complain that in shop selling things you can't earn us much us man??
The fact that the implicit bias test works all over the world in different types of cultures and societies surely proves that it's not actually implicit bias, but biological. Humans attribute other humans with certain words because of their gender, true. But maybe that's because men generally do make better leaders or protectors because of the biology that makes up men. The same goes for women; perhaps they're more nurturing and fragile than men because they have certain hormones or their brain works in a different way to mens' brains. If it was just in the Western world that this happened, then it would have more of a chance of convincing me but if it's supposed to be society that's given us these biases, yet it works accross all kinds of societies, it's probably not the reason for it.
It's women make men. Most of the alpha males I know have wives and children. Most weanie boys I know are unmarried. She says she wants to help men. The men who take her advice will probably not procreate thankfully.
Thank You Janet Crawford ... even if you did not exactly use "neuroscience" ... OR you did not make the neuroscience aspect clear??? Anyway, in the field of psychology I have read many studies that look at many forms of Bias ... and what you say here does indeed reflect the general findings of Bias (we all have effects of bias (not Just gender bias) due to how we take in ... store and use ... the information we are exposed to (be that from first or second hand experience or read etc ...) ... It was interesting for me to read the comments here and find tons of gender bias ... and they seem to have no clue. Those of us who do understand need to speak up at every opportunity available (and especially the males who understand because help is needed from males, for those males, who do not yet understand (they will see what males say as more valid) ... sad but true. Love & Peace to All
Maybe we are biased to see men as leaders, because that is a winning assumption. Education does not make anyone a good leader. And neither does testosterone. But the combination is tested and powerful.
Occasionally Feminists, like the speaker, will make the argument that they also want to help and liberate men, mainly because they want to coop them and turn men into their own useful fools who will actively work for the Feminists´agenda at men´s own expense.
Feminists at times talk about how they want to also liberate men to comfortably be the sensitive male. But, in practice and instinctual they despise what they regard as weak men, who are only useful to them to be conveniently coerced and used as an emotional tampon. In terms of attraction these sensitive men are a waste of time.
The speaker acts as if it were the 1950s. The reality is that we have had decades of men and women being indoctrinated in the idea that women can do anything better than men can do, and anyone who ever doubts it must be punished.
gender ratios in certain jobs happen just cuz of personal preference, skill, and knowledge. most women aren't great at math, most men aren't great at cooking, sewing, or care taking. etc but great at mechanics and physics etc. so you get males being doctors, women being nurses/aides. women as cooks, or seamstresses or daycare operators, and more men being technicians and scientists and accountants. it just is a thing.
It's not odd that there are less women than men in lead roles when women are slightly more of the population. Women like to look at men far more than they like to look at other women. And they are less likely than men - scientific studies have been done on this - to fail to identify with the lead character based on it being the opposite gender.
Don't take that wrong men. It's not that kind of failure. Just saying, women are more likely to be able to identify with the guys in Lethal Weapon than men are to identify with the women in Steel Magnolias. It's not impossible to find women who won't identify or men who will, but, it's more likely to happen the other way around.
And also the ending quote. Absolutely disagree. Everybody is responsible for him or herself. There is no victim, there is no oppressor, there is no clumsy rescuer that does more damage than good (femminists). I can help you, if you ask for it. But do not try to manipulate me based on some moral code you have invented. I will decide if I want to help you with your issue using my own judgement, not socially acceptable conventions. Do you want to make this world be better place, make yourself better. Do you want to help others? Help yourself. Do you want to save the world? Save yourself...So the world can benefit from your greatness.
This is not very complicated to figure out, Feminazies. All you have to do, in order to determine why male employees are preferred in most all workplaces, is to review studies of attendance in relation to gender in the work place. If you read any study, when the Feminazies have not censored it yet, if you read any study of worker attendance in the workplace, you will find, as all employers and managers already know very well, is that women's attendance is seriously unreliable, always consisting of a multitude of unexcused absences, tardies, early leaves, etc ...; and also, women do not work overtime; women would not even work overtime on critical days when that needed help determines whether the company fails or succeeds. So stop with your bs. Women have the most intense in-group bias in favor of women and against men; and you can observe that every single day. Feminaziism is a failed and most disingenuous ideology. Employers do not want to hire a person who leaves work, or fails to come to work every time their child throws a tamper tantrum and starts crying. Oops sorry, I have a family emergency. Women also have been observed to makeup excuses and falsely claim there is a family emergency when there isn't one. Companies working in competitive markets and fields don't have time for this bs. Feminaziism is a failed ideology, and it is totally anti-male. Why aren't feminazies fighting for more women in professions like mining, deep see fishing vessels, heavy construction, sewage and plumbing, high voltage electrical work; where overwhelmingly men suffer deaths, lifelong injuries, and other work hazards? Because Feminaziism has nothing to do with equality; Feminiaziism only fights for special privileges for women in the most self-entitled and most bigoted ways. Disgraceful fail.
Gender bias is real. I'm with her so far. Where we part ways is saying it's a bad thing period. Sometimes you want or need a specific gender for a role. For instance, I dare say women make great nurses because they're nurturing. However, I adore male nurses because when push comes to shove they may be able to help more appropriately in say the situation of a patient that needs subduing. Or picking up. There's nothing wrong with that. Each has their strengths in the same field.
Yeah... Reality hurts, doesn't it, Ma'am? Jeez, mre than twelwe precious minutes wasted on some "God-knows-what's-this-about" whinnig... And still I do not know wheter "asking woman out" (for dinner or movie) is sexist, isn't sexist, or it purely depends on how handsom the guy is and what, erm, "Moon phase" is currently in force.
May the force be with you, Janet - 'cause if you're nearly fifty and still not able to grasp reality it's going to be a tough ride for you. Good luck, anyway; I'm out.
This isn't bias, of course if you force participants to pick a gender associated with a trait then they will pick the one that is exhibited the most in society and history. If you HAVE to pick a gender associated with strength, of course you will pick a man because you will most likely think of pure physical strength which is without doubt a main physiological difference between men and women scientifically. That's just logical association, not bias. It will of course work in reverse too, so if you say strength for man then logically you will say fragile for women, even if you don't associate the word with that gender at all. To draw such conclusions about unconscious bias is a massive leap to push forward an ideological agenda on people. It is in fact an incredibly biased study, or at least very biased interpretation of the study.
She is right, we are all responsible, responsible to actually exercise some critical thinking and not believe everything people like her try and push on us. Take some time to really think about issues and be willing to listen to others when making opinions. Maybe then we will actually be able to solve a lot of societies greater issues. Uneducated, biased reading of botched studies being preached to people as evidence is far from responsible.
On average men have more muscle mass. Men produce more testosterone and have an amplified response to testosterone, which leads to stronger muscles and denser and stronger bones. They also, on average, have a larger cardiac and respiratory capacity. I don't think that men are better than women, but associating the word "strong" more easily with men isn't bias, it's anatomical and physiological science.
No neuroscience, but some misrepresented psychology. For example, the UW study she described determined that room decorations affected the choices women made, and she stated that this was an example of sexism. This was an example of free choice, this was an example of self direction. I bet we can paint the room and change men's attitudes also, that isn't sexism, that is behaviorism. To be fair, if the title were changed, and if she began with the premise she asserts at the end (ie that women are self-imposing bias on each other [as she did when she was surprised the bare midriff woman was studying a finance book], and if she avoided the pointing-at-men and men-need-to-help-women more points, then she would have a reasonable presentation. She buried the lead.
I studied Engineering and after working for several years went on to study for a masters degree. There were 16 of us on the course - all men. I'm sure the Univerity would have loved to have accepted some women but there was a lack of applicants. When we went to our degree ceremony, the group before us had studied for diplomas for library studies - virtually all women. The men/engineers were heading towards jobs earning twice the national average while the women/librarians were heading for jobs earning half the national average.
Why did the women make such bad choices and the men such good choices? Well, perhaps they were deciding what was best for themselves as individuals and ignoring what was best for their intersectional groupings. Were they making good or bad choices? - No, the choices were best for themselves.
Barron-Cohen showed that one week old baby girls look longer at faces than moving objects while one week old boys do the opposite. The effect correlates with testoterone levels in the womb producing overlapping distributions of interest in people/things such that most women are predominantly interested in people while most men are interested in things. Of course, because it is a distribution and not a binary, this means that some women are, never-the-less, predominantly interested in things and they often go on to study Engineering - good luck to them!
The women engineers bring a different perspective which is valued by the Engineering community as it is very welcoming of diversity of thought, unlike feminism. Engineering and Science accept that diveristy of thought makes us as a group smarter because we can debate a subject and the truth then emerges as the bad ideas get knocked down. Feminism does not believe in debate but orthodoxy so that bad ideas are never challenged and the result is the nonesense in this video.
According to the talk, all differences in outcome between men and women are down to bias or wrong-think because men and women are actually identical. Wrong! Smell the politics and notice the lack of rationality.
Before you apply, the following information should be reviewed to ensure the appropriate program and start date is selected:
Be aware that Student Visas, if needed, can take time (approximately 3 months), so we recommend that you apply as soon as possible. For non-EU applicants under age 18, please review the additional requirements (legal guardianship is required) needed to apply for an Austrian visa.
English Language Requirements.
In order to qualify for any of Webster Universitys academic programs, a minimum level in English proficiency is required. To learn more about our language requirements and how to ensure you meet them, please click here.
Selecting your Entry Date.
First-time freshman students are encouraged to begin their studies with the Fall 1 and Spring 1 starting dates. However, if classes are available, freshman students are furthermore welcome to start with our Fall 2 and Spring 2 starting dates. First-time freshman students are unfortunately not able to start with the Summer term.
All Bachelor transfer students - transferring from an accredited university (accredited by the Ministry of Education in your country) - can also start in all of our 5 terms, if classes are available.