

Cracking the Male Code of Office Behavior - rmah
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/jobs/06pre.html

======
Udo
> _I enter into conversations with unsuspecting men sitting next to me on
> airplanes, on the subway and in coffee shops and give them a chance to share
> their innermost thoughts anonymously._

This sounds like a wildlife researcher entering protected habitats to observe
a rare species under natural conditions. It also betrays the underlying
assumption that men and women are two completely different species that live
in completely separate worlds. Throughout the article that assumption is never
challenged.

> _The male brain has the enviable ability to essentially switch off emotions
> when desired — in part because it’s hard for a man to think clearly in the
> face of emotion._

Big news: everybody does that, no matter what gender they are. It's called
compartmentalization, without it people would not be able to function.
Emotional reactions and analysis are pushed off to a future point in time
whenever more pressing concerns are at hand. That's a basic mental triage
technique and everybody can do it. There are also many people who _never_ do
it, and in my experience there was no significant gender difference to that
behavior.

> _When men see a worker taking criticism personally, seeming to push too hard
> for his or her ideas, or having a personality conflict, they automatically
> view that worker as less business-savvy and less experienced, or as someone
> who operates on emotion, not logic._

Paragraphs like this make excellent statements for people who like
evolutionary psychology, but they're simply not rooted in fact. In my
experience, most "Type A" personalities who do like to dish out harsh personal
criticism like it's a bodily function simply cannot take the same when it is
directed at them. Likewise, the perception of business-savvyness is probably
always linked to the perception of sameness: successful businesspeople
attribute superior skills to people whom they perceive as similar to their own
personality. And again, I observed no significant difference between sexes
here. Regarding the unspoken assumption of public displays of male toughness:
I've seen tough jock-types sitting under their desks crying just because
someone had looked at them funny.

> _The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn’t
> designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man’s brain
> does, a woman can — if she chooses — force a calm demeanor when she is
> starting to feel defensive._

That's a lie. This statement has nothing to do with science.

All in all this article is a standard set of misleading statements, "obvious"
assumptions and outright lies. It's designed to be popular on the net while
providing less than no value for readers interested in team dynamics.

~~~
CodeMage
_> The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn’t
designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man’s brain
does, a woman can — if she chooses — force a calm demeanor when she is
starting to feel defensive.

That's a lie. This statement has nothing to do with science._

Can you point in the direction of something that proves or disproves that
statement? I've witnessed a lot of anecdotal evidence that women don't do as
well at compartmentalization as men. I didn't make much of it until I also
read a book that points it out ("Viva La Diferencia" by Pilar Sordo) as one of
the differences between typical male and typical female behavior.

All in all, it seems that the typical behavioral patterns are different enough
between males and females, so I'm interested in evidence both for and against
it. Your categorical statement makes it look like you can produce some of that
evidence.

~~~
Udo
> _I've witnessed a lot of anecdotal evidence that women don't do as well at
> compartmentalization as men. I didn't make much of it until I also read a
> book that points it out ("Viva La Diferencia" by Pilar Sordo) as one of the
> differences between typical male and typical female behavior._

Like I said, that's a _very_ popular opinion and it sells a lot of books. It's
also something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

> _The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn’t
> designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man’s brain
> does_

You ask me to prove my assertion that this is not based science, and of course
I can mostly point to the fact that the supposed science the article is
talking about was itself not cited anywhere. So I have to prove a negative,
but the article gets a pass with disguising a blanket statement as science
just because it resonates better with popular world views?

There is no actual biological or medical evidence supporting the article's
claims. Pop psychology studies of this matter are hampered by the simple fact
that they're unable to distinguish cultural from biological mechanisms.
Evolutionary psychology is also considered a pseudoscience because it's based
on starting with equating popular assumptions to self-evident truths and then
going out to find evidence to support these arbitrary claims, while ignoring
everything else.

~~~
CodeMage
_> I've witnessed a lot of anecdotal evidence that women don't do as well at
compartmentalization as men. I didn't make much of it until I also read a book
that points it out ("Viva La Diferencia" by Pilar Sordo) as one of the
differences between typical male and typical female behavior.

Like I said, that's a _very_ popular opinion and it sells a lot of books._

I agree that it's popular. What I'm trying to find out is how much of it is
just an opinion and how much is proven. There certainly seems to be a
behavioral pattern out there.

 _It's also somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy._

What do you mean by "somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy"?

 _You ask me to prove my assertion that this is not based science, and of
course I can mostly point to the fact that the supposed science the article is
talking about was itself not cited anywhere. So I have to prove a negative,
but the article gets a pass with disguising a blanket statement as science
just because it resonates better with your world view?_

No, not really. It seems I wasn't clear enough with my question. I wasn't
asking you to prove your "assertion that this is not based science". When you
said "That is a lie", I saw what seemed to be categorical denial of the claim
that men and women have different capacity for compartmentalization and I was
intrigued enough by your vehemence to ask you to point me to what made you so
sure.

The article didn't "get a pass" because it never even entered into my side of
discussion at all.

~~~
Udo
> _What I'm trying to find out is how much of it is just an opinion and how
> much is proven._

There is no significant difference in functional brain structure or
organization to suggest these differences are hard-wired. In fact, most of the
brain is still considered a black box and basic research is still occupied
with finding out how the basic building blocks interact. Sadly, that leaves
people who's job it is to examine learned behavior with a lot of room to
assert biological predisposition in an attempt to make their (often
amateurish) statistical findings more substantial. They get away with it, too,
mainly because their opinions are so popular, and their popularity growths
with the number of studies appearing in mainstream press in support of the
majority world view.

> _There certainly seems to be a behavioral pattern out there._

There are many different behavioral patterns out there and what you get to
experience depends largely on the country, cultures and subcultures you are
embedded in. I'm not denying that behaviors exist, I'm just speaking out
against abusing science to falsely attribute underlying biological causes to
behavior that is very likely more learned than innate.

> _What do you mean by "somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy"?_

I mean the traditional view of gender behavior (which has recently once again
become the modern view) is not only imprinting people with a specific bias but
also causes humans to behave accordingly. It thus becomes a self-sustaining
system, because the more people believe it to be true, the more they behave
accordingly, and the more they gather evidence in support of the underlying
values. It's a cycle, and confirmation bias does the rest of the work.

> _When you said "That is a lie", I saw what seemed to be categorical denial
> of the claim that men and women have different capacity for
> compartmentalization and I was intrigued enough by your vehemence to ask you
> to point me to what made you so sure._

Ah, OK, I misunderstood you there. The statement made in the article is not
supported by hard science, as far as I know. This is what prompted me to claim
the implication that gender behavior is rooted in well-documented scientific
observations and models is indeed a lie. Of course, there are many behavioral
studies carefully designed show ...pretty much anything you could ever want.
But that's not the equivalent of hard science. That's statistics with an
agenda.

Interestingly enough, there was a popular meme in mainstream media about
scientific results "wearing off", i.e. becoming less true over time. The
results in question used to document this alleged property of the universe
were mostly - wait for it - pop psychology studies with agendas behind them.
It's telling that these people would rather assume intelligent malice exerted
by the universe than admitting their studies were bogus to begin with. These
studies are mostly human behavior studies that basically equate popular
opinions with universal truths, and then those researchers are shocked,
shocked! to find out their results don't hold up over time.

------
zdw
"I was shocked to discover that most men view negative emotion as a signal
that logic has ceased."

Yes, that's pretty spot on, for me at least. (I'm male)

At times I know I can be overly blunt and appear insensitive - in the vast
majority of cases I'm not trying to make a value judgement, just calling it
how I see it. Thus, getting an emotional response back is somewhat shocking -
to exaggerate for effect:

    
    
        A: "Two plus Two is Four"
        B: "OMG really!?!  You're a horrible person for thinking that!"
        A: "Um, I'm confused... what's wrong with you?"
    

I wonder where this puts me on the aspergers spectrum...

~~~
mcritz
I notice emotional attachment at work from both genders.

Those that create subjective work, like designers and musicians, often latch
onto their solutions with an emotional vigor. It’s as if they view their work
as some part of themselves.

~~~
eftpotrm
_It’s as if they view their work as some part of themselves._

If you're a good artistic / creative person with that sort of mind, it pretty
much is.

------
sp332
"The expectation that people shut down personal feelings at work has become
one of men’s subconscious, “unwritten rules.” When men see a worker taking
criticism personally, seeming to push too hard for his or her ideas, or having
a personality conflict, they automatically view that worker as less business-
savvy and less experienced, or as someone who operates on emotion, not logic."

These rules aren't subconscious, are they? I was quite explicitly told that
letting personality issues get in the way of business is bad for business
(meaning _everyone_ in the business) and that, for the sake of everyone around
me, I should get over myself and work with other people. And it seems that
someone pushing too hard for their own ideas has ego issues and would also be
bad for the business as a whole.

Learning to not take criticism personally is a great life skill that everyone
should have!

------
RyanHolliday
Interesting article, but I don't understand this: "The male brain has the
enviable ability to essentially switch off emotions when desired--in part
because it’s hard for a man to think clearly in the face of emotion."

"For a man"? Wouldn't it be hard for, you know, anyone, man or woman, to think
clearly if they're over-emotional at the moment?

~~~
0xEA
Many women believe that their ability to "think" while emotional is what makes
them the stronger sex. Of course, if you talk to them later when they are no
longer emotional, they will admit they weren't thinking clearly.

The same is true for men of course. While most of us refrain from emotions at
work, any man who's had a fight with his wife knows he's been just as
irrational when the emotions run high.

The important take away: emotions aren't valuable at work.

------
makmanalp
I like that there is supposed to be a contrast between these:

> The expectation that people shut down personal feelings at work has become
> one of men’s subconscious, “unwritten rules.” When men see a worker taking
> criticism personally, seeming to push too hard for his or her ideas, or
> having a personality conflict, they automatically view that worker as less
> business-savvy and less experienced, or as someone who operates on emotion,
> not logic. (I was shocked to discover that most men view negative emotion as
> a signal that logic has ceased.)

and this:

> So when we raise our hand in a meeting and ask directly, “Bob, why did you
> choose that pricing?” we are just asking for information. Bob, on the other
> hand, may be angrily thinking, “I can’t believe she is challenging my
> judgment in front of my team.”

How come when women take criticism personally and respond emotionally and men
don't get it (as in example 1) it's a problem, but when women are blunt about
their questions and men respond emotionally (as in example 2) it's not the
exact same problem? Looks like a double standard that plays on the "women are
emotional, men are not" myth to me.

------
hapless
The article is several paragraphs of sensational hypotheses with no supporting
evidence.

~~~
sp332
It's a NYT article, not a science journal article. The author claims to have
spent several years studying this, and presumably the NYT checked out her
credentials beforehand. Her book and email address are at the bottom of the
article, if you want to know more.

------
angdis
I don't know if I buy into everything in the article, but she is right that
women and men have different behaviors and that it helps to have some
understanding of the differences.

One example that comes to mind is that some women will actually cry at work.
For males that aren't used it, this can be a major WTF moment and they'll take
it as a major sign of instability or irrationality. In fact, it is just a
coping mechanism and it does not have the same meaning or weight as it would
for a man to cry.

In other words, if a woman cries at work, the equivalent behavior for man
would be an aggressive retort or a temporary withdrawl from the situation. For
women, this might seem like the man is a being a jerk-- but, like crying, it
is coping mechanism.

------
julius_geezer
"The science is clear, for example, that although the female brain isn’t
designed to compartmentalize personal feelings the same way a man’s brain
does, a woman can--if she chooses--force a calm demeanor when she is starting
to feel defensive."

Is that clearly science?

------
rlpb
I get a registration required form.

~~~
cylo
If you want to bypass that, always search for the title of the article via
Google and then click on it from there.

[http://www.google.com/search?q=Cracking+the+Male+Code+of+Off...](http://www.google.com/search?q=Cracking+the+Male+Code+of+Office+Behavior)

