
Do Women Give Up Competing More Easily? Evidence from the lab and math Olympiad - Bostonian
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20170160
======
Isamu
Recently on a podcast I heard the assertion (so I don't know of a study) that
female students may be observed to do better on average in math classes than
males, but males were disproportionately much more confident about their
abilities than females.

I have observed this difference myself anecdotally, it is sometimes almost
comical in young males to have completely unearned confidence in math and
technical skills. I have always thought this is tied to normal effects of
testosterone.

------
petra
Well, testosterone is the hormone of competition. Males have much more of it.

So everything's a competition, for many males.

How did society educate men to compete on everything ? Why would it ?

And on the other hand, women have low levels of testosterone.

But we know one area where they tend to strongly compete: competing on a mate.

And it's interesting: Just a whiff of a woman close to ovulation is enough to
stimulate another woman's testosterone levels, along with her desire to
compete.[1]

[1][https://www.livescience.com/39902-women-smell-
competition.ht...](https://www.livescience.com/39902-women-smell-
competition.html)

------
ericmcer
Some will point to this as evidence that the unequal outcomes in our society
are not a result of sexism, but biological differences between sexes. Others
will say society has taught women to give up more easily on their aspirations.
Who knows what the truth is? Is it really worth chasing when the end goal is
trying to label individuals based on a set of predetermined qualities?

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Economically, a good chunk of unequal outcomes are a necessary evil in order
to incentivize the behavior necessary for an efficient economy. If being a
high-ranking corporate officer didn't pay better than lower-ranking ones,
nowhere near as much work would be put into competing to climb the corporate
ladder.

You can read more about it by getting into Tournament Theory, but the basic
gist is this: "winners" get paid more than their output is worth, "losers"
less, but the average participant's compensation tends to be proportional to
the average value of work. It's useful when the difficulty of measuring output
is so burdensome to make piece-work uneconomical.

There's other categories where the pay incentives are necessary. Taking on
physically dangerous, unpleasant, or taxing work (eg, oilfield workers), or
doing jobs that require a large investment in skill development (doctors,
software developers). If you don't have the pay differential, a lot of
important jobs just won't get done.

>Is it really worth chasing when the end goal is trying to label individuals
based on a set of predetermined qualities?

It absolutely makes a big difference when it comes to public policy. If the
unequal outcomes are because one sub-group is more willing to take the risks
we want to avoid or develop the skills we don't have time to learn, it's
extremely counterproductive to try to fix those outcomes. The inequality is
the price we pay to get people to do things they'd rather not. Backtracking on
these incentive gradients is short-sighted at best.

~~~
wolco
"If being a high-ranking corporate officer didn't pay better than lower-
ranking ones, nowhere near as much work would be put into competing to climb
the corporate ladder."

I disagree a lot of people seek a higher ranking job because of power. Once
they have the power they give themselves more.

Would you rather clean bathrooms or tell others when to clean them for the
same pay?

~~~
0815test
> I disagree a lot of people seek a higher ranking job because of power.

Maybe, but those are not the sorts of people you _want_ in high-ranking jobs,
as a general rule. So it still makes sense to explicitly reward competence as
an alternative.

------
arnioxux
There are firsthand accounts from women who did compete successfully on why
it's harder for them (for example first answer is from a female IOI silver
medalist):

[https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-women-participate-in-
pro...](https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-women-participate-in-programming-
contests?share=1)

~~~
0-_-0
That answer basically came down to "there are few women in competitive
programming because there are few women in competitive programming".

------
luckydata
This seems to be consistent with the principle that nature experiments with
males but plays conservatively with females. I don't think it's an accident
that both the smartest AND the dumbest people in any population will be males.
Females play too important of a role for the specie, while males are very
expendable so they can afford to try more dangerous things more often. If a
male is removed from the genetic pool it's easy to make up for him, while
losing a female reproductively is a tragedy.

~~~
y4mi
That's not how evolution works though.

It's not about what's best for a species. It's about which individual breeds
how much before death.

And looking at it from that point of view makes it even more straightforward.
Especially if you consider that historically approximately 80% of males died
without having offspring.

~~~
spectrum1234
This is actually not true. It's about whats best for the gene.

If a gene in a male has a higher standard deviation than in a female, this can
all be explained at the gene level.

------
Raphmedia
I like to casually read articles on that topic. From my perspective and
general knowledge, I would say that society shapes people and not just
biological differences. Sex-based social structures are very complicated.

This comes to mind:

"Women reported themselves to be higher in Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Warmth,
and Openness to Feelings, whereas men were higher in Assertiveness and
Openness to Ideas.

Contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender
differences varied across cultures.

Contrary to predictions from the social role model, gender differences were
most pronounced in European and American cultures in which traditional sex
roles are minimized. Possible explanations for this surprising finding are
discussed, including the attribution of masculine and feminine behaviors to
roles rather than traits in traditional cultures."

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11519935](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11519935)

~~~
pedro_hab
Sure society affects gender expression of individuals to some extent.

But the scientific evidence shows innate differences between genders.

There are studies out there showing gender differences between human babies
(boys and girls) and even between baby chimps.

I would consider saying that gender differences are solely or even mostly
society based as science denial.

~~~
Raphmedia
This is irrelevant to what I just said.

I merely wrote that differences between men and women are not only biological
but also based on social structures.

You start by saying that you agree with this and then you make our own
statements.

I am incredulous about how linking a study from a scientific journal is
evidence of science denial.

~~~
pedro_hab
You are correct, I misread your comment, which I can agree with.

But my point on science denial was that saying that it is all or mostly
society based still stands.

~~~
Raphmedia
> But my point on science denial was that saying that it is all or mostly
> society based still stands.

It is a good thing that nobody here said that then.

------
spark28
I think it's interesting to look at how you define competition. It actually
derives from the Latin 'competere' or 'strive together.' I think you can see
this with the "Shalane Effect" aka how the famous Olympic marathoner Shalane
Flanagan is elevating her competition, and thus her own performance, by
supporting those around her. In the truest sense we can only really compete
against ourselves.

------
adchari
Isn't this a bit of a chicken and the egg situation? Are women more likely to
give up due to some evolutionary or natural trait, or is it learned due to
some societal pressure?

------
notus
I can't read it. Why do they give up?

~~~
colechristensen
Abstract

>We use lab experiments and field data from the Dutch Math Olympiad to show
that women are more likely than men to stop competing if they lose. In a math
competition in the lab, women are much less likely than men to choose
competition again after losing in the first round. In the Math Olympiad,
girls, but not boys, who fail to make the second round are less likely to
compete again one year later. This gender difference in the reaction to
competition outcomes may help to explain why fewer women make it to the top in
business and academia.

~~~
Zenst
The whole mentality of presuming those that do not win will try try again and
learn from the experience often ignores that for some, it is logical to learn
from the experience and move on in another direction all together.

Hence a further deeper study would be inciteful. Did those who did not try
again, try something else and shift focus and how well did they do in that new
focus. That would be the biggest question.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
Follow this strategy too many times and you're out of new foci. It's
particularly concerning if you're more fragile against the early challenges
associated with a new endeavor. Many things won't look fruitful until you
stick with them long enough to see over the first hill.

~~~
colechristensen
Risk-taking diversity has value in a population.

It is believable that there are sex and age based differences in the
_distribution_ of risk taking as a result of _both_ culture and biology. Bias
for or against an individual based on these tendencies is wrong when used to
pre-judge that person.

What about the outcome bias for people or groups with differing risk
tendencies?

Is it morally necessary to compensate for different risk strategies? Which
ones and to what degree? Which sources of cause should get this privilege and
which shouldn't?

There is a vocal group that insists that any disparity in outcome needs to be
corrected, at least for their preferred groups.

There is another that insists that it is immoral to punish (in any way) the
hard work and other characteristics that lead to success outcomes.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
You...really seem to be reading into my post. Moral necessity for rewarding
different risk strategies?

No, I'm not making any overarching claims to be taken up and enforced by a
government or similar entity. And diversity of most sorts has value in a
population.

Actually, my biggest take away from all this is that it is even more important
to stop framing things as zero-sum competitions and more as collaborations
where an individual can find a space fitting of their grit, skills and
interests.

------
pmdulaney
If one adopts an "equality of outcome" theory of justice, what difference does
it make?

~~~
sterkekoffie
If our end goal is a body of mathematicians that closely reflects society at
large, it's pretty important to understand what factors influence
participation in mathematics in under-represented groups, no?

~~~
pmdulaney
I think our goal should not be a body of mathematicians (or coders or nurses
or NBA players) that closely reflects society at large, but an entry process
that is fair. And the first and foremost tenet of fairness must be that each
human be treated as an individual, not as the member of some group.

~~~
sterkekoffie
I took your post quite literally--if you believe in equality of outcome,
studies like this are important. Personally, I disagree with you in principle,
as I think there often aspects of human capital that can only be seen on the
level of organization and not the individual. What it means to reflect society
in a meaningful way differs depending on the role, but as a practice it has
the potential to reduce oversight by leveraging a variety of perspectives.

~~~
pmdulaney
I appreciate your civility.

My advice to you is to avoid bureaucratic/academic language that is nearly
devoid of meaning. For example, "there [are] often aspects of human capital
that can only be seen on the level of organization and not the individual" and
"it has the potential to reduce oversight by leveraging a variety of
perspectives."

~~~
sterkekoffie
For examples to illustrate: a group of QA testers that consists entirely of
pale-skinned people is going to be collectively less qualified at testing a
face recognition tool than a group with a range of skin tones. A school board
consisting entirely of people from a particular geographic area is less able
to fully account for local concerns and logistics than one with members from a
broad area. Diversity for diversity's sake can be a real advantage when you
think carefully about what diversity looks like for your project. If you don't
see the potential, that's fine, I have no interest in persuading you. My
advice to you is that sometimes when you don't understand something, it's not
because it was poorly written. But sorry for the typo ;)

------
neilv
Possibly a different version of the paywalled paper, freely available:

T. Buser, H. Yuan, ``Do women give up Competing more easily? Evidence from the
Lab and the Dutch Math Olympiad,'' 2016-11-10.
[https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/7151108/Buser_and_Yuan_2016.pdf](https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/7151108/Buser_and_Yuan_2016.pdf)

------
RickJWagner
Based on 21 years of marriage (and occasional arguments), no. Absolutely not.

------
cphoover
Oh boy here we go...

------
boubiyeah
I must have some very womanly traits then. When I first joined my engineering
school, I felt so bad/inadequate because all the guys were like "yeah this is
easy, I totally got this" and I was like "really? it's not that easy imo!"
(for me, easy means I understand 100% of the topic)

First few exams and I had WAY better marks than all of them, lol.

~~~
oarabbus_
It's called impostor syndrome, and affects both men and women in frequent
numbers

~~~
0815test
More specifically, it's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Impostor syndrome is
a broader description that heavily overlaps with the "give up competing due to
perceived losses" that the article talks about.

(As a side effect of this, one could predict that approaches to mitigation of
impostor syndrome (which there are a few of) will be especially helpful if
you're concerned about improving women's representation. Somewhat ironically
though, the "ideological echo chamber" that is most active in pursuing these
goals is not always very open to such notions!)

~~~
SkyBelow
Saying a class is easy is not the Dunning-Kruger effect, especially when the
class is easy for the individual. Thinking mastering the entire field is easy
because the intro class was easy is a far better match of the Dunning-Kruger
effect.

Someone who is well aware of how complex a subject is can find a given class
to be easy, which would imply they are not under the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Confidence alone is not sufficient.

Edit: that they ended up with lower marks due to not studying due to
overconfidence due to the earlier ease of the topic seems like it would fall
under Dunning-Kruger.

------
nurettin
I think this is a positive thing. People who don't give up usually end up
where they aren't supposed to, with peers who are simply better. Not to say
they are totally useless, but they wouldn't have made the cut without their
drive, which just means they pushed themselves above their limits to achieve
something they shouldn't have. Now they are occupying space more deserving
people could have been.

Is that the wise thing to do? Looking at you guys.

~~~
twic
I read a study a while ago (didn't pinboard it, sorry) by an engineering
professional society on why women who do engineering degrees don't go on to
work as engineers. For some, it was obstacles: sexist colleagues, unsuitable
workplaces, etc. But for the majority, it was because they didn't want to be
an engineer: they used their degree in engineering as a springboard into
things like starting their own companies or being investment bankers.

Which rather implies that men who get degrees in engineering tend to carry on
into working in engineering because they lack the imagination to do something
else.

~~~
SkyBelow
>because they lack the imagination to do something else

What about the option that they really want to do engineering.

~~~
xj9
nobody _enjoys_ STEM work, people are in it for the money.

~~~
SkyBelow
I would have to very much disagree. There are parts I do not enjoy but those
are more office related regardless if the work is STEM or not. I do like the
money, but I do STEM stuff for fun and many my side projects eat money, not
produce it.

------
stirfrykitty
Touchy issue, but I've been reading more and more where women in competitive
sports are thinking of dropping out if they are forced to compete against men
who say they're "women". Quite a few recent sporting events where actual women
were trounced by men competing as women.

~~~
jordigh
Please don't refer to transwomen as "women". Gender and sex really is more
complicated than just men and women, and yes, I do mean "biologically", not
just as some mental abstraction.

~~~
stirfrykitty
Not quite following what you're trying to convey.

