Agreed. But what I put to even more suspicions are your arguments...
> If humans are being replaced with computers, then there will be need for fewer managers, supervisors etc. This would cause a decline in demand for people with "human skills" also.
No, when non-human tasks get delegated to non-humans, human skills will be where humans will be most needed, and this goes in line with data presented, and is fairly self-evident.
> Is the author trying to prove women are naturally better at these things?
Author gives research in support to that and you quote quotation of it yourself.
> If women are naturally better at certain things, it is not a stretch to imagine that they would be naturally worse at certain things.
There's no need to stretch anything, that's a fact. It is dangerous thinking, I agree. But so is atomic energy, AI, gene splicing... Besides being dangerous, it's also inevitable.
> This could be impede our quest to bring about gender equality.
I resent generalization our without further specification on who exactly.
> No, when non-human tasks get delegated to non-humans, human skills will be where humans will be most needed, and this goes in line with data presented, and is fairly self-evident.
The point of simula67 is that the quintessential job that requires good interpersonal skills is management. Managers are there to manage technical workers. If there is less of a need for technical workers, managers have fewer people to manage, and you don't need interpersonal skills to machine-manage. The end result might be that we can cut out all of middle management, and that this "purge" will offset the higher (relative) demand for people with interpersonal skills in other areas of the workforce.
All very hypothetical and full of assumptions of course, but then, so is the original article.
There's orders of magnitude more consumer-facing jobs than there are managers, who, basically by definition, are always in smaller numbers.
Analysis of statement "quintessential job that requires good interpersonal skills is management" will give me food for thought today, thanks. Not sure what I think about that. Some could argue that it's even anti-social role in a way.
You should see where I work! We have a "database" meeting every two weeks (though it end up being more of an "organizational workflow" meeting, which then gets implemented in my database application).
There are about ten people who attend, all managers, except me. I have my team lead, and his manager. Everyone asks for requests to be implemented in the database and I am theonly one person to implement them.
(Anyway it was getting crappy enough that I just quit).
Agreed. But what I put to even more suspicions are your arguments...
> If humans are being replaced with computers, then there will be need for fewer managers, supervisors etc. This would cause a decline in demand for people with "human skills" also.
No, when non-human tasks get delegated to non-humans, human skills will be where humans will be most needed, and this goes in line with data presented, and is fairly self-evident.
> Is the author trying to prove women are naturally better at these things?
Author gives research in support to that and you quote quotation of it yourself.
> If women are naturally better at certain things, it is not a stretch to imagine that they would be naturally worse at certain things.
There's no need to stretch anything, that's a fact. It is dangerous thinking, I agree. But so is atomic energy, AI, gene splicing... Besides being dangerous, it's also inevitable.
> This could be impede our quest to bring about gender equality.
I resent generalization our without further specification on who exactly.