[release][h2]Why Women Are Better at Everything[/h2]
[url=http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/28/why-women-are-better-at-everything/]//Source: TIME[/url]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[img]http://timewellness.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/103430136.jpg[/img]
Recently in the [i]Wall Street Journal[/i], MarketWatch columnist David Weidner [url=http://www.marketwatch.com/story/women-are-better-investors-and-heres-why-2011-06-14?pagenumber=1]noted[/url] that women "do almost everything better" than men — from politics to corporate management to investing.
Weidner cites a new study by Barclays Wealth and Ledbury Research, which found that women were more likely than men to make money in the market, mostly because they didn't take as many risks. And why are they risk-averse? Because they're not as overconfident as men, the study found.
The study's findings backed up those of previous research on the topic: in a 2001 [url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.145.8230&rep=rep1&type=pdf]study[/url] [PDF] of 35,000 American households with an account at a discount brokerage, financial scholars Brad Barber and Terrance Odean found that women's risk-adjusted returns beat men's by 1% annually. A 2005 study by Merrill Lynch found that 35% of women held an investment too long, compared with 47% of men. More recently, in 2009, a study by the mutual fund company Vanguard involving 2.7 million personal investors concluded that during the recent financial crisis, men were more likely than women to sell shares of stocks at all-time lows, leading to bigger losses among male traders. It also meant fewer gains when some of the stock values began to rise again.
What's the problem with men? "There's been a lot of academic research suggesting that men think they know what they're doing, even when they really don't know what they're doing," John Ameriks, the author of the Vanguard study, [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/business/14mark.html]told[/url] the New York [i]Times[/i].
The reason for that overconfidence may come down to biology, research suggests. There's a growing field of study called "neuroeconomics," in which scientists are examining the link between hormonal and neurological impulses and financial decision-making. One such recent study by John Coates, a research fellow in neuroscience and finance at Cambridge University, tested male traders' hormone responses to workplace decisions. He found that testosterone — the stuff that makes men, well, men — surges during winning streaks. And that may drive both risk-taking and an attitude of infallibility.
The so-called "winner effect," which has been seen in athletes during competition, also seems to apply to male traders. As the U.K.'s [i]Guardian[/i] [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/19/neuroeconomics-women-city-financial-crash]explained[/url]:
[quote]This occurs when two males enter a competition and their testosterone levels rise, increasing their muscle mass and the ability of the blood to carry oxygen. It also enhances their appetite for risk. Much of this testosterone stays in the system of the winner of a competition, while the loser's testosterone melts away fast; in evolutionary terms, the loser retires to the woods to lick his wounds. In the next round of competition, though, the winner already has high levels of testosterone, so he starts with an advantage, and this continues to reinforce itself.
"Steroids," Coates explains, "like most chemicals in your body, display what is called an inverted U-shaped response curve." That is to say, when you have low levels of them you lack vitality, and do very poorly at mental and physical tasks. But as the levels rise you get sharper and more focused until you reach an optimum. The key thing is this, however: "If you keep winning, your testosterone level goes past that peak and sliding down the other side. You start doing stupid things. When that happens to animals, they go out in the open too much. They pick too many fights. They neglect parenting duties. And they patrol areas that are too large." In short, they behave like traders on a roll; they get cocky.[/quote]
Women, who have only 10% of the testosterone that men have, seem inured to the phenomenon, according to Coates. He is currently studying the small group of women who make their living on the trading floors of New York City — but because there are so few of them, he hasn't amassed enough data to make any conclusions about the way their hormones and chemistry may affect behavior.
"We know that opinion diversity is crucial to stable markets," Coates [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/19/neuroeconomics-women-city-financial-crash]told[/url] the [i]Guardian[/i]. "What no one talks about is endocrine diversity, a diversity of hormones." It's an unorthodox concept, but Coates believes it's worth investigating.
So, basically, the more women around, the better, as the [i]Journal[/i]'s Wiedner said. His column referred to a recent book by Dan Abrams called [i]Man Down: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt That Women Are Better Cops, Drivers, Gamblers, Spies, World Leaders, Beer Tasters, Hedge Fund Managers, and Just About Everything Else[/i]. Wiedner [url=http://www.marketwatch.com/story/women-are-better-investors-and-heres-why-2011-06-14?pagenumber=1]wrote[/url]:
[quote]As Abrams notes, women are better soldiers because they complain about pain less. They're less likely to be hit by lightning because they're not stupid enough to stand outside in a storm. They remember words and faces better. They're better spies because they're better at getting people to talk candidly.[/quote]
Of course, to most women none of this is much of a revelation.[/release]
Well, that explains a lot...
I, for one, welcome our [I]penisless[/I] overlords :v:
[editline]29th June 2011[/editline]
[img]http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/27/2744/P2BTD00Z/posters/miller-j-howard-we-can-do-it-rosie-the-riveter.jpg[/img]
You sure can, dollface... heh :quagmire:
Women aren't better at stroking their own dick.
What about war?
:smug:
What about leading?
[QUOTE=jagggg;30784650]Women aren't better at stroking their own dick.[/QUOTE]
First reply, bravo.
If there is one thing we will always be better at, it is rape.
Hmm, it seems as if my car's rear bumper would like to have a word with the author of this.
[QUOTE=jagggg;30784650]Women aren't better at stroking their own dick.[/QUOTE]
Really? That's the [B]one[/B] thing you have on women?
[IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Sure_thing_sugar.jpg[/IMG]
Just to get the ball rollin' :v:
-snip-
Thanks, we already know this, that's why we're restricted to the internet, because there's not only plenty of porn but also because there are no females on it.
You posting this gave us all a whiff of the outside world
Do not want
[QUOTE=WhipperSnapper;30784753]If there is one thing we will always be better at, it is rape.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather get raped by a woman than a man
The woman who wrote this article, clearly forgot to include that [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1098401-New-study-shows-slutty-teenage-girls-are-more-likely-to-get-divorced-later-in-life]slutty girls are more likely to get divorced later in life[/url]...
They sure are better than us, at taking off their pants faster (and more "easily") than we can :v:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;30784723]What about war?
:smug:[/QUOTE]
If women were in charge, we'd be at war constantly... once a month
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;30784765]Really? That's the [B]one[/B] thing you have on women?[/QUOTE]
Other than himself because he has no woman to be with.
hot damn, this thread's 18 minutes old, and 26 people are reading it already
Still don't see a lot of women at the top.
Oh just wonderful, another article pointing out our differences and unknowingly encouraging people to not feel like equals.
Why are these kind of articles perfectly fine to make, I bet people would freak pretty badly at any article saying "Men are better at everything", or "White people are better than everything", or "Heterosexuals are better than anything", yet articles pointing out how women are better at everything is perfectly fine.
[QUOTE=yannickgd;30784838]Still don't see a lot of women at the top.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.cartinafinland.fi/sv/imagebank/image/17/17175/Finlands+president+Tarja+Halonen+17175.jpg[/img]
Facepunch, you just went full misogynist.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;30784868]Facepunch, you just went full mysogynist.[/QUOTE]
The article started it :saddowns:
well men invented everything!!!!
[QUOTE=Turnips5;30784868]Facepunch, you just went full mysogynist.[/QUOTE]
But the article has been done by what clearly seems to be a sexist.
What a bullshit study, there really is [b]no[/b] superior sex.
Everything includes culinary arts :smug:
potatoes are better at everything
did i make the news yet?
And they aren't better at oppression and discrimination either.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;30784868]Facepunch, you just went full misogynist.[/QUOTE]
And so did the article.
Might as well continue down that road and have some fun while we're at it :haw:
[QUOTE=Simski;30784883]The article started it :saddowns:[/QUOTE]
It's an unspeakably shitty article (women are better at some things = women are better at everything???), but that doesn't give anyone the right to start mouthing off about women in general, I mean what the fuck guys
[QUOTE=Atlascore;30784925]Women have been treated like crap and not been allowed to pursue a career in pretty much every area for centuries, calm down.[/QUOTE]
Well I don't suddenly want to start switching places with them, I'd rather treat them as my equal and have them treat me as their equal in return. We don't get people to feel equal by telling one of them that they're better than the other.
Odd, I read something else about men, due to having more testosterone, being better at the market than women because they take more risks.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
