Back in grad school, I had a brief debate (partly in the paper's opinion page, and partly in email) with an ultra-far-left radical female student about some serious political issues, most prominently women's issues (she, for example, believed that the Salem witch hunts were partly to blame for the lack of women in science today). I simply had to stop talking to her after she insulted Elizabeth's intelligence (the woman implied that my wife, one of the smartest women I know, must be dumb because she didn't agree with the wacko's views).
In any case, I am very interested to hear about the research mentioned in John Tierney's NYT editorial, "What Women Want." Some researchers studied competition in men and women, and found a difference in choices they made:
the gender gap wasn't due mainly to women's insecurities about their abilities. It was due to different appetites for competition.
"The companies run by women are much more likely to survive," he said. "The typical guy who starts a company is a competitive, charismatic leader - he's always the firm's top salesman - but if he leaves he takes his loyal followers with him and the company goes downhill. Women C.E.O.'s know how to hire good salespeople and create a healthy culture within the company. Plus they don't spend 20 percent of their time in strip clubs."
For two decades, academics crusading for equality in the workplace have been puzzled by surveys showing that women are at least as satisfied with their jobs and their pay as men are. This is known as "the paradox of the contented female worker."Posted by Tom Nugent at May 24, 2005 09:18 AMBut maybe it's not such a paradox after all. Maybe women, like the ones who shunned the experimental tournament, know they could make more money in some jobs but also know they wouldn't enjoy competing for it as much as their male rivals. They realize, better than men, that in life there's a lot more at stake than money.
You know some men smarter than Elizabeth?
Posted by: Tom at May 24, 2005 12:41 PMDid you mean "women" instead of "men"?
In either case, it's hard to define "smart" exactly. So when you get near the top of the field, ranking one versus the other gets to be relatively arbitrary. I do know a few other women who are as smart as Elizabeth. I personally feel she's the top, but it would be difficult to prove to a third party.
Posted by: Tom Nugent at May 24, 2005 12:46 PMWithout wishing to weigh in on my own intellectual prowess, I did want to provide a link to the guest column that Tom wrote in the MIT student paper, and the response column. As I recall, the aspersions on my intelligence were in email, though.
Posted by: Elizabeth at May 24, 2005 02:06 PMI'm getting more and more interested in this issue. I heard Pres. Summers of Harvard speak and attended a NYU panel. I'm seriously typing impaired today... hope to write my thoughts later.
Re IQ, I also vote for Elizabeth! LOL, I think at a certain level it's hard for me to judge relative differences, esp. When comparing people from different contexts (a boss at HBO). It's also hard to measure, but two things I look for are: rapidity of integration of ideas/perceptions (that's what I lack; I am really good but slow!) and attention to widest contexts (ie not narrowly overlooking things). My Dad was Elizabeth's equal (I miss him), but it's rare to find others. I recently decided: my Dad was a charismatic genius; that applies to Elizabeth! There, now I've done some halo-polishing as a devoted bridesmaid and daughter!
p.s. ( & my Mom was a beautiful engineer)