I've been doing some reading on the research about gender differences in levels of corruption in positions of power. There appears to be some smattering of evidence from different research that suggests (as many of us, no doubt, would suspect) that women in positions of power tend to have less corruption.
Again: Women in positions of power tend to have less corruption in the gov't (or office) than when men are in positions of power.
Important note: The research, thus far, does NOT appear to be saying that Women are Less Corrupt than men, or that women are inherently purer/better than men (although, that certainly has been my experience... just saying'!)... it's just noting that when women are in positions of power, there tends to be less corruption.
Other research I've read suggests that testosterone has an effect on tendencies towards corruption and, since men have more testosterone than women, they tend to be more corrupt. But that's not a conclusive finding, just some data that's out there and a theory that's floating.
I'll cite some of the readings I've done below.
It COULD be that, because women have had the option of being in positions of power, that they have just not yet grown as corrupt as men tend to sometimes grow and that, given time, they will become more corrupt.
It COULD be that the women who try to gain positions of power are doing so specifically to promote our better ideals of human rights, freedom from oppression, etc (as opposed to running on themes of "shrinking gov't," or "reclaiming our way of life," or "tax relief for the wealthy, cuz... trickle down...," for instance).
We just don't yet know.
It sounds like the research is not conclusive. However, as the first article cited below notes, at worst, there appears to be NO negative effects that result from electing/hiring more women to positions of power in terms of corruption and, at best, there is an improvement.
Add that research and information to the reality that women and other minorities are way under-represented in positions of power and I say we have a compelling case to make 2019, 2020, 2021 and beyond some Years of Women (along with other Minorities!)
Get out and vote.
[Caveat: This does not need to be said for anyone with an adult level of reasoning or understanding, but OF COURSE, this does not mean vote for women, even if they have no great wisdom or appropriate expertise or moral character or honest, etc. Of course, no one would argue that, and only a simpleton would feel the need to bring that up, I'd hope... or perhaps, a charlatan.]
+++++++
"Importantly, the study does not find that women are “inherently less corrupt” than men, and found no correlation found between corruption and gender in other occupations. Some critics worry that as equality improves, women will get more corrupt as they become ingrained in the existing political structures and networks. However, the study found that there is a stronger negative correlation between corruption and women’s representation in parliament in countries with higher equality. Thus, the policy-making role is what enables women “to impact corruption,” not some inherent difference between the moral character of women and men.
Overall, the study shows that another benefit of promoting gender equality is reducing corruption in politics."
[The article also notes that the places with least corruption are also the places with most gender equity, so, go figure... Interesting reading, below... ~Dan]
“When people with high testosterone are given social power, they start to believe they are entitled to special treatment and that they can exploit others for their own purposes. This means they don’t think the rules, even the law, apply to them; they can play by their own rules...”
33 comments:
And let me be clear, if you want to comment here and say I don't like this data... it Hurts my feelings as a man... or words to that effect, I don't really care.
If you want to counter This research with other research, by all means please do so.
If you're merely noting that it hurts your feelings, all I will say is duly noted.
Never...EVER...have any of us on this side of the divide used any argument remotely related to "it hurts my feelings". Straw man much? Yes. Yes you do...VERY much!
Anything to say on the research?
Haven't had the time to peruse your links as yet...something I always do for yours, confident you rarely, if ever do for mine. Setting aside that fact, however, I do seek clarification: Are you insisting that critiquing YOUR favored studies is without value whatsoever, and that only studies bearing contrary conclusions can stand? If the latter is the case, will you then bring other studies unrelated to those above, or will you simply reject them on the basis of YOUR criticisms, thereby defaulting to another double-standard?
One needn't be an expert in a given field to see problems and flaws with the work of one put forth as an "expert". That's not to say that the crticism is valid, but rather that it might very well be. For example, conclusions drawn from a study comprised of only, say, a dozen test subjects who were simply responding to a survey with the knowledge of what their responses might provoke, as Loren Marks demonstrated was true of at least one study on outcomes of lesbian parenting, is obviously suspect. I'm not saying that's the case with any of your links, but it does highlight the very real possibility that your studies are also questionable for similarly obvious reasons that don't require a doctorate to perceive.
Well, maybe so, Marshall. It sorta depends. If a bunch of doctors gives a complex report about cancer data, scans and research that's above my head that results in a claim by the doctors that, based on their research, smoking cigarettes leads to increased cancer risks and I'm a guy (a smoker, say) who doesn't like the implications of their data because my family has smoked a lot and even raised tobacco and WE didn't get cancer so I complain, "That research is nonsense!" ...in that case, I'm not impressed by the guy's protest because, 1. It was not research based, it was emotional and defensive and anecdotal.
If, on the other hand, the guy was protesting because he had data that disagreed with the doctors' report, then that's something worth considering.
It all has to do with the nature of the non-expert's complaint. If you're just complaining about this research because you're a guy and you aren't prone to corruption (in your self-professed case) nor are any of your buds prone to corruption... well, that's STILL not much of a response to the data in the researched cases.
If you have NO rational, data-based reason to protest, then I'm not impressed with your protests, nor am I inclined to give a damn about what you say.
But yes, if the ONLY research done was based only on ONE group doing ONE study with only a dozen participants, then that is a legitimate concern to raise.
It all depends on the complaints/concerns raised.
But someone who expresses concerns about experts by using scare quotes around "experts," that is already a red flag about the complainer.
I use quotation marks to distinguish between the word in general versus your presumption of tge infallibility of those "experts" whose research and resulting conclusions confirm your biases regardless of the quality of the study from which the conclusions are drawn. That is, you use the word to immediately stifle objections or criticisms without regard to the merits of those objections and criticisms, as if there is no possible way one you regard as "experts in their fields" could ever possibly be wrong in a way that non-experts can readily see. Thus, you demonstrate why my concerns regarding your religious fanatic-like regard for your "experts" is more than a little justified. Indeed, the mere attack on my use of quotation marks around the word shows a total disregard for why I would use them in the first place, preferring instead to demean it as a "red flag". Makes dismissing diversity when it's inconvenient to do otherwise so much easier.
As to the rest of your response, again you're erecting a straw man, as neither Craig nor I have objected to anything in a manner in any way resembling your newest bad analogy. Conclusions drawn from research by anyone's "experts" may be sound or nit regardless of the quality of work put in to arrive at the conclusion. But if the work...its methodologies...is suspect, that makes the conclusion suspect as well. Imagine two researchers from completely unrelated fields. Do you imagine that one could not detect flaws in the methodology of the other despite not knowing squat about the field of study? That might be true in some cases, but not at all reasonable to assume in all.
Both the APA and the American Academy of Pediatrics are known for activism and rendering opinions with no solid scientific evidence to justify them. To reserve judgement about anything they say...particularly as it refers to specific issues where their activism has been exposed, constitutes something far more substantial reason for suspending acquiescence than merely "hurt feelings". It is logical and necessary. And this is reasonable as standard operating procedure for so much put forth these days, especially when concerning issues of social, cultural and/or moral significance.
Thus, the encouragement here is to refrain from your typical knee-jerk rejections of objections/criticisms based on who renders them. That's whiny and fearful feo-grade responding that attacks the messenger rather than honestly and courageously confronting the message. This seems a default practice of yours nowadays.
American Thinker is fake news.
Illegal immigrants are far less likely to commit a crime than native born Americans.
Marshall thinks these facts are my personal attacks on his character as a messenger.
That’s how one he has become with lies.
He says he is fine with experts at the same time that this man with no credentials, no scholarly background, no serious research into the APA or AAP are bogeymen.
You bore me with your anti-intellectualism, Marshall, and your hostile views towards expert opinions (where you have none) and your lack of expertise in handling data and your just sheer dumb-as-Trump false claims.
Go away. Come back if you have data to discuss. Otherwise, just go away.
I've spent a little time with your studies and agree that it's in interesting question, and worthy of study. I'll do some research and see what else is out there. I do have some concerns though.
The Represent Women study is being put forth by a group that exists to advocate and work for getting increasing numbers of women elected which maybe positions them as a group with something to gain by providing research to support their position. Similar to Drs who do studies for tobacco companies. I'm not suggesting that the research is wrong, or flawed. I'm suggesting that it would be irresponsible to ignore the fact that they potentially benefit from certain conclusions.
The Wilson center report links to a number of studies that show mixed results and that at least one of the studies they cite is about "perceived" corruption rather than actual corruption.
The PsyPost references a small sample size study which concluded that it's not testosterone per se that is a problem, but that "those with higher testosterone levels for their gender tended to become more narcissistic and corrupt when put in a position of power.". Indicating that bot men and women with higher than normal testosterone "tend to become more narcissistic and corrupt".
This is not in any way to automatically negate the thesis. I think it's an interesting concept and worthy of study for multiple reasons. But so far, it looks like you might have established some degree of correlation, but not causation.
This is more than likely the only response I'll make here.
So you've confirmed my suspicions about you. You regard the opinions of your "experts" as sacrosanct, beyond reproach and gospel simply because they're "experts in their fieldds".
"He says he is fine with experts at the same time that this man with no credentials, no scholarly background, no serious research into the APA or AAP are bogeymen."
More validation. Here, you attack because your vaunted experts are questioned...questioned due to their own behaviors that have been analyzed and found wanting by other experts with whom you disagree, because they don't fall in line.
There has been not one damned thing in my comments above that any honest person can regard as "hostile". On the contrary, the only person with a hostile attitude is you (and your pet monkey, feo). YOU are the fascist that demands one seek clarification, to ask when confused and such. Here, I've taken a great deal of time to carefully seek such clarification and you simply whine and attack. I've made no false claims here at all. Indeed, I've made no claims at all about any of your links as yet, as I've clearly and plainly stated that I've yet to peruse them. So where's your freakin' problem, girl?
You seem to think that only you (and your pet monkey, feo) have any reasonable insights into the issues we discuss in these blogs. Only you are the perfect arbiter of truth, reason, reality and whatever the hell else you need to pretend is true in order to avoid confronting objections and criticisms that expose your shortcomings. They MUST indicate shortcomings, or you wouldn't respond as one who's feelings are hurt by the mere suggestion of disagreement. And as you are so well versed in the handling of data, then why have you never produced that definitive data that supports the APA's position on things like homosexuality and gender? When will we get to see that?
Let us know when you're truly possessed of the courage to discuss any issue at all. It is clear you are spineless in that regard, as you have done now what I say you do always. Trying to engage in honest discourse with you two is like dealing with a couple of petulant little girls.
"So where's your freakin' problem, girl? You seem to think that only you (and your pet monkey, feo) have any reasonable insights into the issues..."
Marshall, you deny facts and when confronted again and again about it, you keep trying erase facts with wild, facetious escape.
You're not entitled to your own facts, Marshall. That's why you see your version of "insight" murdered every time by truths.
I did not have the insight that illegal immigrants commit crimes at a rate far lower than native born Americans. Educated, trained researchers did not have that insight either... until they carried out research.
Your crazed, hyperventilated anti-intellectualism, as Dan calls it, again shows how much you've made yourself one with lies.
Craig appears to be working with the still commonly accepted 19th century notion that one, anyone, can approach something with objectivity, and especially those engaged in neutral sciency questions ("being put forth by a group that exists to advocate and work for getting increasing numbers of women elected which maybe positions them as a group with something to gain by providing research to support their position").
It may sound pedantic but perhaps a reminder that engineers who wanted to get around a mountain, found a way to get around the mountain. Those that wanted to go over, found a way to go over. Those who preferred through... Physicists went looking for the Higgs-Boson particle. Wanting to find it has nothing to do with determining whether it is found.
We all interpret data from our personal array of circumstances: 21st century western white man, etc. Interpretation cannot be ignorant of that fact, nor does it need to repress it. Since Dilthey, the human sciences incorporate the a priori interpretive lens we all have into the process. It is a process that actually trained and educated researches have long been familiar with.
A primer, for Craig:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutic_circle
And, in fact, our situation in a priori prejudices to which we must be conscious and practice critical filtering, provides the very basis for arguing that diversity brings better rationality to any deliberative body and any consensus judgment.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-women-leaders-corruption-idUSBRE8B306O20121204
http://news.rice.edu/2013/09/12/are-women-less-corrupt-new-study-suggests-it-depends-on-cultural-expectations-2/
http://blog.transparency.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ACRN-News-Issue-2-Feb-2010.pdf
What seems to be clear is that corruption is a matter of risk tolerance and opportunity when it comes to whether or not women are a cause of less corruption.
As to risk aversion, men may indeed be more willing to take chances. But this also means they are less likely to waffle in the face of big decisions. So while it might appear that corruption has lessened by the presence of more women, when crunch time comes, the people would be at a disadvantage. Said another way, a woman who isn't afraid to take unethical challenges is more likely to be a leader when others presume they can take advantage.
But remove the risk. What then? The studies suggest there would be no difference if the women perceive they can take a bribe without being caught. It's pretty much the same for both sexes, with the difference being that men don't worry as easily about getting caught. If the fear of getting caught is a factor in why women won't take the chance of dealing in corruption, it's hardly something to celebrate or feel good about.
Then there's the suggestion that opportunities to profit from corrupt practices are fewer for women who have broken into the political arenas previously controlled by men alone. They may have won the seat, but they are not privy to the day-to-day dealings in which men have taken advantages of unsavory opportunities. They are in, but still outsiders.
In both cases, corrupt women in power is largely a matter of time. The more women in power, the sooner we'll see them engaging in the same bad behaviors as men. In the meantime...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/reboot-illinois/12-of-illinois-most-polit_b_7966326.html
As one wades through the following,
https://www.cmi.no/publications/5851-are-men-and-women-equally-corrupt
which says much the same things as all other studies, there is one thing that leaps out. While it claims there is little difference between men and women with regard to taking bribes, women are far less likely to reciprocate. That is, they'll take the bribe with no intention to return the favor. That seems to me to be far more dishonorable then merely taking the bribe and thus, more corrupt an attitude.
In any case, there seems to be a hope that more women in politics is the answer to the problem of corruption, but far little in the way of actual evidence that it is so. This is why I do not consider such superficial traits such as gender, but seek only to determine, to the best of my ability, which candidates possess the highest character as well as support the proper initiatives.
Of course, I'm not suggesting that perfect objective neutrality is possible. More suggesting that the possibility exists that groups who are advocating for a specific thing might possibly, on occasion, skew the data in their favor. It's completely reasonable to factor bias into evaluation.
I agree with Marshall that the crux is psychological experience. I cannot follow Marshall into the brutalizing tar pit that psychological experience is static and fixed, however. Psychological experience is dynamic. Group psychological experience very dynamic.
This is why women generally, non-straight people, and people of color pointedly are so much better at critical insight into straight white male power. Having been and still effectively the hegemonic holders of social power in our society, straight white men are in various degrees at risk of corruption. And where groups of straight white men hold absolute power, their use of power is corrupted absolutely. Women generally, non-straight people, and brown and black folks have a communal knowledge of this truth, being on the receiving end of power abuse.
This is why they have narratives of complaint and critique, that are setting about correcting abuses of straight white male power.
They don't lose that necessarily in the captain's chair. Sure, many have - as Marshall notes - because they were playing the straight white male game in an effort to get ahead. Those days are quickly dying. Thank you, social media. We see a massive upswell in young people and white people, thank God, for whom the revelation of the sickness of white supremacy occurs every day and is coalescing into a clear picture toward which resistance is aimed.
Ethics and morals are back in the public square, but by that I mean real ethics and morals for today, not Marshall and Craig's 3000 year old ethical systems.
So, the onboarding of more women generally, more people of color, more LGBTQ folks, all at the table sharpening each other's vision, planning, and operations will be to the tremendous good of all. Just like when Ilhan Omar overstepped just a bit with necessary truth, she thanked others for their direct address to her, she apologized for overstepping, but she did not abandon the truth she was speaking.
Perfect outcome.
Craig, you and I agree it's an interesting question and interesting research, it appears. That's all I'm saying. That, and that it sounds plausible to me.
So, some agreement in at least that much.
Craig, it's not reasonable to factor bias into evaluation because they are women researching and articulating principles that help women. That IS bias.
We all have bias. You've just shown yours. The question to ask is did any possible bias enter into the methodology, the execution, or the findings in such a way as to merely mitigate the research or corrupt it? And that's a question for the community capable of critique. The community - of whatever domain - is responsible for a critical reception.
Your bias blew your methodology from the beginning.
Yes Dan, it’s interesting. It will also be interesting to see how respond if the studies start to point in a direction you’re less inclined toward. Seems like the inconsistencies I’ve pointed out don’t bother you particularly.
You mean like the inconsistency of your ascribing to Dan the agency of establishing degrees of correlation/causation? Rather than rightly seeing Dan as reporting something quite interesting?
That bothers me.
And how it so reveals your a priori bias to always paint Dan with a bad brush?
Yep. That always bothers me. Goes to your character here.
Appears correlative to someone who is always working on the subconscious lie in order to exert resentful power rather than reason in dialogue.
Craig just did what most women wont do.
Are you suggesting, Dan, that I do not share your and Craig's fascination with these studies? I hope not, because I do. I simply don't think they're justification for your push for "equal representation", so I hope that's not where you're going. What I would say is that if these studies do not prove that women are generally of higher character than men, they're nothing more but thought exercises and have no applicable value beyond that. There's a big difference between one who is incorruptible versus one who is too afraid to take the risk. The latter isn't better than the man who is corrupt. She is just as corrupt in her heart, but lacks the courage to act. Would we truly be better off, and if so, isn't this just a "lesser of two evils" situation?
It’s an old truth. Power corrupts. Absolute power absolutely. Straight white men (and by adoption all straight men to almost the same degree) get away with so much shit, lazy morals are the result of taking for granted one’s membership in the exceptional.
Those who experience quick and unmerited blame and judgment in the workplace - black and brown people, women generally - tend to work twice as hard to get just as far and they mind their Ps and Qs. The exit door is far nearer to them.
Analogous to the reason illegal immigrants as a group are more law abiding than native born Americans.
Wow. Marshall gives us brief misogyny here but goes full bore on Craig’s blog. And, with a casual wave of his hand, throws in justification for corrupt male behavior. A move of self defense.
Will Craig collude by silence?
Gentlemen, let's steer this back on topic. Does ANYONE (besides Craig) have anything to say on the topic of the question raised by the research: Are men less-well-suited for public office, temperamentally?
I demonstrated how Marshall and Craig are examples of the post.
"Are men less-well-suited for public office, temperamentally?"
No. More specifically, not that any of your links have proven. They are at best, highly speculative. The real issue would be one of character, morals and virtue of any given candidate/politician regardless of sex or race.
By the way, the liar has no evidence that I've provided justification for corrupt behavior of anyone. Allowing such behavior by him belies your posturing as one who cares about liars.
The misogynists, like the racists, remain so because they can’t hear what they are saying. Marshall lives in his inner confusing fog of both, and so cannot hear the bizarre, twisted justification for corrupt male behavior in:
“As to risk aversion, men may indeed be more willing to take chances. But this also means they are less likely to waffle in the face of big decisions. So while it might appear that corruption has lessened by the presence of more women, when crunch time comes, the people would be at a disadvantage....
There's a big difference between one who is incorruptible versus one who is too afraid to take the risk. The latter isn't better than the man who is corrupt. She is just as corrupt in her heart, but lacks the courage to act....
One of the most glaring flaws in the entire concept is the alleged biological cause behind the "problem" of men in power. It is that very issue that unfortunately makes men the better choice, given all other things being equal....
Said another way, they [wimen] are no less likely simply because they are women. They will simply avail themselves of whatever they can get under differing conditions. It almost makes them the worse choice right there. If a woman is convinced she can't be caught, she'll do business. Men, it would seem, assume they won't get caught.”
Something is seriously wrong if Dan thinks I’m the example of being on topic.
I think it is pertinent to your post, Dan, that we have before us behavior that appears to speak to the correlation between, at least, male behavior if not male bio-chemistry and corruption. Corruption, of course, tends greatly not to be just discrete acts but tendencies of behavior correlating with character of personality.
The first behavior before us that may reveal character is Craig's confusion of you with the researchers themselves: "it looks like you might have established some degree of correlation, but not causation." Now this may be intentional or not, but the bizarre confusion infers a corrupt motivation to win the argument by smear rather than reason, again, whether he's fully conscious of only subconscious of what he is doing.
The second, of course, is Marshall, who is clearly laying down rigid misogynist viewpoints that rely on a static, rigid belief in an absolute separation of gender psychology. He argues that men are constitutionally risk takers and women are not. He further argues, without justification, that risk taking behaviors brings, what?, courage in the face of pressure? To argue this he has to platform it on assumptions that all men are better under pressure than all women. He will deny this, of course, but then he will venture onto the ice field that he is so afraid of: gender expression is contingent and fluid.
These two rhetorical acts of moral corruption by Craig and Marshall may very well be the markers of what the researchers are investigating: why is corrupting behaviors predominantly enacted by men?
Can we see most women doing what Craig and Marshall do? Certainly not what Marshall does. Is the corrupt sleight of hand by Craig something that most women do in the middle of debate? I don't think so. But investigating it can bring us important information.
And then, in further possible correlation to your post, this occurred:
A viral video of New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez using a "Corruption Game" to highlight the need for campaign finance reform during a House Oversight Committee hearing last Wednesday has become the most viewed video of any politician in Twitter history, according to a video analytics firm.
Of course, Representative Ocasio-Cortez (proud to say, from my hometown), has already been vilified by Craig and Marshall on their own blogs. They have vilified the most visible political fighting corruption at the present time: fighting corruption that one would think true Christians would support, simply on a moral basis.
Post a Comment