An Interesting Paradox

"A recent study points out a so-called “gender-equality paradox”: there are more women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine) in countries with lower gender equality. Why do women make up 40 percent of engineering majors in Jordan, but only 34 percent in Sweden and 19 percent in the U.S.? The researchers suggest that women are just less interested in STEM, and when liberal Western countries let them choose freely, they freely choose different fields".

The study further says that women in Western countries are not freely expressing their lack of “interest” in STEM. In fact, the best predictor of college women’s choice of major is the amount of gender discrimination they perceive in that major, not how “math”-y or “science”-y it is. Cultural attitudes and discrimination are shaping women’s interests in a way that is anything but free, even in otherwise free countries.

In effect there is more gender discrimination in countries with better gender equality. Hence we have a “Gender-equality paradox” 

Alternatives for Human Societies?

In theory, human society cannot be a peaceful one.

The reason for which resides in our society itself. It is a serious issue, primarily I think, it is dependent on the constitution of human society. Not much could I see written or discussed, in the vast collection of books or other articles I went through.

Life is like a keleidoscope, in which events appear in no particular order. Those among us who have their priorities set, perhaps by a strong bond with something else, tend to be capable of making sense out of such images. Where, the bond could be with another one, or a few others, or something else real or imaginary.

This is nothing special. One tends to overlook a few images, and having forgotten about what one did, registers a feeling that the images follow a pattern, one fully in tune with one’s priorities.

If so, can there be something like independent thinking? Is such a thing possible?

Well, if there is such a thing, it should have to be a style of thinking, where one is thinking effectively against one’s priorities itself. Because, as we saw above, one happens to form priorities by becoming effectively blind to certain images. If one has to have such images made visible, one needs to become effectively blind to one’s priority, that is, suppress all that one believes in, at for that specific duration.

How is this possible, if at all?

Another thought comes to me. All beings negotiate, whether in the distribution of spoils, or in claiming ownership of possessions, and certain kind of understanding exist between members of any species. Wherever negotiation fail, it immediately comes to our notice by its severely militant ambiance.

We humans being altruistic animals, our transactions in the philosophical sphere should be the prominent one. As I have shown above, one’s transactions being always under the influence of one’s priority, reaching a settlement satisfactory to both the sides is an impossibility. But we continue to hold ourselves as capable of free, independent choices, forcing all those who take part in such transaction to feel like participants of an unrequited exchange. Which gives rise to certain pent up feelings, feelings that are waiting for a suitable spark to ignite.

No wonder, human societies everywhere are in a state of boil. Naturally, with it churns the local non-uniformities present in the society. Eruptions of which continue to occur, each and every society showing its true signature, and color. A myriad of curious people of each society continue to get enamored by the neighbor’s signature, and, being used to one’s own, one may not find anything abnormal with one's own society. That shows the neighbor’s as a society on boil, prompting one to ignore the wailing of one’s own.

Shouldn’t we question, why should we continue with the present nature of our society. Why shouldn’t we think of alternatives? Especially when it is clear that many, rather all the failure stories of humans pertain to natural calamities or instances of intolerance. It should also be clear as daylight, in any such disaster, the loss would have been much less and easily containable, had not the victims been living as a settlement, well connected to each other and with close interactions.

Time to think

Book Review: The 80/20 Principle

The 80/20 Principle by Richard Koch

The 80/20 Principle tells us that in any population, some things are likely to be much more important than others. Or, the universe is predictably unbalanced. Few things really matter, and  some other few, never.  

The book then introduces the 80/20 principle as a stipulation that a minority of causes, inputs or effort usually lead to a majority of the results, outputs or rewards. It then goen on to its invention by Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, and goes on to examine the resons behind the 80/20 principle. Next chapter discuss how the 80/20 Principle works in practice and what it can do. How it can meet the needs of both fuzzy thinking and accurate analysis.  

The next many parts of the book is about corporate success, where successful application of this principle in areas like statistical quality control is discussed. Also, the role of such principles in information processing related fields, inventory control, and other facets of an industry. The book then examine the role of time, while discussing certain snappy issues, like: a) 80 per cent of achievement is attained in 20 per cent of the time taken; conversely, 80 per cent of time spent leads to only 20 per cent of output value. and b)80 per cent of happiness is experienced in 20 per cent of life; and 80 per cent of time contributes only 20 per cent of happiness. It then introduce a quite different and, to those suffering from the conventional view, startlingly liberating, idea of time. "The 80/20 Principle says that we should act less. Action drives out thought. It is because we have so much time that we squander it. The most productive time on a project is usually the last 20 per cent, simply because the work has to be completed before a deadline. Productivity on most projects could be doubled simply by halving the amount of time for their 

completion. This is not evidence that time is in short supply." And to bring the benefits of these principles into our life, there is no need to wait for everyone else, the book says. "You can identify the mass of irrelevant and low-value activity and begin to shed this worthless skin. You can isolate the parts of your character, workstyle, lifestyle and relationships that, measured against the time or energy involved, give you value many times greater than the daily grind; and, having isolated them, you can, with no little courage and determination, multiply them. You can become a better, more useful and happier human being. And you can help others to do the same." 

This book has discussed a modern management tool in a rather wide ambit. Though I could not find any explicit mention of the practical aspects of implementing it, it gives me new ideas, about how to assess or control, efficiency at workplace.