Bjuggren, Carl Magnus & Elert, Niklas, 2019. "Gender Differences in Optimism," Working Paper Series 1275, Research Institute of Industrial Economics. https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/iuiwop/1275.html
Abstract: This paper examines gender differences in optimism about the economy. We measure optimism using Swedish survey data in which respondents stated their beliefs about the country’s future economic situation. We argue that this measure of optimism is preferable to common measurements in the literature since it avoids confounding individuals’ economic situation with their perception of the future and it can be compared to economic indicators. In line with previous research, we find that men are more optimistic than women; however, men are also more prone to be wrong in their beliefs about the future economic situation. Furthermore, in sharp economic downturns, the gender differences in optimism disappear. This convergence in beliefs can be explained by the amount of available information on the economy.
Sex
researchers often feel sympathy for marginalized groups, especially
when the groups have been marginalized due to irrational intolerance of
sexuality. I have sympathized with various marginalized groups
throughout my career, starting with homosexual people (back when they
were marginalized), then transsexuals, and recently pedophiles, among
others.1
Members
of sexually marginalized groups are human. This means that they will
sometimes be tempted to make unreasonable demands on scientists and
accusations against scientists who resist those demands. I have
occasionally angered members of sexually marginalized groups. For
example, during the 1990s some gay men disliked the idea that there is
an association between homosexuality and gender nonconformity. I have
devoted considerable effort to studying this association, which I now
consider beyond reasonable doubt. I have written about
autogynephilia—also beyond reasonable doubt and a common reason why
Western natal males become transsexual (Lawrence, 2012)—despite
the livid reactions of some transsexuals. I have angered bisexual men
by publishing research suggesting that some do not have bisexual arousal
patterns (Rieger, Chivers, & Bailey, 2005), while conceding bisexual identity and behavior clearly exist.
I
have offended sexually marginalized group by prioritizing the goals of
sex research—putting forward plausible hypotheses, collecting and
publishing data, drawing conclusions from data rather than my
preferences, and making clear and correct arguments to the best of my
abilities—over advocating for anyone, including marginalized groups. I
have done so even when some groups insisted that my sex research harmed
them. If I had prioritized advocacy, I likely would have refrained from
conducting, or at least publishing, the offending research. That would
have harmed sex research and would not have benefited the offended
groups in any defensible way.
Thinking
about groups can mislead one into ignoring important variation within
groups. Many gay men embrace gender nonconformity—witness the success
(twice) of the U.S. television show “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”
And some—we do not know what proportion—of males who fantasize about
being female not only admit their autogynephilia, they embrace it and
express relief that they are not alone (Lawrence, 2012; Saotome-Westlake, 2016).
Supporting transgender persons who oppose autogynephilia theory is
failing to support (or more accurately silencing) those who support the
theory. What to do? An advocate would go with the majority, I suppose,
although it would be difficult to get an accurate survey count. A
scientific sex researcher would open discussion, weigh in with knowledge
and data, and feel no compunction. To the extent that some members of a
marginalized group require that plausible or even factual ideas not be
discussed, they need therapy more than advocacy.
---