Hacker News Reader

> Successful people negotiate everything

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I also think you're kind-of side stepping the issue that the paper sought to quantify.

Yes its not just a problem for women, but there's a lot more pressure on women to avoid confrontational negotiation[1] because they'll be branded much more negatively (ie "Bitchiness" or some other term), and if they are, then they risk being taken less seriously.

Men don't have the same problem, as culturally strong/pushy personalities (that might fare better in negotiation or negotiate more) are seen as less of a cultural negative. It's something explicitly expected of one gender and seen as more repulsive in the other, and that becomes a big deal for things like salary negotiation.

[1] See Women Don't Ask: The High Cost of Avoiding Negotiation - http://www.amazon.com/dp/0553383876/

> See Women Don't Ask: The High Cost of Avoiding Negotiation - http://www.amazon.com/dp/0553383876/

For what it's worth, there's what looks to be a strong rebuttal of most of the things this book says here:

http://fdiv.net/2012/01/20/pseudo-science-and-pseudo-feminis...

(I'd tend to think that your point stands anyway as being obviously true, but after reading the rebuttal again along with the link to this article I'm not sure anymore.)

I'm surprised you found that rebuttal strong, I found it exceedingly weak. She complains that the original author used a few of her own unreviewed studies, fair criticism, but doesn't present any evidence that it was wrong. She complains that the original author painted the research as one-sided that men negotiate better, then reviews the research and show that it is in fact pretty one-sided. Then, having done nothing to really dispute the accuracy of the research evidence being presented, she goes into an unsubstantiated rant about privilege and minorities, which is largely unrelated to the book. It's true maybe the original book failed to address some of these issues, but it doesn't make the book wrong as much as incomplete. As she completely fails to hide her overarching political bias going into the rebuttal, her rebuttal made no striking critique on the book's research nor presents much conflicting research, and half the rebuttal was spent rehashing third wave feminism talking points rather than making scientific arguments, only to summarize by saying that book was shoddy science and sexist, I would not consider this a strong rebuttal at all.

I think it's strong in one respect: it alleges somewhat convincingly that the book is based on appallingly scant evidence. On unpublished paper by the author, two maybe-reviewed papers also by the author, and one anecdote (whence the title). And the rebuttal does provide evidence that the author's studies, if not wrong, are probably not applicable to the question. And notes that WDA even ignores half of what her own papers showed. If true, this is pretty damning, in that it reduces the entire book to "I think this is what is going on. Here's a totally-vague plan of action that focuses on this one dimension." If true, we shouldn't be citing the book in conversations about what reality looks like. All in all, I think the part of the rebuttal that said 'the science in the book was shoddy' was relatively strong.

This perhaps-useful rebuttal is, I agree, buried in a largely-unrelated rant about what the rebuttal-author wishes every discussion of feminism (or privilege in general) was about. As you say, third-wave feminism talking points. Whether they're interesting or not, they're not what the book is about. Sorry, jstrecker, you don't get to dictate the content of all conversation.

(To give the ranter eir due, I think ranting about privilege -- the subject of the rant -- is largely correct, and deserves more of us thinking about it more often. I'm not sure the tactics of the crazy-street-preacher are the most effective ones, though.)

Maybe I just have limited experience, but this doesn't make sense to me:

1) Woman asks for higher salary; 2) she must be a bitch. 3) Therefore, she is taken less seriously.

What does that even mean?

In software, there are a lot of people who don't know how to negotiate-- at all.

Excellent points.

Many "computer people" are really good at what they do because they leveraged their introversion into uncommonly high levels of programming skill. In such an environment, the interpreter is "fair", the compiler is "fair" (although often uncompromising and unforgiving).

Once you get the "right" answer, it stays right and doesn't change unless external circumstances change (e.g. new compiler, new hardware, something breaks).

On the other hand, the human world is not always "fair", and it's often possible to push back against a judgment, using only high confidence and a loose but passionate argument.

Belief that the human world operates with the same exact logic and precision as the computer world is a source of many misunderstandings.

I don't know about that. What I've learned is that compilers and interpreters are often ridden with defects, and you have to negotiate hard with suppliers to get them fixed.

In software, there are a lot of people who don't know how to negotiate-- at all. I've seen that. But I've also seen some very very hard negotiators in software as well. So, I don't agree with your generalisation. It's something else, but it is late and I am already depressed after reading some of the excellent comments. I am going to get some sleep and do the soul-searching bit on this with a fresh mind tomorrow.

This topic has been food for thought!

Oh yeah, no question that the opposite is also true - the big-ego computer geek who will argue over every last little $100 in annual salary and benefits because he believes that he's God's gift to programming.

(And everything in between - my post was a generalization of one side...)

> he believes that he's God's gift to programming.

Had to lol at that one!

"Everyone sucks at negotiating, though men are slightly more likely to try" is supported by the study. See page 10. When salaries weren't explicitly listed as negotiable, only 10.6% of men and 8.2% of women even tried to negotiate. Even when they were explicitly negotiable, only about 22% of men and 23.9% of women tried.

This is definitely cultural, by the way. Where I grew up in India, everyone negotiates for everything, even very cheap trinkets.

>> This is definitely cultural, by the way.

Actually, I also thought about this one. I was actually thinking of the market scene from "Life of Brian": "What? You don't want to haggle on price?"!

But I did not pursue this thought as this is less of culture and more of context. In cheap trinkets or some other shop, the one thing on the back of your mind is that you can always walk away from it and there is no harm done. Moreover, in this case it is a buyer's market, as in, you simply try your luck with another shop/keeper if it didn't work out with a previous shop. And in the end, humans are loss averse, so there is still a lot of satisfaction if you came away without spending a single penny/rupee/roubles/etc.

OTOH, a job negotiation is anything but that. More often than not, a job market can be a seller's market (depends on your situation as well). You have invested a lot of time and effort in a particular interview (remember humans being loss averse? Now the tables are stacked against you), and if the negotiation scenario is lined against you (no other competing offers at the same time, the company is doing work that you would love to get into and the company knows that for sure, etc.) then it is not as clear cut as a trinket price negotiation.

I was confused by your comment

> I don't think it's just a problem for women.

Since the paper provided clear evidence that this problem is worse for women. But then I kept reading and learned that you believe

> The percentage of people who are decent negotiators is small and, empirically, most of them seem to be men.

So that clarified to me that actually you a) believe women are inferior and b) that you did not read even the article's abstract which clearly stated that

> We observe interesting data patterns. For example, we find that when there is no explicit statement that wages are negotiable, men are more likely to negotiate than women. However, when we explicitly mention the possibility that wages are negotiable, this difference disappears, and even tends to reverse.

Implying that women's failure to negotiate arises from being socialized not to raise a fuss about wages rather than a difference in intrinsic ability.

All in all pretty standard for a top comment about gender issues on HN.

Sorry, I was talking about "fear of negotiating" topic. I don't claim to know why there are gendered pay disparities, and there's certainly some injustice going on. Lack of desire to negotiate can't explain all of it.

I certainly don't believe that "women are inferior". I was talking about negotiation skill. It can be learned, and there are plenty of women who are excellent at it.

I actually want to apologize. I misread your comment as contradicting the article: Saying basically that there is no gender disparity, or if there is it's women's intrinsic shortcomings, so I apologize about that.

I still think it sort of reads that way but it's obviously not what you meant and I clearly see now how you meant it to be read.

> So that clarified to me that actually you a) believe women are inferior

It does not do that for me. The existence of a gender role or a population bias in current society says nothing about men or women being superior or inferior. It most likely says something about society.

The percentage of people who are serial killers is small, and empirically, most of them are men.

Your comment wasn't the least bit fair to michaelochurch

>So that clarified to me that actually you a) believe women are inferior

There is absolutely no way your quoted portion could honestly be read in a way that suggests that. "Empirically, most of them seem to be men" explicitly disavows any attempt at explaining the difference.

This is the problem I see with a lot on threads on the topic of social justice here and places like reddit. Some have a pervasive need to read everything in the worst possible light, even going to the point of inventing enemies to support a narrative of widespread persecution.

>All in all pretty standard for a top comment about gender issues on HN.

I'm not sure what you expect from a forum such as this. There simply isn't much to add in terms of the socialization aspect of this article that hasn't already been hashed out in other threads about gender issues. This study doesn't really add any new information that would warrant another discussion on the issue. Discussing how everyone is affected by lack of assertiveness in general, and specifically in salary negotiations will likely have much more utility, thus comments along that line get voted up. There is nothing to be read into this.

That entire comment read like an internal monologue that I frequently have with myself. :-(. I couldn't have worded it any better or differently. And, no I don't think you sidestepped anything or claimed that A is inferior to B or some such thing either.

But in the real world, for promotions and favors and work autonomy and VC funding, pass rates are << 50% and if you don't have it in you to negotiate for a better outcome, you're screwed.

I already had a bad day and shouldn't have read that line in the end. I am going to go and crawl into a foetal position until daybreak! :-(

I already had a bad day and shouldn't have read that line in the end. I am going to go and crawl into a foetal position until daybreak!

Don't be depressed about it. Three words: parallel vs. serial. Build redundancy in your system. That's what "networking" is really about. Redundancy and parallel support.

In a typical corporation, unless you're savvy enough to devote serious effort toward internal networking, you have serial dependency: you need to get along with your boss, who needs to get along with his, and so on... up to the company itself performing well in the market. It's a chain of dependencies up to the top. If one link breaks, it disrupts your career. Parallelism is what you need to aim for.

If you have 20 1-in-5 chances, then your odds are overwhelmingly good of getting at least one hit: 98.9%. What you have to do is string together a set of these low-probability, high-impact opportunities... and be resilient against the inevitable rejections. As much as I loathe the "Game" worldview, don't get "one-itis".

Hi Michael, Thanks for reaching out. I know I shouldn't be depressed but it is extremely frustrating thinking about the situation, but not being able to do anything about it -- something like being able to hum Mozart or Beethoven or Wagner in your mouth clearly enough but totally sucking at it while playing it on an instrument!

I think I got what you are pointing out, but then again, maybe I didn't. Firstly, the serial dependency bit clicked instantly (Well, it's easy because you can see that's all you've been doing all along!).

But the parallelism bit flew past my head. Are you recommending that :

1. be savvy enough to devote serious effort toward internal networking?

2. Try to work on multiple teams/areas/domains?

3. Keep your contacts in outside organisations well primed and ready to help?

Or was it something more obvious that ended up getting missed? Some more details would be helpful.

Thank you.

I'm recommending all three. In most companies, your boss and possibly your team will pressure you to devote 100% of your available energy to the project that you've been assigned to, and let all of your long-term or external interests slide "for now". Don't. It's a classic newbie mistake.

You need to figure out what efforts are actually important and will keep you in good standing, but also sneak away time for your own career goals. This will (a) ensure progress that's independent of local political winds and (b) give you a head start if things go to hell (which they can easily do, because even if you have a good boss, there might be a problem with his boss-- or boss^2, or boss^3) and you end up looking for another job.

Time Zone latencies. I hope you are continuing to read the thread. :-]

>> Don't. It's a classic newbie mistake.

Not helping my cause here, but I am a 10+ year industry "veteran" with those problems :O

But sometimes it is easier said than done -- at least that's how things seem to load on my plate. Do you remember the old chestnut on rocks, stones, pebbles and sand [Well, here it is: http://justinlim.wordpress.com/2006/11/28/of-rocks-pebbles-a...]. Somehow it seems like I am always given sand, filled to the brim in my bottle, right from the start! :-/

P.S: there's also a "beer" joke version of it that is probably more popular: http://www.avolites.org.uk/jokes/rock.htm

Anyway, I thought I grasped it correctly, and you have confirmed it.

>> there might be a problem with his boss-- or boss^2, or boss^3) and you end up looking for another job and you end up looking for another job.

And that's how the credits seem to roll as well :-[