As I try my hardest to stay focused on something this week that really has to be finalised I am also looking for ways to kick-start my ambition. A good few years ago I had bags of it, left home early(ish), trod the golden pavements of a big city, worked in a crazy Japanese securities house in the City, went on to study an economics degree and further, got a job, travelled and lectured, wrote a book, got another job, travelled more, advised some government departments and generally had a good time whilst doing it all (interviewing the Hungarian environment minister whilst sobering up from the night before wasn't my best move though!).
These days I find it harder to motivate myself to walk out the door let alone go and do anything like I used to. God knows why, but it's just the way it has been for a while.
But it has to change.
And so.. onto a little story about genetics, economics and games..
Recently experimental economists Lise Vesterlund (University of Pittsburgh) and Muriel Niederle (Stanford) conducted a study in which they assembled 40 men and 40 women, gave them five minutes to add up as many two-digit numbers as they could, and paid them 50 cents for each correct answer. The subjects were not competing against one another but simply playing against the house.
Then the game was changed to a tournament in which the subjects were divided into teams of two men or two women each. Winning teams got 2 dollars for every right answer, nothing for getting it wrong. Men and women performed equally in both tests. In a third round, the participants were asked which of the two ways they wanted to play, tournament or simply against the house for the most money they could. Only 35% of the women opted for the tournament format against 75% of the men.
So what was the conclusion? "Men and women just differ in their appetite for competition," says Vesterlund. "There seems to be a dislike for it among women and a preference among men."
Even though this research is the latest by Niederle since she began looking at gender issues and testing them in 2003 I'm not too sure this is true. Or maybe I've just met some strange women?
I'll post some more on game theory later as it is useful in where a lot of economics is going at the moment - behavioural theory and biology to test out economic results. Why wasn't this blend in vogue when I was studying economics? grr...
Here's a link to Muriel's web page - click
