>>10152240cont.
So for example, in business women experience discrimination, but it may be unintended.
When a person is going for a new job, or is looking to get funding for a project or business and the investor knows nothing about you, it's often advisable to highball yourself to the investors - there is more of a chance of success.
The problem is, the type of questions men get asked are different than the types of questions women typically get asked. Men naturally get asked high-ball questions whereas women get asked low-ball questions.
Low-ball questions are questions which ask how will you be able to break even, or do minimal effort to succeed. High-ball questions are questions which assume you've already made your benchmarks, how are you going to compete with the rest of the industry to be the best?
In every case, answering these questions, regardless if male or female, in a high-ball fashion leads to a statistically significant better chance of success (even moreso if you introduce uncertainty into your argument).
However, if people answer these types of questions directly, then women would be answering in a low-ball fashion (uncommonly high-ball) and men will answer in a high-ball fashion (uncommonly low-ball).
So how do we solve this potential problem of descrimination? Do we need overarching legislation? No.
We just need to inform women to be more competitive in a business setting. Don't look to just make benchmarks, look to win and be the best in the industry. Or make companies aware that the way they frame their questions makes a difference to how people respond.
