Men: when to stand up, when to pipe down

Based on what I have learned so far by listening to women.

If you work in science or technology and spend any time listening to the honest views of women around you, you will find that many report experiences of sexism and an environment that is hostile to them. Listen to them.

Men sometimes undervalue women’s views, ideas and experiences, talk over them and shut them out of discussion, even in discussions about sex, gender and discrimination where they clearly have vital, distinct experiences and knowledge. Don’t drown out their voices. 

When you see that other men are not listening to women’s experiences, are drowning out their contributions, dismissing their concerns or derailing discussions they have initiated, what should you do? You will need tact and judgement to determine whether your support is truly helpful – for example, if you get drawn into a predominantly male argument it is surprisingly be easy to become part of the problem, rather than the solution.

Women’s ideas are sometimes dismissed, ignored or doubted until expressed by a man. If you want to amplify, echo or support a woman’s view, it can be helpful to make it explicit. “I would like to amplify what Dr X has said”, “I agree with Dr X”. This avoids any impression that you are taking credit for her idea, and it helps remind other men to listen to women.*

When you see overt sexism or misogyny, yes, you should speak up. Confront it.

This is going to take some judgement, sometimes we need to stand up, often we need to pipe down. In both cases it will feel uncomfortable, in my view, that male discomfort is the feeling you get when a sexist culture is changing for the better.

Note: I have focused on women and sexism, but if you look around you will find other groups are under-represented and marginalized in your workplace. Try the same techniques: listen to the people affected, then try to advocate for change that will improve matters.

*In this spirit I should acknowledge the people whose ideas I have incorporated in the above advice who most recently and directly include @zerdeve (especially this thread), @o_guest (twitter) and @noodlemaz (blog and twitter) although many others have expressed similar views. Misunderstandings or mistakes are my own. The tip about explicitly acknowledging women whose views you agree with and want to amplify was arrived at by trial and (especially) error – one error pointed out gracefully (but forcefully) by Prof Ursula Martin was helpful. Of course, I like other-well intentioned men, will make mistakes in the way we respond to women’s concerns about sexism.

Rhythm and Memory for Speech

This post was co-written with my fellow authors Mark Hurlstone and Graham Hitch.

Today we published an important paper in Cognitive Psychology. The paper is significant because it explains a link between rhythm and memory in terms of a common mechanism that connects speech processing, verbal learning and language development to rhythmic oscillations in brain activity.

Continue reading “Rhythm and Memory for Speech”

First Impressions Count, But How?

Today we published a paper in PNAS about how people form first impressions based on everyday images of faces, of the kind you find on the internet.

The four authors (L-R), Richard Vernon, Clare Sutherland, Andy Young and Tom Hartley - we also co-wrote this blog post. Underneath are reconstructions of photos of our faces which can be loosely thought of illustrating the way such images are “seen” by our model. They are actually reconstructions based on the 65 numbers we used to describe each face, using a model trained on a large number of such images (but not these ones). Note the subtle differences in shape between the photos and the reconstructed image - the model does not (yet) capture some of the information.
The four authors (L-R), Richard Vernon, Clare Sutherland, Andy Young and Tom Hartley – we also co-wrote this blog post. Underneath are reconstructions of photos of our faces which can be loosely thought of illustrating the way such images are “seen” by our model. They are actually reconstructions based on the 65 numbers we used to describe each face, using a model trained on a large number of such images (but not these ones). Note the subtle differences in shape between the photos and the reconstructed image – the features we use do not (yet) capture some of the information in the images, but sufficient for the model to make accurate predictions about social impressions.

By first impressions we mean the way we rapidly form judgements about others’ social characteristics. Although we can make an astonishing range of social inferences based on appearance (trustworthiness, intelligence, dominance, extraversion etc.) these different traits tend to go together in predictable ways, so that they fall along two or three more or less independent underlying dimensions:

  • approachability (do they want to help me or to harm me?)
  • dominance (are they capable of carrying out these intentions?)
  • youthful-attractiveness (perhaps representing whether they’d be a good romantic partner – or a rival!)

These judgements are formed very quickly (in as little as a tenth of a second) and can influence our subsequent behaviour. The impressions we create through images of our faces (“avatars”/“selfies”) are increasingly important in a world where, more and more, we get to know one another online rather than in the flesh. So how can we go from an image of a face to a judgement about someone’s character?

Continue reading “First Impressions Count, But How?”

Dr Who or Professor Who? On Academic Email Etiquette

This post was provoked by a discussion with a UK-based professor (let’s call her Rebecca Smith, not her real name) who mentioned on twitter that she had received an inquiry about a PhD application by email from someone addressing her as “Hey Rebecca!” Was this a faux-pas on the applicant’s part?

Continue reading “Dr Who or Professor Who? On Academic Email Etiquette”