The real reason female entrepreneurs get less funding | Dana Kanze
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- Women own 39 percent of all businesses in the US, but female entrepreneurs get only two percent of venture funding. What's causing this gap? Dana Kanze shares research suggesting that it might be the types of questions start-up founders get asked when they're invited to pitch. Whether you're starting a new business or just having a conversation, learn how to spot the kinds of questions you're being asked -- and how to respond more effectively.
Check out more TED Talks: www.ted.com
The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.
Follow TED on Twitter: / tedtalks
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / ted
The most interesting detail about this is that female investors also display the same gender bias for entrepreneurs, I wasn't expecting that.
I was. The bias exists because we view people a certain way based on gender stereotypes, no matter our gender. If you try, I'm sure you can think of how you might stereotype a guy, although you're the same gender.
This is more evidence of an underlying problem... men and women live in the same world, they see the same things, form opinions based on the same data, so all being equal, of course they are going to behave in the same way... if gender preferences for non-gendered roles (ie, someone to start a business with as opposed to someone to start a family with) were different for men and women, then prejudice would be correct, as you should expect different results when different things act differently. You see this with other power dynamics, for example, when there has been white supremacy, the legitimacy of white supremacy was based on white superiority... it wasn't just white people who thought they were better, everyone did, otherwise, how were white people at the top, why had they progressed so much further? There wasn't competition, there was agreement, which is why it's such a hard problem to overcome. White superiority has since been debunked, thus white supremacy no longer has legitimacy... light skinned people developed fastest simply because of the width of the one wide continent (the Eurasian landmass) that has the most amount of people working on problem solving for the same weather conditions, able to share technological improvements faster than they are forgotten. Africa and the Americas are narrow, tall continents, which much higher variability... you can't grow the same crops in the middle of Africa than you can in the South, each group of people are alone in needing to overcome their unique problems, it's pure chance that the wide continent is so far north that its people be lighter skinned. Differences is outcome reflect a difference in circumstance, not a difference in capacity, all being equal, people would behave the same way, we aren't our group of people, white/black, male/female, we are people simply playing different hands of the same game.
I actually WAS expecting that. I consistently see that biases extend to all parties. Black people will share the same biases against black people as white people for example. It shows just how very deep the biases go and how hard it is to fight it. The brain likes to simplify judgment. It can be hard for an individual who is female and doesn't believe in their own capacity because of their own biases against themselves as a woman. It sounds crazy but when tested, biases seem to be pretty consistent across all groups. You have to just recognize your own bias and actually make your choices a little slower. I don't know how else you fix that.
Sadly research shows people show societal biases to their own kind
Probably one of the best talks I have ever heard from this channel. I was actually awestruck at her ability to quantify the topic at hand in fundamentally useful ways. The interview transcription and word analysis is positively genius.
@@igorskrep9739 what?
What's wrong with this talk? It seems pretty reasonable and even provides a solution to the problem.
In my opinion, as more women do well in leadership positions the biases will fade. It will take a long time, but it will work. This is a good talk
Some people see a woman taking about a gender disparity that affects women and instantly dislike it.
Biases wont fade, they are rooted in our biology
I am no feminist, but this talk seems well researched and usefull. It shows a way out of the problem that's not unreasonable. You always should watch a talk to it's end before coming to an opinion or verdict. It's sometimes hard to hold your bias in check, but it's worth it.
This was a really well researched talk, even with a proposed solution in there, which is nice. But please... I really don't like these extreme close-ups in the video for such a prolonged time.
Very good topic!!! Everyone deserves equal funding based on idea not sex.
And they are getting it.
There's Solla Price's law which has in economy the interesting property of generating lower averages in smaller populations.
Another is that the average woman is more conservative with investments than the average male, which generates lower averages.
There's also amount of time spent on a project and that goes back to amount of risk one is willing to take in an investment.
What she's doing here is counteracting all of those things. She's reinforcing participation and risk taking.
But I still don't know if we need more women taking typically male methods of investment or more men taking typically female methods of investments.
lloydgush gender really never mattered, this is all things to do with the brain, I don’t care about if there are specific ones each one uses usually, let them do whatever they want. We are all humans, we all have similar brains, are bodies are made different, but who cares anymore? We shouldn’t be binding people to specific roles or ideas because of something as simple as how their body was made.
She never stated the ideas that the start ups are using. In the beginning she just threw that away by saying that she's just gonna assume that the ideas are the same.
4:38 is when she just pretends that it couldn't possibly be the ideas that they come up with or the way they run their companies.
@Jimi Perez No, science doesnt work that way. They didnt make assumptions. They tested hypotheses. Minute 5:59 she clearly states they controlled for differences in the startup ideas [quality] and the way they run their companies [past experience] among other things. The findings in fact run contrary to her personal assumptions. Might be worth another listen bud.
not a fan of assuming prevention is only treading and that promotion is swimming in the 'right' direction. Risk Management is a key perspective, and my experience with testing startup due diligence is that they are woefully unsustainable especially with physical and IT security. that said, the gender bias is just disheartening. I wonder if there's a way to leverage that bias to a woman's advantage. it's wrong no doubt, but unlikely to vanish in the near future so my speculation is how to solution those faced with bias now while working toward a better, unbiased future.
I do like the reframing the answer angle. A great lesson in controlling the narrative
good talk, definitely got me thinking
that fact that this has so many dislikes shows how much of a shit show the anti-SJW yt crowd is. bet 90% of those who disliked didn't watch the entire talk.
Anti SJW didn't come out of nowhere, it exist because of many, *many* moral mongers, saying how you should behave, how you should think, that people have little to no patience when few key words comes out, ie implicit bias here. Anti SJW thought it's another one of those videos how white cis men are the root of evil and they should work for some slighted group of people. Those moral mongers brought this kind of behavior. I am guilty of this, heard implicit bias that modern feminism like to talk about and demands unreasonable things because of it, I simply didn't want to continue video, though I didn't dislike the video because I didn't fully watched it. Speaker should have taken note of the "atmosphere" around implicit bias and adapt her speech, it would have more success around 'jaded' crowd I assume.
@@pierredelapotterie5996 yes, but theres a reasonable reaction to certain extremes, and then theres blind stupidity like this video where she appears to use a researched approach to the problem and it gets tons of dislikes.
yt is particularly bad cause alot of these anti-sjw channels that were popular and had had a few reasonable responses to certain people on the left, but there are qute a few that are straw manning simplifying and creating problems with third wave feminism where there isnt any like some of sargons recent videos
@@drewb.9497 Feminism, or left really, that causes censor, that causes people (usually men) to lose job because of a particular political leaning or comment, putting many evils square on men fault, you don't think such unreasonable behavior won't elicit an equal unreasonable reaction? Being attacked, demeaned, threatened for so long, to me it's expected those people to develop extreme view, as if to balance out what they endured.
If you seek to make people see your cause (here women entrepreneur not having much success), you can't just not understand where they come from and just label them stupid (here people having enough of modern feminism crap about implicit bias which so far an excuse to give feminist privilege or some such, take the easy way and just dislike the video in gut reaction). You'll have to burden yourself to dispel their prejudice, that your cause is reasonable that doesn't seek to grieve them.
It has 811 dislikes, not that much for 65k views.
i am anti sjw but i liked
I always give these videos the benefit of the doubt, and this one did not disappoint. Good talk.
many people pressed dislike before watching the entire video, before truly listening to everything dana kanze had to say. i support this woman!
Many people pressed the like button before watching the entire video as well.... why aren't you calling those people out too??
I mean they don't really remember if the red talk was good or bad. More like a neutral
Excellent video. I'd love to see follow up studies
thank you for such a well-explained and well-structured research!
This is the first gender based conversation that sounds logical and also provides ideas for both sides of this start up funding "system" to improve results.
Damn lady this was quite interesting, thanks for doing this talk. Goes to show that there could always be unknown variables doing unintended things until somebody gets curious enough and spots it. 🤘🏻
Good video. I would add that her advice is useful to men as well, as they also get asked compliance questions, just to a lesser extent.
Insightful talk. Great advice on how to change the direction of a "prevention" question into a "promotional" one. This isn't about man vs woman, or a pity party, but about real research with real suggestions on how we can address this.
Hey people..
Watch the whole video before disliking it by thinking its feminazi
I almost didn't & it made me question myself lowkey
came here to see if this was feminist trash, but actually was an interesting video. Alright TED, you have covered something genuinely interesting in this genre. Not bad.
I thought the same here. I'm glad this lady didn't change it into "We women need empowerment, look, everyone, even females are sexist towards us" bullshit but instead gave the problem (there is a hidden gender based bias and the question cause less gain) and a solution (women especially should try to answer with promotional questions to increase profit). I like this.
I did also. So much feminist trash and manipulation out here it's hard to believe anything most women say. Did a good job breaking things down.
Yes it was good, this time.
@@artema. @TAYFIELD REED
@TheUpwardBound1
@IuliusPsicofactum
It baffles me there are radical antifeminists that instant dislike and leave the video without actually watching. This video doesn't deserve this dislike rating.
Very interesting. I wonder, where this behavior is rooted in. I wonder if people can actually use the knowledge to their advantage. The far most successful entrepreneurs were the ones, who answered prevention questions with promotional answers, if this becomes the norm, how will the funders adapt?
I assume it's rooted in the belief that men are risk-takers and more aggressive and women are more cautious and less aggressive. Even though women are really just as aggressive as men. They are just socially required to express it differently. It might be true that men do riskier things than women but I can't say for sure. Maybe women just do different risky things.
It's rooted in biology. Females and males are different in design. Most relevant differences to the topic at hand are: female protective and risk-averse perks vs male self-sacrifice and risk-taking perks that come from biology. Females evolved to protect children they birth and avoid even minor risks, cause children are very vulnerable, while males evolved to view themselves as less valuable and even disposable, to take dangareous risks that are necessary for the survival/success of their family, up to the point of sacrificing their life for the life of a child, female or good of the many. These difference affect how successfull males and females are at any given job, it results in males having bigger concetration on the edges of the graph that goes from devastating failures to outstanding successes than females. And that's where biases originate from and why they are actually fair, like all biases originally are. Biases can change over time and become extremely unfair or unjustified, but they always originate from reality and often are quite fair and accurate. Developing biases is a human mechanism for evaluating likelihood of outcomes which is necessary for a decision making process.
Helpful!
Wow. The part where she says that women inadvertently favor male entrepreneurs was very unexpected and mind-blowing. Very good talk.
Thanks for sharing this important info.
Fantastic and interesting talk and incredibly relevant and useful to euntraprenuers.
Very interesting
So it seems that the difference is that generally male individuals get to reinforce their own passions and hopes of optimism for their startups, whereas general female participants cling to a desperate measure of pessimism. That's... odd really. Interesting talk nonetheless, hopefully this helps some founders possibly find a way to work around that.
I agree... I don't think it's odd though. This is generally how boys and girls have been brought up in the last century. Boys to look encouragingly at their world and choices, Girls to be aware of what they look like and how they behave. 😕
Raelee Just us growing up most people look at themselves in a bad way
Please watch the video everyone, this isn't another rant about intersectional feminism.
The conclusion about the effect of language was very logical and the proof seems quite inarguable.
However do we have a hypothesis on why the investors use different language depending on gender?
It was already established that both male and female investors act the same way. Is everone just less confident in female entrepeneurs?
Really cool how you researched this and I definitely learned from this! Thank you!
This is how it's done. Real research, real analysis, and a reasonable response. If TED only posted talks of this quality and less brownie point seeking, outrage mongering, then viewers wouldn't be tired of hearing poorly thought-out victim mindset trash and this video would have the respect it deserves.
Finally some logic coming back to Ted! Happy to see it
The moment when she said about "The regulatory focus theory" makes me instantly realize the meaning behind a phenomenon
I wish there were some statistics about the background of the entrepreneurs, or a recognition of a pattern of words in the successful pitches besides the questions asked by the investors. As it is her speech makes sense only if all men and women taken into exam delivered a speech of the same quality.
She did said it was taken into consideration and didn't find differences. Maybe you should watch the video again.
I have the same problem with most of psychological studies, the confounding variables are enumerate, for example do males and females ask the same people for money, does their height play a role, length of the interview, handshake, eye contact, confidence, these things should be addressed since this might give more fruitful testing
After so much garbage coming out of TED as of late, I’m shocked to admit I had an idea of what this talk was going to be like prior to watching. I’m glad I was wrong. This was actually a good talk and the points about the gender disparity in the speaker’s findings were delivered matter-of-factly without political overtones or blame-placing, with the method clearly explained and evidence at hand. ...and then she had a solution to the problem!
Sorry to see all the downvotes for this.
Anyone that disliked the video actually watched it and found something dislikable? Honestly, the criteria on this was very refreshing. I would really like to have access on the full text from the research for future reading..
360+ dislikes at this time, and I don't see a single qualitative criticism of merit. I would be a nice dinner that none of these people listened to the content, let alone watch the whole thing. What? Listen to facts? Oh my! Attend to an argument from facts? No not hardly. If so we'd see attentive and substantive discussion _on topic._ The closest I see to intelligent discussion refers to how women should be more like this than like _those feminists._ Well that's progress of sorts.
Interesting, for sure. But I get the feeling there are more variables at play.
Great work! And a lot of missed opportunities from the vc side as it seems.
Now this is actually interesting - real data and science and not anecdotal bs
This was interesting to watch. I was an investor for 15 years before starting my own business and thinking back I definitely looked for stereotypically male traits when I listened to pitches. Not necessarily because it was a man, just the personality traits. So if a woman was doing the pitch and she seemed to have more of a energetic, 'tomboy' type personality, I'd pay more attention. If the guy was more sedate acting, I'd be less interested. It wasn't a conscious thing though. Ideally, I'd want a senior management team with both sets of traits to balance one another.
no one here has watched the full vid yet
yet they are disliking it because of sexism
I did
TL;DR, every one of those feminazi talk go about a scripted way... I've really annoying that we have to get a drapa piece with the story. I would prefer to hear out her words, not some writers with hers mixed in. So what's this about, in short?
Very well put together. Well done
*Great info! Well research and presented! Keep the Content coming!!!*
Eye opening and thoroughly researched. Bravo
Really great topic and interesting findings. However, her presentation wasn't as engaging. It could have been more dynamic so her message doesn't get lost.
I almost scrolled past this video but decided to give it a shot.
Pleasantly refreshing and a good lesson to not judge by title
Hi Dana, you said in this video that male are asked promotional questions and female are asked prevention questions and you also gave solution that how to answer these questions. You gave the realistic and factual data by your research and appreciate it. But i would like to ask here one thing, why male are asked promotional questions and why female are asked preventional questions ? You didn't dig in deep, why this kind of difference ?
It's pretty clear that this video got dislike bombed pretty heavily when you look at all the comments. Amazing talk.
are these fake comments or something? why does this video have so many dislikes but none of the comments are mad at her??
The pool was empty.... Yet it had water in it? Wtf?
yea I dont get that?? frozen water?
Great! 👏👏👏👏
This is fantastically well thought out, very well researched, and supported by facts and experimental methodologies that give great credence to the analysis; it demonstrates an actual problem of gender bias, even after accounting for all the confounding variables. Awesome work.
Actually, you have no idea what the facts are, or what the methodologies were, you just have a woman telling you that some LIWC software "generated the frequences of promotion and prevention words" and bla bla bla.
Until you've reviewed the study, AND verified the adequacy of the "regulatory focus" theory by Prof. Higgins, you shouldn't make the claims you made, or you'll look like a fool.
There should be some statistics on the type of businesses the 39% is composed of. I feel that male owned businesses fall more into finance and core conventional industry areas. Whereas female entrepreneurship is more into cosmetics, healthcare assistance etc. Just read (about.americanexpress.com/sites/americanexpress.newshq.businesswire.com/files/doc_library/file/2017_SWOB_Report_-FINAL.pdf)
The type of industry chosen by women Vs men affects entrepreneurship funding greatly in these statistical calculations
This video does not deserve all those dislikes. What do you dislike? The factual research?!
Very interesting video.
Anyone else notice that she pronounces it feh-nahn-sing?
Interesting. I wonder what a tendency to do things like “leaving the startup to pursue a PHD” does to expected investment returns. There’s more to a company’s prospects than how decent the idea is. Are women as likely to work psychotically around the clock as men are (on average)? I find the anecdotal findings regarding the questioning to be very interesting. But I don’t think we can simply say that if only investors asked questions the same way the funding would be the same, and (more importantly) the companies’ performances would be equally strong. This is worth pursuing though.
Why so many dislikes? This video is well presented and well supported by data. Could anyone who dislike it tell me why?
Why so many dislikes? This is a profound talk!
Why are there 800 dislikes? Did you even watch the video
Amazing talk! Sending respect from Hong Kong 🇭🇰
I really like the speech and she did really well. Something isn't adding up though. If 34% of women get promotion questions ( 8:24) then wouldn't the funding for business start ups be closer to that number not 2% ( 4:46). I mean based on her chart at (9:58) those 34% that did get promotion questions should have gotten enough to bump it up more than just 2%. Of course it certainly wouldn't be around 38% (4:41) like it probably should be.
Maybe here sample size for the percent of women asked prevention questions was to small. Maybe globally women get asked way more prevention than in her study. Maybe something else. I don't know what do you all think?
AnimalAce she didn’t say that. She said, 34% of questions asked to a single female entrepreneur on average are promotions questions.
@@samanjj ummmm.....thats what i said.
AnimalAce no it seems like you think you said that. You actually said 34% of women get asked those questions. That is not the same at all.
@@samanjj ok....not sure how that makes a huge difference...between female vs single female entrepreneur.
Wait are you implying that I mean 34% of all females? Like on earth?
Heck yes. What a great talk. So insightful and practical.
Oh I am not a native speaker but I can hear her pronunciate clearly,amazing !
Startups should be funded based on their business ideas, agnostic to sex, gender or race!
Can we see the research?
Well spoken and interesting, while actually backed by research.
Finally, feminism done the right way, TED please learn about this talk and how it is based on fundaments and not just on "because I say so".
What is the overall subject or purpose of this tedtalk
I kinda love how pissed off she is thank you for sharing that anger
Great to be aware of
i generally dont like gender bias talks, but Dana Kanze had her stuff covered. She is making a really good talk. I wonder what if the bias can be further explained by the type of answers one gives to prevention/promotion, if guys on average give an answer that makes a questioner fall towards either kind of question.
Wonder how this plays out in disparity in Venture funding for African American (men and women)
Wow! Very smart analysis and recommendations on how to implement changes.
Good talk, equality of opportunity!
This talk is effectively teaching people how to game the system. When everyone learns this game then there is no game anymore.
Really good talk. Her analysis has a flaw though - it only considers the language element of the entrepreneurs. You have to also account for tone of voice and body language, which together make up 93% of a speaker's influence on their audience (according to research by Albert Mehrabian).
The variables you're mentioning are not dependant on the gender, so an investigator would consider them "evenly distributed" among the groups and unimportant for the investigation. What you're saying would be including an immense number of inconsequential things for a research like this
@@stryxize how do you know they're not dependent on gender?
@@nnneh1 it's only required to apply some common sense. To assume "expressive characteristics" like tone of voice, handshake or any other you are mentioning are defined by gender would be saying that male and female have, nowadays, specific and clearly exclusive gender roles. Maybe what you're implying would have had sense in the 50s when when gender roles were very well defined. If you have doubts you could just get out and meet some people and see how self confidence or tone of voice do not depend on gender
@@stryxize on the contrary, I think the amount of stereotyping today is as bad as it's ever been. Women are bombarded with messaging from the main stream media that tells them they are underpaid, victimized, and somehow undervalued by society. Whereas men, especially white men, are told ad nauseam that they possess some kind of magical power which gets them ahead, known as male privilege. The implications of this constant messaging may well manifest themselves in things as subliminal as tone of voice and body language.
@@nnneh1 what you are saying is applying your personal opinion as an explanation to this matter, precisely what you are criticizing on her. You assume all men entrepreneur have certain tone of voice different from women entrepreneur, and saying it is an intervening variable for men being better that women at presenting an idea. No serious researcher would consider for a moment what you're saying. Maybe you should conduct your own research and try to prove your point because it eludes me
smart AF
Watch the entire video you guys
I'm still not sure if we should have more women using typically male styles of investment or more males using typically female styles of investment...
The market is way too unstable for my taste, in this case I'm more inclined to think "feminizing" male investors is a better choice, and that mostly means empowering men when it comes to work life balance.
lloydgush in startups there is no work life balance. It’s all day and night for growth and momentum. Should there be a middle way on prevention and promotion though? Yes for sure.
Such a great topic 👍🏾
why has this so many dislikes? Brigading?
Yay! An objective perspective for once! Excellent speech.
She actually knows what she is talking about
Kinda funny how people in the comments assume the dislikes are people that didn't watch the whole thing..
Ty, shared.
Love
Watch the full video. It is not the typical woke man blaming drivel most of us would usually expect from ted. This lecture is pretty nuanced.
Good topic
Reasonable stuff
not more fondling I assumed, 'coz not getting fund is one thing, getting harassed is worst. 'no.
The talk makes a lot of sense "on the surface". But we didn't get to look what the startups were about. Like if a male comes with an idea that aims to solve a deeply rooted need that everyone has, vs a female idea that aims to solve a cosmetic need that arguably only a fraction of the population even cares about. They're both tech ideas, they're both valid, and profitable. But no way in hell they could both get the same amount of funding.
In other studies it's been shown that females tend to the more social, caring, and emphatic option. while men in general tend to be more pragmatic.
So without really saying anything, i just think her claim is incomplete as long as the startups are not separated by type/category of idea. With the data provided, we can't know if that 34% of female companies are equivalent in scalability to the 66% male counterpart. I get that on the surface there's clear bias, and i'm not disregarding that. I'm just saying the ideas themselves need to be look at before reaching any valid conclusion.
Sargas Evigmae they did control using the factors you raise. Listen to the video
This is nice to know, but it only begs the question, “why is there an implicit bias against women in startup funding?”
Good video but the video did not tell the reason about why woman get more prevention questions than men as it promised I the title
The female doll robot has a point
I applaud you, this is real feminism. Facts.
She never actually said how one should be balanced though, which is a bit of a shame.
Perhaps it'd be better if it was done online via chat?
Or perhaps it'd be better if it were done via a standard set of questions?
I'm not massively a fan of these "complaints" without offering a solution. That being said, it was very interesting never the less :)
Sancarn she did provide a solution that can be acted on immediately.
@@samanjj And what solution did she provide?
Sancarn in the video she said, women should frame the answers to preventative questions pointing back at growth and promotion. Also VCs should catch themselves and give more promotion questions to women than they currently do today
@@samanjj That's not really a solution. It's a workaround. But yeah that is true. "VCs should catch themselves" isn't really a solution either. Because it seems totally subconscious in general. Don't get me wrong it was interesting but there is really no solution there which solves the issue... That being said, also in fairness, it's likely something no one really knew existed. So it's good to bring light to it :)
Sancarn the solution is checking one’s biases and also being aware of other’s biases and working together to fix it which is what she said. There may be other solutions but a bottom up one that can be used immediately is a pretty good start
Last year i was in a funding program where 35% of the future startup's that would get money MUST be a women owner no matter how good is the idea the chances of success or that maybe there are 15 man startup's that are better they gave 35% to women is this favoritism base on gender or discrimination is actually the definition ....
Quotas are a patch solution to a very difficult problem. I think they can work if they're done in the right way. Obviously, it's ridiculous in that scenario where there may be very few women who then get a huge competitive edge, but that could be controlled for by lowering the quota to match the percentage of female entrepreneurs.
So it's not about gender but about how you handle questions.
J G clearly proven to show its about gender. Why should women in general be asked prevention questions that they then have have couch as promotion? Watch the video or provide your own analysis and data.
This seems legit. Shame many will ignore because of all the misandry out there.
righteoUS!!!
Social, psychological theory - interesting
Yup, this is logical:
When I heard about getting prevention question, I asked myself "Why they just don't switch from prevention to promotion answer for that question?"
If someone asks me how I will retain my clients, I would answer it in a way to show not only how to retain clients, but also how to get new clients, grow on new markets.
I think this gender bias is caused by how we see men and women.
Men - usually are considered as being protectors, so rarely they get questions like: How you would defend your market position?
Women? - Usually are seen as being protected by men, so no wonder they get more protective questions. Because in business you can't risk, you must protect your assets and grow your company.
But what is missed here is how in reality women and men differ. Emotions are associated with women, logic - with men.
I think this has impact on type of questions asked to the entrepreneurs. If men are not confident enough - they will get protective questions, but in most cases men calculate by logic, so are seen more confident (sometimes they are seen more confident than they are). Women on the other hand are seen as emotional, so they need to give extra effort to change protective interview to be more positive. They need to give extra effort to show their own confidence - if no, they will receive protective questions.
I bet that in most cases:
1. if men didn't answer fully on promotion question with promotion answer, the next one will be protective.
2. if women answered for 1-2 protective questions with promotion answer, next one can be promotion one.
I regret that TED is not giving any links to speakers literature list or some other materials - this would improve understanding research made by speaker and his case. :)