> Claimed result: Women risk being judged by the negative stereotype that women have weaker math ability, and this apprehension disrupts their math performance on difficult tests.
I'll never understand stances trying to hide biological differences between different sexes or ethnic backgrounds.
We know for a fact that sex or ethnicity impacts body yet we seem unable to cope with the idea that there are also differences in how brains (and hormones) work.
Women have, on average, a higher emotional intelligence which is e.g. tied to higher linguistic proficiency. That helps in many different fields and, on average, women tend to learn languages easier than men.
At the same time, on average, they may perform slightly worse than men in highly computational fields (math or chess).
I want to iterate what I'm getting at to before the rest of the post:
Genetics matter when you look at very large samples, but they are irrelevant on smaller (or single) samples.
I feel NBA provides a great example.
On average, african americans are taller than white men and have a higher muscular density.
On large samples, they tend to outperform white men. But as soon as you make the samples smaller, even at elite levels, you find out that Larry Bird (30+ years ago) or Nikola Jokic (today) are the best players in the world.
Same applies to women, just because average samples will explain some statistics, such as on average females performing worse on maths, won't change that women can be the best chess players or cryptographers in the world.
149
113