I also have a high degree of skepticism about most psychology research. I find it frustrating that the author of this piece raises the issue of the imbalance of gender in STEM jobs as a reason to doubt this particular study. There is nothing about this failure-to-replicate that should allow us to conclude that innate differences in math ability underly that imbalance.
I’d love others to read the replication report and explain why I might be wrong?
The author doesn't claim that the imbalance is a reason to doubt the study. His claim is that the imbalance is a reason to doubt the claim that an underlying shift in cultural norms explains why the results might have been valid in 2005 but failed to replicate in 2024.
The author rightly observes that despite the undeniable shift, women are still significantly underrepresented in STEM and therefore that cannot explain the lack of replication. There are still many other reasons besides innate differences that might explain it.
Is there any evidence you can conceive of that would convince you that there is some innate group difference in some aptitude that’s valued by society?
I mean come on - if there is a pervasive cultural insinuation of gender differences in ability that leads to women experiencing more test anxiety (I’m not saying there is, but conditioning on that hypothesis) why would we expect a 20 minute PowerPoint to counteract 20 years of people’s life experience!?!?
Comments
I also have a high degree of skepticism about most psychology research. I find it frustrating that the author of this piece raises the issue of the imbalance of gender in STEM jobs as a reason to doubt this particular study. There is nothing about this failure-to-replicate that should allow us to conclude that innate differences in math ability underly that imbalance.
I’d love others to read the replication report and explain why I might be wrong?
The author doesn't claim that the imbalance is a reason to doubt the study. His claim is that the imbalance is a reason to doubt the claim that an underlying shift in cultural norms explains why the results might have been valid in 2005 but failed to replicate in 2024.
The author rightly observes that despite the undeniable shift, women are still significantly underrepresented in STEM and therefore that cannot explain the lack of replication. There are still many other reasons besides innate differences that might explain it.
Is there any evidence you can conceive of that would convince you that there is some innate group difference in some aptitude that’s valued by society?
I mean come on - if there is a pervasive cultural insinuation of gender differences in ability that leads to women experiencing more test anxiety (I’m not saying there is, but conditioning on that hypothesis) why would we expect a 20 minute PowerPoint to counteract 20 years of people’s life experience!?!?