[righttoremember]

The problem with this kind of study is the double standard applied to how the evidence is interpreted.

Case 1: women are better at X

Interpretation: we need to have more women in roles requiring X. And no, this isn't sexist because it's based on objective facts.

Case 2: men are better at X.

Explanation: ability in X is deeply contextual and shaped by cultural factors. Therefore we can't naively apply this study to the real world. Using so called objective facts to reinforce gender stereotypes is wrong and ignorant. Instead, we should interpret the results of this study in the context of social studies of gender roles and discrimination. In this light, this study in fact suggests the opposite: women are better at X

[ripb]

I wholly agree.

How about this one:

Girls are doing worse than boys in school, they're not entering college at an equal rate and not graduating at an equal rate? Crisis. Misogyny. Patriarchy.

Fast forward to 2014. Girls are doing better than boys in school. They're entering college at a much higher rate than their male counterparts and graduating also. Crisis? Misandry? Matriarchy? No, this has been deemed success. A triumph. Something to be celebrated.

Somewhere along the line, the push for equality took a turn down a very wrong road. Would we be hearing about this study if its results suggested that men are better at handling risk under stress than women? I very, very much doubt so.

This study also stripped knowledge or skill from the decision making process, instead relying on a silly gambling game. I would like to see them take a game of skill, such as poker perhaps, and redo the test with say the world's highest ranking male players and female players, and then see the results.

Business, investing, relationships, things concerning the household such as family crisis, etc. are not at all akin to drawing cards from a deck, but that is what this article is likening it to with its inherent suggestions.

[untog]

Sorry, any citation on people saying that boys failing is a success? And this is "boys failing", not "girls succeeding". Two counter examples from NYT alone:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/the-boys-at-...

"The rise of women, however long overdue, does not require the fall of men."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28kristof.html?_r=...

"At a time when men are still hugely overrepresented in Congress, on executive boards, and in the corridors of power, does it matter that boys are struggling in schools? Of course it does"

[ps4fanboy]

Do not expect it to change, I remember watching a google funded talk about women in STEM where all the panelists were celebrating, because 65% of architecture graduates are now women.

[danieltillett]

Politics and science are not a compatible couple.

[zzzeek]

Here's another take on that:

case 1. men are better at X

reality: positions of influence, leadership, power and prestige regarding X are overwhelmingly populated by men.

case 2. women are better at X

reality: positions of influence, leadership, power and prestige regarding X are overwhelmingly populated by men.

[tbrownaw]

Which has nothing at all to do with having a double-standard for research, and everything to do with the real world being almost entirely made up of outside factors that aren't covered by "ability" studies.