A gender stereotype cracks.

I published the following article on the Democratic Underground this morning under my handle there, caseymoz. Yes, that's what I call myself there. On Twitter, I'm manfromfred, on fanfiction.net my name is Madman Fred, and on Youtube, I'm Wentshow. Someday I'll have to tell everyone how I came up with these handles.

However, this post at DU is about a report I heard on NPRs Talk of the Nation:

A few researchers at the University of Toronto and University of Arizona came up with an ingenious and simple little device: an audio recorder that turned itself on and off throughout the day. He had test subjects wear these, and the recorders would take little snippets of what the subjects were doing throughout the day.

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/12/156664337/stereotype-threat-why-women-quit-science-jobs

Most field studies in the social sciences rely on subjects self-reporting. However, that's been shown to be inaccurate and inadequate. So, he put many recorders on many subjects over periods of days, then played back the data and found a two surprising things about gender.

We all think that women talk more than men. I mean, this belief is old, widespread, it cuts across cultures, it's not even regarded as a stereotype, it's regarded as truth.

The results in this experiment indicate there is absolutely no difference in the amount women and men talk. None. Neither sex is more silent nor more loquacious than the other. If this is true, and we thought such a solid assumption was true, it shows how distorted the rest of our assumptions about the world may be, while still swearing up and down that our perceptions match it.

If that's not enough for one experiment, it uncovered details of something of more practical importance: why do so many women drop out of science?

Now, you might think it's because the men must treat them badly. According to Dr. Mehl's analysis, that's not what happens.

When male scientists talked to other scientists about their research, it energized them. But it was a different story for women.

"For women, the pattern was just the opposite, specifically in their conversations with male colleagues," Schmader said. "So the more women in their conversations with male colleagues were talking about research, the more disengaged they reported being in their work."

Disengagement predicts that someone is at risk of dropping out.

There was another sign of trouble.

When female scientists talked to other female scientists, they sounded perfectly competent. But when they talked to male colleagues, Mehl and Schmader found that they sounded less competent.

One obvious explanation was that the men were being nasty to their female colleagues and throwing them off their game. Mehl and Schmader checked the tapes.

"We don't have any evidence that there is anything that men are saying to make this happen," Schmader said.

But the audiotapes did provide a clue about what was going on. When the male and female scientists weren't talking about work, the women reported feeling more engaged.

For Mehl and Schmader, this was the smoking gun that an insidious psychological phenomenon called "stereotype threat" was at work. It could potentially explain the disparity between men and women pursuing science and math careers.

When there's a stereotype in the air and people are worried they might confirm the stereotype by performing poorly, their fears can inadvertently make the stereotype become self-fulfilling.

Steele and his colleagues found that when women were reminded — even subtly — of the stereotype that men were better than women at math, the performance of women in math tests measurably declined. Since the reduction in performance came about because women were threatened by the stereotype, the psychologists called the phenomenon "stereotype threat."

Stereotype threat isn't limited to women or ethnic minorities, Steele wrote elsewhere. "Everyone experiences stereotype threat. We are all members of some group about which negative stereotypes exist, from white males and Methodists to women and the elderly. And in a situation where one of those stereotypes applies — a man talking to women about pay equity, for example, or an aging faculty member trying to remember a number sequence in the middle of a lecture — we know that we may be judged by it."

Over the years, experiments have shown that stereotype threat affects performance in a wide variety of domains.

Note, if this is true, this doesn't take any chauvinism to drive women from science careers. All it takes is the smallest, inadvertent hint at the stereotype.

"For a female scientist, particularly talking to a male colleague, if she thinks it's possible he might hold this stereotype, a piece of her mind is spent monitoring the conversation and monitoring what it is she is saying, and wondering whether or not she is saying the right thing, and wondering whether or not she is sounding competent, and wondering whether or not she is confirming the stereotype," Schmader said.

All this worrying is distracting. It uses up brainpower. The worst part?

"By merely worrying about that more, one ends up sounding more incompetent," Schmader said.

Worse, even if you consciously disbelieve the stereotype, it can still affect you:

Now, most scientists say they don't believe the stereotype about women and science, and argue that it won't affect them. But the psychological studies suggest people are affected by stereotype threat regardless of whether they believe the stereotype.

These scientists are careful to emphasize, this is not the fault of women.

Mehl and Schmader said the stereotype threat research does not imply that the gender disparity in science and math fields is all "in women's heads."

The problem isn't with women, Mehl said. The problem is with the stereotype.

The study suggests the gender disparity in science and technology may be, at least in part, the result of a vicious cycle.

I'd like to add a few of my conclusions: the collapse of patriarchal societies into something more egalitarian does not do away with established stereotypes. Women have been nominally equal for years, but the stereotypes have a life of their own in our collective unconscious mind afterward and are much tougher to eradicate than we think. Also, like computer viruses, they can stay resident without any conscious support or malice. Women have had the vote for almost a century. Yet, you wouldn't be able to tell by the makeup of our legislatures, or by many other things in our society.

Second, our perceptions often mislead us about reality and give a biased account. We could have some basic assumptions that seem very obvious, collectively held, and they're dead wrong. We need to rely more on objective methods to collect data, especially in the social sciences. Don't rely so much on what people say about their behavior. Find ways to observe what they actually do.

Third, remember sometimes your unconscious mind simply fucks with you, and our unconscious minds [just as it] fuck[s] with everybody else.