Ehh idk how to address it because it's so subjective. You say it's obvious, I say more data is required. I'm personally pretty conservative/cautious when it comes to making links to predictive behavior from our cultural understanding of gender. I think it's easy to jump to conclusions based on broad stereotypes that don't hold up to scrutiny, but I don't know that I can really prove you're doing that.

I'm not sure what you mean about handwaving everything that agrees with us? I'm not saying this data should be published, I'm just saying that it's surprising the level of pushback it's getting on a reddit sub, the pushback generally seeming to reject the results. The results are not surprising at all. I don't see the harm in someone taking some anecdotal data in their own class and sharing it here. I do see the harm in a lot of these comments basically saying, "but women don't really earn good grades, but this headline is so flawed, but but but" when the conclusions of this anecdotal story align with more robust data. It would be like if you say your friend died in a drunk driving accident, so drunk driving is bad, and everyone flooded you with, "but that's a sample size of 1!!!!!!" Like... Yea but also we know this is a real thing so chill.

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2012/issue131a/

Your last paragraph is just untrue, sounds like you're basing it on the nonsense Strumia study that was never accepted into a journal. You also oversimplify: citation data and publication metrics are not fully objective, but bias informs them as well.

I'm not actually a layperson, I have my own theory. I'm actually curious about what the consensus here is.

Have you heard of something called a Bayesian Prior? Colloquially, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This isn't an extraordinary claim, if anything it's extremely mundane. The high level of scrutiny here isn't actually very justified at all.

Many such studies are available in the literature

I think this is a pretty poor understanding of imposter syndrome. Imposter syndrome is the belief that your achievements were lucky, like "I scored an 800 on my SAT by random chance/because I'm a good test taker/etc, but this says nothing about my ability to do well in college." So then they believe they by luck got placed in the wrong class and don't deserve to be there. This is exacerbated by people treating them inconsistently, sometimes from direct discrimination, other times from unconscious bias. They feel a kind of survivor's guilt, that breeds shame, that breeds imposter syndrome.

You say the core difference is temperment, as opposed to discrimination. It's very difficult to study temperment and isolate it from discrimination, whereas the opposite is easy and well-studied (think studies that present the same CVs with different names). So concluding that differences in gender temperment lead to higher rates of imposter syndrome is a radical conclusion, while concluding that these differences stem from lifelong discrimination is less radical (at least in the academic community, maybe not so much on this sub).

It shows the same results for both men and women... Odd that you'd link to an attractiveness study in this context

I'm asking why you think that's the case? What's your theory as to why the data reflects that?

Lol why is everyone so skeptical of this study when its findings are not at all radical or at odds with the literature? Much higher quality data reflects the same result. It seems ideological bias is at play here...

Incorrect, it's been demonstrated at the undergraduate level. The thought process is very similar: "i didn't deserve to get into this program, i don't belong in this class, i can't participate or learn because I don't belong."

Not discrimination?

This is a pretty well-studied phenomenon though, so it's not like we have flat priors or smth.

Uhhhh source?

Why do you think that is?