WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.819 What if the widely held assumption that society 00:00:02.819 --> 00:00:06.280 universally harbors, like a negative baseline 00:00:06.280 --> 00:00:08.939 prejudice against women, is actually missing 00:00:08.939 --> 00:00:11.539 a massive scientifically proven piece of the 00:00:11.539 --> 00:00:13.640 puzzle? Oh, that is, I mean, it's the kind of 00:00:13.640 --> 00:00:15.439 counterintuitive question that instantly makes 00:00:15.439 --> 00:00:17.320 you reconsider everything you think you know 00:00:17.320 --> 00:00:20.460 about human social dynamics. Right. Welcome to 00:00:20.460 --> 00:00:24.140 the deep dive because today our mission is to 00:00:24.140 --> 00:00:27.359 explore this really fascinating, heavily researched 00:00:27.359 --> 00:00:30.160 phenomenon called the women are wonderful effect. 00:00:30.359 --> 00:00:32.939 And we have pulled together a serious stack of 00:00:32.939 --> 00:00:35.600 peer reviewed research for this. I mean, spanning 00:00:35.600 --> 00:00:38.799 from the late 1980s right up to a brand new study 00:00:38.799 --> 00:00:42.420 from 2024. Exactly. The goal here is to shortcut 00:00:42.420 --> 00:00:44.820 your path to being well informed about a cognitive 00:00:44.820 --> 00:00:47.179 bias you almost certainly experience every single 00:00:47.179 --> 00:00:49.549 day, even if you've never actually put a name 00:00:49.549 --> 00:00:51.590 to it. But before we get into the weeds, we do 00:00:51.590 --> 00:00:53.750 need to make a quick impartiality disclaimer. 00:00:54.109 --> 00:00:56.270 Yes, definitely. Because discussions around gender 00:00:56.270 --> 00:00:59.030 dynamics and societal bias can so easily get 00:00:59.030 --> 00:01:02.250 hijacked by heated political debates. Oh, absolutely. 00:01:02.630 --> 00:01:05.230 Which is why we are completely ignoring the politics 00:01:05.230 --> 00:01:07.349 today. We're not taking any sides here, left 00:01:07.349 --> 00:01:10.590 wing or right wing. Right. We are neutrally reporting 00:01:10.590 --> 00:01:14.040 the raw cognitive data. and the findings from 00:01:14.040 --> 00:01:16.780 the source material. We're not endorsing specific 00:01:16.780 --> 00:01:20.239 viewpoints, just conveying the ideas exactly 00:01:20.239 --> 00:01:22.799 as they exist in the research, so you can examine 00:01:22.799 --> 00:01:25.040 the mechanics of this on your own terms. OK, 00:01:25.040 --> 00:01:27.400 let's unpack this. Because before we look at 00:01:27.400 --> 00:01:29.879 how this bias affects the world we're living 00:01:29.879 --> 00:01:32.180 in right now, we actually need to look at how 00:01:32.180 --> 00:01:35.340 researchers accidentally stumbled upon it. Stumbled 00:01:35.340 --> 00:01:37.939 is definitely the right word. To understand this, 00:01:37.980 --> 00:01:39.819 we have to look at the work of two researchers, 00:01:40.519 --> 00:01:43.620 Alice Eagley and Antonio Mlodzinek. Right. They 00:01:43.620 --> 00:01:45.599 officially coined the term the women are wonderful 00:01:45.599 --> 00:01:49.019 effect in 1994. But the narrative really starts 00:01:49.019 --> 00:01:51.920 a few years earlier at Purdue University. When 00:01:51.920 --> 00:01:53.439 they were trying to measure something entirely 00:01:53.439 --> 00:01:56.400 different. Exactly. In the late 80s and early 00:01:56.400 --> 00:01:58.900 90s, they were questioning the prevailing academic 00:01:58.900 --> 00:02:00.799 view, which was that there was this universal 00:02:00.799 --> 00:02:03.219 baseline prejudice against women. Because at 00:02:03.219 --> 00:02:05.920 the time, a lot of the prior research trying 00:02:05.920 --> 00:02:08.319 to definitively prove that bias was actually 00:02:08.319 --> 00:02:11.900 pretty inconclusive. Yeah. It was. So they decided 00:02:11.900 --> 00:02:14.900 to run their own studies. In 1989, they gathered 00:02:14.900 --> 00:02:18.659 203 psychology students. And then in 1991, another 00:02:18.659 --> 00:02:22.240 324 students. Just to have them evaluate both 00:02:22.240 --> 00:02:25.599 genders. Yes. They used questionnaires, emotion 00:02:25.599 --> 00:02:28.699 associations, free response measures. And to 00:02:28.699 --> 00:02:31.500 be clear, they were actively looking for empirical 00:02:31.500 --> 00:02:34.259 evidence of prejudice against women. But the 00:02:34.259 --> 00:02:36.400 results they got, I mean, it's like digging for 00:02:36.400 --> 00:02:39.080 coal and accidentally striking gold. The data 00:02:39.080 --> 00:02:41.860 completely flipped their working hypothesis on 00:02:41.860 --> 00:02:44.580 its head. It really did. What they found in those 00:02:44.580 --> 00:02:47.500 initial studies was this overwhelmingly positive 00:02:47.500 --> 00:02:51.000 bias towards women. Wow. I mean, both male and 00:02:51.000 --> 00:02:53.919 female participants universally assigned highly 00:02:53.919 --> 00:02:56.099 positive traits to women. And men were assigned 00:02:56.099 --> 00:02:58.710 positive traits too, right? They were, but to 00:02:58.710 --> 00:03:00.990 a far, far lesser degree. Right. And the female 00:03:00.990 --> 00:03:03.250 participants actually showed a dramatically more 00:03:03.250 --> 00:03:06.069 pronounced bias in favor of women, which is an 00:03:06.069 --> 00:03:07.810 in -group bias we'll definitely dig into in a 00:03:07.810 --> 00:03:10.590 minute. Yeah. It's a massive factor. But across 00:03:10.590 --> 00:03:13.270 the board, women were rated significantly higher 00:03:13.270 --> 00:03:16.449 in positive attitudes and beliefs, though, interestingly, 00:03:16.689 --> 00:03:18.990 not necessarily in emotions. But you know, whenever 00:03:18.990 --> 00:03:22.030 I read about a questionnaire -based study, especially 00:03:22.030 --> 00:03:25.590 regarding sensitive social topics, my immediate 00:03:25.590 --> 00:03:28.009 reaction is just a little bit of skepticism. 00:03:28.229 --> 00:03:30.229 Sure. Conscious questionnaires are so easily 00:03:30.229 --> 00:03:32.569 gamed. Exactly. I have to wonder, is this just 00:03:32.569 --> 00:03:35.810 people giving the socially acceptable answer? 00:03:35.990 --> 00:03:37.949 Like, were these students just writing down what 00:03:37.949 --> 00:03:40.349 made them look like good, progressive people? 00:03:40.650 --> 00:03:43.530 Or is this a legitimate psychological reflex? 00:03:43.650 --> 00:03:45.770 Well, that is the critical question. Conscious 00:03:45.770 --> 00:03:48.250 questionnaires are highly vulnerable to social 00:03:48.250 --> 00:03:49.990 desirability bias. People know they're being 00:03:49.990 --> 00:03:53.289 observed. Right. But Eagley and Bladenek theorized 00:03:53.289 --> 00:03:56.409 that this wasn't just performative. They supposed 00:03:56.409 --> 00:03:59.150 it derived from a really deeply ingrained association 00:03:59.150 --> 00:04:01.509 between women and nurturing characteristics. 00:04:01.930 --> 00:04:04.509 Meaning we are culturally conditioned to link 00:04:04.509 --> 00:04:08.030 the category of women with traits like caregiving, 00:04:08.310 --> 00:04:11.590 warmth, compassion. Yes. And this brings in a 00:04:11.590 --> 00:04:15.330 highly nuanced concept. Other researchers, specifically 00:04:15.330 --> 00:04:18.149 Peter Glick and Susan Fisk, looked at this data 00:04:18.149 --> 00:04:21.660 and coined the term benevolent sexism. Which 00:04:21.660 --> 00:04:24.240 almost sounds like an oxymoron. I mean, how can 00:04:24.240 --> 00:04:26.819 sexism be benevolent? It's a fascinating theory. 00:04:27.519 --> 00:04:30.579 It argues that assigning overwhelmingly positive, 00:04:31.180 --> 00:04:33.259 but specifically nurturing traits to a group, 00:04:33.560 --> 00:04:35.800 well, it can still function as a form of bias 00:04:35.800 --> 00:04:38.259 that restricts their societal roles. Oh, I see. 00:04:38.439 --> 00:04:41.120 If society collectively agrees that women are 00:04:41.120 --> 00:04:43.279 inherently wonderful, specifically because they're 00:04:43.279 --> 00:04:45.600 pure and caring, it seems like a compliment. 00:04:45.899 --> 00:04:48.600 But it creates this rigid expectation. It's like 00:04:48.600 --> 00:04:50.759 a gilded cage. You're placed on this beautiful 00:04:50.759 --> 00:04:53.079 pedestal, but you are still confined to the exact 00:04:53.079 --> 00:04:55.360 dimensions of that pedestal. That is a perfect 00:04:55.360 --> 00:04:57.879 way to visualize it. It potentially sidelines 00:04:57.879 --> 00:05:01.180 women from roles that require assertiveness or 00:05:01.180 --> 00:05:03.879 pragmatic aggression. So it's a highly positive 00:05:03.879 --> 00:05:06.759 evaluation that still acts as a limiting stereotype. 00:05:06.980 --> 00:05:09.120 That makes a lot of sense. But still, anyone 00:05:09.120 --> 00:05:11.620 can write down a nice answer on a test. I'd only 00:05:11.620 --> 00:05:13.660 really buy that this is a universal cognitive 00:05:13.660 --> 00:05:15.819 phenomenon if they tested people's split -second 00:05:15.819 --> 00:05:18.620 reflexes. Bypassing the conscious mind entirely. 00:05:18.759 --> 00:05:20.639 Yeah, exactly. Where they don't have time to 00:05:20.639 --> 00:05:22.639 perform for an audience. Well, you're in luck, 00:05:22.720 --> 00:05:24.779 because that is exactly what the next wave of 00:05:24.779 --> 00:05:28.180 research did. Researchers Laurie Rudman and Stephanie 00:05:28.180 --> 00:05:30.879 Goodwin wanted to measure these preferences without 00:05:30.879 --> 00:05:33.519 directly asking the participants anything at 00:05:33.519 --> 00:05:35.420 all. Okay, so how do you do that? No questionnaires? 00:05:35.500 --> 00:05:38.149 No questionnaires. No time to think. They conducted 00:05:38.149 --> 00:05:41.329 computerized tasks at Purdue and Rutgers measuring 00:05:41.329 --> 00:05:44.189 implicit associations. Oh, right. And for those 00:05:44.189 --> 00:05:46.569 listening who know these psychological tests, 00:05:46.870 --> 00:05:49.889 the critical mechanism here is speed, right? 00:05:50.209 --> 00:05:53.959 Not just categorizing words. but measuring the 00:05:53.959 --> 00:05:56.800 actual milliseconds it takes for your brain to 00:05:56.800 --> 00:05:59.680 link a concept to a gender. Speed is the ultimate 00:05:59.680 --> 00:06:02.000 eye detector here. Yeah. They measured how quickly 00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:04.560 a person categorizes pleasant words like good, 00:06:04.759 --> 00:06:08.040 happy sunshine versus unpleasant words. Bad, 00:06:08.339 --> 00:06:10.740 trouble, pain with each gender. And what happened? 00:06:10.980 --> 00:06:13.379 The results were staggering. The computerized 00:06:13.379 --> 00:06:16.079 tasks completely validated the earlier questionnaires. 00:06:16.600 --> 00:06:19.300 Both men and women have far more favorable automatic 00:06:19.300 --> 00:06:21.829 subconscious views of women. So your brain links 00:06:21.829 --> 00:06:24.110 the word sunshine to women way faster than it 00:06:24.110 --> 00:06:27.350 links it to men. Exactly. But the magnitude of 00:06:27.350 --> 00:06:30.449 the difference is the real shocker. Women's in 00:06:30.449 --> 00:06:32.889 -group bias, their subconscious preference for 00:06:32.889 --> 00:06:36.310 their own gender, was 4 .5 times stronger than 00:06:36.310 --> 00:06:39.670 men's. Wait, 4 .5? That is a massive statistical 00:06:39.670 --> 00:06:43.110 gulf. It is. Furthermore, only women showed cognitive 00:06:43.110 --> 00:06:46.519 balance among in -group bias. identity, and self 00:06:46.519 --> 00:06:49.259 -esteem. Hold on. Cognitive balance among in 00:06:49.259 --> 00:06:51.980 -group bias, identity, and self -esteem. Translate 00:06:51.980 --> 00:06:53.680 that into plain English for me. That sounds like 00:06:53.680 --> 00:06:55.839 a lot of academic weight. Yeah, sorry. It basically 00:06:55.839 --> 00:06:58.240 means the human brain loves a neat logical loop. 00:06:58.660 --> 00:07:00.639 For the women in this study, their subconscious 00:07:00.639 --> 00:07:03.569 wiring basically said, I am a woman. I like myself. 00:07:03.709 --> 00:07:05.769 Therefore, women are inherently good. OK, I get 00:07:05.769 --> 00:07:07.810 that. That's cognitive balance. The psychological 00:07:07.810 --> 00:07:09.949 gears mesh perfectly to protect your own group. 00:07:10.310 --> 00:07:12.389 Right. But what's fascinating here is that the 00:07:12.389 --> 00:07:16.230 data shows men literally lack a mechanism that 00:07:16.230 --> 00:07:18.550 bolsters automatic preference for their own gender. 00:07:18.730 --> 00:07:21.889 Wait, really? But that defies everything we assume 00:07:21.889 --> 00:07:24.029 about human tribalism. I mean, we're taught that 00:07:24.029 --> 00:07:25.970 you automatically favor your own team, your own 00:07:25.970 --> 00:07:28.310 demographic. Men don't automatically prefer men. 00:07:28.490 --> 00:07:30.810 They don't. The instinctual tribalism you're 00:07:30.810 --> 00:07:33.730 talking about just does not reliably manifest 00:07:33.730 --> 00:07:37.649 in men when the dividing line is gender. I challenge 00:07:37.649 --> 00:07:40.329 you listening right now to think about your own 00:07:40.329 --> 00:07:43.100 split -second associations. It's wild to think 00:07:43.100 --> 00:07:45.800 about. When a man sees the word trouble, his 00:07:45.800 --> 00:07:48.379 brain just doesn't automatically push that negative 00:07:48.379 --> 00:07:50.579 association away from his own gender the way 00:07:50.579 --> 00:07:53.120 a woman's brain does. Exactly. The tribal instinct 00:07:53.120 --> 00:07:55.720 is somehow neutralized. For almost everyone, 00:07:55.980 --> 00:07:58.300 regardless of gender, positive concepts stick 00:07:58.300 --> 00:08:00.639 to women faster and negative concepts stick to 00:08:00.639 --> 00:08:04.100 men faster. OK, so if men aren't wired to automatically 00:08:04.100 --> 00:08:06.980 favor their own in -group, what exactly is driving 00:08:06.980 --> 00:08:10.000 their positive bias toward women? To answer that, 00:08:10.199 --> 00:08:12.379 Rudman and Goodwin's research points to two very 00:08:12.379 --> 00:08:15.139 different, very powerful aspects of human relationships, 00:08:15.800 --> 00:08:18.759 mothers and intimacy. Let's start with the maternal 00:08:18.759 --> 00:08:21.160 side, because the study found people showed an 00:08:21.160 --> 00:08:23.160 automatic preference for their mothers over their 00:08:23.160 --> 00:08:26.259 fathers, right? Yes. And they associated the 00:08:26.259 --> 00:08:29.100 male gender with violence or aggression. It's 00:08:29.100 --> 00:08:31.939 the contrast between maternal bonding and male 00:08:31.939 --> 00:08:34.539 intimidation. It's kind of like the default factory 00:08:34.539 --> 00:08:36.840 settings on a smartphone. From the moment we're 00:08:36.840 --> 00:08:39.460 born, the primary caregiver, the source of food 00:08:39.460 --> 00:08:41.840 and comfort, has historically been the mother. 00:08:42.080 --> 00:08:44.340 Right. We are pre -programmed from our earliest 00:08:44.340 --> 00:08:46.799 moments to associate safety and care with the 00:08:46.799 --> 00:08:49.679 female gender. And alongside that, the male gender 00:08:49.679 --> 00:08:52.639 has sociologically been associated with physical 00:08:52.639 --> 00:08:55.509 intimidation or warfare. So that early childhood 00:08:55.509 --> 00:08:57.830 bonding lays the foundation. But it doesn't stop 00:08:57.830 --> 00:08:59.669 at childhood, does it? Because they also looked 00:08:59.669 --> 00:09:02.090 at adult intimacy. They did. And this is where 00:09:02.090 --> 00:09:04.470 the out -group preference really crystallizes 00:09:04.470 --> 00:09:07.049 for men. The study revealed that among men who 00:09:07.049 --> 00:09:10.190 engaged more in sexual activity, a positive attitude 00:09:10.190 --> 00:09:13.049 towards sex correlated with a larger bias towards 00:09:13.049 --> 00:09:16.059 women. Wow. So for men, a greater interest in 00:09:16.059 --> 00:09:18.080 sex actually promotes an automatic preference 00:09:18.080 --> 00:09:20.480 for the out group. Like, intimacy just overrides 00:09:20.480 --> 00:09:22.620 tribalism. Precisely. You have early childhood 00:09:22.620 --> 00:09:25.220 bonding, establishing safety with women, and 00:09:25.220 --> 00:09:28.360 then adult sexual intimacy reinforces that highly 00:09:28.360 --> 00:09:31.480 positive association for men. Now, diving into 00:09:31.480 --> 00:09:33.240 the source material, I know there's some debate 00:09:33.240 --> 00:09:36.259 about when this effect actually applies, because 00:09:36.259 --> 00:09:38.039 everything we just talked about, the nurturing 00:09:38.039 --> 00:09:40.759 mother, the caregiver, sounds very reliant on 00:09:40.759 --> 00:09:43.220 traditional social roles. There is absolutely 00:09:43.220 --> 00:09:46.059 a debate. Researcher Kristin Anderson argues 00:09:46.059 --> 00:09:48.740 the women are wonderful effect is highly conditional. 00:09:49.539 --> 00:09:51.879 She suggests it only applies when women follow 00:09:51.879 --> 00:09:54.419 traditional roles like being a housewife or a 00:09:54.419 --> 00:09:56.679 nurturing caregiver. Which perfectly aligns with 00:09:56.679 --> 00:09:59.679 that benevolent sexism theory we discussed. Society 00:09:59.679 --> 00:10:01.639 only rewards you with this bias when you stay 00:10:01.639 --> 00:10:03.919 in your lane. Right, but looking at the broader 00:10:03.919 --> 00:10:06.340 stack of research that conditional view isn't 00:10:06.340 --> 00:10:09.759 exactly the consensus. Yeah. No. Laurie Redman 00:10:09.759 --> 00:10:12.059 and Peter Glick cite studies, including the original 00:10:12.059 --> 00:10:15.919 1991 data, showing the effect applies robustly, 00:10:15.919 --> 00:10:17.820 even when women are in non -traditional role. 00:10:18.019 --> 00:10:20.039 Oh, really? So the bias is anchored to the actual 00:10:20.039 --> 00:10:22.740 category of women, not just the behavior. Exactly. 00:10:22.940 --> 00:10:25.379 The positive cognitive bias existed regardless 00:10:25.379 --> 00:10:27.399 of whether they were conforming to traditional 00:10:27.399 --> 00:10:30.100 housewife roles or stepping outside them. So 00:10:30.100 --> 00:10:33.279 we know early bonding and social roles play a 00:10:33.279 --> 00:10:35.879 part. But does this hold up across the entire 00:10:35.879 --> 00:10:38.149 globe? Or does the specific culture you live 00:10:38.149 --> 00:10:41.929 in change the math? To find out, a massive study 00:10:41.929 --> 00:10:44.909 by Cuba Kreese and his colleagues looked at participants 00:10:44.909 --> 00:10:48.350 from 44 different countries. 44 countries? That 00:10:48.350 --> 00:10:51.690 is an incredible data set. It's huge. They asked 00:10:51.690 --> 00:10:54.269 participants to predict personalities based purely 00:10:54.269 --> 00:10:57.450 on photographs, and they verified the women are 00:10:57.450 --> 00:11:00.909 wonderful effect on a massive global scale. So 00:11:00.909 --> 00:11:03.649 it's not just a Western phenomenon. Not at all. 00:11:03.710 --> 00:11:06.669 But there is a really fascinating twist regarding 00:11:06.669 --> 00:11:09.750 countries with higher gender equality. They discovered 00:11:09.750 --> 00:11:11.649 that the women are wonderful effect actually 00:11:11.649 --> 00:11:13.889 decreases in countries with higher gender equality. 00:11:14.289 --> 00:11:16.090 So what does this all mean? Does that imply that 00:11:16.090 --> 00:11:18.370 in more equal societies, people start viewing 00:11:18.370 --> 00:11:21.529 women less positively? No. And if we connect 00:11:21.529 --> 00:11:24.029 this to the bigger picture, it reveals a profound 00:11:24.029 --> 00:11:27.009 paradox. The effect doesn't shrink because people 00:11:27.009 --> 00:11:29.570 view women less positively. It shrinks because 00:11:29.570 --> 00:11:31.929 people view men less negatively. Wait, let me 00:11:31.929 --> 00:11:34.389 make sure I'm fully grasping this. When a society 00:11:34.389 --> 00:11:36.789 becomes more equal, it doesn't drag women off 00:11:36.789 --> 00:11:40.250 that pedestal. It actually cleans up the subconscious 00:11:40.250 --> 00:11:43.149 baggage associated with men. Exactly. In more 00:11:43.149 --> 00:11:46.549 egalitarian societies, the automatic split -second 00:11:46.549 --> 00:11:49.529 association of men with negative traits, like 00:11:49.529 --> 00:11:52.649 violence or strict intimidation, drops significantly. 00:11:52.799 --> 00:11:55.500 That is an incredible realization. By moving 00:11:55.500 --> 00:11:58.080 toward gender equality, a society essentially 00:11:58.080 --> 00:12:01.120 detoxifies the subconscious image of the male 00:12:01.120 --> 00:12:03.539 gender. It completely reframes how we think about 00:12:03.539 --> 00:12:06.460 the psychological benefits of equality. It fundamentally 00:12:06.460 --> 00:12:08.759 elevates the baseline perception of half the 00:12:08.759 --> 00:12:10.899 population. Which brings up something so relevant 00:12:10.899 --> 00:12:13.399 to you, the listener, and how you consume media. 00:12:13.860 --> 00:12:16.580 We looked at a brand new 2024 study by Stuart 00:12:16.580 --> 00:12:18.860 Williams and colleagues about the harm hypothesis. 00:12:19.080 --> 00:12:20.919 Yes, they found that individuals who exhibit 00:12:20.919 --> 00:12:22.990 as strong women are wonderful. effect actually 00:12:22.990 --> 00:12:25.070 tend to react negatively to research that puts 00:12:25.070 --> 00:12:27.250 men in a better light than women. Think about 00:12:27.250 --> 00:12:30.289 the mechanics of that for a second. If your subconscious 00:12:30.289 --> 00:12:33.649 is wired from childhood to view women positively 00:12:33.649 --> 00:12:36.950 and men as more intimidating, and you read a 00:12:36.950 --> 00:12:39.029 data point challenging that may be showing men 00:12:39.029 --> 00:12:41.909 in a highly nurturing light, your brain experiences 00:12:41.909 --> 00:12:44.129 friction. It violates your cognitive balance. 00:12:44.330 --> 00:12:46.950 Right. You feel a reflexive resistance to that 00:12:46.950 --> 00:12:49.230 information. So I want you to reflect on how 00:12:49.230 --> 00:12:51.750 you scroll through your newsfeed. When you see 00:12:51.750 --> 00:12:55.289 data that challenges your ingrained biases, do 00:12:55.289 --> 00:12:58.230 you feel that subconscious pushback? Recognizing 00:12:58.230 --> 00:13:00.980 that you harbor that bias is the first step in 00:13:00.980 --> 00:13:03.460 ensuring it doesn't blindly dictate your reaction 00:13:03.460 --> 00:13:06.559 to new info. Exactly. Because think about the 00:13:06.559 --> 00:13:08.460 journey we just took. We started out assuming 00:13:08.460 --> 00:13:10.940 society is wired with a baseline prejudice against 00:13:10.940 --> 00:13:13.559 women, only to discover through Eagley and Mladenek 00:13:13.559 --> 00:13:15.580 that the exact opposite is true on a general 00:13:15.580 --> 00:13:18.000 level. Then we looked at computerized reaction 00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:20.480 times, seeing that women possess an in -group 00:13:20.480 --> 00:13:23.879 bias 4 .5 times stronger than men, and that men 00:13:23.879 --> 00:13:26.159 functionally lack the psychological tribalism 00:13:26.159 --> 00:13:28.740 to shield their own gender. We traced it back 00:13:28.740 --> 00:13:31.059 to the cradle, the maternal factory settings 00:13:31.059 --> 00:13:33.860 that program us to associate women with safety, 00:13:34.419 --> 00:13:37.340 contrasted with male intimidation, and how adult 00:13:37.340 --> 00:13:39.720 intimacy drives that out -group preference for 00:13:39.720 --> 00:13:43.639 men. And finally, the global scale. Discovering 00:13:43.639 --> 00:13:45.980 that as a society becomes more gender equal, 00:13:46.340 --> 00:13:49.200 the bias decreases, not because women lose their 00:13:49.200 --> 00:13:51.679 standing, but because the subconscious negative 00:13:51.679 --> 00:13:55.149 view of men begins to heal. Yeah. This raises 00:13:55.149 --> 00:13:56.970 an important question. Which is exactly what 00:13:56.970 --> 00:13:58.789 we're here to do. If the women are wonderful 00:13:58.789 --> 00:14:01.049 effect is so heavily driven by early maternal 00:14:01.049 --> 00:14:03.570 bonding and the traditional association of women 00:14:03.570 --> 00:14:06.730 with caregiving, what happens to this cognitive 00:14:06.730 --> 00:14:09.850 bias in future generations? Oh, that is the ultimate 00:14:09.850 --> 00:14:11.950 variable, isn't it? Right. As society becomes 00:14:11.950 --> 00:14:14.429 more egalitarian and fathers take on a strictly 00:14:14.429 --> 00:14:16.950 equal 50 -50 role in early -ancient nurturing 00:14:16.950 --> 00:14:19.529 from day one, Will the women -are -wonderful 00:14:19.529 --> 00:14:21.950 effect eventually disappear completely? Replaced 00:14:21.950 --> 00:14:24.789 by like a parents -are -wonderful effect? Exactly. 00:14:24.950 --> 00:14:27.470 Will the subconscious wiring of the human brain 00:14:27.470 --> 00:14:30.529 literally update itself? That is such an incredible 00:14:30.529 --> 00:14:32.990 thought to leave you with. As the fundamental 00:14:32.990 --> 00:14:36.129 roles of human caregiving shift, our subconscious 00:14:36.129 --> 00:14:39.029 wiring might shift right alongside it. Thank 00:14:39.029 --> 00:14:41.129 you for joining us on this deep dive. Yeah, thanks 00:14:41.129 --> 00:14:44.350 for listening. As you go about your week, try 00:14:44.350 --> 00:14:46.970 to notice your own split -second biases in the 00:14:46.970 --> 00:14:49.610 wild. Pay attention to where your brain naturally 00:14:49.610 --> 00:14:52.309 defaults. Because when you expect to find universal 00:14:52.309 --> 00:14:55.409 prejudice and instead uncover a profound subconscious 00:14:55.409 --> 00:14:58.049 preference, well, it proves that sometimes the 00:14:58.049 --> 00:15:00.330 most fascinating discoveries happen when your 00:15:00.330 --> 00:15:02.509 core assumptions are proven completely wrong.