>Imagine a world where women weren't told they are naturally good/bad at things, now project that forward 50 years and redo the study. I doubt you have read Ja

>Imagine a world where women weren't told they are naturally good/bad at things, now project that forward 50 years and redo the study. I doubt you have read James Damore's memo ( https://diversitymemo.com/ https://diversitymemo.com/ ) because he addresses your very question explicitly by citing a scientific paper: http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf And guess what? Less constraints on gender roles lead to more sexual dimorphism. Here's another study, resulting in the same conclusion: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153857 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.... >This is my chief problem with the memo, and the fact that he launches into IQ, the talking point of the prejudiced everywhere. Damore doesn't "launch into IQ" at all. The memo mentions "IQ" only 2 times and touches the subject very fleetingly. It appears to refer to an opinion piece that is more elaborate on it: https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.htm... . As it turns out, research on IQ has been defunded in the past for being "racist". You can call Damore "prejudiced", but then you will have a lot of work disproving the body of scientific research cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence Damore's memo is on solid ground regarding the scientific consensus on gender differences in the statistical distribution of psychological traits. It's an honest and fair attempt at describing biological reality. When reality doesn't turn out to be as you want it to be doesn't mean that the author is "prejudiced".