You've just confused motivation, learning style, and competence in your comment. The article yesterday could be considered to be about learning style (it is cer

You've just confused motivation, learning style, and competence in your comment. The article yesterday could be considered to be about learning style (it is certainly about the ability of eight-year-olds to sit still). The gender gap in technical fields is heavily influenced by societal views -- in 1984 37% of computer science majors in the US were female, and it's been declining ever since, and in Malaysia women are (close to?) outnumbering men in CS/IT. And then you discuss motivation, which is different. I don't believe it was discussed in a scientific way in the Atlantic article, although it has been studied elsewhere. Your comment fails to address the point of the study. Women who take someone else's name do better on math tests. Since they didn't magically change their genetic makeup or knowledge base in minutes, the implication is that unconscious beliefs are influencing performance. No one has "implie[d] statistics are unfounded"; you've simply conflated several separate issues. You are correct that if "women tend to be less interested in math, they will reach their mathematical potential less often." Today's post, though, reveals that it's not all about interest or motivation.