A lot of bad journalism on social science confuses what changes from what remains (almost shockingly) invariant. e.g., rate of homosexual encounters and love-relations constant; perception of them under rapid evolution.
I think culture defines people's null hypothesis. However, people will often deviate from cultural precepts (like the idea that there are no innate gender differences) and reflect in observable behavior, while still professing the cultural ideas, if they are incentivized to do so
-
-
But common knowledge of those deviations is harder to get. CK formation is even blocked, in that case, by what people say. Not only don't you know if the other believes what you believe, (e.g., about of innate difference), you're doing stuff that leads you to think they don't!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.