 So Dr. Valiant works in two domains. She works in psychology of language and gender equity. She's, so the first of her domains, she's a distinguished professor of psychology at Hunter College and a member of the doctoral faculties of psychology, linguistics and speech language here in science at SUNY in New York. And she's the director of the language acquisition research center. And on this topic she's going to also give a CDC talk on the 27th of May if anybody is interested. And in the second domain, she works in gender equity, which is why we're here. She's the director of Hunter's gender equity project and she performs research on the reasons behind women's slow advancement in the professions and proposes remedies for individuals and institutions. In a recent Chronicle of Higher Education article on what vote changed your mind, Dr. Valiant spoke why so slow the advancements of women was one of the top 12 nonfiction books that was mentioned as very influential in the last 30 years. So she's a big deal. I can see where she's going. And on a personal note, I'm really happy that we're all here and that she's here to give us a talk because about a year and a half, two years ago, my friends and I started a general science journal for her. And when we tried to promote gender and CDC and the public path that we were googling for resources and we immediately came to her website. So even two years ago, you were already discussing how we needed to be if she came to talk to us about her cycle linguistics as well as her gender project. So I'm very happy to introduce you and thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's great to be here. And I'm going to be here for pretty much the whole month, except for five days when I'll be in Shanghai. So I hope that I'll have the opportunity to talk to a lot of you outside of this particular talk. My office is in 55106. So I plan to be here and I hope to meet a lot of you. And I've enjoyed my day here so far very much. It's my first day on campus and I've already met with four students and had lunch with six students. So it's been a great day so far. The topic today is, why is women's advancement still so slow? And my answer in a nutshell is that we haven't yet solved the core problem of evaluations, how we all, male and female alike, evaluate others, and how we all evaluate ourselves. In academia, in law, in business, in the professions in general, women do not do as well as men do. They rise more slowly through the ranks than men do, and they make less money than men do. And women get less credit for their achievements than men do. I'm going to start with three examples. One is large-scale observational data. One is an anecdotal example about recognition. And one is a laboratory study on 11-month-olds. And I'm going to try to pull those together before going into more detailed experimental data that will be relevant when we talk about, how can we remedy the situation? So what stands in the way of our remedying the situation? And I'll call on various pieces of experiments and data to give my explanation. So the very first example is an example from Spain. You all may already be aware. So this is the Gender Equity Project website. That is the only visual that you are going to see today, just to orient you. So, and me, you will see me. So that's it. You can focus entirely on me and you don't need to look at that again. So in 2011, Spain published a white paper that, as I say, you may all already be aware of on the position of women in academic science. And one chapter in particular. And now you have to excuse my accent or lack thereof by Brindusa Angel, Sara de la Rica, and Juan Jose de Lado. Summarize this data about the advancement of women in science. Could I just ask you how many of you are aware of this white paper in this chapter? OK, a minority. Good. So here's what they report about the situation of men and women in Spain. First, there are no gender differences in promotion to associate professor, whether one compares men and women in the aggregate or divides them by specialization. So at that point, men and women are equal. But there are gender differences in promotion from associate to full professor. When comparing men and women of the same age with the same amount of time since the PhD, the same field of knowledge, and the same recent publication record, men fare better than women do. Men were 2 and 1 half times more likely to be promoted to full professor than women were. So these are men and women who have been statistically controlled on a number of characteristics. There are also gender differences in the effect of having children. So when you compare men and women, again, with the same personal and professional characteristics and the same productivity, fathers were four times more likely to be promoted to full professor than mothers. So women are not advancing as quickly as men are in general. And mothers compared to fathers are particularly paying a price. I want to emphasize about these data that they are similar to data from other countries. Spain isn't worse than any other country, nor is it better than any other country. So no matter where we look, we see the same sort of story. At the beginnings of their careers, men and women are very similar. As careers progress, the differences between them get bigger and bigger. And it happens not just in academia. It happens in all fields. OK, so that's example number one, as I said, from large-scale data. Now, I also analyze the website data that were available to me from the UPF. Now, I think there are mistakes in the website, particularly with respect to the organizational chart that I have. But modulo that here is what I found. Of the eight departments, so when you go to the website and you hover over departments, there are eight of them, 88% have male directors. All of these departments also have deputy directors. Of the 16 deputy directors, 56% are male, and the remaining are female. Of the 24 MA coordinators, 79% are male. And of the nine PhD coordinators, 77% are male. Now, in some cases, the same name appeared more than once. And I counted that name again because I was counting positions, not people. So keep that in mind. I also examined the research groups and units and their subdivisions. Now, here is where there's probably more room for error because I'm not sure all the subdivisions are really subdivisions. But in health and life sciences, 75% of the 16 coordinators were male, as were 75% of the subgroup coordinators. In social sciences and humanities, 67% of the 33 coordinators were male, as were 85% of the coordinators of subgroups. And in my favorite subarea, communication and information technologies, 77% of the 31 coordinators were male, as were 80% of the 20 coordinators of the subgroups. From these numbers alone, it's not possible to tell whether there are genuine gender disparities. We'd have to control for how many men and women are in these fields, the time of their PhD, their productivity, and so on. But collecting the data is a first step toward examining what the underlying mechanisms are. So you have to know what you're dealing with in order to know what it is that you need to explain. How many of you have ever been presented with these data? OK, my next example is a small example, and it concerns recognition of achievement. This example was described by the economist Justin Wolpers in The New York Times last year in November. So he looked at how journalists described newsworthy research by economists, and the one I'll concentrate on had to do with two economists, Ann Case and Angus Deaton. OK, David Plotts, writing in Slate, which is an online magazine, referred to research by Nobel Prize-winning economist, Angus Deaton and Ann Case, who is his wife and also a researcher. Ross Dutot writing in The New York Times referred to research by Nobel laureate Angus Deaton and his wife, Ann Case. Gina Collada in The New York Times wrote about the Deaton case analysis. And Paul Krugman wrote about a new paper by the economist, Angus Deaton, who just won a Nobel and Ann Case. These descriptions might lead you to think that Ann Case is very much a secondary contributor to this research. But she is a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton. She's one of the leading health economists of her generation. She's a fellow of the econometric society and perhaps most striking, she is the first author of the paper being described. So this Deaton case analysis is actually the case Deaton analysis. One of the four writers is a woman. One of them leans to the right. Two of them lean to the left. So I like this example because it shows something that's also wide, which is that neither gender nor political persuasion immunize you from underrating women's accomplishments. You can be a woman. You can be left wing. You can be right wing. You can be anybody at all. And you're likely to underrate women compared to men. Now, this is one example, but laboratory data that I'll talk to you about afterward suggests that it's part of a broader pattern. OK, so to summarize thus far, women are paid less and they receive less acknowledgment of their achievements than men do. How early does the undervaluation of females begin? This is where a study of 11-month-olds comes in. This is by Monshine and her colleagues who asked mothers to give their impressions of the crawling abilities of their 11-month-olds. So they have an incline which they can vary from being flat to being very steep. And they ask mothers to estimate how steep of an angle their child will be successful at crawling up. At 11 months of age, there are no differences, no objective differences between girls and boys in their crawling ability. There will later be differences. Boys will outstrip girls later. But at 11 months of age, there are no differences. The other thing to keep in mind, as I'm telling you about this experiment, is that you might think that if you had what psychologists call individuating information about somebody, so you've interacted with them. You've had a lot of experience with them. So you're not so likely to think about gender. You're more likely just to think about that particular individual because you've got a lot of data about them in particular. So that, you might think, would wipe out any effect that gender overall would have. And these mothers have been observing their children for quite some time. So mothers offered estimates of their children's crawling ability and estimates of how well their children would navigate this sloped walkway. Despite their personal experience with their children's behavior, mothers of boys overestimated and mothers of girls estimated how much of a slope they would be able to navigate. Boys and girls made the same number of attempts. They navigated the same degree of slope. And they were equally unlikely to attempt slopes that were too difficult for them. But mothers of boys thought their infants would negotiate steeper slopes than did mothers of girls. They thought overall that girls would fail when the girls actually had a 100% chance of success. They thought that boys would succeed when the boys' chance of success was actually 0%. So they dramatically overestimated how steep and inclined the boys could navigate and dramatically underestimated how steep a slope the girls could navigate. So even for a behavior that parents have spent a couple of months examining and viewing, they are still affected by the gender of their child. And what that also means is parents expect less of girls than they expect of boys. So if you don't think that your child can navigate a slope, you won't encourage them to do so. And if you do think your child can navigate a slope, you will encourage them to do so. So that means that challenges to excel are going to be different for boys and girls starting very early in development. And we know that people are responsive to what's expected of them. OK, so are we going to explain this? We know that parents don't want to underestimate their children. And they don't think that they're underestimating their children. And people like us, who are evaluating others, don't want to undervalue any group. And we believe we are fair evaluators. That is one of our most precious beliefs about ourselves. So how are we going to explain the fact that despite our good intentions, and as I'll indicate later, sometimes because of our good intentions, we fail to perceive people as they are. And instead, perceive them in a way that leads to inappropriate gender disparities. My explanation relies on two key concepts. The first is the idea of gender schemas. And the second is the idea of the accumulation of advantage. Gender schemas are like cognitive schemas in general. They're typically non-conscious belief structures that we have about anything, but in this case that we have about what it means to be male or female. So we all have schemas, for example, about what a lecture room looks like and this lecture room very well. I'm so glad that that is you and not me. But I did not turn off my phone either. However, nobody ever calls me, so it shouldn't be a problem. So this room fits our schema for what a lecture room should look like, although it's a little odd, right? Because it's got this asymmetrical aisle, and we don't know exactly what's happening with that. But aside from that, yeah, this is a good lecture hall. The seats are raked. Everybody can see me, and you can see each other. So we have schemas about everything, including people in different social roles and people of different sexes, races, et cetera. Our schemas about men portray them as capable of independent action or agentic, doing things for a reason or instrumental, and getting down to the business at hand, being task-oriented. Our gender schemas about women portray them as nurturant and communal. So men look right for jobs like manager and astronomer, and women look right for jobs like elementary school, teacher, and nurse, and so on. And we have schemas about jobs as well as schemas about individuals. So sometimes the schemas mesh, and everything is fine, and sometimes the schemas clash. So things like women in combat, for example, that's something where there's a major clash between our conception of females, which is nurturant and communal, and our conception of what it means to be a soldier in combat, which means killing people, which is pretty much the opposite of nurturing them. So we expect there to be more difficulty when schemas clash than when schemas are congruent and fit well together. And in the sciences, but in professional life in general, we think that the roles require the roles that we're more likely to attribute to men than we are to attribute to women. So when we think about what does it mean to analyze data, we don't think about nurturance and communality. We think about agency, task orientation, and instrumentality. All right, so that's one piece of the explanation. Men look right for certain jobs, and women look right for other jobs. My explanation is purely cognitive, so it has no emotional or motivational component to it, which you can see as a negative, because we know that emotions do often, but not always, go along with these evaluations. But what I am interested in explaining is just the cognitive part. Why we think that some people are better or worse suited to certain kinds of jobs. Now, the result of this is that we systematically undervalue the people who are performing in cases where the schemas mesh, and we systematically undervalue people in situations where the schemas clash. So we don't see fathers, for example, as good caretakers as we see mothers, even when they are great at being a caretaker. And we don't see women as good scientists, let's say, as we see men, even when they are great at being a scientist. So that's part one of the explanation. Now, part two has to do with the accumulation of advantage. The arena in which these imbalances come out, those arenas are often very small examples. So you might say, for example, does it really matter that Ann Casey's husband is given the lion's share of the credit for work that they did together? After all, isn't it the work that really matters, not who's getting more of the credit for it? Or in an example that I particularly like because it's part of people's everyday experience, the meeting. So you're at a meeting. A woman makes a suggestion. Nobody pays any attention to it. 10 minutes later, Luca, let's say, makes the same suggestion. And people say, Luca, what a great idea. Let's wait. And the woman is left thinking, what was wrong with the way she gave her suggestion? Did she not phrase it correctly? What happens such that Luca got the credit and she didn't for the exact same thing? Now, this is a very small thing. But it's typical of the kind of thing that happens on a daily basis. And indeed, can happen three or four times in the course of a day if you actually come to work instead of staying at home. And if you say something about it to somebody, they might say something like, don't make a mountain out of a molehill. So that's an expression I do not know if it has a Spanish translation. The idea is, this is a tiny little thing and you're making a big deal out of this thing. Or people might say, pick your battles. So don't be bothered about that. And the message of the accumulation of advantage is mountains are molehills piled one on top of the other. The way you get to be successful in life is by having little molehills of advantage that pile up and over time make you successful. Seldom does somebody do one great thing that catapults them to success. It's more you make a suggestion. People think, oh, how smart Luca is. And then Luca gets some little extra credit and somebody says, oh, you know, Luca would be a great person to ask to do this and so on. Whereas, and here I won't name names, whereas whoever the woman was who made the suggestion, she's not thought about. So she doesn't get the next opportunity. So it's a little bit like what happens to the 11-month-olds. Only now it's happening to 12 times 30, let's say, month-olds, 3,600 month-olds. All of these little things matter. So how do we know they matter? We know because of a nice computer simulation that Martell and his colleagues ran in which they simulated an 8-level, parametri-shaped organization. And they staffed the bottom level, half male, half female. Of course, it's just X and Y, but you're labeling the X group as female and the Y group as male, let's say, counter biologically. Pro biologically, sorry. And now you institute a promotion process. And this promotion process is going to take people from one level to the next. And it has a bias against women that accounts for 1% of the variance in moving somebody from level to level. So an absolutely tiny, tiny amount of variance, an amount being accounted for by this bias, an amount that any university or institution would be proud to call its own. They continue this promotion process until they've completely turned over the organization. And they look at what's happening up at the top. What's the percentage of males and females? So that tiny percent of bias compounded over time leads to a top that is 65% male and 35% female. So all you need is a tiny amount of bias that you are not experiencing all the time by any means. Sometimes people listen to what you said in the meeting, but on the whole, you're not getting what you should get if you're a woman. So that is the kind of thing that I use to explain this frequent pattern that some of you may have seen that's sometimes called the scissors pattern. So men and women start off. They're the same. Over time, their trajectories diverge. Why is that happening? It's happening because of these little mole hills of advantage that men are experiencing that women are not experiencing. So it's like interest on investment. Even if it's just a quarter of a percent more, you want that because interest compounds. So the miracle of compound interest is you start out with not very much, but compounding gives you a lot. So if you're not getting what you need in order to be successful, over time, you're not going to compound your advantage at the same rate as men. To recap then, we've got these two things going on. We have gender schemas, which result in our systematically, which does not mean 100% of the time. It just means too much of the time. We're undervaluing women compared to men. And over time, that small systematic difference is building up. An important point in this is there are no differences between men and women in the extent to which they do this. So in experiments where social psychologists who are devilishly clever in general are sufficiently clever so that people do not understand what the point of the experiment is, you do not see any gender differences. Women seem to be a little more sensitive than men. So if they do know what the point is, women are slightly more likely to behave impartially. But if they don't know, they are just like men. So there are no bad and good people here. There's everybody who has the same gender schemas and making the same associations. Now, given that analysis of the problem, we have to ask, how can we change things? Because if my analysis is right, then every day we're facing this problem. Every day, in several ways, we are facing the problem. So what can we do that's going to help us? And what are the things that stand in the way of our fixing the problem? I want to consider some ways first that people deny that there's a problem. The first way is to claim that the problems that we see, because everybody can acknowledge, for example, that 80% male or 100% male leadership is not a great thing. So how can we explain that? Well, one way of explaining it away is to say it's a problem of demographic inertia. Demographic inertia refers to the fact that there are a lot more old men than old women around, because it's relatively recently that women started entering the professions in numbers. So this explanation says as soon as those old men leave, and we have equal amounts of men and women entering the pipeline, then this is a problem that will take care of itself. We just need to wait for those old people to leave. Now, there is a kernel of truth to this, because there are a lot more old men than there are old women. But we know that even when people are not old, we still get this phenomenon. And we know that the pipeline selectively leaks women. So even when they start out roughly equally, they drop out of the pipeline as their careers are going on. So if the pipeline has little holes in it that are shaped for women's bodies to fall through, and men's bodies have protuberances or whatever that prevent them from falling through those holes. OK, so it's not enough to put more women in the pipeline if they're going to be dropping out of the pipeline in greater numbers than men are. A second thing that people say when they look at heterosexual couples is men and women have different non-work responsibilities, so women can't spend as much time at work, and if only women were not overdoing it in the way they are, they would be as successful as men. But single women without children are also not as successful as men. And as we saw, men with children seem to get a premium, actually. They seem to be viewed more positively than anybody else. Another thing that people have suggested is that men and women differ in their abilities. This is an explanation that's slowly biting the dust, in part because of data showing that the ratio of males to females at the top of the distribution in standardized math tests has gone down a lot. So 30 years ago, it used to be 16 males to one female at the top of the math distribution, whereby math distribution we're talking about, the SAT test in the United States. Now it's three and a half times as many males as females. So we know that people's biologies have not changed during that 30-year period, so there must be something about the social setting that has changed that allows more women to be up at the tail. So it's partly in response to data like that that people are no longer putting as much emphasis on difference of ability. But what's replacing that is the idea that women aren't interested. So women aren't motivated to be successful. They don't really care about getting a lot of money or being the head of things or being written up in the newspaper. They just don't have the same kinds of ambitions that men have. And if they did, then they would be successful, just like men are. So this choice argument, so women choose basically to be failures. OK, so how could we get some evidence about this? We can think about choice and the extent to which choices are affected by context. So to what extent are women's choices conditioned by and men's choices conditioned by? What the people around them think is appropriate or not appropriate for them and the extent to which women and men feel a part of things? So there's a fair amount of evidence that's increasing that interests are labile. One study that I like a lot by Cherry and her colleagues brings men and women into classrooms, not exactly like this classroom, more classroomy kind of classroom. And the rooms have posters on the wall. They have drinking bottles around. And those posters are either Star Wars type posters and the bottles are like Coke cans or whatever the equivalent would be. I guess people drink Coca-Cola everywhere. Coca-Cola seems to think they do, given the advertising. Or they have nature posters on the wall and they have empty water bottles around. And you ask men and women to fill out a survey indicating their interest in taking courses in computer science. So when women fill out the survey in a room that says, this is a room for white male nerds, they express less interest in going into computer science than when they fill them out in a room that the atmosphere of which says, this is kind of neutral. So when women think that they can belong, then they are more likely to express an interest in computer science than when they think they can't belong. This notion of belonging, I have heard people say, well, what kind of wimps are women anyway that they care about things like belonging? And what that overlooks is the extent to which men feel as if they belong in many different environments. So when you construct environments so that men don't feel they belong, well, they also change their choices accordingly. So these cues to belongingness and to feeling valued influence people in the way I just said, they also influence people in work groups. So in successful work groups, whether you're male or female, feeling that you belong in the group predicts what kinds of contributions you make and it also predicts how well the group works together. So groups in which everyone feels they belong create better products and more innovative products because people feel free to speak out. So this desire to fit in and to be part of things is human, not gendered. Okay, the fifth thing people say about to explain away the disparities is women don't negotiate. So if only women asked for stuff, they would get stuff. And there's a book called Women Don't Ask by Linda Babcock, which is a very good book and she's an economist and she goes into the extent to which women don't negotiate and don't ask for things. Later work that she and colleagues have done suggests that when women do ask for things, other people don't like them and don't want to give them things compared to when men ask for things. So both men and women look negatively on women who negotiate, when they're negotiating for themselves and when they're negotiating in a way that seems self-aggrandizing. So if you negotiate in such a way that your team is going to benefit or your school is going to benefit, somebody other than you benefits, then women are good negotiators in the sense of being successful. But when you're negotiating just for yourself, like you want more money, then people are likely to see you as self-aggrandizing and are not inclined to give you what you've negotiated for. Finally, there are exceptions. There are of course some successful women. And what people can fall prey to is thinking, well there are some successful women, so obviously the system isn't really rigged against them or there wouldn't be any successful women. There wouldn't be any room for anybody. So women just have to shape up in some way that we don't know about yet in order for them to be successful because there are some who are successful. And what that fails to recognize is that exceptions are exceptions. So some of you may know about Tiger Woods. He was one of the first black golfers and we'll forget about what happened to him in the rest of his career, but at one time Tiger Woods was it. And it would be ridiculous to say, see there's no racism in golf because look at Tiger Woods. So you can't generalize from an exception to the whole. The whole is what you want to be explaining. All right, so given all of those things, let's now talk about some improvements that would make a difference in the advancement of women and we'll see how schemas and faulty cognitions make it difficult to enact them. So I'll talk just about two things today. One of them is improving, hiring and promotion practices and the second is improving everyday life. So in general, we need a way to buffer ourselves from the mistakes that we're likely to make. So what I hope I've demonstrated to you to some degree is we're likely to make mistakes when we evaluate people. So we need to have some procedures in place that are gonna prevent us from making those mistakes that we are all cognitively prone to, male and female alike. And one example that demonstrates how we are likely to shift our criteria if we haven't established what the relevant criteria are ahead of time, we're likely to shift our criteria so that whatever characteristics the man has or the characteristics that we think you need in order to do the job. So an experiment by Norton and his colleagues looked at how people judged experience versus education when considering a job as a construction engineer. What's good about this experiment is it demonstrates, it utilizes something that search committees often find themselves having to do. You have candidate A who has advantages that candidate B doesn't have, and candidate B has advantages that candidate A doesn't have. So you've gotta balance those in some way. And you want not to change what you think is more important depending on the gender or ethnicity of the person you're evaluating. So what they did here was they gave people five dossiers to look at for this job of construction engineer. Only two of them were competitive. One of them had more experience than the other. One of them had nine years of experience compared to the other who had five years. And one of them had more education than the other. One of them had a certificate for the relevant area of engineering and the other one didn't have that. So they had three conditions, one where the people are just identified by initials, one where they're identified by name and the man has more experience and the woman has more education, and one with the reverse. The woman has more education and the man has more experience unless I manage to duplicate what I just said. But you get the idea. Okay, so they look first at the condition where people are just identified by initial and here 75% of the time people say the person who has more education is better suited for the job and they give explanations, discursive explanations that allude to education. When a man has more education and the woman has more experience, again 75% of the time people say education is the thing that matters and they give the same kind of reasoning. When it's the woman who has more education, now only 43% of the people say you should pick the person who has more education. So people are shifting their criteria about what the job requires based on gender because men look right for a job of construction engineer whether they have more education or more experience when they're compared with a woman. So if we know that, if we know that our criteria are likely to shift, we can make sure that we establish our criteria ahead of time and that everybody's in agreement that those criteria are good criteria. And then we stick to them when we're evaluating them. And if it turns out that we come up with a woman as being the preferred candidate, we don't then say, well we didn't take X and Y into consideration and if we took X and Y into consideration then this man would be the appropriate person. Now it could be, you should have taken X and Y into consideration but then what that means is you've got to start the whole thing all over again. You can't use it just at the last minute in order to knock out somebody who doesn't look right to you for the job. But if you don't have those strict rules in place and follow them, you are likely to shift. Now I think that a lot of you know about the study by Moss recusin at all but I'll review it briefly. This study said was partly in response to people saying, you know all those studies that are showing these things, they're with undergraduates. Undergraduates. So let's look at what people, scientists do, scientists were objective. We're gonna go just by the record in evaluating people and you won't see the same kinds of biases if you look at scientists. So they sent resumes that were identical to working scientists at high research institutions and in chemistry, physics and biology. And the resumes were for a job as lab manager and they were not, the resumes did not describe the perfect person because we know that when you describe the perfect person, people are as likely to pick a woman as a man but real life seldom provides us with perfect people. So these resumes were a little ambiguous. Person had pluses and the person had minuses. And in this case, these people, these objective scientists preferred the male applicant whose materials were identical to the female applicants. They were more willing to mentor the male candidate than the female candidate. And they estimated a higher salary for the male candidate than the female candidate. So nobody is immune from these effects. What that means is that we need to have procedures in place that are going to allow us to evaluate people by the same yardstick and not by what our gender schemas are likely to push us into. There are many more experiments that I could entertain you with on this level but I'm going to move on to talking about the fact that we all tend to trust our own judgment. So when we evaluate people, we're very aware of our good intentions as I alluded to at the beginning of the talk and we think that we are judging people fairly and that we know our motives are beyond criticism and so we think we are judging people fairly. So moral licensing is a phenomenon that social psychologists have begun to investigate. Moral licensing is the phenomenon in which you're licensed to do a bad thing because you've convinced yourself that you're good. So here's an example of how that works and this is work by Monan and colleagues. So in one conditions, undergraduates who I now hope you will accept as people despite your inclinations to the contrary, they evaluated five statements of the sort. Most women are not very smart. So this was in one condition and most women were portrayed as unsuited for a career as needing a man's protection, not very smart. Okay, so in that condition, everybody's gonna say, no, that's wrong. It's not most women by no means. The other condition, the other experimental condition is most is replaced with some. Some women aren't very smart. Some women need a man's protection, et cetera. So those are things that you can ascent to. Yeah, most some women aren't very smart. Okay, and then you've got a group that doesn't get anything, any kind of biasing information. Then, depending on, regardless of the group you're in, you read a scenario in which you have to choose someone in the construction industry. Investigators really like the construction industry to negotiate contracts with potential clients. You have to make contacts with four men and you have to talk to building contractors and you have to demonstrate strong technical skills. And now you're given the choice of is the job better suited for a man, better suited for a woman, or equally suited to both. Participants who were in the most statement condition were more likely to pick a man than a woman for the job. So by disagreeing with the statement that most women aren't very smart, they congratulated themselves, as it were, on how gender neutral they were. And having congratulated themselves on how gender neutral they were, they could then do something that was gender biased. And experimenters have found the same thing with respect to ethnicity. So if you give statements about blacks or statements about Barack Obama, again, once you've gone on record with yourself as not being racist, then you're free to make racist judgments. And it extends more broadly than that. So if you are working at a company that has a strong equal opportunity mandate, then you feel more likely, you feel more able to choose somebody who is not a woman or a black. So you're working at a place that's fair. So you can do whatever you want because the fair thing is gonna happen regardless of what you do. Now, of course, none of this is going through your mind consciously, but it seems to be the underlying mechanism. So this belief in our good intentions makes us blind to the bad things that we do. And again, this is a place where having firm criteria protects us from what we're likely to do wrong. Knowing about it is also, should be a help. Okay, in the remaining bit of time I have here, I wanna talk about improving people's everyday work life. So psychologists and sociologists talk about three different kinds of fairness. There's what's called outcome fairness, so that are you getting as much money as you think you should get or as big an office as you think you should get, or if you're a student, are you getting the grade you think you should get? Then there's procedural fairness. Are the rules that determine whether you're gonna get a good office or pay or any other kind of perk? Are those rules fair? Do you think they're fair? And does everybody know what the rules are? Are they transparent, are they open, and are they fair? That's the second kind of fairness. And the third kind of fairness is interactional fairness. So how are you treated on a day to day basis? Are you treated with dignity and respect or in subtle ways, like people not listening to you in a meeting, are you ignored or undermined? These kinds of unfairness can happen to everybody. So men can experience them as well as women, whites can experience them as well as people of color. But they tend to happen more to women and people of color than they do to white men. And they affect people's commitment to the organization, they affect how productive people are and they predict whether people are likely to stay with the institution. So these things that you're not noticing, like whether or not you're saying hello to somebody in the corridor, are affecting their everyday life. And women are getting less of those than men are. So that's another thing that you can change on a day to day basis. So every person in this room can go out and think about one place where they could make a difference. One of my colleagues, for example, thought that in my department, the comments that women made were not paid as much attention to as the comments that men made. And so he decided he would do something about it in our department. So if he finds that somebody hasn't paid attention to something that a woman has said and the conversation moves on, he will say, I think we should discuss what Susan said. She said, X, I think we should talk about it. So he doesn't say it was great. He doesn't do anything except say it ought to be attended to. And that's his way of trying to make sure that he can stop that little thing from happening. So everybody has things like that that they can do. All you need to do is look around you and perceive something that you think isn't working so well and that you can do something about. So you can be a bystander that responds in a helpful way to make a situation better and you can make sure in that way that you've upped a little bit, not a lot, a little bit, but you've upped the civility of your workplace and you've therefore upped a little bit, not a lot, but a little bit, you've upped the likelihood that the women and people of color in your workplace will feel that they belong and will be more productive. Okay, so there is of course much, much more to say, but we have run out of time. So let me summarize here and say, we know that gender schemas influence our evaluations of others in many small ways with the result that men are slightly overvalued and women are slightly undervalued in myriad situations. And these small differences in treatment add up over the long haul to big differences in outcome. Any given occasion doesn't matter much, but when you take them all together, they matter a lot. This happens on the part of women and men equally. So we don't need to feel guilty about what happens, but we do need to take responsibility for what happens because we can each change things. So we can each change our behaviors at least in some small ways. And if we're leaders, we can change the institutions that we're part of. So let's get going. Thank you. So I know some people may have to leave and I can wait a minute for the people who have to leave to leave. And otherwise I'll be happy to take questions. Okay, the hardcore is left. And Luca has the opportunity to say something that we can all say, Luca, what a great idea too. Thank you for this really very, very useful talk. And I will not say that that's too much. One is some sort of a contradiction that they're seeing what you said. And I wonder whether there is another solution and what you think about the solution. The contradiction is the following. I think the point that the very small bias can have very big consequences. But then, if that point is correct, then I cannot imagine any kind of set of rules as you suggested. Let's make a rule of, say, high and clear. I cannot imagine any kind of set of rules that is, as it were, resistant to a one percent bias. So I do not think that enforcing rules will have the effect that you suggest, given the fact that there is this very big imbalance in the biases. Therefore, I think that maybe the solution to this problem is really a much more radical solution to enforce quotas. And of course, if you enforce quotas, you're going to make a lot of unfairness. But it's a societal problem. And if you say, okay, there's not a solution because the other solutions can be empirically true to be known. I wonder what you think about this. I mean, do you think that when I say it is not correct or if it is correct, do you think what you think about the quota system? That's the third question. The second question is still... Let me answer that one because I'll probably forget it if you go on to the second one before I answer this one. So yes, it is true. You're never going to get even down to one percent. But the bias is probably not at one percent now. The bias is probably at an extent that it counts for much more than one percent of the variance. It's, I don't know what the right number would be, but it's got to be a lot bigger than one percent. So getting it down somewhat will help. So it's not a panacea, but it will help. And since this is a problem that is so multifaceted and occurs everywhere, if people also take individual responsibility of the sort that I suggested in the second one, making the work environment an environment that is courteous and produces the feeling of belonging on the part of people, then that will also contribute. So it's not a problem that can be solved either only by individuals or only by institutional dicta. It has to be handled by both simultaneously. So everybody has to take responsibility within their own ballpark for things that they notice that aren't right. With respect to quotas, I think it depends on the culture. As I said to students earlier today in the United States, you cannot even say the word quota. That's just out of the question. People will not accept quotas. But in Northern Europe, people will accept quotas. So in Norway, the quota demand that 40% of boards of directors needed to be women. People argued, but they did it, and they are not unhappy with the results. So I think that the quota solution is one that can only be tried if you have widespread agreement within the culture that you need to do things fairly, that things aren't being done fairly, and you need to take dramatic action. Whether Spain is a country that would allow that to happen in a way that would be more positive than negative, I don't know. Probably not is my guess. But you also don't know completely until you try, and you can look at other things that governments have tried to do. So the Scandinavian countries are very good at instituting rules that will promote equality of lots of different sorts, and people go along with it. But you don't know about, you could look in whatever country you're in to see what's the history of governmental attempts to legislate change. Has that been successful? If so, then maybe a quota would work. Affirmative action, which used to exist in the United States, was successful in the sense that more women and people of color were hired, and the way it was stated was stated in a way that it's hard to see that anybody could object to, namely, if people had equivalent qualifications, then you would choose the woman or the person of color until you had developed a balanced institution. Nevertheless, it was politically infeasible and it now basically does not, it certainly doesn't exist at a formal level. The only thing that exists at a formal level is suing people on the grounds that you were discriminated against because of your race or gender or age or some other thing. So I don't know about the other, I don't know whether it would work in Spain and I imagine all of you have your own ideas. Okay, question two. Question two is, as you, I mean I think very much is Empirica's night of youth. And what I'm saying, I don't know if it is supported by Empirica or is it accepted by personal experience. There are some of the sciences where women have a much higher importance in particular and that is, I think, very important as your reference figures. As what? Reference figures, people that quote Oh, uh-huh. And one of the things that was an experience that I had which sort of as a white male invited me to think there were much more than what I was thinking is once that I gave a class in France and because I am not French, I said, okay, please correct me if I am wrong. It was a class in cognitive development. And at the end of the class, one year of class, the woman came to me and said, okay, you speak well enough but you make a systematic mistake because you say M as opposed to E. As the generic third person pronoun? And I said, no, because the class was about Suzanne Carré, Lee Specké, and Jundie Varriere, and all these people that are reference figures and they are women in my discipline. So, and I can think of two disciplines that are like the ones in linguistics that are really important reference figures who are women and let's say developmental science. And my question is, do you think there is anything special to these kind of disciplines? There is a dismissive question answer which is, oh yeah, because they talk about kids, so that's women stuff. Then there is an answer that could be, well, but these are really young kind of disciplines like, for example, linguistics theory in scientific disciplines since not so long, it was John Stuart who was at the base of it, John Stuart had a particular political idea so there was less bias to begin with. And in discipline, the developmental sciences really didn't exist as a scientific revolution. So I wonder whether there is anything like sort of studying this situation, finding there, or maybe I'm wrong in to begin with, but I say that he's pretty confident that I am right at least in the fact that many of the leading figures that he would quote would study and so in now, I will. So there must be something there that could be an example. They wanted to share with you. Yeah, I think if you look more broadly, that that is not going to hold up as a generalization. So women are almost half of the biologists, but women do not fare as well in biology, for example, as they do in psychology, even though biology has a lot of new areas, every day it has new areas. But still, women are not getting the same kind. They're not reference figures to the same extent that they are in cognitive development, for example. And a study that I did looking at awards as a function of different variables in cognition and developmental psychology, we didn't have a large enough N, but in developmental, which in the United States is roughly 80% female, there was actually a slight advantage to being a man as far as number of awards that you get. So I think it's not as simple and your mention of linguistics made me smile because this was a while ago. This was at least 20 years ago. I remember hearing from female graduate students in linguistics at MIT that they had a discussion with the faculty because at that time there were no female faculty in linguistics at MIT. And they said one faculty member who's not at MIT anymore and who will remain nameless, said, well, the men work on theory and the women tend just to work on facts. And that every time after that, when he referred to men and women, his hand was always up here when talking about men and down here when talking about women. So I think things have changed in that respect. But I wouldn't say that linguistics certainly at the beginning of modern linguistics showed any egalitarian effects with respect to gender. And I remember that Chomsky was quoted by my informant as saying, well, women can't really be as successful as men because they're at home taking care of the children. So I don't think that a leftist ideology or a commitment to equality means that you're going to instantiate it in all the places where you might. Yes? Can I just jump in on this question? Because I was asked to participate in a rap table about women in science not that long ago. Looking around at what, because I had the impression also that there are a lot of women in leadership positions in at least theoretical linguistics that I don't know so much about applied linguistics or based on developmental psychology. And one of the things I looked at was what had happened with the proportion of men and women who had gotten their PhD from MIT. And so if you look through that starting at the beginning, it's true that of course there were more men than women as you, I looked at, I don't know, maybe I looked at 15 years or something like that. Starting from the first class? Okay. But what was interesting is that if you looked at of those people who became a leading figure afterwards, the proportion of women who actually did become leading figures was much higher than men. Which I mean could have any number of explanations. I mean the first one that occurred to me is that simply at that time to be a woman deciding to do something like that already made you probably several notches higher than maybe the average man who was going to get into MIT. But I wonder to what extent, I tend to think that these are very complex things that are going on. One of the things that occurred to me is that that did create women role models. From what I've heard actually, I would not mention any names. I mean I know one person who has explicitly mentioned a leading female figure who actually seems to be better as a mentor for men than women so it is even the case that she's not particularly favorable to her female students but it doesn't seem to be the case that there are many, you do have these women role models and that might be the actor. And another thing that occurred to me was that linguistics has a long tradition of I think a kind of flat relationship between junior and senior people. You see that manifest in like the summer schools the linguistics institutes and this kind of thing. And I wonder if that makes it a little bit easier for people who are maybe a bit shyer to approach authority figures and also maybe puts a certain peer pressure on authority figures to be less authoritarian. So, I mean we're talking about a field that has a very authoritarian personality with an outside influence as part of it. So, well that's true, that's true. I don't know, I'd be very interested in senior data so maybe we can talk about looking at that but I'm hard pressed to think of women theoretical linguists as a group. I mean, it's a much smaller group. Now you might say, well that's because they were a smaller group to start with compared to the group of men, so. There's also something interesting. Okay, yeah. Come on, okay. Yeah, so. Because in syntax, yeah, I mean I think science about how there were certain, you know, how basically fields in which being considered smart was basically. Yes. Which I come to say I don't have a very high opinion of the, I didn't find that study as such very convincing. Let me just summarize the study. So there are some fields like philosophy where words like brilliant are used a lot and where people think you have to have special talent in order to be successful. And then there are fields like psychology where people don't think you need to be anybody in particular to be a good psychologist. You can be pretty much anybody and succeed in psychology. So what they found was that the percentage of women in a field correlated with the extent to which people thought you needed a special talent in order to do it. So fields like philosophy don't have very many women. Fields like psychology have a huge number of women. And there's a nice interactive website that analyze those adjectives from ratemyprofessors.com. And so you can put in an adjective like brilliant and by field and by gender it shows you the extent to which those adjectives are used. So brilliant is used a lot for philosophy and there's a bigger gender gap there than there is in psychology. And even words like funny, they're used much more for men than they are for women. Please continue. Well so let's say theoretical syntax is opposed to other areas of linguistics. Share the fact that people are very easily impressed by cleverness irrespective of whether you are actually explaining some empirical fact. Yeah. Which is not exactly the same thing as brilliant. And there I do see how men can have an advantage because one thing that you didn't mention that I think actually also or maybe not so explicitly that enters into this cognitive schema thing is this whole phenomenon of the self-confidence that men, I would again say generalize it widely, are inclined to manifest even when they are deeply insecure as opposed to women who even if they have much more to offer will shrink back if they take those risks. And I think people are just really very sensitive to that. Yes, I think that that's right and there are data to support that. So we know that men act much more entitled than women do and there is a recent study one that I didn't have time to talk about in which people are unable to adjust for men's boastfulness. So men are likely to overestimate how much they're able to do. This is in a math problem solving situation and women are likely to underestimate even though they've both done problems and they know what their ability to solve these problems is men overestimate and women slightly underestimate and even when evaluators are told what the scores were they cannot manage to negate the men's boastfulness. They're affected by men's boastfulness. So one thing that men can do is not boast so much and I'm sure all of you men in the audience will do your part there. And the problem that women have is if they do boast then they're perceived very negatively by both men and women. So women have to walk this very fine line because if they don't seem competent well then they're out of it altogether. On the other hand if they make their competence too known well then they're not adhering to gender schemas enough and so then they're penalized on those grounds. So it's at this point somebody always says well that's not fair and it's not fair but it is how it seems to be. Do we have any other questions which I'd be delighted to entertain? Yes. From your most famous Spanish culture in the sense that the people of part of South America used to be cultures for over three decades trade unions that was the latest to be quarters in the mid-2000s. Company, the corporate boards are also a lot of companies must use quarters but probably the sanction is very low so it doesn't work on Saturday, right? Okay, yeah. The problem with universities is first the individualistic culture. So it's very, very tough for well to use compensation to collectively identify what's going on even with non-women, right? And is it also actually good to be policy of meritocracy, right? So yes, we were all selected, we were all recruited here because we are the best. Yeah. And I'm not saying that, okay, you might have looked around and maybe yeah, the leaky pipeline made several women go through that, makes you question yourself, your own gender identity, right? Yes. You're both men and women. So I find it very difficult to, I don't know, to, and this is the question itself, how can we produce this, I don't know, safe spaces or deliberation spaces in these, we can self reflect on how we might be producing these biases but also how institutions can come to see this right or something like that before. Yeah. Beyond laws, beyond international recommendations. Yeah. To steer this collective base. So I can tell you the strategies that I've used and that people at different universities in the United States have used. So what I try to do is always look at the highest level principles that I can and where those principles aren't working. So part of that is identifying the advantages and benefits of making sure that you've got a diverse workforce. And there are data there that suggests that, for example, having more women on a team leads to more innovative and better solutions and having more diversity in general leads to more innovation only if people know how to manage those teams because diverse teams are also more likely to implode than non diverse teams are. And what seems to make the difference is exactly what you said about having a safe space. So it has to be the case within a group that's a diverse group and is going to be successful that everyone feels that they can make suggestions and that they will be heard. And that what they're good at is recognized by other people in the group as something that they're good at and something of value. So there has to be congruence between what you think you can offer and what I think you offer. And you can train people to be better at that. You can train people to recognize what people have to offer. And that's something that I think people who want to be in leadership positions are actually interested in because people want to form teams that will be interdisciplinary and successful. And there is now data that suggests, yes, there are such groups. And there's a book by Scott Page called The Difference and he argues in there that diversity is inherently going to lead to better solutions than homogeneity does because most of the problems that we deal with are not well-defined problems. So when you have a problem space that isn't well-defined, you've got just this very jagged solution space. And if everybody's homogeneous, they run the risk of being trapped in a local maximum. So there are other maxima out there but you're never gonna see them because everybody's thinking exactly the same way. And so you're pegged to a local maximum that is not the best maximum. So I think explaining those things to people at a level that doesn't evoke guilt or defensiveness and makes people interested in the phenomenon is one way you can try to get people to start thinking differently about how to do things. Another area that people are very interested in has to do with hiring and interviews. So one question is how do you get people, how do you get women and people of color to apply for jobs to begin with? And then how do you go about interviewing them? And there are basically two different interview strategies. One is how can I threaten this person the most? And see how well they stand up to my badgering and bullying them because I think that's what you need in order to be successful in academia. Versus the other way which is how can I bring out the best in this person and all the other people that I'm interviewing so that I can see what that best looks like and whether that best is what I want here. And I think that there is an increasing emphasis on trying to have interviews that bring out the best in people rather than threatening them because there is more and more recognition I think, I don't think this is just hopeful thinking, that good ideas are not only found in people who talk big, that good ideas are found in lots of different personality styles. And once people start recognizing that, then they can start modifying their interview practices and be more likely to get people in. So I don't, I personally feel fine about it. I personally feel fine about quotas if they worked, but the way you were talking about soft quotas, the same thing I understand is true in France where there's lip service paid to Parisier, but the fines are so minimal that people don't really pay attention to it. So I think it's better to try to show people what the advantages are and how they would benefit. So I think people like the idea, I can be a good team leader if I figure out how all of this works. I can make my team succeed by understanding what it takes to get good ideas going. And there is an increasing amount of data on this and the safe space idea, that's becoming a really big idea with respect to teams. Even in teams that aren't new teams, but are old teams. So there's a very nice study in a workplace, not a university, looking at what teams work and those are teams where people feel free to talk and to say what their ideas are. And there's a recognition, some ideas are gonna be terrible, but you need to hear some of the terrible ideas in order to get to good ones. So I think if you can convince people of that, then you've moved some way to trying to create teams that will work. Now I also think you can teach people how to be better at it if they want to learn. And there is some advantage to learning. One place that I spoke was at a retreat that the Florida University System had every year for new department chairs. And they had people in small groups but also in plenary groups where they would discuss the kinds of issues that chairs are faced with. One of which is gender and diversity and they asked me to speak about that. But another thing they did, which I thought was so great was they gave examples of what did a good evaluation letter of a faculty member look like and what did a bad letter look like? So assuming you did annual evaluations of faculty, what kinds of things should you include and how should you say the things that you were going to include? And because they had actual examples there, they created composites. This is the kind of letter you should write. This is the kind of letter you shouldn't write. Here's why you want to write these letters because you want to improve the performance of the people that you have. And they were all there wanting to do a good job. So I think chairs want to do a good job but they get no help whatsoever in what doing a good job is. So I think we can teach people how to do a lot of these things. And in general, I like to have a skills approach. It's all skill and you can learn a skill. Whereas if you think that you either have it or you don't then you're out of luck. So you may know the work of Carol Dweck and her colleagues. She talks about people being one of two sorts of people. They're entity people. So they think with respect to whatever it is you either have it or you don't. You're either good at math or you aren't. And then there are the incremental people who think you can get better at whatever it is. So the Japanese are incremental about math. Everybody can do math and you just need to work at it in order to do well. Whereas Americans tend to be entity theorists about math. Well, you didn't do well. You're just not cut out for math. Japanese parents don't say that. Japanese parents say you need to study harder. Let's figure out why you're having a problem. And Japanese teachers think that. So if we took that attitude about everything we need to understand why you weren't doing well and we need to help you do better than a lot of the things that we have problems with would become less of a problem. Now that's, I believe in education which is kind of foolhardy but it's hard not to believe in it if you're a professor. Other questions or thoughts or comments or objections. Yes. Yeah. And we will talk about the vibration in a curriculum which is a context where there's a lot of competition. And so to give some recipes to reduce the bias. For me, I have the feeling that the main problem is the valuation within the context of our competition. Within the context of competition. Very competeful, grand, very diverse resources. And it's very competitive. And I'm sure that if you move to a more cooperating while you're doing science, while you're managing the rules, also you know, more diversified for short term. Maybe the valuation would be more fair in the context of cooperation. Yes, I think that that's true. And we do have some evidence that men are risk prone. So people often talk about women being risk avoidant but men are risk prone. And we know that there are disadvantages to that. So stock brokers for example, male stock brokers are more likely to take risks than female stock brokers are. And they lose a lot of money because they're always buying and selling. And so, and every time they make a trade, then it costs the investor money. So you are better off with a woman if you have any money. But how to induce cooperation, I think that's the trickier part of things. And I don't think we're ever gonna get to a point with respect to grant proposals where we aren't competing with other people. But we might be able to teach people how to evaluate better. So in what I was saying before that people have a hard time correcting for male boastfulness. They probably grant reviewers probably have a hard time correcting for it too. So one kind of education that we could try to do with grant reviewers is here are the places where you're likely to be misled. Here's the kind of, you could actually write two different descriptions of the same research where the actual experiments being proposed were the same but they were being framed in different ways. And you could teach people how to read through the more boastful claims and to concentrate on the studies that are being proposed rather than the skill of the person in hyperbolically describing their research. Nobody's done that, I don't know if it would work but we know that the evaluation process is not what it should be. Now all of that said, internationally there isn't evidence that women suffer either with respect to having their papers accepted compared to men or with respect to having their grants accepted with respect to men. So they're... Is there a study that shows that if you change your name of the person? Yes, so there are those laboratory studies but analyses by Marsh and colleagues looking globally at who gets grants and who doesn't. So actual grants, there isn't a clear bias against women except at the very beginning with postdoctoral grants where men are more successful than women are. But it's hard to make the case that there's good evidence that women don't fare as well as men with respect to getting grants or getting their papers accepted in real life. There is evidence of a prestige factor so people who come from more prestigious institutions are more likely to be positively evaluated than people who come from less prestigious organizations and to the extent that women are found in less prestigious organizations they may pay a penalty on that basis. But it's hard to get solid evidence that women are at a disadvantage with respect to either grants or papers. And that's not the case in the US for blacks. So blacks are at a disadvantage compared to whites even when you control for everything with respect to grants. But it doesn't seem to be the case with respect to gender. I'm feeling that the idea that we want the evaluation to be objective but constructing the age factor, for example. Yeah. Many, like quantitative things. It's a way to reduce the quality of your evaluation. In this context of hard competition for the rest of the model of science. So I always see that when I circulate the evaluation for me, it's like, oh, evaluation within this system and those kind of things. I would go more from scientific to more slow. Yeah, I take your point. Bye-bye. Okay. Bye-bye. Any other thoughts or comments? Yes? Yes. Yes. So it's very hard to change a theory. Once you've got a theory, you need a whole lot of evidence to change it. I think that there have been changes but they aren't enough and your beliefs about men and women are going to lag behind what your behavior can be. So one example that I give about myself is a colleague asked me to give a guest lecture in his class in developmental psychology which as we've discussed is mostly female on language acquisition and he told me that there was a retired nurse in the class and there was also a former Protestant minister in the class and I thought, oh yeah, that's interesting. So I go into the class and everybody who's coming into the class is female and I'm thinking where is the Protestant minister? Oh, I guess he dropped the class and then I'm showing my slides because I do show slides sometimes and about the third slide it occurs to me, oh, the Protestant minister is one of the women here. So I've been thinking about schemas and working on schemas for a long time and I think my schemas are just as robust as they ever were. So I don't have, other people may be better than I am here but if we look at me I've got a flat learning curve with respect to my unthought through responses but I can change my behavior and I can catch myself doing the wrong thing and do the right thing even if I haven't touched the schemas. Now that said, I think you're right, I think there has been change. So one thing I noticed, this is a small thing but I notice women talking together about work a lot much more than they did 20 years ago say and I see women arguing with men. I'm walking down the street and I hear a woman disputing with the man that she's walking with about some movie they saw, no, I think it was this, that and the other and she's not shy about it, she's not deferring to his opinion. So I think there are those changes and another thing that's changing is men want to be good fathers and they want to be better fathers than their fathers were, meaning they want to have more of a role in taking care of their children. So all of those things working together I think are helping but I think the core is gonna be really, really hard to change but I don't think we need to change it in order to make progress on changing behavior. Anybody else? So basically the general idea is of course we have these schemas but that our time now is more permissible for a woman to talk to by male space so women can be seen as a gentile or should be adopted or should not be a nurse, right? So we're like three dozen moving into the meta phase. What is it happening to the same extent as the other thing? Right. So I feel like that's the harder day to change especially when I feel like maybe women are more in tune with these sorts of things given the biggest advantage of us. Yes, yes. And there's a lot of evidence in favor of what you say because to be a woman is still to be stigmatized someone. So the stigmatized person can take on the characteristics of the non-stigmatized group but the non-stigmatized person is just volunteering to be stigmatized by taking on the characteristics of the stigmatized group. So clothing for example, I haven't looked but it's probably the case most of the women in this room are wearing pants and none of the men are wearing skirts and they're not wearing skirts in the summer when it would actually make sense for them to wear skirts. It's just not happening. I mean, I can, I have seen twice in my life men in skirts and it requires so much bravery to wear a skirt if you're a man. So this, that imbalance demonstrates the extent to which men define the norm. So if women approach the norm with respect to competence, they're not penalized as much as men who approach the female norm do. But there's still evidence from laboratory experiments. These are studies by Laurie Redman and her colleagues where people act in counter-stereotypic ways. So they're the shills of the experimenter, they're actors that the experimenter has gotten. And then the subjects have the opportunity to sabotage their performance without the subject knowing, the quote subject, the person who's been displaying the behavior knowing that they're being sabotaged, like by giving them harder problems to solve. So both men and women will sabotage both men and women who act stereotypically. So women who act too agentic. And the emphasis there is on two because you're allowed to be a little agentic, but if you're too agentic, then both men and women will sabotage you. And if you're a man and you're too touchy-feely and nurturant, both men and women will sabotage you. So these schemas are not just descriptive, they're prescriptive. But you do have more leeway if you're a woman because the other sex is more highly valued. So in the US, I don't know if this exists in Spain or Europe. There's this notion of cooties, C-O-O-T-I-E-S. So cooties, that's something you can get. One person can give another by touching them. And so kids, so kids will run away from somebody who has cooties because they don't wanna be touched by that person. And it's asymmetric with respect to status. So low status people can infect you by touching you and give you cooties. And girls are low status and so they can affect boys. And so boys will run away from girls so that they don't get touched and get cooties. And it also holds for kids who are disabled maybe or retarded or whatever. So does that exist in Europe? That notion, it's very ugly, so it would be great if you didn't have it. But it too is responding to this status thing where the high status person doesn't wanna get too close to the low status person because then they could become low status by simply being in too close contact to them. Life is sad, yeah. I was thinking about this, you said that women get less credit for this day and if one says in a video, they will get more credit. Then you were saying how this professor was trying to join this idea. Let's discuss what we're gonna say. Yes. That's very nice. But I feel that, so if that happened to me or anyone and then we claim this was our idea, then we're in a lose-lose situation, right? Because women are not supposed to be, like, to want to offend their career, they are supposed to not, they are not supposed to be on the front page. Yes. So I know it's in our hands that we're in a lose-lose situation. Okay, I'm not sure what question you're asking. But would we do this like us? Okay, so when it happens to you, I don't think there's anything you can do and that's why people need to learn to be good bystanders so that you can do it for another woman. So it doesn't have to be a man doing it for a woman, it can be anybody doing it. But I think it's very hard to do it for yourself and that's why you all wanna learn to be good bystanders so that you can intervene successfully in places like that. And that means being aware of these things that are happening when they're happening. So now I get credit for things that I didn't say. So people will say, oh, as Virginia said, I actually didn't say it, somebody else said it. And so then I'm faced with the moral question, do I say no, no, it wasn't me, it was so-and-so or do I just let it ride? So there is a point at which external status can override your identity but that doesn't come for quite some time probably. So the only thing you can do then, I think is to rely on somebody else. Yes? I was really dominated by a woman. Yeah. She showed how we also define diversity and this kind of makes me think about the studies that show that in full of color within communities they would say a community is only diverse that 50% of the community is people of color whereas white people would say a community is diverse that 10 to 15% is a big person of color. And then it makes me think, every time I'm at the end of this district conference like very big ones, people will say, oh, this conference is all about making a email. I look at the program and maybe if the keynote speakers there's 20, 13 would be female, seven would be female and everybody would say this is such a long-term email space. Yes, yes. So I think that even when we're linguistic it's how we define what diversity is and are we becoming complacent in a way if women are ever represented we kind of intend to complain about it. Yeah, if women are represented we think of them as over-represented. Yeah. So it makes very overall women female when I go to these conferences I don't think you can do that. I consider that characterization of linguistics to be bizarre because it's still the case that the men are seen as doing the theory and the women are seen as doing the facts and what we care about is the theory and not so much about the facts and the men are over-represented among the speakers and I really, I wanted to challenge Luca about so just who are these women that people are paying so much attention to anyway? And I do think especially in syntax it's still an overwhelmingly male field. Semantics is different but still, yeah, yeah. So one thing you wanna do is be on colloquium committees and be on other committees where you can affect what the speaker representation is going to be so that people do actually hear from women but also I think correcting people and saying, oh, do you think that whatever seven out of 20 is, do you think that that means that women are over-represented? I mean, giving people the actual numbers. So I remember talking to a friend of mine who was talking about the MacArthur awards the so-called genius awards and saying, well, they go disproportionately to women and people of color. Disproportionately, women and people of color happen to be more than 50% of the population. What would it mean for them to be disproportionately represented? And then he said, oh, and you'll probably tell me that it's only 38% and so he had some awareness of what was going on but I think making sure that we actually have the numbers and we can say to people when they say so-and-so was hired because they were a woman or so-and-so was hired because they're black to be able to say, well, here's the percentage of jobs that women get and you're overvaluing, you're putting too much emphasis on your own personal experience. That's a well-known cognitive error that people make. So if their Volkswagen was a lemon, well, then they avoid Volkswagen's even though Volkswagen's have very good rate of repair, we know this error and that's the error that you're making here. But it means we always have to have the facts at our fingertips so that we can challenge these kinds of statements and we need to be sure that people don't say to candidates who don't make it, oh, we wanted to hire you but we had to hire a woman and that's a thing that people say to men in order not to, quote, hurt their feelings to say we had to hire a black woman if there were any in linguistics. Instead of saying, yeah, it's too bad, we had other needs and so we weren't able to hire you. So making sure that people don't reinforce myths about how the selection process takes place. All right, this was great and I really enjoyed talking to you all. Thank you. Thank you.