This week, we're diving into some fascinating research that challenges simplistic notions about what makes us different, particularly along lines of gender and personality. It turns out, the societies we inhabit and the subtle biases within them play a far more powerful role in shaping who we are and how we are perceived than many realize.

The studies in the Research Roundup below underscore a critical truth: the social environments we inhabit are not passive backdrops to our lives; they are active sculptors of our brains and our beings. They shape our perceptions, influence our behaviors, and even impact the very manifestation of our personality traits. My own research has long focused on this profound, often underestimated, interplay—the ways in which the everyday experiences mandated by our social context impose a "Tax on Being Different," forcing brains to adapt in costly ways.

Think about the sheer metabolic and cognitive load required when navigating environments permeated by bias, inequality, or simply misunderstanding. Every social friction, every lazy assumption based on gender or appearance, every extra hurdle thrown up by socioeconomic background—these are not just abstract injustices; they are real-time demands on your brain's resources. If you constantly need to process whether your contribution is being undervalued due to bias or subconsciously adapting your behavior to fit subjective perceptions, your brain is busy. It's dedicating cognitive capacity to vigilance, emotional regulation, and strategic adaptation to the environment's biases, rather than to exploration, creativity, or focused problem-solving.

Our brains are fundamentally prediction engines, constantly updating their models of the world based on incoming information. When that information consistently contains signals of distrust or uncertainty—when navigating the social landscape requires extra cognitive effort or triggers stress responses—the brain adapts. It might become more vigilant, more risk-averse in certain contexts, or even alter its fundamental reward pathways in response to perceived unfairness. These aren't deliberate choices; they are often automatic, adaptive responses to the "aversive societal conditions" that, as the research shows, literally correlate with the development of personality traits. The "Tax on Being Different" isn't just economic or social; it's a neurological cost, paid in diverted cognitive resources and altered brain function.

The "gender equality paradox" study (debunked below) highlights how even well-intentioned movements towards equality can be misinterpreted if we don't account for the persistent, invisible hand of cultural context. Gender differences may appear larger in some "equal" societies not because of innate gender differences, but because the specific cultural norms and biases within those societies subtly, but powerfully, shape behavior, opportunity, and perception from birth. When my work measured “The Tax” for working women across Europe, some famously socially progressive countries (such as The Netherlands) revealed a shockingly high “Tax” for women, often twice as high as neighboring countries. It turned out that history and culture—such as whether countries mobilized a female workforce during WW2—explained the seeming paradox. These differences echo through culture across decades and centuries, shaping personalities and lives today.

Understanding how brains adapt to everyday experiences of social context is crucial. It moves us beyond blaming individuals for not conforming or not succeeding and instead focuses on the controllable factors that impose this cognitive tax. By recognizing how the environment shapes our differences and consumes our potential, we can begin to build systems—educational, professional, and societal—that reduce this burden, allowing all brains, regardless of their social context, to dedicate their full capacity to thriving and contributing. This is the essence of truly unlocking human potential: not just by celebrating individual talent, but by dismantling the invisible walls that force so many to pay a debilitating tax simply for being who they are.

Follow me on LinkedIn or join my growing Bluesky!

Research Roundup

Gender Correlates With Bad Statistics

Are gender differences actually larger in more equal societies? This seemingly counter-intuitive idea is often cited in popular media, but it runs directly counter to my own research on “The Tax of Being Different”. What if it’s just an artifact of the data…

Analyzing country-level data finds that “gender differences covary more strongly with cultural regions and data quality than gender equality”. In fact, “any variable higher in the West appears to achieve similar correlations as gender equality”.

The research suggests that this classic finding might just be a case of Simpson’s Paradox as they find “no simple causal relation between gender equality and expressed gender differences” after controlling for cultural regions.

Rather than counting my own research, this new analysis aligns with it: observed differences are more a product of specific societal norms and biases within regions, rather than an inevitable consequence of equality. Rather than innate gender roles in shaping lives, look at the invisible hand of society.

Cite, Comment, Subscribe?

Even in fields supposedly based purely on merit, societal biases leave their mark. But the elite scientists of the National Academy of Sciences can’t be biased…right?

Even among these elite scholars, their gender influences how their work is recognized. In fact, these gender disparities in citation networks are so strong they can “accurately predict the scholar’s gender” from the network structure alone.

In contrast to gender, the research found no similar “disparities due to prestige” between Academy members at “high-ranked and low-ranked institutions.”

This isn't about innate differences in scientific output; it's a concrete example of how the market for scientific recognition is skewed by gender, illustrating the persistent "Tax on Being Different" even at the highest levels.

I do wonder about the causal drivers of these differences. Although I can easily believe that misogyny is a factor, I suspect that other gender-related factors also play major roles, such as differing social networks from conference and coauthorships.

You Are What You Meet

Are our core personality traits purely innate or are they shaped by the world around us? A new paper suggests that the deepest—and darkest—parts of ourselves are built from early experiences.

A massive new study measured “corruption, inequality, poverty, and violence” in “183 countries…and 50 US states” as well as assessing “Dark Factor of Personality” (e.g., egoism and psychopathy) in nearly 2 million people across those regions. It reveals that dark personality traits correlate strongly with "aversive societal conditions".

The socioecological environment we experience actively influences the development of our fundamental personality, not just revealing who we are, but actively shaping us, for better or worse.

The finding provides a useful reminder for this moment in history: you don't get the world you fought for; you get how you fought for it. The silver lining is that it is just as much a prescription for a better world as it is a diagnosis of an ill one.

<<Support my work: book a keynote or briefing!>>

Want to support my work but don't need a keynote from a mad scientist? Become a paid subscriber to this newsletter and recommend to friends!

SciFi, Fantasy, & Me

I finally made my way to Andor. Watching the security team being deployed in the 3rd episode spoke to the self-destruction endemic to extractive societies, while also giving that team a real, if deeply flawed, humanity.

The character work with B2EMO—a scared but caring little robot struggling with cognitive impairment—deserves some sort of special award.

It’s a slow build so far, but I highly recommend it.

Stage & Screen

• June 18, Denver: I'm part of the keynote for GlobalMindEd's annual conference on economic and educational inclusions
• June 27, Berkeley: I'm talking of the neurotechnology, aging, and cognitive health.
• September 18, Oakland: Reactive Conference
• Sep 28-Oct 3, South Africa: Finally I can return. Are you in SA? Book me!
• October 6, UK: More med school education
• October 29, Baltimore: The amazing future of libraries!
• November 4, Warsaw: More fun with Singularity University
• November 21, Warsaw: The Human Tech Summit
• December 8, San Francisco: Fortune Brainstorm AI SF talking about build a foundation model for human development

If your company, university, or conference just happen to be in one of the above locations and want the "best keynote I've ever heard" (shockingly spoken by multiple audiences last year)?

Vivienne L'Ecuyer Ming