Have you heard of stereotype threat enough to convince
someone who believes in it?
Well, stereotype threat has actually been debunked. I encourage you to read this full pdf, including Steele and Aronson's response and Sackett/Hardison/Cullen's reply:
http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/C45405%20resources/Sacke...
I find people as confident and dismissive
This is a matter of perception. From my vantage point, people who don't know much about genetics, neuroscience, biochemistry and the like are extraordinarily confident in dismissing the influence of hard scientific evidence in favor of the wishful thinking and hand-waving of much less rigorous sociological disciplines.
I don't think the parent was even suggesting it was 100%
cultural effect either.
See above: jackowayed himself notes that people with an alternative opinion are "berated". Only on the internet can the facts about genetics even be stated without character assassination. And then, and only then, the backpedal starts from a 100% cultural to a "50/50" position.
Who knows what the split is? How can we know? Gene-culture environment interaction is so complex. And what about _epistasis_.
But "we don't know" is not the position that Sandberg takes. And of course, if the position is actually not 100/0 then these gaps can never be fully closed [even if this were desirable], and this resilient inequality is not the fault of men but of Nature itself. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "the gap can never be closed" is a position you would subscribe to (let alone jackowayed or Sandberg herself). So yeah, I think it's fair to characterize the conventional wisdom as a 100% social constructionist position, which executes a tactical rhetorical fallback when confronted with overwhelming fact...changing not one iota in its policy prescriptions, which are still in the main comprised of struggle sessions at places like Facebook HQ.
Whereas you seem to suggest its 100% genetic, which would
preclude the possibility of any woman having better spatial
abilities than any man
You know, there's something about this topic which makes people unable to reason statistically. Obviously there are tall women and short men. Obviously there are Emmy Noethers. That's just not where the averages or medians are. I mentioned Lisa Leslie and Cheryl Miller; y'all
really think people who know what item-response theory is aren't intimately familiar with the concept of overlapping Gaussians...maybe even more so than people who blanche at the very thought of Bell Curves?
But overlap isn't equality.