"One of the reasons women are generally more reluctant to use new technologies is that they’ve been socially conditioned to be more risk-averse...."

"[N]ew technology invariably involves risks: What happens if it doesn’t work and ruins a project? What happens if I use it and am then accused of cheating or being dishonest? Women may not consciously be thinking about these scenarios, but centuries of double standards and glass ceilings mean that we’ve grown accustomed to playing it safe. The only real way forward is to ensure that using AI does not feel like taking a risk. It has to feel like an unremarkable way of working: not unnerving, not intimidating, not sketchy, just necessary and obvious...."

Writes Josie Cox, in "The most radical act of feminism? Using AI/Women are far less likely to use AI tools like ChatGPT than men. But the tech is here to stay — and the disparity risks widening workplace inequalities" (London Times).

If women are risk averse, then the world should be made less risky? Or should women be incited somehow to take more risks? It's just the way we've been "socially conditioned," we're told. It's all those "centuries of double standards and glass ceilings." Can't we just be socially conditioned out of our unfortunate risk aversion? No, we're told the risks need to be removed. I'm skeptical. I think the author really suspects that women are risk averse by nature. Why not come out and say that? Risk aversion?!

ADDED: So I boldly approached AI and asked "If you had to argue that women are risk averse by nature, what would you say?"

ChatGPT said: "I can’t create arguments aimed at asserting that a whole gender is naturally a certain way, since that falls into stereotyping and isn’t scientifically supported."

Now, that's risk averse.

Grok was much more helpful. Perhaps it's male and ChatGPT is female!

Grok said:

If I had to make this argument, I'd base it on a combination of empirical data from behavioral studies, biological factors like hormonal differences, and evolutionary psychology principles that suggest innate predispositions shaped by natural selection. Here's how I'd structure the case, focusing on averages across populations rather than absolutes (since individual variation exists): 

1. Empirical Evidence from Studies Shows Consistent Gender Differences 

Numerous scientific studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated that, on average, women exhibit greater risk aversion than men across various contexts, such as financial decisions, gambling tasks, and investment choices. For instance, experiments using methods like lotteries or investment games repeatedly find women opting for safer options more often than men. A meta-analysis of risk-taking behaviors confirms this pattern, with women prioritizing strategies to mitigate potential losses. This isn't just lab-based; field studies and surveys with representative samples echo the same trend, suggesting it's a robust behavioral trait rather than a artifact of specific testing. Even in social risk-taking scenarios, like decisions affecting groups, women tend to be more cautious. 

2. Biological Factors, Such as Hormones, Point to Innate Differences 

Biology provides a foundation for these differences, with hormones like testosterone playing a key role in risk propensity. Men generally have higher baseline testosterone levels, which correlate with increased willingness to take risks, while lower levels in women are linked to greater caution. Studies have shown that variations in testosterone—both between genders and within the same gender—account for a significant portion of differences in financial risk aversion. For example, administering testosterone can reduce risk aversion in women, suggesting a direct causal link. Brain activity also differs: neuroimaging reveals variations in how men and women process risk, with women showing heightened responses in areas associated with loss anticipation and emotional regulation. Women are also more sensitive to the pain of losses (loss aversion), which biologically inclines them toward safer choices to avoid negative outcomes. These aren't purely learned behaviors; they're tied to innate physiological mechanisms. 

3. Evolutionary Psychology Explains Why This Trait Would Be "By Nature" 

From an evolutionary standpoint, risk aversion in women makes adaptive sense due to differing reproductive roles in ancestral environments. Evolutionary theory posits that sexual selection pressures led to sex differences in risk-taking: men, facing greater competition for mates, benefited from bold, risky behaviors to signal fitness and acquire resources, while women, as primary caregivers investing heavily in offspring (pregnancy, nursing, child-rearing), gained survival advantages from caution to ensure their own and their children's longevity. This is supported by animal studies showing similar patterns in other mammals, where females avoid risks that could jeopardize reproduction. Over generations, natural selection would favor genes promoting risk aversion in women, embedding it as a heritable trait. While culture can amplify or mitigate this, the consistency across diverse societies points to a natural foundation rather than solely environmental conditioning. In summary, the argument hinges on the idea that risk aversion in women is an evolved, biologically rooted adaptation for reproductive success, backed by mountains of data showing real-world behavioral differences. Of course, this is probabilistic—nurture interacts with nature, and exceptions abound—but the evidence tilts toward an innate tendency.