Lee Jussim, Jarret Crawford, and Rachel Rubinstein just published a paper in Psychological Science that begins,
Are stereotypes accurate or inaccurate? We summarize evidence that stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable findings in social psychology. We address controversies in this literature, including the long-standing and continuing but unjustified emphasis on stereotype inaccuracy . . .
I haven’t read the paper in detail but I imagine that a claim that stereotypes are accurate will depend strongly on the definition of “accuracy.”
But what I really want to talk about is this paradox:
My stereotype about a Psychological Science article is that it is an exercise in noise mining, followed by hype. But this Psychological Science paper says that stereotypes are accurate. So if the article is true, then my stereotype is accurate, and the article is just hype, in which case stereotypes are not accurate, in which case the paper might actually be correct, in which case stereotypes might actually be accurate . . . now I’m getting dizzy!
P.S. Jussim has a long and interesting discussion in the comments. I should perhaps clarify that my above claim of a “paradox” was a joke! I understand about variability.