{"slug": "forbes-pumps-women-incompetent-headline-with-no-methodology", "title": "Forbes Pumps “Women Incompetent” Headline With No Methodology", "summary": "Forbes published a headline claiming women who use AI are seen as incompetent while men are seen as pragmatic, based on a study by Code For Good Now, a thinktank founded by a former Meta strategist. The study lacks published methodology and peer review, and its findings contradict a separate 2025 Peking University study that found bias concentrated in men who do not use AI. Critics note the consultancy behind the study has a financial interest in promoting the need for intervention.", "body_md": "A thinktank study (Code For Good Now, whose founder is a former Meta strategist) is being pumped by Fortune and [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelletravis/2026/06/25/women-who-use-ai-seen-as-incompetent-men-who-use-ai-seen-as-pragmatic/) with no published methodology or peer review. But that doesn’t stop it from making some very bold claims.\n\nWomen Who Use AI Seen As Incompetent; Men Who Use AI Seen As Pragmatic.\n\nWhy are women 25% less likely to use artificial intelligence tools than men? New research debunks the notion that the gender gap is primarily due to women’s lack of AI skills, interest or access. Women’s hesitancy to use AI is instead a rational response to a competency penalty that women face when using AI in the workplace.\n\nOk, I’ll bite. The Forbes piece helpfully summarizes both a Chatoo study and the 2025 Peking University study (Gai et al.) that it claims to bolster. Putting the two summaries side by side, here is what we have:\n\n- Gai et al. = bias concentrated in men who do NOT use AI.\n- Chatoo = bias concentrated in men who DO use AI.\n\nUh, what? So first I’m supposed to read that the penalty dies as adoption spreads, and then I’m supposed to read that adoption is what spreads the penalty?\n\nPerhaps this is why there’s no published methodology or peer review? I was willing to set aside the Meta strategist origin story, but come on.\n\nThe “result” of the study is whether the problem self-corrects or requires paid intervention. And guess what happens next. The consultancy selling intervention produced the intervention-requiring result, from a subgroup of about 45 people, with no methodology. Have I mentioned the lack of methodology?\n\nTo make the point finer, it was the academics who reported the self-correction instead of a need for expensive consultants. The “evidence is piling up” story seems to totally ignore the fact that one story cancels the other one.\n\nRight Forbes?", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/forbes-pumps-women-incompetent-headline-with-no-methodology", "canonical_source": "https://www.flyingpenguin.com/forbes-pumps-women-incompetent-headline-with-no-methodology/", "published_at": "2026-07-02 23:49:53+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-07-03 21:44:31.702221+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["artificial-intelligence", "ai-ethics", "ai-policy", "ai-research"], "entities": ["Forbes", "Code For Good Now", "Meta", "Fortune", "Chatoo", "Peking University"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/forbes-pumps-women-incompetent-headline-with-no-methodology", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/forbes-pumps-women-incompetent-headline-with-no-methodology.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/forbes-pumps-women-incompetent-headline-with-no-methodology.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/forbes-pumps-women-incompetent-headline-with-no-methodology.jsonld"}}