The Illusion of Explanatory Depth from the Perspective of Gender Socialization

Introduction People are separated along many lines and in many ways – now more than ever before. There is segregation by age, income, language, religion, ethnicity, personal taste, and, of course, sex and gender.

A desire to emphasize the superfluity of the ‘who is better’ fights, and to show how important it is to understand and accept the differences between males and females in order to achieve a global balance motivated the author to conduct deep research and dedicate the paper to this topic. How much do we know? How much do we think we know? How does the illusion of knowledge, understanding, and explanatory depth keep rising in this era of information surplus? This subject is exceptionally topical nowadays since the world is changing, constantly filled with innovations, but there are still some crucial pillars of the society that are to remain the same. The world is developing or, given the projected crisis, it seems to have paused. Moreover, for global advancement and further development, all aspects of human behaviour, solvency, and knowledge are essential for understanding that there will always be something to differentiate us. Understanding and appreciating the value of these differences, as well as the value of knowledge, lead to healthy versatile global development – among others, this is one of the paper’s goals – to share the information and knowledge in order to process the information in a more holistic way.

Economics, with its classical approaches, has long ceased to be neoteric. Not so long ago, compared with the entire history of economics as a science, its new branch emerged in the world and was kindled by the success and celebrity of its discoverers, new research studies and the expansion of the concept of economics as such. This branch is called behavioural economics. There is still a protracted and inconclusive debate going on about the independence of behavioural economics as a science, but the 2017 Nobel Prize received by Richard Tyler confirms the worldwide recognition of this trend. In traditional economics, it was not customary to pay attention to psychology and sociology: it was believed that these were transient, random factors