Might be interpreted as far fetched. Some may say it's impossible to isolate a factor like "stereotype threat" and control that in a lab, but across an array of studies inside and outside the lab, Steele convinces me that stereotype threats may have enough of an effect to not allow the person in question to do their best on any given task that is ability-stereotyped. I experienced this as the sole woman in a philosophy class and tried to understand why my ability seemed to lessen given one philosophy professor versus another. One gave me high praises, told me that I was fit for the major. While this lifted me up, it also made me feel skeptical. Can I trust his praise (women are often stereotyped as less able in philosophy and math like majors and careers)? I then performed significantly worse with a professor who I intuitively felt thought less of my abilities. Once he actually stated that I may be unfit, I began to prove him wrong (was it his acknowledgment of threat that allowed me to in turn acknowledge it and then gain power over it to defeat it?) Part of that is the narrative that was propagated and the way the feedback was delivered. There are huge implications in my role as a white teacher of majority black scholars. The narrative I elicit about themselves from them, the narratives I speak, my deliverance of feedback (meant to grow them into my high expectations), the ways I allow them to acknowledge stereotypes and offer another narrative IS huge. The idea that acknowledgment or simply stating a truth (reality of a threat) can actually diminish that threat or we can say, fear (speak it to gain power over it) is SIMPLE but completely LOGICAL and reproducible in Steele's studies and relevant in defeating the predicament of underperforming students (these students aren't lesser abled but so many other factors are at work to keep them there, one may being stereotype threat).