Vaguely interesting, but I am dubious as to how valid some of the author's analysis (as presented by the article) actually is.
For example, following the rules is unrelated, at least in a direct manner, to risk taking. Indirectly I could see an argument that someone who follows rules may be uncomfortable venturing into areas where there are no rules. But as noted, this is not a direct correlation. Gamblers, for instance, are notorious for taking risks while following rules. This ranges from the average poker player to the hardcore gambler with his or her "system." Though perhaps because "rule followers," as opposed to "rule breakers," are conceptualized as more likely to perform their due diligence, their "risky" behaviors are not seen as risky as it might otherwise be?
Then there is the opposite, the "Bad Girl." The author associates critical thinking with being artistic, a rebel, and someone unconcerned with social expectations. First, artistic individuals tend to be conceptualized as the exact opposite of a critical thinker (if this is a valid conception is beside the point for now), likewise being a rebel says nothing of one's mental capabilities (indeed, "social rebels" are often depicted as having street-smarts, which is distinct from critical thinking skills). It is only in being unconcerned with social expectations that she even approaches a real definition of a critical thinker, but someone who is thinking critically may well take social expectations into consideration (they just won’t be ruled by those expectations).
Yet, that is a bit of nitpicking. There is a legitimate theme that the author picks up on: children are faced with social expectations. She does make a mistake in implying that this is unique to girls, but as at least some aspects of it are comparatively unique, it is marginally excusable to do so (most "good boys," for example, aren't expected to have boyfriends, and few "bad boys" would be characterized as wearing "Jelly bracelets," whatever those are). However, humans are social animals; we all have a very compelling drive to fit in. To be thorough, there is the conception that women tend to be more social than men, so if that is a correct conception, I could see the argument that in turn women also are subject to the drive for social acceptance more than men, but that is a pretty big if.
This seems to tap into the larger social oddity. Society expects people to behave in a certain way, but at the same time success often comes by violating those expectations. The book essentially is saying that "good girls finish last," while there has been a similar saying for "nice guys" for quite some time. Success is marked by breaking from cultural norms, but cultures survive because only a few people do this. Social conformity is, to a degree, an evolutionary advantage.
I'd want to read the book myself before passing final judgment, but the article makes it look like the author has a predetermined position and fits the data to that. To be fair, the data already fits relatively well on its own, but it isn't a perfect fit. Instead of fitting a square peg into a round hole, she's trying to fit a decagon into a round hole, as it were.
Random side note: it is interesting that "good girl" and "good woman" seems to bring up different perceptions, likewise with "good boy" and "good man." It would seem that girls get a trifecta of social drives, sexism, and ageism.
