imposter syndrome is a bit sketchy
Sorry but it's a bit unfair to slice my quote like that, or if that's your own thought on the matter then you should write that in your own voice and not phrase it as a quote of me, to avoid miscommunication.
I said the history of imposter syndrome was sketchy, not that imposter syndrome itself was sketchy. And I was referring to the methodology of the original study, where they loaded a lot of baggage on top of the concept due to how the study was arranged.
EDIT: However one thing I thought about that might be interesting is those studies they do where they give people random astrological birth charts (such as Hitler's) and tell them the traits, and people almost always go "wow I'm a Taurus and these Taurus traits on the list are spot on, this astrology stuff must be right". For pop-psychology, I'm kinda guessing it works about the same. If you list <common traits> that are general enough then attribute them to <people X>, and spice it with just the right amount of ideological appeal, then people go "wow, I'm a <people X> and I totally have <common traits>, this theory of yours really
works". Basically the same mechanism that makes it seem like astrology charts are working. So just list a bunch of emotions or feelings that virtually anyone has, and wrap them in some clever-sounding theory that ascribes those traits to men, women, or whatever group, then give it a catchy name, and you can get people believing you came up with some profound discovery.