| But he didn't do that. At all. He opens _and closes_ with: > Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. He even includes a chart to show the amount of overlap between the curves (high) and directly argues against applying traits towards individual behavior. Let's phrase this another way if I state that if you are "black" (sub-Saharan African) in origin you have a higher likelyhood of Sickle-cell is that racist? No. It is a _population_, _average_ difference. Now the _science he cites_ (women are more prone to Neuroticism) is less well settled. That's something to disagree with. But if its insulting to even have a discussion that the population of women, on average, show different traits then men what discussion _can be had_? Can we even talk about diseases that are more likely to affect women? What's okay? |