I can see no evidence of a hatchet job and the other points seem well supported. There's an awful lot of emotion in the criticism (actually attacks, including ad feminam) of this NYT piece. Let's calm down and discuss, rather than accuse.
How does the NY Times get away with blatantly lying about the state of the art in sex differences research? 1) publish hatchet jobs as 'opinion' pieces' rather than as actual science reporting 2) ignore evolution, sexual selection, SRY, and other species.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/opinion/male-female-brains-mosaic.html …
-
-
-
The people who write these kinds of articles are not open to serious discussion, in my thirty years of dealing with them. They can never identify any empirical findings that would change their minds.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s categorized as an opinion piece. No one is looking at this and yelling eureka
-
Did you read my point 1)?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yes indeed. The lies are truly astonishing, especially in such an esteemed newspaper. 'We don't want sex differences to exist; therefore, they do not exist.' I think that's the syllogism they are working with.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
That doesn't matter one way or the other.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I'll still remember reading "The Female Brain" and the author getting excoriated by "feminists" for writing it. She was a female psychiatrist who was inspired by the need for more women-specific research into women's health based on measurable physiological/chemical differences.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
At least we have people like you to set the record straight...maybe you could talk about things like this on
@RubinReportThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.