No it isn't. You wildly misinterpret the science.
-
-
Replying to @espiers
No, I didn't. Your only comeback to the Quillette article are empty ad hominem attacks on the scientists.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @JamesADamore
Saying that scientific knowledge in one field is not de facto transitive to another is not an ad hominem attack. It's a statement of fact.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @espiers
The document was in psychology and so were the scientists.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @JamesADamore
The core point that people take issue with in your document is not a psychological one. It's about female quantitative aptitude.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @espiers @JamesADamore
As it relates to biological / neurological makeup. And your conclusions from the existing body of research on the subject.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @espiers @JamesADamore
But really it's interpretation that's off. Not the research. You draw conclusions that are based on misconstrual of the research.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @espiers @JamesADamore
And it's hard to tell whether it's intentional on your part. Is it bad faith self-serving propaganda or sincere misunderstanding?
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @espiers @JamesADamore
And when you follow it up with doubling down, it looks less like you have an interest in intellectual inquiry
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @espiers @JamesADamore
And more like you have issues with women.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes
Replying to @espiers @JamesADamore
Pathetic ad hominem attacks. You're just embarrassing yourself.
0 replies
1 retweet
1 like
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.