Ok, let's say someone had written an opinion piece on how Windows is unfairly portrayed compared to Linux. You read it, and it just seems, I don't know, off. Perhaps it's the fact that they illustrated their point with a feature comparison graph dated to 1991 (a fair comparison to the author's use of 1932 data), or maybe it just reads as a long-winded rant as opposed to an intelligent inquiry into the subject of operating systems. You look into it a bit, and it turns out that the author was once quoted as saying that Linus Torvalds is just a loser, jealous of Bill Gates's wealth. You look at their other articles, and see that every one is the same old template: yay Windows, nay Linux, yay numbers that support my opinion, nay numbers that do not. What would you conclude, if not that the author is, indeed, incorrect? I don't have a problem with a "one-issue" writer but I do have a problem with a evidence-be-damned "one-sided" writer.
I don't have a problem with a "one-issue" writer but I do have a problem with a evidence-be-damned "one-sided" writer.
The author of this article provided infinitely more evidence than you did (something / nothing = infinity). You've provided no evidence that she is selectively picking data which supports her. You also provide no evidence she is incorrect.
All you did is point out that she wrote about similar issues in the past, which would be true of most articles written by most reporters.
By the way, the citation from 1932 that you criticize is consistent with more recent results. For instance:
Huh? Now it's my turn to say, I don't even understand your point.
Her citation from 1932 is "IQ Percentage By Gender" and your citation from 2008 (that I think you mean to say supports the 1932 numbers) is "Gender Similarities For Math Performance". Moreover, your citation is behind a paywall so that we cannot see any numbers at all. You are not even comparing apples to oranges, you are comparing apples to some unidentified mass in a bag that we have no way of judging beyond the fact that the bag is labeled "oranges".
And no, I didn't just point out that she is a one-issue writer. Please re-read my post, instead of "speculating" about my ideologies which you know nothing about.
My citation shows women have less variance in intellect than men (but very similar mean). Sorry for the paywall, but unfortunately that is where academic research lives.
As for your post, my mistake. I missed the "she is a one issue writer, therefore mysoginist" bit probably because I assumed your post had some sort of logic to it.
You do know that when you quote a post, you have to quote something the poster actually said, right? Where did I say "she is a one issue writer, therefore a mysoginist"?
She is a one-issue writer, and therefore her opinions should be taken with a larger-than-average grain of salt. How much assumed-distortion is there in an article written by Billy Graham, or the Pope, or one of the more violent terrorist groups, or a super-conservative/liberal/communist/large-international-business-owner, especially when talking about their opposition?
I'm not taking a side in this, just pointing out the intent of the post.
I think you're failing to distinguish between an argument about objective reality and an argument about emotion and belief.
The Pope and Al Qaeda want to persuade you that their belief system is the best. Galileo wanted to prove to you that the earth revolved around the sun. Two different types of arguments.
So... are you saying that the author is trying to persuade us her belief system is the best, or that she's trying to prove objective reality?
And remember that belief of a certain state of objective reality is still, to outsiders, merely belief, not fact, especially in an area like this, which is full of misleading information on all sides.
The author is being formulaic. So what? She is a one-issue writer, and therefore her opinions are incorrect?