BenFranklinsCat

In every one of your articles linked, we see you present commonly-used statistics, and you question the use of these to prove things like the meaning of the wage gap or women's involvement in STEM. Yet with each, you present gender bias based statistics as proof of some solution, where the same subjectivity exists - e.g. when you ask who would take up those nursing positions lost to engineering, why not argue that men should be doing so? Why not ask why more men aren't encouraged to look outside of sports or STEM? Similarly, questioning the wage gap you point to a lack of encouragement towards paternal figures to take part in household work as though this is an immutable fact, when again, this could also be seen as the result of social conditioning, especially when you consider shifting patterns of paternal support in European nations in recent years.

How do you justify your presentation of statistics framed entirely by the assumption that men and women want fundamentally different things - a claim that has no more or less statistical validity than the claim we want the same thing?

(Oh, that is if you don't count the effect that reducing unconcious bias and inadvertent programming has on young children's attitude towards gendering job roles)

Fully expected the cost of the pizza to be about tree fiddy.

It's such a perfect license, especially given what terrible spies they are. It'd be like a cross between Metal Gear Solid and Octodad.

Why do people continually misuse things like the MBTI test? It's hogwash if you use it hire people. It's a tool for self reflection and conversation starting. Its not intended to be an accurate scientific assessment of a person's personality, because such a thing is too fluid and too contextual to be summarise so accurately.

The major difference is that a mentally healthy physical sick person will seek their own care and choose the care that is best for them.

A significantly mentally ill person may not do this.

I've taken to explaining this as being like if the first thing to break down on your car was the "check engine" light - or if the first bug in the software is the error message.

Its not a perfect metaphor, but it gets across the idea that the issue lies in the very thing used to identify the issue.