psyopsy

They're not contradictory in a vacuum. But in this sequence, they show you're backpedaling. You opened with a firm claim, and when confronted with actual data, you retreated to 'we can't know.' Pretending that perfect certainty is required here is just a dodge.

Happily accusing without evidence? Not shocking behavior. What's shocking is to just say it out loud. LMAO. Funny how "believe women" stops applying when their choices contradict your priors.

You started with “not well explained by biology.”

All of the evidence is solidly on one side, so you’ve retreated to “we can neither confirm nor deny.”

I guess that’s progress?

Low bar to accuse. High bar to retract. Classic.

Shhhhhh… don’t spoil their little hate party. Everyone knows that the whole marketing team really wanted to include every employee’s name in the 90 sec trailer, but Jon said, “absofuckinlutely not!”

Like a fascist would! /s

He ruffles the very sensitive Internet dwellers who have all correct beliefs.

Many years ago, during the peak growth of internet cancel culture, Jon made the mistake of saying an uncontroversial truth about occupational interests heavily correlating with gender.

They took that and twisted it into “he thinks women are inferior.”

Since then, they look for any reason to hate on him. It’s political tribe brain rot as usual.

Check out The Witness subreddit. For a game those people claim to love, they seemed to have absorbed absolutely none of the narrative philosophy.

I’ve never seen a thread so reflective of this meme:

“It's amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible.”

Am I supposed to be embarrassed for defending someone against a baseless smear?

Anyway, call it "defensive" all you want. It doesn't change the historical thread: You argued, at best, his views made the workplace unwelcoming; the data shows he hires women at parity. You're just backpedaling because the reality didn't match your narrative vibes.

Congrats! You've made your position unfalsifiable.

When the data consistently shows gaps widening as social strictures loosen, and your response is to blame an invisible, unmeasurable "conditioning," you aren't doing science at all. But you are insulating your belief from any possible counter-evidence.

They did try to account for social conditioning: parents' education and jobs, local labor markets, school performance, the whole bit. The gap still didn't move much. If socialization were the main driver, you'd expect the most egalitarian countries to have the smallest gaps. They don't. In a lot of cases it's the opposite. Sweden, for example, shows bigger differences in occupational preferences than places like Pakistan.

So at that point you're not pointing to a specific confounder, you're basically saying "maybe there's something else." Sure, logically you can always say that. But if the evidence keeps stacking up in one direction and the only reply is "could be something," that's just refusing to update your view.

You said, "I don't think he's said exactly that in his own words but..." That's implicitly saying, "well, he hasn't admitted it outright, but yeah, he basically believes it."

Now faced with evidence contrary to your beliefs, you're claiming you didn't say that. When presented with proof, It's ok to just admit that you were wrong.

Half his employees are women—including leadership, programming, and creative roles. If that doesn’t count as “thinking women have a role,” what would? 51%? 90%?

You’re relying on blatant social media mischaracterizations over real actions.

He actually employs women at parity. You feel like this is unwelcoming.

One of those statements is data. The other is fanfic.

Sex is the strongest single predictor of vocational interest orientation we’ve found. Nothing else comes close. If that’s not ‘explained by biology,’ you need to tell me what would be. Otherwise you’re operating on faith.

Gravity isn’t fully understood either. Guess we can’t say things fall down.

Little bro read the paper title and no further.

That study found that when you test 14 monkeys alone in cages where they can’t actually move the toys, you don’t see the same sex differences as when 135 monkeys are tested in social groups with freely movable toys.

The authors themselves say the social context may be necessary for expression. That’s not evidence against biological contribution, but evidence that behavior requires context to manifest.

You don’t disprove hunger by noting that people don’t eat when there’s no food available.

LOL. He literally said the opposite of that you fascist fuck.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRT4vNEUIAEJgP3.jpg "Interest is not the same as ability."

It's the first MOTHERFUCKING LINE, you absolute lying cunt.

LOL. You're going to dismiss the study because of the justification for doing the study. Here, let me help you understand:

"not fully understood" -> "so we studied it" -> "here's what we found"

Besides that obvious point, the sentence you quoted says "not yet fully understood," not "we have no idea." Those aren't the same thing. We actually have substantial evidence pointing in a clear direction.

- The most egalitarian countries show the largest gaps, not the smallest. - Women exposed to elevated androgens in utero become more things-oriented despite being raised normally as girls. - Male and female monkeys show the same toy preferences we do. Nobody's socializing rhesus monkeys into gender roles. - A 1.28 standard deviation gap in every culture that emerges in infancy and grows as societies get freer is not what socialization looks like.

You're treating "not fully understood" as "both hypotheses are equally supported."

They aren't.

The evidence overwhelmingly favors a substantial biological component. Just because you don't like the implications of that, doesn't make it false.

Seethe harder.

Thekla currently has 10 core permanent employees. 5 of them are women, including their studio manager, creative and art Director, a programmer, and 2 additional artists.

You can say whatever the hell you want. Or you could spend 3 minutes actually looking at public information to see if you're wrong.

Remember that for these types of people, deporting illegal immigrants is fascist. Any enforcement of immigration law or protecting the border is fascist. The idea of the United States being a sovereign nation is fascist.

By extension, anyone who believes these things is a fascist or a nazi. And that gives them the moral rationale to be ok with wanting them imprisoned or k*lled.

When you say, "not well support by evidence," you're either wrong, anti-science, or lying. Numerous studies absolutely show very large average differences in interests based on sex. And those carry over into occupation preferences. Just one more recent study:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016726812...

Plus: Jon never said it's the "primary" factor, as you claim. He said it's a large factor, that doesn't apply at the individual level, but on average. Which is entirely factual and supported by copious amounts of research.

Just because people like you want to be offended by science, doesn't make it wrong, or controversial.

Why sad? If he defrauded the government, he’s got bigger problems than losing a trademark.

54% of about 200 viewers voted, out of may 1200 peak viewers on twitch. Dude, come the fuck on.