Ok. Again. Sex differences in cognition. Resulting NAXALT/AXALT fallacy. No man

Ok. Again. Sex differences in cognition. Resulting NAXALT/AXALT fallacy.
No man interprets a statemetn about human beings (or anything else) as other than a normal distribution.
If we represent half the world (actually slightly more) as having a strong bias against rationalism (full accounting for costs over population time and space), that means a distribution, but a tendency of the majority, or at least a tendency of those who influence outcomes (which in this case is what matters.)
Only a woman (or very effeminate man) would immediately react with a NAXALT/AXALT fallacy. It’s one of the primary means of detecting sex differences in text and speech.
So you’re demonstrating my point.
(Which is exasperating – I understand)
But it’s quite simple that empathizing doesn’t scale, and systematizing doesn’t account for individuals. And thats the cognitive division of labor evolution discovered was what we needed to survive.

Reply addressees: @parrhesiatruth @bryanbrey @lporiginalg @DarnelSugarfoo