>>716385791
Bearing in mind that this is a puff piece on this one guy and an attack on left-wing academia which I don't really care about, we've known it's mostly useless for a while, it seems to me like they're dismissing most of social psychology as SJW nonsense while citing a guy who is selectively picking studies to analyse from the very field they say is bunk which were conducted by people they've just said are untrustworthy, so no, it falls flat on its face. Even the passing acknowledgment stereotypes change over time already goes contrary to what you believe, which is that for example certain groups being criminal is immutable, unchanging and fixed, so no, you're gonna have to do a little better, and you're also missing my point, which is that you don't just stick with verifiably true broad generalizations (men are on average taller than women, etc), you think any statement you make about any group must be true, because you have maybe one or two anecdotes to back it up, and then you go looking for whatever confirms it. This is not the same as uh, "stereotype accuracy".
>>716385895
>>716386258
The problem is you guys myopically look at the stats for one point in time and assume they must roughly stay the same for the rest of eternity, which is not high IQ behavior when you can also see crime rates going *down* over time. Why do they go down if they're innately predisposed to violence?
