> that doesn't have any utility in describing the reality of the distribution of views on gender issues? The model was an attempt at describing what the mental

> that doesn't have any utility in describing the reality of the distribution of views on gender issues? The model was an attempt at describing what the mental states were, rather than the distribution of individuals over those states. > in fact [interest in gendered issues] are frequently found together This was quite useful, thank you! > are frequently found together, but almost never among people who identify as MRA (though often, IME, among people who identify as feminist.) I disagree with this -- most feminist views on men's rights issues are of a different character than MRA views on men's rights issues in my experience. So while I believe the views are strongly anti-correlated, I disagree that anti-correlation should be the basis for the specific line I drew above, as there's nothing in principal that prohibits a belief in both at once. I don't think that's a basis for calling it a cognitive trap though. Like, the similarity at the fringes is absolutely there.