"Well, that's great, because his points on gender differences are actually extensively backed by research. When he's talking about that, he isn't talking about

"Well, that's great, because his points on gender differences are actually extensively backed by research. When he's talking about that, he isn't talking about what should be or what can be, he's talking about what is." Doing a lit review--i.e., knowing the research in a field--is a thing that take a lot of time and working in that field. I'd trust this guy to be up to date on algorithm research, and present an even-handed exposition on what's good for task x or y, cause that's presumably the thing he spends his days doing. I see no reason to assume that he can do a thorough, even-handed lit review on a field he doesn't have working experience with, like biology or evolutionary psychology. There's also been a long history of using "science" to support objectionable ideas (e.g. scientific racism). Saying this (not a researcher, not a biologist, not an evolutionary psychologist) guy's writing is extensively backed by research just doesn't move the needle for me in any way.