Sorry -- I get what you're saying, and we run into the problem that "different" can be a pretty vague term. 100% agreed that when thinking about measurable trai

Sorry -- I get what you're saying, and we run into the problem that "different" can be a pretty vague term. 100% agreed that when thinking about measurable traits and bell curves, most people are pretty similar. (I'm not sure as of writing this, but I wonder if there are any human traits which do not have a normal distribution?) When a pop-psychology article makes an overly-broad generalization, I suspect you can encounter a few reasons for this: - The majority of people fit the trend described in the article, however the raw number of people in the minority is large enough a very large number of people feel the article does not accurately describe them. - Alternately, the basic premise may be too broad to be meaningful. Imagine two introverted people -- do they think of themselves a similar? Maybe one likes sports, and the other video games. Or one is a rock climber, while one a computer programmer. Whatever. They may not define themselves as similar, even though they both share the trait of introversion. As noted in my original post, what's missing here is the nuance. If instead this article was a dry scientific paper about "measurable specific traits and the similarity in parents and children with regard to mate choice" (or something like this) then we would avoid this problem.