> As to whether 56% is accurate, I don't know. Yet if you don't know, you can't be confident in it being wrong. You simply don't know. And this, in a nutshell,

> As to whether 56% is accurate, I don't know. Yet if you don't know, you can't be confident in it being wrong. You simply don't know. And this, in a nutshell, is my entire point: the person making a claim is responsible for establishing its validity. A person questioning its validity isn't. If I claimed that 75% of all HN posters were on the autism spectrum, it would be my responsibility to support my claim, not your responsibility to prove that it's wrong. Claims made by an interest group that align to the interests of the interest group deserve extra scrutiny, especially when those claims are based on "data" that is self-reported by members of the group with no independent substantiation. It is therefore entirely reasonable to not accept these claims at face value, which gets us back to my purpose in responding to the other poster: the 56% figure is not a credible one.