I think the bias here should be pointed out. There is such a large and obvious agenda here that the data is inherently untrustworthy. Garbage in Garbage out. 1

I think the bias here should be pointed out. There is such a large and obvious agenda here that the data is inherently untrustworthy. Garbage in Garbage out. 1) OpenPsych isnt some prestigious scientific journal with rigorous peer review. It was founded by the author of this piece, and has had a public and troublesome past as a pseudoscience journal[1] 2)The review process was literally done by anonymous users of that site.[2] 3) I doubt the sincerity of the author when considering his past thoughts on women. 3a) Reposting and saying he agrees with a literal 4chan post on why women are less creative. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2012/03/quote-lit-anon-on-female-writers/ https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2012/03/quote-lit-anon-on-femal... 3b) Just an large rant on why woman are inferior to men. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2022/01/too-many-women-in-the-wrong-places-norwegian-navy-edition/ https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2022/01/too-many-women-in-the-w... > As women increasingly are hired into traditionally male jobs via affirmative action laws or indirect pressure via media, we see more and more incompetence > Not only are women more less interested in these jobs to begin with, but they obviously lack talent compared to men. > Of course, as we live in clown world with no adults in charge, the army is going forward with more women in these roles 3c) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych [2] https://openpsych.net/person/profile/75/ https://openpsych.net/person/profile/75/