I thought Nancy was asking me to identify a specific article that was selectively quoted. I did: all of them. I’m just saying that the headline is a lie, supported by selective quotation: this is not a finding of sexual similarity and none of the popular coverage claims that it is a study of sexual difference.
And again, you reiterate your original claim and respond to neither Nancy nor myself.
Here is an article. You say it is wrong and not only is its thesis wrong, every quote is misleading. When asked for elaboration, you go on saying that. If ‘this is a very simple claim’, it should be easy to elaborate how the popular articles are correct, the quotations of them misleading, and the revisionist interpretation ‘nonsense’.
If I had to choose representative quotes, I’d choose the headlines or first sentences. But what’s the point? The only reason we are talking about this is the claim of distortion, not to summarize the science, let alone the science coverage.
And again, you reiterate your original claim and respond to neither Nancy nor myself.
Here is an article. You say it is wrong and not only is its thesis wrong, every quote is misleading. When asked for elaboration, you go on saying that. If ‘this is a very simple claim’, it should be easy to elaborate how the popular articles are correct, the quotations of them misleading, and the revisionist interpretation ‘nonsense’.
Could you be more specific?
Take at least a few of the quotes and tell us what you think is wrong with them.
There’s nothing wrong with the individual quotes, just that they aren’t representative of the article. Have you never heard of selective quotation?
Could you give us some better quotes?
If I had to choose representative quotes, I’d choose the headlines or first sentences. But what’s the point? The only reason we are talking about this is the claim of distortion, not to summarize the science, let alone the science coverage.