I really wish the NYTimes didn't publish crap like this: "here's a marginally significant observation about two groups of people and here's a bunch of anecdotes that purport to explain the difference." It's a just-so story wrapped in a veneer of history. At least deal with the subject critically, discuss whether the observation is significant or whether the method (anecdotes, in this case) being used to explain the differences between people is robust. Ask a follow up question: "If X is true, we might also expect Y."
They're a newspaper, not a scientific journal. They commissioned a piece from an academic working with the subject. That's already a step above most newspapers who'd just have a journalist write something themselves.
What's your point? Newspapers shouldn't treat the subjects they cover critically? They shouldn't contextualize statements to help readers distinguish truth from fiction?
They are critical and contexualizing when it comes to certain topics. Why not when it comes to "data" driven observations?
My point is that they should not need to treat it with the care of a scientific journal, and that commissioning an academic known to write on the subject already means NY Times is exceeding the standards of most newspapers in this respect.
I have no problem with communism per se and I'm not a reactionary. I'm not sure why you would allege that. I frequently point out problems with scientific topics posted on HN.
