Thanks muchly SCA for the vote of confidence and for the moral support. 👍🙂 Maybe more so for the more tangible restacking -- another first! 🙂

Though I’m sorry for the "hurt" it caused, although "no pain, no gain" and all that. But happy to try to clarify any of the more "problematic" aspects that are causing you the most grief. Sadly, statistics are, as I've indicated, rather counter-intuitive, and it's not easy to translate from even the rudiments of the topic into more common or colloquial "man in the street" terminology.

Any number of pitfalls in that process. Reminds me of a classic case of a translation of a common phrase -- "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" -- into Russian and then back to English which yielded "the wine is fine but the meat is bad".

However, as I've also argued, it seems rather important that more people acquire some facility with even those rudiments, not least because various misunderstandings tend to compound any number of sticky social problems.

And a more or less classic case of that "misunderstanding", as I've argued in the above, is apparently in the implications of that 30% overlap in the two population distributions for men and women. Moot of course how prevalent that misunderstanding is, or the provenance and roots of it, but some reason to at least suggest that Louise Perry's "Sexual Revolution" is a primary cause for its "problematic" dissemination. As

put it in her quite illuminating and “pithy” review of that book:

HD: "Here, Perry’s numeracy shines, and if I were teaching undergraduate statistics, I’d set her discussion of overlapping bell curves in week one. .... Perry accepts that Homo sapiens are much more cognitively dimorphic than many people realise. 70 per cent of men have a pattern of personality traits that no woman has; 70 per cent of women have a pattern of personality traits that no man has."

lawliberty.org/book-review/feminising-f…

"sexually dimorphic cognitive traits" seems a rather important bit of information to emphasize, to make as "common currency". But misinterpreting the statistics tends to be rather "problematic" at best, if not a pretext for equivocation and misuse by various charlatans, grifters, scientific illiterates, and political opportunists of one stripe or another.

Reminds me of a classic case of that in a Breitbart essay by "Milo" some 8 years ago which boldly, if rather fraudulently, claimed that:

"Milo: Sorry, Girls! But The Smartest People In The World Are All Men"

breitbart.com/politics/2015/10/02/sorry…

While it may be true that, properly using the correct terminology and principles of statistics, there are "more" "smart" men than "smart" women, it is also true, by those same principles, that we might also say that "the dumbest people in the world are all men". Not surprisingly, neither Milo nor Breitbart were very keen about emphasizing that other side of the coin. 😉🙂

"Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics", indeed.