Look at that complete bullshit. How does this utter malarkey keep getting trotted out? This is one of those essays where his own points argue against his stated thesis. How do people write pieces where it’s obvious from their own analysis that they aren’t correct?
I’m trying to figure out the politics or the reasoning behind why it’s worthwhile for so many to deny the obvious fact that there are important differences between generations, but don’t have much yet. Is it just the usual academic desire for obscurantism? That doesn’t seem right but I don’t have any better thoughts on it just yet.
Also, just because there is continuous change doesn’t mean that there aren’t important differences between more-distant sampled points. How do so very many stats/STEM people miss this?
There are so many articles about this that it almost feels like a propaganda push, but I can’t figure out in the service of what.